Does random exist? [Archive]

Fuzzystuff

Jul17-10, 08:49 PM

When something is random, it is unexpected. You cannot expect what number will be next out of a random selection of a million numbers, for instance, especially if you don't know how the generator works. Not necessarily abnormal, though. "Random" stuff happens all day long. We use the potential of random for many risk assessments such as your commute to work, your financial budget, your goal setting dates, etc. All of them use "what could happen". You don't know for sure if it's going to happen or not, so this is "random" to you. I really don't think the unexpected is abnormal, but pretty normal in our day to day lives. This is why we go to work early, have an emergency fund, and add in the possible roadblocks to our goals.

Supernatural is supernatural, random is random. The only inter-relationship I can see is that you cannot explain how the generator chose it's number, if you have no clue how the generator is choosing it's number.

There is also the quanta world and below Planck length that is seemingly random to us humans, and in fact we can only apply "potentials" or "probabilities" to some aspects of quantum physics.

Random is either 2 things in my eyes:

a. Not enough information supplied to come to a concrete prediction.
b. Not possible to gain enough information to come to a concrete prediction.

The former is easy, while the latter assumes that we cannot gain all of the information necessary to make the prediction absolutely concrete. Only potentials and probabilities of said prediction coming true.

There is the measurement problem and also the uncertainty principle in physics, too.

Fuzzystuff

Jul17-10, 08:54 PM

Assume the circumstances in the environment and all influences can be reproduced down to the atomic scale in the roll of a die. In this case, the exact motion and direction of a hand, from the speed of the swing to the exact same point of release, is duplicated exactly, as well as all other influences. Will the die produce without fail the same result?

No single event happens the exact same way twice. It's practically impossible and may be intrinsically in nature to be impossible. So even theoretically speaking, it may be impossible to have the same event happen identically the same way twice or more.

wuliheron

Jul17-10, 09:11 PM

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to explain how random = supernatural. Please explain.

If you really insist I will post the definitions of both words, however, I shall try to explain without resorting to such crude methods.

In general westerners tend to think of the "supernatural" as involving rituals, deities, etc., but this is certainly not the only way of thinking of the concept. It is more of a cultural predjudice than anything else. In the strictest sense the supernatural is simply anything that does not obey natural laws which includes anything truly random. For example, virtual particles appear and disappear out of the vacuum of space without any known causal agent. They apparently do so randomly without any rhyme or reason, thus being beyond natural law.

Newai

Jul17-10, 09:16 PM

No single event happens the exact same way twice. It's practically impossible and may be intrinsically in nature to be impossible. So even theoretically speaking, it may be impossible to have the same event happen identically the same way twice or more.
Okay, so what makes the second throw in the duplicated circumstances and environment different from the first? What causes the different result?

Evo

Jul17-10, 09:21 PM

If you really insist I will post the definitions of both words, however, I shall try to explain without resorting to such crude methods.

In general westerners tend to think of the "supernatural" as involving rituals, deities, etc., but this is certainly not the only way of thinking of the concept. It is more of a cultural predjudice than anything else. In the strictest sense the supernatural is simply anything that does not obey natural laws which includes anything truly random.What makes you think something random is not obeying natural laws?

For example, virtual particles appear and disappear out of the vacuum of space without any known causal agent. They apparently do so randomly without any rhyme or reason, thus being beyond natural law.Bolding mine. And how did you come to this conclusion?

wuliheron

Jul17-10, 09:32 PM

What makes you think something random is not obeying natural laws?

Bolding mine. And how did you come to this conclusion?

If you really insist:

Law
noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
3. the controlling influence of such rules; the condition of society brought about by their observance: maintaining law and order.
4. a system or collection of such rules.

The idea of a "random" law is an oxymoron.

Fuzzystuff

Jul17-10, 09:33 PM

Okay, so what makes the second throw in the duplicated circumstances and environment different from the first? What causes the different result?

The uncertainty principle states that the more we know of an object's velocity, the less we know of the object's position and vice-versa. This is nature unrelenting to fully reveal herself to us. This is also not the researches fault, but is intrinsic in quantum mechanics. It also states that any vector we use to measure will have this same issue. There are also vibrations at the quanta level, beyond the point of anything meaningful or measurable, that can add up from chaos theory to prevent us from duplicating the event twice or more.

Basically, you would have to be all knowing and all seeing to be able to measure the event. Then you would have to be Godlike in precision to duplicate the event exactly as it was the first time, which even then it may be impossible to do. It may be intrinsic in nature not to allow us to duplicate an event's outcome identical to the first, second or third time doing it. The best we have is the probability of the outcome, no matter how many times we run the experiment.

Fuzzystuff

Jul17-10, 09:34 PM

If you really insist:

The idea of a "random" law is an oxymoron.

You're presupposing random is real, when the question of this thread is if it's real or not.

Evo

Jul17-10, 09:39 PM

If you really insist:

The idea of a "random" law is an oxymoron.Once again you avoided answering my question. What makes random = supernatural. Please explain and not evade answering.

wuliheron

Jul17-10, 09:45 PM

Once again you avoided answering my question. What makes random = supernatural. Please explain and not evade answering.

I am answering the question as directly as I can. Neither the random nor the supernatural obey any laws. I could extrapolate further and go into detail about how any such metaphysical statement has no demonstrable meaning outside of specific contexts or how many cultures see the two as one and the same phenomena, but that would be to digress.

Evo

Jul17-10, 10:56 PM

I am answering the question as directly as I can. Neither the random nor the supernatural obey any laws.And how exactly do you know random occurences do not follow laws? I'm eating and a piece of food falls out of my mouth onto the floor. It's a random occurence, following the laws of gravity.

KalamMekhar

Jul17-10, 11:20 PM

Predict me an accurate 10th day forecast, and you will have solved the randomness of weather systems. Predicting weather is essentially impossible for anything longer than 5 days, because of the randomness of weather systems.

jostpuur

Jul17-10, 11:25 PM

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is "beyond natural law".
Why? Please back that up.

wuliheron said that because his/her intuition says that truly random is supernatural. Doesn't look a big deal to me.

Evo, if your intuition says the opposite. Can you "back up" your opinion?

These are kind of topics where you must rely on intuition and not logic, because it's impossible to come up with rigor definitions for the concepts. It's pretty difficult to justify anything properly.

I'm eating and a piece of food falls out of my mouth onto the floor. It's a random occurence, following the laws of gravity.

There is no reason to assume that an accidental slip with a piece of food is an example of a truly random event. This is not related to wuliheron's original claim.

Fuzzystuff

Jul17-10, 11:27 PM

This conversation is about to turn silly real fast. Let's suppose that the conditions that lead to the bit of food that fell out of your mouth and onto the floor were mostly due to your precision of eating. If you are a sloppy eater, the more frequent the occurrence of food falling out of your mouth will be over a period of time. How sloppy can a person be at eating food? Does the chance that the person eats so sloppy that you can literally predict that food will fall out of his mouth mean it is random? No.. it doesn't. How do you know the person's eating habits are sloppy, so sloppy that you can predict to lets say, 99.99% certainty that he will indeed drop food out of his mouth. You would have to observe. And observe. Your whole life would be devoted to watching this dude eat food, just to make sure that food dropping out of his mouth isn't a random occurrence.

Now before I flip the coin note I said 99.99% chance. Why not just plain old 100%?

Let's flip the coin now and say that the chance of a very professional eater has of food dropping out of his mouth is slim to none. Sure, it's possible. A gust of wind could cause food to blow out of the mouth, or a twitch in the nervous system, but let's say we have perfect conditions and environment for this professional eater. The dude (pro food eater) is in a vacuum, no light being shone on him, nothing that could possibly interfere with him eating food. (Before I go on.. What are some of the issues arising here? He would have to have a perfect nervous system and body system under the effects of the quanta. He would have to be able to be a perfect eater in the complete dark. He would also still be under the effects of gravity, not to mention quantum entanglement, even if we put him in complete space and he was able to be a perfect eater in 0 gravity. Virtual particles would come into play as a potential for a crumble.) He would have to be in a state where we can't even measure the dude to make sure that he has 100% chance of not dropping food out of his mouth, giving that food crumbling out of his mouth would be an utterly, unexpected, unaccounted for random occurrence.

To end, my conjecture is that that we'll never really know if random is real or not. The measurements needed to observe the randomness wouldn't be possible, and if they were possible, it would be in the wave function of the particles associated with the randomness. I beg the question then, what's up with parallel universes? :p

Evo

Jul17-10, 11:43 PM

wuliheron said that because his/her intuition says that truly random is supernatural. Doesn't look a big deal to me.

Evo, if your intuition says the opposite. Can you "back up" your opinion?Don't have to, he/she made the claim, the onus is on him/her to back that up.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 12:34 AM

I like this definition of random: "a behavior for which we cannot determine the cause".

In mathematics, the study of probability is the study of a function without knowing anything about the domain.

No, it is not.

In mathematics probability theory is a subset of the general theory of measure and integration. That is one of Kolmogorov's major contributions to mathematics. The domain is clearly defined, and it is what is called a probability space. A random variable is simply a measurable function defined on that probability space.

There is no good mathematical definition for "random" beyond that.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 12:54 AM

There's a lot of subjectivity in the popular definition. I haven't thought about random like this for a little less than a decade. Let's take a internet poll:

i) wikipedia.com:
Randomness is a concept with somewhat disparate meanings in several fields. It also has common meanings which may have loose connections with some of those more definite meanings

ii) wordlnetweb.princeton.edu:
lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance; "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements"

iii) webster.com:
having the quality of being a remarkable coincidence

From i) the first bit of subjectivity comes from our individual connotations of the word.

Definition ii) and iii) are similar to the OP's definition, which seems to be a statement about causation. In this regard, I can see what wuliheron is trying to say (something about ignorance about causation being common between seemingly random events and supernatural events, which both have definition that are rooted in a lack of causation). I wouldn't have chosen the comparison, myself because individual notions of the word supernatural will just confuse the picture more.)

Anyway, my point is that this popular definition of random makes it a subjective device. It doesn't point to a particular lack of causation, so much as a lack of knowledge of causation. In that regard, as a state of mind, it does exist. Whereas the supernatural, which is more objectively defined, does not seem to exist.

Unless, of course, the fundamental question is supposed to about the lack of causation itself. Did the OP mean, "Do all events have a cause?"

wuliheron

Jul18-10, 01:28 AM

Obviously I can no more prove that something is truly random than I can prove an undetectable pixie sits on my left shoulder. Again, this is a metaphysical issue which is by definition beyond the ability of science to prove one way or another. Nor should it be within the purview of science, in my opinion, which has more productive matters issues to attend to.

However, what science can address is the definition of terms including "random" and "supernatural". These, I assert, only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. When the context becomes so broad as to include life, the universe, and everything there is no demonstrable difference between the random and supernatural. Both are said to not obey natural law.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 01:30 AM

Obviously I can no more prove that something is truly random than I can prove an undetectable pixie sits on my left shoulder. Again, this is a metaphysical issue which is by definition beyond the ability of science to prove one way or another. Nor should it be within the purview of science, in my opinion, which more productive matters issues to attend to.

However, what science can address is the definition of terms including "random" and "supernatural". These, I assert, only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. When the context becomes so broad as to include life, universe, and everything there is no demonstrable difference between the random and supernatural.

In order for you to prove that sometning is truly random, you would need a solid mathematical definition of what is meant by "random". Lacking that there is no possibility of a proof.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 01:58 AM

In order for you to prove that sometning is truly random, you would need a solid mathematical definition of what is meant by "random". Lacking that there is no possibility of a proof.

In an earlier post, I brought up the definition that refers to a situation in which all events are equally probable, then all events are random (even in the causative perspective) I think this is mathematically rigorous enough as a definition. I also tend to think it's highly unlikely that any real system has a chance of all it's states being equally probable because real systems can't be perfectly isolated from perturbation and entropy.

That's not say we can't well approximate it for our purposes. Dice and coins are the popular examples. If you do an experiment with a coin, and you do a lot of trials, you will find about a 50/50 split. But there's always error. What if you have a habit of always starting the coins head up, and you've flipped a coin so many times your muscles are more likely to put eight flips into the coin than any other number of flips, etc, etc. These irregularities in the statistics are causative factors. True randomness, a lack of cause, would mean the coin truly had no destiny to land heads up or tails up.

In physics, there's one particular behavior I can think of that has no known cause and happens in a statistically consistent way regardless of conditions:

atom decay

people are still arguing over whether it's truly random (has no cause) or not.

jostpuur

Jul18-10, 02:00 AM

However, what science can address is the definition of terms including "random" and "supernatural".

So you believe that you have a definition for what "random" actually means?

(So rigor definition, that it can be used to deal with these claims about randomness being supernatural.)

jostpuur

Jul18-10, 02:05 AM

In an earlier post, I brought up the definition that refers to a situation in which all events are equally probable, then all events are random (even in the causative perspective) I think this is mathematically rigorous enough as a definition.

Defining the concept of randomness by using the concept of probability is not the most satisfying strategy for finding a definition :biggrin:

disregardthat

Jul18-10, 06:43 AM

In an earlier post, I brought up the definition that refers to a situation in which all events are equally probable, then all events are random (even in the causative perspective) I think this is mathematically rigorous enough as a definition. I also tend to think it's highly unlikely that any real system has a chance of all it's states being equally probable because real systems can't be perfectly isolated from perturbation and entropy.

Why does it have to be equally probable? Suppose you are throwing a dice with 5 blue and 1 red side. Is not the outcome (side facing up) random even though it is 5 times more probable that the red side faces up?

Probability in common language is always used when we lack the ability to predict. So if something is 'really' random, does that mean it is impossible to predict, no matter what information you have? I can easily imagine that we can come up with a sort of event for which there are quantum mechanical principles which disallows us to collect the necessary amount of information to predict. But does this mean the event was 'really' random?

It's important to distinguish between 'true' causality, 'true' randomness, and just causality and randomness in models. If a phenomenon was 'really random', but behaved according to certain tendencies, we can have causal models of it (e.g. thermodynamics, given that microscopic movement is 'truly' random). And the other way, if a phenomenon is causal, we can just as well have probabilistic theories of it. Any pseudo-random phenomenon is an example of this.

So models cannot determine whether a phenomenon is 'truly' random or 'truly' causal, and I suggest that these as intrinsic properties does not even make sense. When we speak of a phenomenon, we are not merely labeling observations, we are extracting generality from individual observations. The generality extracted is a way of thinking of the phenomenon, and it is in this way of thinking terms like causal and random really make sense, and these terms are only meaningful in the sense of our ability to predict. So it is meaningless to apply these terms as intrinsic to examples of phenomena in themselves. Does this not become a question of our own ability to think of phenomena? I believe Kant argued that causality is one of our cognitive categories in which we interpret all sensory experience.

EDIT: Oh, look; this is my 777'th post. How random.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 10:48 AM

You're presupposing random is real, when the question of this thread is if it's real or not. Well I'll answer that simply: random is real [sic], as far as we know. It is not a difficult question, scientifically. Much of QM is dependent on probability, behaving exactly like that dice throw.

Regarding random vs supernatural, Evo is right that she doesn't have to back up a counter to a claim that someone else made - they have to back up their claim. However, for expedience: The existence of randomness in nature does not violate physical laws, so there is no need for every random event to be considered supernatural. The proposed contradiction between "random" and "law" does not exist.

And note, repeating a throw of a die is not just a technical impossibility (I'm assuming we're not just dropping it from a height of 1" here...), but it is in fact a physical impossibility. Getting the initial conditions exactly equal every time would be a violation of physical law because the concept of "exact" violates QM.

This isn't a philosophical question, it is a scientific question and it really isn't all that difficult of a question.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 10:50 AM

Why does it have to be equally probable? Suppose you are throwing a dice with 5 blue and 1 red side. Is not the outcome (side facing up) random even though it is 5 times more probable that the red side faces up?

Probability in common language is always used when we lack the ability to predict. Correct. People tend to mistake probability and randomness. That may be part of the motivation for this thread.

The fact that you can roll a die a large number of times and get a 1, 1/6 of the time does not make the roll non-random: you have no ability to predict the outcome of an individual roll greater than 1/6 of the time.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 10:56 AM

Some of you may find this site instructional: http://www.random.org/randomness/

It covers basically the entirety of this issue.

TubbaBlubba

Jul18-10, 10:58 AM

I see random as something fundamentally unpredictable, that with any given a priori knowledge, one can impossibly determine the result (e.g. the position of an electron).

disregardthat

Jul18-10, 11:39 AM

I see random as something fundamentally unpredictable, that with any given a priori knowledge, one can impossibly determine the result (e.g. the position of an electron).

There are many events which we cannot possibly determine the results of (even in principle), but for which it is entirely possible that is caused by prior events. Furthermore, we have a good ability to predict random events as well to a high accuracy. And even predictions of causal events is only up to a certain degree of accuracy anyway. The 'ability to predict' criterion is not well-defined, and is not a satisfactory criterion to establish true randomness (not to mention the impossibility of establishing that it is true for any event in practice). It is entirely plausible that we will one day find a deterministic model of the electron (and accounts for behavior on the quantum level), but which deals in other terms than today.

As to problems such as predicting of the position of the electron; consider the following analogy: What is the position of a platoon of soldiers? How accurately can we measure it in space? Do you agree that it does not entirely make sense to consider the 'position of a platoon of a battalion of soldiers' as a point in space? But even so, it does make sense to consider the position as a 0-dimensional point on the map (and so also in space) for a military tactician.

The point is that we only speak in terms of our models (e.g. a map) of nature, not of the terms of nature itself (such terms cannot exist). The 'position of the platoon' is of course not a random event, but cannot either be measured to an exact accuracy. So, a questions such as the 'true' position of the electron does not necessarily make any sense as a sort of exact position which only can be measured to a certain degree of accuracy. Hence does the complete prediction of the position make as little sense. (The analogy goes further; as the platoon is advancing it is more spread out, so you can have the position to an even less 'degree of accuracy'.)

In fact, I would argue that no claim whatsoever of nature could be true 'intrinsically' to nature for the same reason, but I won't pursue that here..

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 01:47 PM

In an earlier post, I brought up the definition that refers to a situation in which all events are equally probable, then all events are random (even in the causative perspective) I think this is mathematically rigorous enough as a definition. not.

Nope.

First, it is not a definition of "random" but rather a definition of "uniformly distributed". Uniform distribution is a potential attribute of a random variable, but says nothing whatever about the definition of random.

There are other distributions besides the uniform distribution and in many situations a uniform distribution is impossible.

Mathematics avoids actually defining the term "random" and a "random variable" is nothing more and nothing less than a measurable function defined on a probability space. In turn a probability space is simply a set with a sigma algebra of subsets and a positive measure that measures the whole space as 1. So, you see therein lies no useful test for "randomness".

Thus you still need a viable definition for "random".

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 02:44 PM

This was from wiktionary, which is hardly a reliable source, but it is fundamentally speaking about causality, which is more physical than mathematical:

Having unpredictable outcomes and, in the ideal case, all outcomes equally probable; resulting from such selection; lacking statistical correlation.

Here's what wolfram, a more reliable source, says about random numbers (i.e. random in mathematics):

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers. Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used without qualification, the word "random" usually means "random with a uniform distribution." Other distributions are of course possible. For example, the Box-Muller transformation allows pairs of uniform random numbers to be transformed to corresponding random numbers having a two-dimensional normal distribution.

So my definition is not completely off-base, but I think the first sentence is even more rigorous a definition.

Why does it have to be equally probable? Suppose you are throwing a dice with 5 blue and 1 red side. Is not the outcome (side facing up) random even though it is 5 times more probable that the red side faces up?

but you're kind of playing games, you're not confront the causality. If it was a truly random system, than each of the six sides would have equal probability of coming up. In that case, you would know exactly why blue is more probable than red (because it's a truly random die and more sides are painted blue than red). The randomness still only exists in the equal distribution of the probability of the faces turning up themselves. The distribution of colors in your system is no longer random (remember? you made blue more probable than red so they're not equally probable), but which face turns up still is.

the fact that you can roll a die a large number of times and get a 1, 1/6 of the time does not make the roll non-random: you have no ability to predict the outcome of an individual roll greater than 1/6 of the time.

I don't think anyone implied that. It depends, of course, what definition of random you're operating under, but the reason dice are non-random is because they're chaotic. A dice roll is classically deterministic, it just has a lot of figures to fiddle with in four dimensional variable space and n dimensional parameter space.

I'm still not sure though, whether your definition of random pertains to unpredictability of lack of causation. When I say that outcomes are equally probable, I mean fundamentally lack causation.

also, from your link:

When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others.

disregardthat

Jul18-10, 02:53 PM

but you're kind of playing games, you're not confront the causality. If it was a truly random system, than each of the six sides would have equal probability of coming up. In that case, you would know exactly why blue is more probable than red (because it's a truly random die and more sides are painted blue than red). The randomness still only exists in the equal distribution of the probability of the faces turning up themselves. The distribution of colors in your system is no longer random (remember? you made blue more probable than red so they're not equally probable), but which face turns up still is.

You must not confuse the information of the system with the information of the results. In my example we still have no information whatsoever what the result will be. The point is that it is a random process. It is still random, even though the distribution is not uniform.

Ivan Seeking

Jul18-10, 02:59 PM

I understand the reference to supernatural and I think it is applicable. I have made arguments related to this idea before. Part of the problem is the interpretation of the word. As has been mentioned, "supernatural" is often associated with specific concepts like God, ghosts, or magic. But those concepts are really secondary to the definition. We assume that a God would be supernatural, but the word supernatural is not limited to the concept of a God.

Again here are the primary definitions. from several sources.

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/supernatural [American Heritage]

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

supernatural adjective /ˌsuː.pəˈnætʃ.ər.əl//-pɚˈnætʃ.ɚ-/ adj
caused by forces that cannot be explained by science
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/supernatural

1.existing or occurring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man; not explainable by the known forces or laws of nature; specif., of, involving, or attributed to God or a god
http://www.yourdictionary.com/supernatural [Webster New World]

To say that true randomness is supernatural, is only to say that any underlying process eludes description. It is beyond the ablity of science to describe it. It is simply a matter of definition.

By definition, events in a truly random system could not be predicted; they defy description, so truly random systems would qualify as being supernatural.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 03:01 PM

You must not confuse the information of the system with the information of the results. In my example we still have no information whatsoever what the result will be. The point is that it is a random process. It is still random, even though the distribution is not uniform.

So then you're talking about a definition of random that only pertains to your subjective state of knowledge. This is what I would call something "appearing random". I covered this definition already. I'm talking about the causality. You seem to be talking about predictability.

Evo

Jul18-10, 03:04 PM

the random and supernatural. Both are said to not obey natural law.Where have you provided proof of this? Things can happen randomly while obeying all laws of nature. I understand if your belief is that nothing is random. But making such a claim needs backing up.

Ivan Seeking

Jul18-10, 03:10 PM

Ivan Seeking

Jul18-10, 03:11 PM

Things can happen randomly while obeying all laws of nature. .

Name one.

disregardthat

Jul18-10, 03:18 PM

So then you're talking about a definition of random that only pertains to your subjective state of knowledge. This is what I would call something "appearing random". I covered this definition already. I'm talking about the causality. You seem to be talking about predictability.

It must be some counter-intuitive definition of randomness if my suggestion is not an example of a random event. I don't agree with it. It certainly does not just "appear to be random", thus confusing it with such things as pseudo-randomness which also appears to be random. At best it's bad wording.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 03:24 PM

It must be some counter-intuitive definition of randomness if my suggestion is not an example of a random event. I don't agree with it. It certainly does not just "appear to be random", thus confusing it with such things as pseudo-randomness which also appears to be random. At best it's bad wording.

The only thing that's truly random about your system (in terms of causality) would be that it's an inertially symmetric system, so it will land, with 1/6 probability, on any of the six sides.

the fact that somebody painted five sides blue and one side red doesn't change that, or change the fact that this is the underlying source of the randomness (the inertial symmetry of the die).

i.e. if you remove the underlying uniform distribution, the randomness will go away. The colors are irrelevant.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 03:28 PM

supernatural vs. random discussion:

Evo:
Supernatural, I think (I hope) is not to be taken so literally. I can see the comparisons that Ivan and wulheron are drawing. I get it. But I don't think it's a complete match.

Ivan, wulheron:
quantum mechanics has examples of randomness. I wouldn't call them supernatural persay (though many physicists did seem to think it was eerie originally. Not so much today).

Atom decay is another random event (in a sample of decaying matter, any particular atom may spontaneously decay. The spatial probability distribution of which atom decays is uniform.

I wouldn't call this supernatural. It may just be fundamentally random.

Evo

Jul18-10, 03:30 PM

Name one.I'm carrying some dishes, one slips through my fingers and falls to the floor.

I'm not talking about systems. I'm talking about random events. Some people think that nothing can happen randomly, that everything that happens is predestined. This is the category, I believe, that wuliheron falls into. To him nothing can be random, therefore random is supernatural to him.

Below is in response to the OP.

Random, generally, can mean one of two things:
1)Unpredictable, from a given point of view.
2)Uncaused, by a previous event.

The first one is easy, random in this sense is just a description based on either a simple lack of knowledge or the impossiblity of having enough knowledge. The former being like predicting what your girlfriend will wear, whereas the latter is like predicting the weather.

The second refers to an actual event that has no preceding cause. Whether this can exist is an open question, and even if they do exist, it would be unlikely that one could distinguish it from something that is simply unpredictable.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 03:35 PM

Evo, I think that example can be classically determined. It's not random, it's chaotic.

wuliheron

Jul18-10, 03:38 PM

Where have you provided proof of this? Things can happen randomly while obeying all laws of nature. I understand if your belief is that nothing is random. But making such a claim needs backing up.

Something that is truly random, and not merely unpredictable, by definition does not follow any natural laws. To assert that something that does not have any rhyme or reason somehow follows natural law is, therefore, to utter a contradiction.

apeiron

Jul18-10, 03:40 PM

This isn't a philosophical question, it is a scientific question and it really isn't all that difficult of a question.

Err, no one seems troubled by probablistic issues. It is the causal question that is of interest.

Rephrasing the OP: do uncaused events exist? Can something happen which had no preceding trigger?

Pythagorean suggested a way of making possible sense of this suggestion - imagining a state so pefectly poised, so symmetric, that it could break either way.

This is the old pencil balanced on its tip idea. However, a pencil would still seem to need a vibration, an unmeasured tilt, or some other triggering event to send it in some direction. A truly perfectly balanced pencil in isolation might never tip (unless we invoke QM?).

Another example given was atomistic decay. This is modelled as the probability of jumping a decay threshold - a series of fluctuations, one of which is large enough eventually. A poisson process. So is this a causeless event?

Putting mathematical models to one side, are there any convincing exampes of uncaused events, even with QM?

wuliheron

Jul18-10, 03:43 PM

disregardthat

Jul18-10, 03:46 PM

The only thing that's truly random about your system (in terms of causality) would be that it's an inertially symmetric system, so it will land, with 1/6 probability, on any of the six sides.

the fact that somebody painted five sides blue and one side red doesn't change that, or change the fact that this is the underlying source of the randomness (the inertial symmetry of the die).

i.e. if you remove the underlying uniform distribution, the randomness will go away. The colors are irrelevant.

So, are you suggesting that behind every random process there is an underlying uniform distribution regardless of our ability to conceive of it?

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 03:48 PM

No. It's the most commonly used definition of random in the sciences when no qualification is used, as I quoted from Wolfram. The more general definition was in the first sentence of the quote, as I said when I quoted it.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 03:50 PM

So my definition is not completely off-base, but I think the first sentence is even more rigorous a definition.

The Wolfram definition is pretty much useless, and at best circular. It speaks of selecting a number "at random" from some "specified distribution" neatly sidestepping the basic question as to what is meant by "random" and how without such a definition there can be any meaning to a "specified distribution".

You are going n circles. You still lack any useful definition of "randomm". That is not likely to change.

Evo

Jul18-10, 04:13 PM

What we need is to decide on a single definition of random and then argue from there. Several members have offered definitions to try to bring the thread to a point where everyone is on the same page.

Here are my 2 cents worth. Random - Lack of predictability, without any systematic pattern.http://www.vmlabs.com/stonline/press/news/glossary/r.htm

Random - Affected by chance http://ec.wmich.edu/glossary/prog-glossary.htf#P-R

random (lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance) "a random choice"; "bombs fell at random"; "random movements" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=random

Mine are simple definitions. But the Op did mention rolling dice.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 04:17 PM

What we need is to decide on a single definition of random and then argue from there. Several members have offered definitions to try to bring the thread to a point where everyone is on the same page.

Here are my 2 cents worth. http://www.vmlabs.com/stonline/press/news/glossary/r.htm

http://ec.wmich.edu/glossary/prog-glossary.htf#P-R

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=random

The point is not that there are competing useful definitions of "random". The point is that no useful definition has ever been formulated.

Now, if people just want to argue, then go ahead ans select any combinatin of words that you choose. But if people want to apply the machinery of probability theory, then they either must accept that there is no applicable physical test to determine if that mathematical definition applies, or they will have to be the first person on the planet to formulate a useful definition and some associated test of its applicability.

The unfortunate truth is that "random" as the term is used in probablity theory, has no definition outside the artificial context of a probability space.

wuliheron

Jul18-10, 04:51 PM

What we need is to decide on a single definition of random and then argue from there. Several members have offered definitions to try to bring the thread to a point where everyone is on the same page.

The original post asked the simple question of whether or not anything truly random exists and made a clear distinction between the truly random (ie-acausal) and the merely unpredictable. Thus the question involves more than one single definition of "random" and to constrain ourselves to just one would defeat the original purpose of the thread.

apeiron

Jul18-10, 05:36 PM

What we need is to decide on a single definition of random and then argue from there. Several members have offered definitions to try to bring the thread to a point where everyone is on the same page.

The essential question is about causality - efficient cause to be precise. The classical idea that every event is preceded by a cause. Or in modern physics, the principle of locality.

And the question is not about our state of knowledge, our ability to measure, but about what is really happening objectively.

We seem to need some final irreducible element of randomness in the world. Spontaneity, fluctuations and chance are frequently invoked in physical processes, especially QM ones.

So can there be events that indeed do not have a local or efficient cause?

A novel philosophical way around this traditional question is to change the dichotomy from random~determined (or classically, chance~necessity) to freedom~constraints.

That is, to claim that locally, all is free. Anything could potentially happen. However, globally, there exists constraints. And so the freedom of every location is in practice constrained.

Bottom-up, you have pure spontaneity (what CS Peirce meant by tychism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/#anti).

Then acting top-down, you have the shaping hand of constraints. This suppresses local degrees of freedom (and then what is not suppressed, must by definition, freely happen). Peirce called this second part of his doctrine of tychism, the law of habits.

This philosophical system looks like the traditional opposition of random and determined, but has obvious subtle differences. For one, it is clearly hierarchical (chance exists locally, the "determining factors" exist globally). And it lacks the absoluteness implied by determinism (locations are constrained rather than controlled). There is an essential grain of uncertainty in the ontology (as QM generally argues).

The importance of both constraints and scale is now being explicitly recognised in modern probablistic approaches to describing nature. For example, this was my favourite paper from last year.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.3507v1.pdf

So the OP is both a deep question, and one that does have other ways of talking about it than the familiar dichotomy of random~determined.

jostpuur

Jul18-10, 05:45 PM

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 05:52 PM

The point is not that there are competing useful definitions of "random". The point is that no useful definition has ever been formulated.

Now, if people just want to argue, then go ahead ans select any combinatin of words that you choose. But if people want to apply the machinery of probability theory, then they either must accept that there is no applicable physical test to determine if that mathematical definition applies, or they will have to be the first person on the planet to formulate a useful definition and some associated test of its applicability.

The unfortunate truth is that "random" as the term is used in probablity theory, has no definition outside the artificial context of a probability space.

If you're looking for a mathematical test to find out whether particular aspects of nature are fundamentally random, nobody's offering that. That's why this is is a philosophical discussion.

On the other hand, if we engage in the common and useful definition of randomness from probability theory (see wolfram), which already presupposes that we don't have an exhaustive sample space, then much of it is at the heart of scientific discovery.

For instance, in acoustics, white noise can be treated no differently than random numbers (i.e. we can easily simulate white noise with a evenly distributed random number generator). Now, we know that in the real world, the noise actually has a cause (probably several causes all mishmashed together) but for all practical purposes, we call it random, because entropy has so taken effect on the signal that it's practically impossible to find a cause, so it's equivalent from our perspective (in our scheme of big, correlated signals that stand out of the noise).

So there's a divide here where people that more often use statistics for scientific observation see randomness as a lack of information and the more philosophical thinkers see random as a question of causality. Or sometimes the divide exists within a single person, which I think is sometimes my case.

I'm still not sure which kind of random you're talking about, really. You've preferred to safely criticize rather than boldly assert so far.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 06:14 PM

If you're looking for a mathematical test to find out whether a particular aspects of nature or fundamentally random, nobody's offering that. That's why this is is a philosophical discussion. Or sometimes the divide exists within a single person, which I think is sometimes my case.

On the other hand, if we engage in the common and useful definition of randomness from probability theory, which already presupposes that we don't have an exhaustive sample space, then much of it is at the heart of scientific discovery.

For instance, in acoustics, white noise can be treated no differently than random numbers (i.e. we can easily simulate white noise with a evenly distributed random number generator). Now, we know that in the real world, the noise actually has a cause (probably several causes all mishmashed together) but for all practical purposes, we call it random, because entropy has so taken effect on the signal that it's practically impossible to find a cause, so it's equivalent from our perspective (in our scheme of big, correlated signals that stand out of the noise).

So there's a divide here where people that more often use statistics for scientific observation see randomness as a lack of information and the more philosophical thinkers see random as a question of causality.

Nonsense.

There is a perfectly valid mathematical definition for a white noise stochastic process, and it has nothing to do with acoustics, nor does the usual scientific definition of "white noise". It is in fact a type of random process, which is considerably more general than just "random numbers". See, for instance, the classic text by Doob or any electrical engineering text on communication systems and information theory.

There are also physical models for what is called "white noise" in scientific and engineering circles, and it most certainly has an identifiable cause. Most often that cause is thermal noise, sometimes called "shot noise" in electronic devices. This is a phenomena that is understood in terms of solid state physics.

Causality and randomness do not appear to be linked in physics either. One need only consider quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is a fundamentally stochastic theory, But it does not eschew causes entirely either, and one finds that the state function evolves in a completely deterministic fashion -- that is the role of the Schrodinger equation in elementary quantum mechanics.

The definition of randomness from probability theory, (see earlier posts for the definition of a random variable) has nothing whatever to do with an "exhaustive probability space", which is actually a meaningless term.

If you just want to throw around words then feel free to do so, but don't try to attach any meaning to them from the mathematical theory of probability.

The usual application of probability and statistics in science, as opposed to in mathematics, is as a model that compensates for lack of information, as in a description of a roulette wheel as a probability model because solving the equations of Newtonian mechanics is both too difficult and too sensitive to initial conditions that are too difficult to determine. So the ad hoc probabilistic model works in practice, despite the fact that the physics is basically deterministic. While this sort of technique works quite well in practice (that is why Las Vegas casinos make money reliably), it has nothing to do with the question posed in the OP. The macroscopic world seems to be well-described by deterministic theories, and the transition from the stochatic to the deterministic remains something that has not yet been described fully in physical theory -- see attempts made under the heading of "decoherence" and "collapse of the wave function".

The only truly stochastic physical processes of which I am aware, and that are supported by experimental data, are those of quantum mechanics at the sub-atomic level. The empirical data seems to support the tenet of quantum mechanics that it is only able to predict probabilities. There are, however, some rather serious physicists, Gerardus 'tHooft among them, who are seriously investigating deterministic theories that might mimic what we see in quantum mechanics.

So, basically your facts are at best questionable. If you simply want to "philosophize" without contact with either mathematics or physics, then you can certainly do that. But that produces only "white noise".

The problem remains one of attempting to determine if there is anything that is "truly random" while being unable to define what is meant by "truly random". If that is a meaningful philosophical discussion, then by all means go to it. I prefer to discuss the existence of something only aftere I can define what that thing is sufficiently well to be able to recognize it if it presents itself.

unusualname

Jul18-10, 06:20 PM

a truly random event is one that has no cause.

There's no way we have of knowing if random events exist.

If they exist then free-will is enabled as long as we have the ability to influence the random events, eg if our consciousness allows us to select quantum states then, bingo! we have free-will. :smile:

wuliheron

Jul18-10, 06:25 PM

wuliheron, I believe that you have a hidden assumption, which is that laws of nature are deterministic. When you use this assumption, you can arrive at the result true randomness is supernatural. IMO this is a reasonable deduction, but I see no reason to assume that the initial hidden assumption would be true.

We can debate metaphysics until the crows fly home, so I choose not to make assumptions about ultimate reality. It is the demonstrable meaning of words that I contest. To say that a "law" is somehow utterly "random" is a contradiction in terms. Thus it is not any metaphysical reality that I question, but the use of contradictory terminology. If we are to speak meaningfully about metaphysical issues then our words must have demonstrable meaning or we might as well spout nonsense poetry.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 07:13 PM

Nonsense.

There is a perfectly valid mathematical definition for a white noise stochastic process, and it has nothing to do with acoustics, nor does the usual scientific definition of "white noise". It is in fact a type of random process, which is considerably more general than just "random numbers". See, for instance, the classic text by Doob or any electrical engineering text on communication systems and information theory.

There are also physical models for what is called "white noise" in scientific and engineering circles, and it most certainly has an identifiable cause. Most often that cause is thermal noise, sometimes called "shot noise" in electronic devices. This is a phenomena that is understood in terms of solid state physics.

Causality and randomness do not appear to be linked in physics either. One need only consider quantum mechanics. Quantum theory is a fundamentally stochastic theory, But it does not eschew causes entirely either, and one finds that the state function evolves in a completely deterministic fashion -- that is the role of the Schrodinger equation in elementary quantum mechanics.

The definition of randomness from probability theory, (see earlier posts for the definition of a random variable) has nothing whatever to do with an "exhaustive probability space", which is actually a meaningless term.

If you just want to throw around words then feel free to do so, but don't try to attach any meaning to them from the mathematical theory of probability.

The usual application of probability and statistics in science, as opposed to in mathematics, is as a model that compensates for lack of information, as in a description of a roulette wheel as a probability model because solving the equations of Newtonian mechanics is both too difficult and too sensitive to initial conditions that are too difficult to determine. So the ad hoc probabilistic model works in practice, despite the fact that the physics is basically deterministic. While this sort of technique works quite well in practice (that is why Las Vegas casinos make money reliably), it has nothing to do with the question posed in the OP. The macroscopic world seems to be well-described by deterministic theories, and the transition from the stochatic to the deterministic remains something that has not yet been described fully in physical theory -- see attempts made under the heading of "decoherence" and "collapse of the wave function".

The only truly stochastic physical processes of which I am aware, and that are supported by experimental data, are those of quantum mechanics at the sub-atomic level. The empirical data seems to support the tenet of quantum mechanics that it is only able to predict probabilities. There are, however, some rather serious physicists, Gerardus 'tHooft among them, who are seriously investigating deterministic theories that might mimic what we see in quantum mechanics.

So, basically your facts are at best questionable. If you simply want to "philosophize" without contact with either mathematics or physics, then you can certainly do that. But that produces only "white noise".

The problem remains one of attempting to determine if there is anything that is "truly random" while being unable to define what is meant by "truly random". If that is a meaningful philosophical discussion, then by all means go to it. I prefer to discuss the existence of something only aftere I can define what that thing is sufficiently well to be able to recognize it if it presents itself.

Well, this is frustrating. You've basically repeated many of the posts I've already made in this thread as if they were counterarguments.

I've done research in acoustics, and currently do research in chaos theory (i.e. nonlinear dynamics). I've also taken a full degrees worth of physics classes and some probability theory for my master's study. I said exhaustive sample space, not probability space. If you still don't know what I mean, and refuse to look in your texts on probability, I can break it down for you, but I'm hoping you were replying with animosity, thinking I was an ignorant armchair philosopher and didn't really consider what I may have meant at the moment.

In acoustic (experimental acoustics if that clears things up.. we're actually looking at real data) the word random has a statistical basis. The definition is based on a lack of information. When I used "white noise" I obviously meant the acoustics definition, which is physically defined: it has a flat power spectral density. That's not the point though. The point is that I can use a random number generator to simulate the white noise. I was demonstrating the usefulness of a definition of random in probability theory as it applies to science. This is just one example.

Consider biological sciences, who select samples "randomly" (i.e not biased).

In chaos theory, on the other hand, the discussion tends to be more philosophical. The point being that seemingly random events do actually have a cause and that apparent randomness can be traced back to a sensitivity to initial conditions. This definition of randomness is about causation. It's not an assertion as to whether all events can be random or not, it's the study of particular events that seem random, but aren't (and the study of determining whether certain events truly are random or are not).

In quantum mechanics, there are only the applications of probability theory, and whether or not it's causally linked is still a matter of debate. I like how you put it:

But it does not eschew causes entirely either, and one finds that the state function evolves in a completely deterministic fashion -- that is the role of the Schrodinger equation in elementary quantum mechanics.

Of course, I think it's somewhat cavalier to talk about causation and randomness in quantum mechanics without talking about quantum field theory, which I'm guess none of us are well versed in. I've only made it through Intro to Quantum by Griffiths. Not interested in QFT, personally.

Anyway, back to my point, which you eagerly missed. The statistical/probability definitions of random are useful to us in the sciences and are weakly connected to causation, as long as we acknowledge that our sample space is limited (i.e. not exhaustive).

A concrete example to help you with the assertion:

When I try to change the environment in different ways to produce different outputs on the microphones in my acoustic array, I can't possibly find (or practically setup) every possible combination of inputs. Everything I can possibly do has no affect on the noise. The noise remains. I don't say "eureka!" the noise is random (uncaused)! I say, "well, within the sample size I was able to attain, I can't find any causes of the noise".

If we can find a cause for something, we model it based on its dependent variables (the cause) and we no longer have a need for random data generation. That's how it's connected to causation. But this definition (lack of information) is not based on causation.

Which becomes confusing in discussions, since there is also the qualitative definition of randomness that pertains to actual causation, regardless of information. But notice, that if a system is truly random in this way, then it is also a matter of a lack of information. There's no information to be had about causation. Just the observation, statistically recorded (i.e. bose-einstein statistics and fermi-dirac statistics). i.e. Quantum Mechanics.

DrRocket

Jul18-10, 08:02 PM

Well, this is frustrating. You've basically repeated many of the posts I've already made in this thread as if they were counterarguments.

I've done research in acoustics, and currently do research in chaos theory (i.e. nonlinear dynamics). I've also taken a full degrees worth of physics classes and some probability theory for my master's study. I said exhaustive sample space, not probability space. If you still don't know what I mean, and refuse to look in your texts on probability, I can break it down for you, but I'm hoping you were replying with animosity, thinking I was an ignorant armchair philosopher and didn't really consider what I may have meant at the moment.

I understand probability theory pretty well and it is quite frankly you who do not know what you mean. Trying to somehow appeal to authority with veiled references to unspecified degrees is not going to work. I will see all of your degrees and raise you a couple. Degree comparisons are not germane in any case. Let's stick to content.

Go ahead and break it down if you like. This should be interesting.

No animosity involved. As to anything else, I will simply form my opinion based on the content of our posts, or lack thereof.

In acoustic (experimental acoustics if that clears things up.. we're actually looking at real data) the word random has a statistical basis. The definition is based on a lack of information. When I used "white noise" I obviously meant the acoustics definition, which is physically defined: it has a flat power spectral density. That's not the point though. The point is that I can use a random number generator to simulate the white noise. I was demonstrating the usefulness of a definition of random in probability theory as it applies to science. This is just one example.

The definition in terms of a flat power spectral density it NOT physically defined, but rather mathematically defined -- via the statement that the power spectral density is constant. That is a statement about Fourier transforms. It is not physical, and in fact is not physically possible. It is an idealization that makes for simplicity in some calculations.

Just precisely how are you "demonstrating the usefulness of a definion of random in probability theory"? Remember that a random variable is nothing more and nothing less than a function that is measurable in terms of the sigma algebra of your probability space -- fpr the function to be measureable the inverse image of an open set must be a member of the sigma algebra (aka a measurable set). So, just how have you demonstrated the usefulness of this concept ?

In chaos theory, on the other hand, the discussion tends to be more philosophical. The point being that seemingly random events do actually have a cause and that apparent randomness can be traced back to a sensitivity to initial conditions. This definition of randomness is about causation. It's not an assertion as to whether all events can be random or not, it's the study of particular events that seem random, but aren't (and the study of determining whether certain events truly are random or are not).

Chaos theory has NOTHING to do with random processes. In fact, what are normally called chaotic systems are in fact completely deterministic -- as reflected in the sensitivity to initial conditions in some cases. Moreover, there are all sorts of things going under the title of "chaos theory" some not worthy of the name "theory" at all. For a good, rigorous discussion, in the context of topological dynamics one might refer to Bob Devaney's book An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems, but it is rather tangential to the discussion at hand. In fact I have no idea why you bring up this red herring.

What is heavens name is "the study of particular events that seem random, but aren't" ? Have you ever read a book on topological dynamics, or maybe ergodic theory ? You are spouting nonsense.

Try Devaney's book.

Of course, I think it's somewhat cavalier to talk about causation and randomness in quantum mechanics without talking about quantum field theory, which I'm guess none of us are well versed in.

Speak for yourself. If you want to bring in quantum field theories go right ahead. But it adds nothing to the discussion, save to eliminate direct reference to the Schrodinger equation.

There is and was nothing cavalier about the reference at all. It is quite germane.

Anyway, back to my point, which you eagerly missed. The statistical/probability definitions of random are useful to us in the sciences and are weakly connected to causation, as long as we acknowledge that our sample space is limited (i.e. not exhaustive).

I did not "eagerly miss" anything. What is your point ? This makes no sense. I suggest that you go back and review your own probability books, and in particular the definition of "sample space" and "probability space". Try Probabilty by Loeve, which is the classic text or Stochatic Processes by Doob.

A concrete example to help you with the assertion:

When I try to change the environment in different ways to produce different outputs on the microphones in my acoustic array, I can't possibly find (or practically setup) every possible combination of inputs. Everything I can possibly do has no affect on the noise. The noise remains. I don't say "eureka!" the noise is random (uncaused)! I say, "well, within the sample size I was able to attain, I can't find any causes of the noise".

Which has nothing to do with random processes. Your inability to adequately set up and shield your electronics from outside electromagnetic fields or from outside acoustic signals, or both, has nothing to do with causality. It may have something with your personal inability to locate the source of the noise, but that is completely unrelated to the question of whether a cause of the noise exists.

"Random" and "uncaused" are not the same thing. Shot noise and ordinary electromagnetic interference are caused. In fact one of the sources of noise in electronic systems is the cosmic background radiation, the discovery of which earned Wilson and Penzias a Nobel prize. I would not call that uncaused (see "Big Bang"). I think many would characterize it as random in some sense -- it matches blackbody radiation, which as a quantum effect can reasonably be called random.

You seem to have somehow confused an inability to locate a source with some unstated question involving random processes. Perhaps what we have here is some sort of random thought.

If we can find a cause for something, we model it based on its dependent variables (the cause) and we no longer have a need for random data generation. That's how it's connected to causation. But this definition (lack of information) is not based on causation.

It is quite possible to know the cause of something ans still not have at hand a "model based on its dependent variables". That is precisely the situation with "white noise" or "shot noise" in communication theory. It would also apply to black body radiation, wherein one can predict the spectrum but not every bump and wiggle in the received signal.

Which becomes confusing in discussions, since there is also the qualitative definition of randomness that pertains to actual causation, regardless of information. But notice, that if a system is truly random in this way, then it is also a matter of a lack of information. There's no information to be had about causation. Just the observation, statistically recorded (i.e. bose-einstein statistics and fermi-dirac statistics). i.e. Quantum Mechanics.

All you have demonstrated here is that you don't understand quantum mechanics, whether that be ordinary quantum mechanics or quantum field theories. This is just meaningless juxtaposition of words.

This is getting silly. I'm done.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 08:46 PM

you would prefer specified degrees? A Bachelor's of Science in Physics at a state university in the U.S. The point wasn't an argument from authority, the point was to give you more context. I hoped you'd be able to see the argument yourself once.

exhaustive sample space:

a sample space that includes all possible outcomes. In the sciences, we work with sample spaces that we assume are not exhaustive (i.e. we assume we haven't observed all possible outcomes).

Which has nothing to do with random processes. Your inability to adequately set up and shield your electronics from outside electromagnetic fields or from outside acoustic signals, or both, has nothing to do with causality. It may have something with your personal inability to locate the source of the noise, but that is completely unrelated to the question of whether a cause of the noise exists.

"Random" and "uncaused" are not the same thing. Shot noise and ordinary electromagnetic interference are caused. In fact one of the sources of noise in electronic systems is the cosmic background radiation, the discovery of which earned Wilson and Penzias a Nobel prize. I would not call that uncaused (see "Big Bang"). I think many would characterize it as random in some sense -- it matches blackbody radiation, which as a quantum effect can reasonably be called random.

You seem to have somehow confused an inability to locate a source with some unstated question involving random processes. Perhaps what we have here is some sort of random thought.

But this is the distinction I'm trying to make! There are two different random's being discussed here. One pertaining to causation and one pertaining to lack of information.

I can tell you right now, that nobody is really interested in the discussion about lack of information. Most people in the philosophy forums are interested in the discussion about causation.

Notice also, that I'm moving fluidly between definitions, which may cause some confusion, but I'm also trying to let you know which I'm using with parentheses. So when I say chaotic (uncaused), that's the definition I'm using.

The definition in terms of a flat power spectral density it NOT physically defined, but rather mathematically defined -- via the statement that the power spectral density is constant. That is a statement about Fourier transforms. It is not physical, and in fact is not physically possible. It is an idealization that makes for simplicity in some calculations.

This is a physical statement too, about pressure fluctuations, or electromagnetic fluctuations, or anything that oscillates over a broad spectrum of frequencies. Nobody's arguing that such a signal physically exists, that's a pretty pedantic argument. We know that our models are not reality. The map is not the territory, etc, etc... no kidding. You're completely missing the point still to go off on a tangent.

Chaos theory has NOTHING to do with random processes. In fact, what are normally called chaotic systems are in fact completely deterministic -- as reflected in the sensitivity to initial conditions in some cases. Moreover, there are all sorts of things going under the title of "chaos theory" some not worthy of the name "theory" at all. For a good, rigorous discussion, in the context of topological dynamics one might refer to Bob Devaney's book An Introduction to Chaotic Dynamical Systems, but it is rather tangential to the discussion at hand. In fact I have no idea why you bring up this red herring.

What is heavens name is "the study of particular events that seem random, but aren't" ? Have you ever read a book on topological dynamics, or maybe ergodic theory ? You are spouting nonsense.

Try Devaney's book.

Ok, once again, you've reworded what I said and repeated it as if it were a counterargument. I'm glad we agree?

You don't appreciate the philosophical aspects of this discussion, I get it. The point about chaos and causality is about the history of the philosophical discussion of determinism. Chaos theory is something determinists can draw on in arguments against anti-determinists when anti-determinists bring up apparently random (lacking causation) systems.

If we can reproduce the seemingly random (uncaused) behavior with deterministic models, then we have proven that the system isn't random (uncaused).

For instance, I'm working on the Morris Lecar model right now. Recently, Tateno (I believe, I'm out of town so I don't have publication access) wrote a paper for Chaos in which he just added a random noise term to the equation and bam! he got temporal chaos (surprise, surprise...)

So now, some philosophers are using this to say "oh look, consciousness requires noise, it's a stochastic process, the mind can't be determined, dualism, yay!"

I'm looking to produce chaos directly from the model, not by adding random noise, but by finding the parameter regime in which it actually exists in the model. I.e. I'm looking to find physiological causes for the behavior of the neuron that can be measured and verified. Tateno adding random noise to the model doesn't help us understand the causation of the behavior.

It is quite possible to know the cause of something ans still not have at hand a "model based on its dependent variables". That is precisely the situation with "white noise" or "shot noise" in communication theory. It would also apply to black body radiation, wherein one can predict the spectrum but not every bump and wiggle in the received signal.

Yeah, I said that... about "white noise" in fact! You must be fundamentally missing something I'm saying to repeat what I say so much.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 09:29 PM

By definition, events in a truly random system could not be predicted; they defy description, so truly random systems would qualify as being supernatural....

[separate post]

Name one. Every measurement has a random component to it. But the easiest to use to generate a random number is probably radioactive decay.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 09:33 PM

Since I believe that anything real can ultimately be described by science, I maintain that the word supernatural has no meaning. It is an arbitrary concept used to dismiss concepts subjectively defined not to be real. Ivan, as you worded that, it's just gibberish. Whether a concept can be described by science doesn't have anything to do with whether a word has a definition - heck, you should already know that as you provided the definition of the word!

Perhaps you could try that again...

....Either way, though, your basic point in providing the definition was that "supernatural" just means 'unexplainable by science'. That's a perfectly fine definition and by that definition, random/probability based processes such as radioactive decay are clearly, dealt with adequately within the realm of science.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 09:36 PM

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 09:37 PM

But we should get back to our main point anyway.
I missed this post of yours, which goes to the heart of it.

The Wolfram definition is pretty much useless, and at best circular. It speaks of selecting a number "at random" from some "specified distribution" neatly sidestepping the basic question as to what is meant by "random" and how without such a definition there can be any meaning to a "specified distribution".

You are going n circles. You still lack any useful definition of "randomm". That is not likely to change.

The wolfram definition again:

A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive numbers.

forgiving you for misquoting the wolfram quote, "as if by chance" means with no apriori knowledge this is a statement about lack of information.

but you completely ignored the important part:

"specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution"

Which should make it obvious why a uniform distribution is the first thing that comes to mind, and is an obvious, intuitive example.

This is a useful definition for physics. In acoustics, it's because this is equivalent to white noise, which is physically meaningful to us.

I went off on a tangent about how this is related to causality. This was probably largely irrelevant to you, but causality is the direction the thread is going. If we really want to 1-on-1 about mathematical definitions, nobody would be missing anything if went to PM's (which we probably don't care to do).

In quantum mechanics, we can't explain causation intuitively. Our language is inherently probabilistic (i.e. fermi-dirac and boise-einstein statistics are the experiments that "explain" the behavior of fermions and bosons). What did you do, namedrop the Schrodinger Equation? No, I don't understand causation in quantum mechanics. It's explanation isn't a mechanistic picture like Newtonian mechanics, it's probability statements.

I suspect that QFT does a lot to explain the mechanisms behind the fermi-dirac and boise-einstein statistics, but I'm on the outside looking in, really.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 09:54 PM

from Russ's link:

Quantum Events or Chaotic Systems?

One characteristic that builders of TRNGs sometimes discuss is whether the physical phenomenon used is a quantum phenomenon or a phenomenon with chaotic behaviour. There is some disagreement about whether quantum phenomena are better or not, and oddly enough it all comes down to our beliefs about how the universe works. The key question is whether the universe is deterministic or not, i.e., whether everything that happens is essentially predetermined since the Big Bang. Determinism is a difficult subject that has been the subject of quite a lot of philosophical inquiry, and the problem is far from as clear cut as you might think. I will try and explain it here, but would also like to point out that Wikipedia has a concise account of the debate.

Quantum mechanics is a branch of theoretical physics that describes the universe at the atomic and subatomic levels. Random number generators based on quantum physics use the fact that subatomic particles appear to behave randomly in certain circumstances. There appears to be nothing we know of that causes these events, and they are therefore believed by many to be nondeterministic.

In comparison, chaotic systems are those in which tiny changes in the initial conditions can result in dramatic changes of the overall behaviour of the system. Weather systems are a good example of this, and you may have heard of the butterfly effect, a thought experiment in which a butterfly beating its wings in Brazil is able to affect the winds subtly but critically, just enough to cause a tornado in Texas.

Proponents of random number generators of the quantum variety argue that quantum physics is inherently nondeterministic, whereas systems governed by physics are essentially deterministic. I am personally undecided as to where I stand on the determinism-nondeterminism scale, but for the sake of argument, I will put on my determinist hat and use RANDOM.ORG as an example. You could argue that the atmospheric noise used as a source for the RANDOM.ORG numbers can be viewed as a chaotic but deterministic system. Hence, if you knew enough about the processes that cause atmospheric noise (e.g., thunderstorms) you could potentially predict the numbers generated by RANDOM.ORG.

However, to do this, you would probably need knowledge of the position and velocity of every single molecule in the planet's weather systems. This is of course infeasible, and the inaccuracy of weather forecasts is a good example of how difficult it is to give even a rough estimate of the behaviour of weather systems. For this reason, it is impractical to predict random numbers from RANDOM.ORG, even for a determinist. A similar case (on a different scale) could be made for random number generators based on lava lamps.

Now, you may think that since there's dispute about the suitability of chaotic phenomena for generating randomness, then why not just stick with quantum physics? That would seem to be the safe bet. However, quantum generators aren't safe from critique either. Hard determinists will dispute that subatomic particle behaviour is really random and instead claim that the way they behave is exactly as predetermined as everything else in the universe has been since the Big Bang. The reason we think these specific particles behave randomly is simply that no human measurement has been able to account for their behaviour. In this view, subatomic events do indeed have a prior cause, but we just don't understand it (yet), and the events therefore seem random to us. To a hard determinist, quantum physics is exactly as suited for random number generation as is atmospheric noise or lava lamps.

This is only one possible argument, and there are many others. When it comes down to it, I think the most meaningful definition of randomness is that which cannot be predicted by humans. Whether randomness originates from unpredictable weather systems, lava lamps or subatomic particle events is largely academic. While quantum random number generators can certainly generate true random numbers, it seems to me that they for all intents and purposes are equivalent to approaches based on complex dynamical systems.

Here you can see the link between randomness and causation more clearly, I hope.

apeiron

Jul18-10, 10:55 PM

Again, this link deals with the misunderstandings people are having here completely: http://www.random.org/randomness/

Yeah that link really clears things up :rolleyes:

Proponents of random number generators of the quantum variety argue that quantum physics is inherently nondeterministic, whereas systems governed by physics are essentially deterministic. I am personally undecided as to where I stand on the determinism-nondeterminism scale, but for the sake of argument, I will put on my determinist hat and use RANDOM.ORG as an example.....

Hard determinists will dispute that subatomic particle behaviour is really random and instead claim that the way they behave is exactly as predetermined as everything else in the universe has been since the Big Bang. The reason we think these specific particles behave randomly is simply that no human measurement has been able to account for their behaviour. In this view, subatomic events do indeed have a prior cause, but we just don't understand it (yet), and the events therefore seem random to us. To a hard determinist, quantum physics is exactly as suited for random number generation as is atmospheric noise or lava lamps. This is only one possible argument, and there are many others....

Well which is then? Does QM argue for ontic randomness - as in uncaused events - or merely epistemic? Are you a hard determinist, or in some other camp as apparently there are many others?

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 11:00 PM

Yeah that link really clears things up :rolleyes:

Well which is then? Does QM argue for ontic randomness - as in uncaused events - or merely epistemic? Are you a hard determinist, or in some other camp as apparently there are many others?

I believe it's a matter of your interpretation of QM (QM being the observation). My assumption is that most quantum physicists are determinists.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:14 PM

I believe it's a matter of your interpretation of QM (QM being the observation). My assumption is that most quantum physicists are determinists. Really? It seems clear to me that someone who accepts QM must not be a determinist!

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 11:18 PM

Well, my sample size is small, but my QM professor taught it as a determinist.

Fuzzystuff

Jul18-10, 11:19 PM

I still don't think we could account for everything and measure something so precisely, so perfectly, that mother nature reveals all of her secrets to us. The ones that appear to our observations and measurements, the unknown, and to give it all cause. Top-down or Bottom-up.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:19 PM

Yeah that link really clears things up :rolleyes: What that link best makes clear is the proper framing of the question. There are still matters of opinion in there, but it clearly explains the positions and the definitions. That's the main purpose of the link. Well which is then? Does QM argue for ontic randomness - as in uncaused events - or merely epistemic? Are you a hard determinist, or in some other camp as apparently there are many others? I wouldn't call a nuclear decay an "uncaused event". What it is is an event who'se exact timing cannot be determined: it is random/non-deterministic and governed by probability.

I would have thought it was clear from my other posts that I see physics - particularly QM - as being absolutely positively non-deterministic. The only way to be a scientist and be deterministic is to believe there is another yet-to-be-discovered theory/law governing these events that currently appear random. That seems unlikely.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:20 PM

Well, my sample size is small, but my QM professor taught it as a determinist.
That seems very odd to me: how did he reconcile the HUP with determinism?

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:29 PM

From the wiki on QM: The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanical formalism most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is not a temporary feature which will eventually be replaced by a deterministic theory, but instead must be considered to be a final renunciation of the classical ideal of causality. That makes it pretty clear that most physicist studying QM consider QM - and the universe - to be non-deterministic.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 11:30 PM

It was a she. SelfAdjoint (R.I.P.) was apparently a determinist too:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127525

Anyway the point is not that there is no cause, but that we can never know what the cause was (which is where the probability comes in).

I don't think QM unseats determinism. It's a statement about what we can know, fundamentally, no matter how good technology gets. One could follow form that that the universe is undeterministic, but it's an extra step (and not a large one).

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:35 PM

It was a she. SelfAdjoint (R.I.P.) was apparently a determinist too:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127525 It isn't clear to me that SA is actually saying there that he's a determinist.

Anyway the point is not that there is no cause, but that we can never know what the cause was (which is where the probability comes in). Why can't we know the cause? Aren't we smart enough?
I don't think QM unseats determinism. It's a statement about what we can know, fundamentally, no matter how good technology gets. One could follow form that that the universe is undeterministic, but it's an extra step (and not a large one). So.... you're saying that there's a deterministic law of physics that we can never know? Why? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Further, why bother with making the distinction? If it is fundamentally impossible to know the answer to a question, then how is that functionally different from the answer not existing? That seems like a pure religious belief to me.

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:41 PM

It isn't clear to me that SA is actually saying there that he's a determinist. Ok, I found a better quote: My point was that if you assume the UP is epistemic, i.e "We can't observe the particle perfectly because our observation disturbs it", this ignores the possibility that we could, perhaps using entanglement as Einstein, Posolski, and Rosen suggested, observe it without disturbing it. He's saying that the HUP is a technological limitation, not actually a fundamental principle. I would argue that that is neither the intent of the HUP nor the prevailing view (as per the quote above). It's basically a religious belief.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 11:48 PM

It isn't clear to me that SA is actually saying there that he's a determinist.
Why can't we know the cause? Aren't we smart enough?
So.... you're saying that there's a deterministic law of physics that we can never know? Why? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Further, why bother with making the distinction? If it is fundamentally impossible to know the answer to a question, then how is that functionally different from the answer not existing? That seems like a pure religious belief to me.

sA pointed to causality and indicated that QM does not lack causation, but that we can't determine the source of causation. This is the heart of the discussion, no? Determinism relies on causation.

And no, I'm not saying there's deterministic law of physics we can never know, the CI interpretation of QM says that.

I think a new framework will eventually be developed, that, just like QM did with CM, will match QM in the limit, and we'll go "oohhhh!"

russ_watters

Jul18-10, 11:49 PM

So basically, it comes down to accepting/believing one of the following two ideas:

1. Current scientific theory incorporates non-deterministic/random/probabilistic concepts. IOW, randomness exists and is adequately dealt with in scientific theory. This theory has so far been spectacularly successful in making accurate predictions.

2. There are other laws (currently unknown) governing the universe that explain events that currently appear to be random. If we can find these, we'll have a deterministic explanation for how the universe works. If these laws are inherrently unfindable, then this view is functionally equvalent to #1 and believing it without evidence therefore is a religious viewpoint, not a scientific one.

"Supernatural" is unnecessary for either of these ideas.

If #1 is correct - and again, all available theory and evidence says it is - then "random" is real. If #2 is correct, then nothing really is random - it just appears random because we don't know what's going on behind the clock face.

Pythagorean

Jul18-10, 11:52 PM

Ok, I found a better quote: He's saying that the HUP is a technological limitation, not actually a fundamental principle. I would argue that that is neither the intent of the HUP nor the prevailing view (as per the quote above). It's basically a religious belief.

I agree with you, here.

And, btw, my mind isn't made up about determinism in QM. But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 12:00 AM

Note again, what's being descirbed in this thread is just relatively simple misunderstandings about how the universe operates and what the implications of randomness are. Again, this link deals with the misunderstandings people are having here completely: http://www.random.org/randomness/

Not only does that link not deal with the misunderstandings "completely" it simply reiterates the misunderstandings themselves -- in short the author offers no understanding but only a boat load of platitudes, culminating in no useful definition of "random" whatever.

That is not particularly surprising since no one else on this planet has formulated a satisfactory physical definition of "random" either. Thus you are stuck with either the everyday definition which is neither testable nor scientifically useful or else you are stuck with the mathematical treatment which also is not testable.

What the mathematical treatment does offer is a rather detailed theory of probability and stochastic processes, suitable for use in physical models. However, the connection between the models and the physical processes being described lies solely in the apparent empirical connection between predictions and observations. Again this is not surprising as the connection between mathematics and physics of necessity lies solely in the empirical evidence. There is no particular reason why mathematics should be as effective as it apparently is -- see Eugen Wigner's essay "The Unreasonable Success of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

There is no misunderstanding as to how the universe operates, although there is the possibility of ignorance. So far as anyone knows, the physical processes of the universe, other than those concerning gravity, are governed by one or another quantum field theory and those theories are inherently stochastic. So, insofar as our current understanding of
physics goes, the universe is indeed governed by probabilistic laws. However, and the mechanism behind this is not fully understood, at the macroscopic level the stochastic laws of quantum theory give way to predictions that are apparently deterministic. This may well be due to the law of large numbers, but again the research in this area is incomplete -- if you like "Google" the subjects of "quantum decoherence" or "collapse of the wave function".

The author of your link gives a rather superficial treatment of the relationship between quantum theory, probability, and macroscopic phenomena. But the bottom line is that, according to the best available theory, radioactive decay is actually a stochastic process. Thus his counter-arguments to the efficacy of radioactive decay as a means of generation of random numbers relies on decidedly speculative physical theories. Those specualtions may or may not eventually prove valid, but at this juncture there is not the slightest experimental evidence for them.

Of course you can always take the philosophical approach, ignore the science and mathematics, and just talk. That seems to be what is going on here.

apeiron

Jul19-10, 12:01 AM

I wouldn't call a nuclear decay an "uncaused event". What it is is an event who'se exact timing cannot be determined: it is random/non-deterministic and governed by probability.

I would have thought it was clear from my other posts that I see physics - particularly QM - as being absolutely positively non-deterministic. The only way to be a scientist and be deterministic is to believe there is another yet-to-be-discovered theory/law governing these events that currently appear random. That seems unlikely.

If a decay is not uncaused, then does that mean you believe it is caused?

Your wording is very unclear here as you make an ontic statement, then qualify it with epistemological facts (an observer lacks the necessary information, must rely on probablistic modelling, etc).

And if you really believe in ontic randomness, then surely this in turn does justify deeper enquiry into our deterministic conception of physical law, which you seem to agree is the basis of standard science.

My argument here has been 1) QM is hard evidence for something like ontic randomness, 2) to then say nothing further leaves the door open to woo-woo talk about supernatural causation, 3) we can in fact look to other models of causality which reframe both determinism and randomness as global constraint and local spontaneity.

And I have seen no arguments yet against a Peircean approach.

russ_watters

Jul19-10, 12:04 AM

But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.
That is the point! Certain things can be known, certain things can be predicted as a matter of probability and certain things are just random number generators we're playing with (which is why they are used as random number generators!). QM tells us which is which and how to properly deal with each.

Pythagorean

Jul19-10, 12:07 AM

That is the point! Certain things can be known, certain things can be predicted as a matter of probability and certain things are just random number generators we're playing with (which is why they are used as random number generators!). QM tells us which is which and how to properly deal with each.

So then, you mean to say that QM has both deterministic and non-deterministic elements? And the question of determinism and applying it to the whole universe is fundamentally flawed? This isn't much different from naive classical mechanics.

russ_watters

Jul19-10, 12:08 AM

If a decay is not uncaused, then does that mean you believe it is caused.
Lets take it slow:

QM can predict that a decay will happen.

QM can predict a probability distribution of when it might happen.

QM cannot predict exactly when it will happen.

russ_watters

Jul19-10, 12:09 AM

Not only does that link not deal with the misunderstandings "completely" it simply reiterates the misunderstandings themselves -- in short the author offers no understanding but only a boat load of platitudes, culminating in no useful definition of "random" whatever.....
For all that, I see lilttle in your post that characterizes the issue differently!

russ_watters

Jul19-10, 12:14 AM

So then, you mean to say that QM has both deterministic and non-deterministic elements? Sure - the HUP tells us that the more accurate your measurement needs, the less accurate your results. If you just need to do a rough-estimate of your weight with Newton's law, you do fine to ignore sources of error and assume it is deterministic and 100% accurate. If you need to know the position of an electron, you can't.
And the question of determinism and applying it to the whole universe is fundamentally flawed? This isn't much different from naive classical mechanics. I don't understand what you meant there, but it may be just what I said above...

...to expand a little, though, early scientists had no reason to believe they couldn't get whatever measurement accuracy they wanted - that the universe was deterministic. Their measurements weren't accurate enough to find that their measurments had a fundamental accuracy limit.

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 12:18 AM

I agree with you, here.

And, btw, my mind isn't made up about determinism in QM. But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.

QM is NOT deterministic, period.

The only thing in QM that is deterministic is the evolution of the state function, which is in fact nothing more than a deterministic evolution of probability measures.

This is basic quantum theory, whether you choose elementary quantum mechanics or quantum field theories.

The WHOLE POINT of quantum theories is that they predict only probabilities, not specific events.

Pythagorean

Jul19-10, 12:19 AM

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 12:23 AM

For all that, I see lilttle in your post that characterizes the issue differently!

Then read more deeply. Not seeing it is not the same as it not being there.

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 12:32 AM

Sure - the HUP tells us that the more accurate your measurement needs, the less accurate your results. If you just need to do a rough-estimate of your weight with Newton's law, you do fine to ignore sources of error and assume it is deterministic and 100% accurate. If you need to know the position of an electron, you can't.
I don't understand what you meant there, but it may be just what I said above...

...to expand a little, though, early scientists had no reason to believe they couldn't get whatever measurement accuracy they wanted - that the universe was deterministic. Their measurements weren't accurate enough to find that their measurments had a fundamental accuracy limit.

What the uncertainty principle really says is that if you prepare a whole bunch of particles, lets say electrons, in the same way and then do a series of measurements on those electrons, say measuring position, that if you perform the measurements so as to produce a small variance in the positin measurement then the variance in a measurement of the momentum will become large. This is not surprising since the position and momentum are related via the Fourier transform.

There is no inherent accuracy limit to the position measurement itself, just to the ability to measure both an observable (here position) and its complement (here momentum).

But the real heart of quantum mechanics is that phenomena are not deterministic, but rather are actually stochastic. For instance consider a tunnel diode. Classically no electrons should be able to cross the potential energy barrier. In actuallity some, but not all, electrons pass across the barrier. Quantum theory can predict the relative frequency with which this occurs, but it cannot predict whether any given electron will cross the barrier or not. QM is fundamentally stochastic.

BTW the weight example is a bad example. We don't have a quantum theory that applies to gravitational effects.

jostpuur

Jul19-10, 03:36 AM

So you believe that you have a definition for what "random" actually means?

(So rigor definition, that it can be used to deal with these claims about randomness being supernatural.)
As I already stated, Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. The idea that any one definition of "random" supersedes all others contradicts this observation. What I am asserting is that because the context is so broad when discussing the truly random (a metaphysical idea) its meaning becomes indistinguishable from the "supernatural".

You could have admitted that you believe that you have some definition for (true) randomness.

Obviously you have some definition for (true) randomness, because you also wrote this:

Something that is truly random, and not merely unpredictable, by definition does not follow any natural laws.

My guess is that you are trying to avoid revealing your definition for (true) randomness, because if you told your definition too clearly, it would become too evident that your original claim was nearly the same thing as your definition.

That means that you have defined the meaning of the concept "true randomness" so that it is supernatural, and then you have arrived at the result that true randomness is supernatural.

The problem with that is that not everybody agrees with your definition for "true randomness". When you distract the discussion away from the definition, the argument becomes endless.

You should have merely stated that you have an intuitive feeling that randomness is supernatural. Then people would not have attacked you. I believe I understand this intuitive feeling, but I'm not pretending that I had a rigour justification for it.

Now... this:

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural.

I don't think that this should be dismissed as obviously incorrect. Consider the following possibilities:

1: It could be, that laws of nature work as described by quantum mechanics, and then randomness is natural.

2: It could be, that real quantum mechanical events are merely pseudo random, and true randomness would be supernatural.

How could you figure out which one is true? You cannot prove that QM events are not pseudo random, by experiment. Also, it could be that we cannot really tell the difference between these two possibilities, because it is too difficult to come up with sufficient definitions for randomness and pseudo randomness.

apeiron

Jul19-10, 06:13 AM

Lets take it slow:

QM can predict that a decay will happen.

QM can predict a probability distribution of when it might happen.

QM cannot predict exactly when it will happen.

OK, we can take it real slow. All the above are epistemological statements - predictions and measurements of a model.

Now what about the ontology that may be correctly inferred? Your posts have all had an air of naive realism - how things seem is how they are, it really is that simple.

A scientist, on pragmatic grounds, can correctly say I know the model works, and so far as anything else, I take the fifth amendment.

But this was a philosophical thread asking for reasonable inferences about the reality behind the models.

So the actual question you would have to address is, if QM suggests that events can have an essential spontaneity, how can we make sense of that?

Obviously, if we believe in ontic determinism/locality, then it does not make sense. But equally, the opposite choice of causeless events (or more correctly, events lacking in efficient causes) is not an attractive one. So at that point we are justified to look to new ontic frameworks, which is where the philosophy would start and the questions get interesting.

wuliheron

Jul19-10, 08:14 AM

You could have admitted that you believe that you have some definition for (true) randomness.

Obviously you have some definition for (true) randomness, because you also wrote this:

This is not my definition, read the original post:

Just to help define what random is Dictionary.com states that it is:

"–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers."

But does random truely exist?
For example the roll of dice is usually referred to as random, but really there are tons of factors that control the result of a roll. Air resistance, friction for the surface the dice land on, how the dice are thrown, their starting position, etc...
In the game of craps, there are people who can actually change the probability of rolling certain combinations of numbers; obviously they are tampering with the factors to change the result.

Is random merely a term dubbed for scenarios too complex for us to break down and predict, or does random exist?

This is not only the dictionary definition, it is the definition requested by the original poster!

Pythagorean

Jul19-10, 01:44 PM

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 01:56 PM

Russ and DrRocket,

I finally found a thread in which ZapperZ and sA responded in more a more coherent way than the previous example.

My interpretation is this:

0) firstly, philosophical determinism and scientific determinism are two different things (just like the problem with "random").

1) QM is completely scientifically deterministic. The conditions are determined by the state of the system. Different systems will exhibit different behaviors. This is determinism!

2) No physicist will comment on whether the system is philosophically deterministic, because each philosopher (untrained in either the formalism or experimental experience with quantum systems) has their own preconceptions about what deterministic means.

I agree with 0 and 2.

QM is not detereministic. Is it stochastic. In fact the lack of determinism of QM is one of the major stumbling blocks in unifying general relativity with quantum theories.

What is true about QM is that the evolution of the state function is deterministic. At the elementary level that is the implication of the Schrodinger equation.

However, the state function does not determine the events of the system but only the probabilities associated with the various possible outcomes. What is evolving deterministically is a set of probability measures, which is what the state function represents.

The outcome of quantum experiments varies, even with identical conditions. It varies according to the probabilities predicted by the state function for whatever observables are of interest. That is obviously not deterministic. It is in fact the ony example in nature of which I am aware in which probability is fundamenatal and not just an ad hoc model used due to ignorance of the details of the physics.

The fact that macroscopic physics appears to be deterministic is not the issue. This transition from the quantum mechanical to the classical is only partially understood, and is usually explained in terms of "collapse of the wave function" in the Copenhagen interpretation and is also studied under the name of "quantum decoherence" in other circles. It may well be just a manifestation of the law of large numbers, and in my opinion that is most likely the case.

There are also some research avenues being pursued that attempt to find a deterministic model that would still yield the observed quantum effects. This despite the most common interpretation of Bell's theorem which is that hidden variable theories are not viable. The thought there is that the assumptions of Bell's theorem may be erroneous. There are relatively few physicists who are willing to entertain this idea, but among them are Gerardus 'tHooft and there is not a better theorist, particularly with regard to quantum theories, on this planet. Whether this pans out or not is anyone's guess. However, the very existence of this line of inquiry illustrates the stochastic nature of quantum theories.

At the most fundamental level quantum theory is quite obviously stochastic. That is a dead nuts certainty. Any contrary opinion is just plain wrong. Any contrary theoretical approach to mainstream quantum field theories is speculative.

It occurs to me that you may be comingling the notions of "causa"l and "determinism". While the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic is clear, the question of causality is not. Causality is not so clear precisely because quantum theory is stochastic. I would agree that physicists are reluctant to address this question, and I am in that camp myself.

Pythagorean

Jul19-10, 02:19 PM

I agree with 0 and 2.

QM is not detereministic. Is it stochastic. In fact the lack of determinism of QM is one of the major stumbling blocks in unifying general relativity with quantum theories.

What is true about QM is that the evolution of the state function is deterministic. At the elementary level that is the implication of the Schrodinger equation.

However, the state function does not determine the events of the system but only the probabilities associated with the various possible outcomes. What is evolving deterministically is a set of probability measures, which is what the state function represents.

The outcome of quantum experiments varies, even with identical conditions. It varies according to the probabilities predicted by the state function for whatever observables are of interest. That is obviously not deterministic. It is in fact the ony example in nature of which I am aware in which probability is fundamenatal and not just an ad hoc model used due to ignorance of the details of the physics.

The fact that macroscopic physics appears to be deterministic is not the issue. This transition from the quantum mechanical to the classical is only partially understood, and is usually explained in terms of "collapse of the wave function" in the Copenhagen interpretation and is also studied under the name of "quantum decoherence" in other circles. It may well be just a manifestation of the law of large numbers, and in my opinion that is most likely the case.

There are also some research avenues being pursued that attempt to find a deterministic model that would still yield the observed quantum effects. This despite the most common interpretation of Bell's theorem which is that hidden variable theories are not viable. The thought there is that the assumptions of Bell's theorem may be erroneous. There are relatively few physicists who are willing to entertain this idea, but among them are Gerardus 'tHooft and there is not a better theorist, particularly with regard to quantum theories, on this planet. Whether this pans out or not is anyone's guess. However, the very existence of this line of inquiry illustrates the stochastic nature of quantum theories.

At the most fundamental level quantum theory is quite obviously stochastic. That is a dead nuts certainty. Any contrary opinion is just plain wrong. Any contrary theoretical approach to mainstream quantum field theories is speculative.

It occurs to me that you may be comingling the notions of "causa"l and "determinism". While the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic is clear, the question of causality is not. Causality is not so clear precisely because quantum theory is stochastic. I would agree that physicists are reluctant to address this question, and I am in that camp myself.

I changed 1) to remove "completely" but you were too quick, so you caught my absolute thinking (which was an error). I think we agree now, even on 1).

The miscommunication comes from determinism, I think. You may have been interpreting my use of the word determinism as similar to the religious notion of determinism, which has roots in "predeterminism" which would say something like "all events are already determined".

But this is not what I'm saying. 1), Scientific determinism refers to the ability to write laws about something, and for them to be more or less true. i.e. we can determine things about the universe. It's not exhaustive, like the religious definition, all outcomes are not predetermined.

Let's look at the tunneling microscope example. This is useful to us. Let's say we set up a finite potential well of some shape such that each electron in a stream has a 5% chance of tunneling. Then we know for every million electrons we drive through it, 50k of them will tunnel. We have determined something about the system that we can exploit and manipulate. There is obviously a chain of causality here, somehow, even though it evades our intuition.

DrRocket

Jul19-10, 03:03 PM

But this is not what I'm saying. 1), Scientific determinism refers to the ability to write laws about something, and for them to be more or less true. i.e. we can determine things about the universe. It's not exhaustive, like the religious definition, all outcomes are not predetermined.

If that is your definition then Ok, but that is not how the term is used in science.

The scientific defintion of determinism is actually like the religious definition. It does back to Newtonian mechanics and the observation of LaPlace that were one to have complete knowledge of the state of the universe at any particular point in time then all future events are predicted by applicatoin of Newton's laws of motion. Newtonian mechanics is deterministic. So is general relativity. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.

Pythagorean

Jul19-10, 03:29 PM

I think they're quite different. Scientific determinism, or causal determinism is about a causal chain. Were getting into ontology vs epistemology at this point. We can only speculate about the causality so far. We can't 'determine' some things about causality with QM but this is not what causal determination is about. You've given your interpretation, for instance, that reality is fundentally numbers? I think? CI uses wave collapse, but there's no concrete physical mechanism for it, so it avoids a discussion on causality.

Anyway, I don't think determinism has changed with QM so much as we've had to change the definition of causality, which affects the definition of causal determinism, since the classical view is insufficient. I also assume QM will eventually be 1up'd, and the underlying reality will be better understood with time and discovery. This is how paradoxes are solved!

Anyway, my question is how does a probabilistic basis undermine causality?

Pythagorean

Jul20-10, 12:30 AM

Here's an interesting journalism read based on an interview with experimentalists, Conway and Kochen:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F

That makes compelling arguments for non-determinism. There are comments from determinists as well.

unusualname

Jul20-10, 05:54 PM

DrRocket has the most appealing argument in this thread, for me.

Obviously we can't know for certain whether random exists, but we need it for free-will, so I'm betting random exists, and at a granularity that evolution could make use of, so at (molecular) particle level (not sub-planckian etc).

It's not so friggin bad you know :smile:

SW VandeCarr

Jul20-10, 06:52 PM

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is "beyond natural law".

You can make some mathematically justified statements about an infinite 'truly' random sequence that you can't justify for other infinite sequences. For example: A truly random infinite sequence of digits must contain every finite digit sequence.

The proof is straightforward: For any arbitrarily large finite digit sequence within an infinite random digit sequence, the probability of some finite ordered sequence of n digits is 10^{-n}. No matter how large n is, the probability can never be zero. Therefore, any finite sequence that is possible in an infinite random sequence must occur.

By definition, this cannot be said of any infinite digit sequence that is not truly random.

EDIT:You may not consider some mathematical concepts to be "real" or justified (for example, if you are a strict constructivist) , but to say such concepts are "supernatural" is nonsense.

JoeDawg

Jul20-10, 10:06 PM

Anyway, I don't think determinism has changed with QM so much as we've had to change the definition of causality, which affects the definition of causal determinism, since the classical view is insufficient. I also assume QM will eventually be 1up'd, and the underlying reality will be better understood with time and discovery.

I agree with this. I think conceptually it follows like this:

Newtonian Mechanics->Causation->Determinism->Freewill

The further along you get the less well understood.
Unfortunately, its even worse in terms of modern physics.
We don't really have an understanding of what is described by QM.

Quantum Mechanics->(entanglement??)
Cosmic Mechanics->(dark matter,dark energy???)

I don't think you can really draw much of anything in the way of conclusions about free will from either of these, because they just aren't working on the same level, both in relation to scale and conceptually.

When Newton described gravity he was accused of describing 'action at a distance', because no one understood how an object could affect another one without being in the same region of space. Until Einstein it was all just observation and math.... no theory.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 03:17 PM

By an "event with no cause" I mean one that has no preceding event with which it can be unambiguously mathematically linked.

This is not so difficult to imagine, eg at a space-time singularity, what comes out the other side has no preceding event associated with it in this sense.

If you get non-continuous phenomena or singularities, then the usual causal model's can't apply.

So quantum events might just be the outcomes of plank scale black holes evaporating and their associated singularity, or something similar.

Random just requires a singularity in the mathematical model, certainly nothing supernatural.

GeorgCantor

Jul21-10, 03:48 PM

wuliheron

Jul21-10, 04:12 PM

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'Supernatural', because there is no 'natural' explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.

I'd add that merely defining something as a "singularity" does not mean ipso facto that it is not supernatural. Thus far there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that infinity exists in nature much less singularities and, personally, I can't imagine how one might go about proving their existence.

In his famous Scientific American article on how black holes evaporate Stephen Hawking noted that a black hole could spontaneously emit a color TV or the complete works of Proust just by virtue of how random it is. One person might describe such an event as merely random, while another might describe it as supernatural and both could be correct. To assert that this can only occur with a singularity neither defines singularities as "natural" nor their products.

SMERSH

Jul21-10, 04:17 PM

Interesting discussion. A few thoughts.

By "random" I assume the definition of an event or events without a "cause" to such an event.

I think if there exists ANY such "random" events without cause then logical induction implies the idea that ANY imaginable (or unimaginable) event is not only possible, but must occur - the genie is effectively out of the bottle so to speak and everything collapses.

Let's imagine a universe ( A type universe ) in which everything has a cause (random does not exist). The "phase space" or possible states of such a universe is effectively "closed", there are certain states of such a universe that are simply impossible because the chain of events could not possibly lead to such a state.

Let's now imagine a universe ( B type universe ) in which NOT everything has a cause, there truly is a "wiggle" room somewhere for some event or events to occur outside of the chain of causality. Immediately, I think this creates an open "phase space" of possible states since such uncaused events can trigger an ever larger chain reaction of larger events that dramatically alter the state of the universe into an infinite vareity of possible states - anything is possible in such a universe.

Not only will random events in such a B type universe by definition be "outside" any framework of laws in this universe (since they are uncaused), but these events could then in turn cause a chain of events such that whatever laws exist in the B type universe are inconsistent.

For example in the B universe A causes B causes C by some given law in universe type B. Random event D occurs which prevents A from causing B. All of a sudden the causal chain in this universe is broken - that means the law of that universe is broken or inconsistent.

For any given law in a B type universe, the same scenario would exist as stated in the prior paragraph so such a B type universe would have NO universal laws - and randomness seems to take over everything in such a universe by inductive logic - like some kind of virus.

Is such a B type universe even possible and logically coherent? Perhaps Einstein had a point when he difficulty with such a universe when he said "God does not play dice"... this idea seems to lead to total chaos.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 04:20 PM

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'Supernatural', because there is no 'natural' explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. Everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs on these questions. People seldomly appreciate what to exist or to be means.

By "supernatural" I usually assume people mean stuff that can't ever be explained by physics/mathematics.

Since random can come out the other end of a black-hole singularity it doesn't need to be "supernatural".

I'm only suggesting that quantum mechanics can have a truly random nature without huge leaps of imagination into the "supernatural", though obviously planck-scale black holes evaporating is a wildly speculative guess. :smile:

Pythagorean

Jul21-10, 04:25 PM

I'd add that merely defining something as a "singularity" does not mean ipso facto that it is not supernatural. Thus far there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that infinity exists in nature much less singularities and, personally, I can't imagine how one might go about proving their existence.

In his famous Scientific American article on how black holes evaporate Stephen Hawking noted that a black hole could spontaneously emit a color TV or the complete works of Proust just by virtue of how random it is. One person might describe such an event as merely random, while another might describe it as supernatural and both could be correct. To assert that this can only occur with a singularity neither defines singularities as "natural" nor their products.

Well, I agree with you in the ideal case, but I think "singularities" in physics are already taken to be ideals. So a real singularity will just involve really big numbers (i.e. a large amount of mass in a small amount of space). Not necissarily an inifinite amount of mass existing in 0 space.

But I agree, infinite doesn't seem to exist in nature.

Pinu7

Jul21-10, 04:37 PM

John Baez would answer the OP with 'yes.' His argument (the Bayesian interpretation) can be found here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

Personally, I believe the opposite since an empirical description of the universe need no notion of 'pure randomness.' All of it is statistical.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 04:37 PM

GeorgCantor

Jul21-10, 04:39 PM

But I agree, infinite doesn't seem to exist in nature.

Einstein disagrees with you:

"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

GeorgCantor

Jul21-10, 04:45 PM

Singularities are not a big deal, they just occur in certain mathematical models.

They are not?? Quantum gravity is a piece of cake for you?

If we describe the world by mathematics then we should accept singularities, and that what comes out the other side can not be causally related to what preceded it.

What is it that 'comes out the other side'? And what is "the other side"?

If you were alluding to the term 'Hawking radiation', it's still just a hypothesis/guess.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 05:01 PM

They are not?? Quantum gravity is a piece of cake for you?

No, of course not, we haven't worked out how to deal with singularities yet, what I mean is their occurrence is natural in our mathematical models, there's nothing "supernatural" in explaining their occurrence

What is it that 'comes out the other side'? And what is "the other side"?

If you were alluding to the term 'Hawking radiation', it's still just a hypothesis/guess.

What comes out the other side is a new event unrelated mathematically to anything that preceded it, hence it's random.

I have no idea how to explain the possible selection mechanism this "new event" will undertake, other than to say it is "random". Something I do believe is that human consciousness allows for influencing the "selection" of certain quantum events, which allows us free-will, but I don't want to sound like a crank by expounding any further, thanks.

apeiron

Jul21-10, 05:09 PM

Is such a B type universe even possible and logically coherent? Perhaps Einstein had a point when he difficulty with such a universe when he said "God does not play dice"... this idea seems to lead to total chaos.

This is why I would take a different approach (the Peircean approach) postulating that reality is fundamentally free, but self-organises through the development of global constraints.

So anything could happen (there is this essential spontaneity where things can happen without cause). But then all this free action must lead to some kind of interaction. One kind of random fluctuation will have an impact on all the others. And out of this mutual interaction must arise some global state. This global state will then have a downwards causal effect - it will act as a constraining context, actively limiting the free fluctuations.

So reality is both fundamentally free (spontaneous) and yet this in turn must produce self-organising constraints that in fact fundamentally limit the expression of this freedom.

Sounds like QM and decoherence to me. And it gives us back what we can recognise as both the random and determined - local limited fluctuations and globally classical organisation.

GeorgCantor

Jul21-10, 05:09 PM

No, of course not, we haven't worked out how to deal with singularities yet, what I mean is their occurrence is natural in our mathematical models, there's nothing "supernatural" in explaining their occurrence.

Right now i believe there are at least 1000 gifted phd's and Nobel Prize winners working day and night to remove this most 'natural' occurence in the mathematics.

What comes out the other side is a new event unrelated mathematically to anything that preceded it, hence it's random.

There is no other side. Hollywood movies suck.

wuliheron

Jul21-10, 05:27 PM

Well, I agree with you in the ideal case, but I think "singularities" in physics are already taken to be ideals. So a real singularity will just involve really big numbers (i.e. a large amount of mass in a small amount of space). Not necissarily an inifinite amount of mass existing in 0 space.

But I agree, infinite doesn't seem to exist in nature.

In either case, what occurs is that the laws of nature as we know them break down. You could argue that some other laws may still apply, but that is entirely speculative and still doesn't mean that those laws actually apply in our universe. Thus, at the very least, we can still say it is supernatural within the context that it does not follow the laws of nature in our universe.

Singularities are not a big deal, they just occur in certain mathematical models. If we describe the world by mathematics then we should accept singularities, and that what comes out the other side can not be causally related to what preceded it.

Of course, you may not believe mathematics can describe the world, but that's up to you.

The issue isn't just whether the world can be described by mathematics, but exactly what mathematics describe the world and which don't. That infinity is a useful concept goes without saying, but the question remains as to whether or not it represents reality.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 05:41 PM

Right now i believe there are at least 1000 gifted phd's and Nobel Prize winners working day and night to remove this most 'natural' occurence in the mathematics.

I think that's not quite accurate, what people are trying to do is accommodate singularities in their models.

Perhaps we really should embrace them since they give us a mechanism for random in QM, and the appealing argument that, since our consciousness might actually be a quantum system, we then (uniquely in the universe) can influence the selection mechanism

The issue isn't just whether the world can be described by mathematics, but exactly what mathematics describe the world and which don't. That infinity is a useful concept goes without saying, but the question remains as to whether or not it represents reality.

If you are non-spiritual then I think you will have to accept that mathematics can fully describe the universe and if singularities are predicted then singularities are what we have.

wuliheron

Jul21-10, 05:52 PM

If you are non-spiritual then I think you will have to accept that mathematics can fully describe the universe and if singularities are predicted then singularities are what we have.

No, it is quite easy to merely take the pragmatic stance without having to invoke spirituality much less any unsubtantiated metaphysical beliefs in mathematics. For me it is a moot point whether or not either one is true. What matters is merely whether they are useful.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 05:54 PM

No, it is quite easy to merely take the pragmatic stance without having to invoke spirituality much less any unsubtantiated metaphysical beliefs in mathematics. For me it is a moot point whether or not either one is true. What matters is merely whether they are useful.

well, at some stage you have to explain free-will, I've done it with a possible mathematical model, how do you explain it?

wuliheron

Jul21-10, 06:23 PM

well, at some stage you have to explain free-will, I've done it with a possible mathematical model, how do you explain it?

I wasn't aware that freewill demanded explanation.

Again, what matters is if the concept is useful and everything else takes a backseat to that simple fact of life. Thus it becomes possible to view everything in relative terms: language, quanta, freewill, or whatever without contradiction and, in the end, it is nature who plays the role of ultimate arbiter as to what is useful.

unusualname

Jul21-10, 07:01 PM

I wasn't aware that freewill demanded explanation.

Again, what matters is if the concept is useful and everything else takes a backseat to that simple fact of life. Thus it becomes possible to view everything in relative terms: language, quanta, freewill, or whatever without contradiction and, in the end, it is nature who plays the role of ultimate arbiter as to what is useful.

It certainly does demand an explanation, which boils down to, how random events might exist and how we might be able to influence them.

Well, singularities explain how they might exist, and then the fact that if we actually are a (quantum) system in which the random events occur we might be able to "choose" them. ie That's what we are - a product of evolution which allows us to choose what happens to this post-singularity event after a planck-scale black-hole collapses.

You can argue that all particles have "free-will" with this explanation but they, boringly, just do it "randomly", we have a complex emergent system out of which our desires etc arise.

wuliheron

Jul21-10, 07:23 PM

It certainly does demand an explanation, which boils down to, how random events might exist and how we might be able to influence them.

Why does freewill demand explanation? I see no compelling reason to explain freewill anymore than I might feel compelled to find out why my TV remote died. I might spend a million dollars isolating the cause, or I can simply buy a new one. Either way the end result is the same: I buy a new remote and move on.

unusualname

Jul22-10, 02:43 PM

Why does freewill demand explanation? I see no compelling reason to explain freewill anymore than I might feel compelled to find out why my TV remote died. I might spend a million dollars isolating the cause, or I can simply buy a new one. Either way the end result is the same: I buy a new remote and move on.

It depends how concerned you are with understanding the human condition.

I believe mathematics can fully describe us, but that doesn't have to imply determinism. Not only have you got the possibility of the causal chain going through a singularity you also have the possibilty that there are transitions from lower dimensions to higher dimensions in the dynamics of microscopic phenomena. At the boundary where the higher dimensions become available you have new degrees of freedom which need not have any causal mechanism which depends on the preceding lower dimensional event.

This is the philosophy section so I guess it's ok to hand-wave like this, I obviously haven't got a detailed scientific model, but with the current state of affairs in Physics all sorts of exotic models look possible :smile:

Statistical physics can explain the large scale determinism of the universe even if the microscopic particles are behaving randomly, a single particle has no mechanism to invoke "free-will" and "choose" its behaviour, but if you actually are the particle or a more complex system consisting of many particles then it seems reasonable that you might be able to influence the random selection of events.

In any case, if random doesn't exist then we have super-determinism, and that implies that everything is pretty pointless.

We don't know if random exists, but I rather hope it does, and it can be fully consistent with a mathematical model of the universe without invoking the "supernatural"