# Is there a logical way of understanding how randomness could agree with causality

Tags: agree, causality, logical, randomness
 P: 143 not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc. when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me. is there any logical way to reconcile the two?
P: 143
 Quote by jadrian not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc. when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me. is there any logical way to reconcile the two?
i guess not
PF Gold
P: 5,441
 Quote by jadrian not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc. when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me. is there any logical way to reconcile the two?
Yes, there is. It is called Bohmian Mechanics. I would recommend you reading up on it a bit, and there are several here that can help you to understand it better. I should point out that has a drawback that may or may not bother you. In the Bohmian view, causes can propagate faster than light.

P: 982
Is there a logical way of understanding how randomness could agree with causality

 Quote by jadrian not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc. when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me. is there any logical way to reconcile the two?
Keep in mind that there is no consensus that physics is derived from logic, although I know of some efforts to do so. In such an effort, causality would somehow be linked to the relationship of material implication in logic, where cause and effect is just a form of consequences from premises. Time would just be a marker to indicate where one is in a sequence of causes and effects. I suspect that uncertainty would come in because there would be multiple sequences of events that get you from one cause to some final effect. We would not be able to say that any particular path was taken, so we would be left to calculate the probabilities for various paths. Hope this helps.
P: 143
 Quote by DrChinese Yes, there is. It is called Bohmian Mechanics. I would recommend you reading up on it a bit, and there are several here that can help you to understand it better. I should point out that has a drawback that may or may not bother you. In the Bohmian view, causes can propagate faster than light.
i dont have to much of a problem with causes propagating faster than light, because to my knowledge there are tons of tiny wormholes on the quantum scale, which would allow for this, while large scale wormholes are not apparently common/spontaneously existent. that would explain why uncertainty only arises at a quantum scale in my mind. but thanks for the post. very interesting.
 P: 615 you only see randomness as wrong because you're use to the macroscopic experience of determinism If you took a completely different standpoint, say an alien from a bizare world where there is something other than randomness and determinism, then determinism and randomness are both absurd.
 P: 143 from wiki on bohmian mechanics The argument is that, because adding particles does not have an effect on the wavefunction's evolution, such particles must not have effects at all and are, thus, unobservable, since they cannot have an effect on observers. i like this interpretation, because it fits with my personal view that there is something bumping the curtain but we can never see it because we cant exit the universe, unless you like spagetti
P: 198
 Quote by jadrian not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc. when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me. is there any logical way to reconcile the two?
The point of randomness is that it isn't logical at all, there isn't an actual reason for it to occur, it just occurs, and when it occurs, it does nothing more than occur. I'm pretty sure our knowledge in QM has figured this out. The entire macroscopic world is built from randomness and chaos, we just don't see it as much because things happen to happen at a slow enough rate that we can predict where things are "probable" to be at large distances where the probability of wave-functions approach 0.
PF Gold
P: 821
 Quote by jadrian i guess not
It seems you were expecting someone to reply within the 41 mins you posted the thread and that comment. Patience is good.
 P: 143 the probability of wave-functions approach 0.[/QUOTE] so wave functions are not 100 percent probabliistic? im ok with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent likelyhood that the wavefunction is random. that could provide accurate qm predictions. maybe its asymptotic. 100 percent has serious implications.
P: 5
 Quote by jadrian not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.
Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.

Just like a shadow: it does not exist as an independent entity, but it is just absence of light.
P: 143
 Quote by friend Keep in mind that there is no consensus that physics is derived from logic, although I know of some efforts to do so. In such an effort, causality would somehow be linked to the relationship of material implication in logic, where cause and effect is just a form of consequences from premises. Time would just be a marker to indicate where one is in a sequence of causes and effects. I suspect that uncertainty would come in because there would be multiple sequences of events that get you from one cause to some final effect. We would not be able to say that any particular path was taken, so we would be left to calculate the probabilities for various paths. Hope this helps.
then why was possibly the grandest discovery in history derived from alberts logic?
P: 143
 Quote by alsor Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events. Just like a shadow: it does not exist as an independent entity, but it is just absence of light.
thats the way i feel and its about the most logically and mathematically sound statement than can be made.
P: 143
 Quote by StevieTNZ It seems you were expecting someone to reply within the 41 mins you posted the thread and that comment. Patience is good.
yes i was afraid that at 42 minutes the thread would randomly decay
P: 57
 Quote by alsor Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.
It seems people have different ideas of what the word "random" means. Personally, I don't like the definition of random as "lack of information", especially when you're talking about QM. I would define random as something which happens without cause, which I'm guessing is where the OP is coming from.
P: 143
 Quote by genericusrnme you only see randomness as wrong because you're use to the macroscopic experience of determinism If you took a completely different standpoint, say an alien from a bizare world where there is something other than randomness and determinism, then determinism and randomness are both absurd.
i dont know how many pounds of acid i would have to do to believe we have a quasiexistence
PF Gold
P: 821
 Quote by jadrian the probability of wave-functions approach 0. so wave functions are not 100 percent probabliistic? im ok with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent likelyhood that the wavefunction is random. that could provide accurate qm predictions. maybe its asymptotic. 100 percent has serious implications.
I think you've mis-understood the original statement. The wave function is what gives the probabilistic predictions for various measurement results on a quantum system. It does provide accurate QM predictions.
P: 143
 Quote by Joncon It seems people have different ideas of what the word "random" means. Personally, I don't like the definition of random as "lack of information", especially when you're talking about QM. I would define random as something which happens without cause, which I'm guessing is where the OP is coming from.
yeah ur definition of randomness is what i would call true randomness, and is why i have issues with it...particles doing things because they want to....

 Related Discussions Special & General Relativity 5 Special & General Relativity 13 Quantum Physics 42 Introductory Physics Homework 3