is there a logical way of understanding how randomness could agree with causalityby jadrian Tags: agree, causality, logical, randomness 

#19
Feb2112, 09:40 PM

P: 962





#20
Feb2212, 07:32 AM

P: 198





#21
Feb2212, 08:58 AM

P: 5

Pure statistics do not considers the reasons (methods of realisation) the observed events. Therefore, any desired statistics can be generated in many different ways. It is this 'freedom' which is revealed in the statistics as uncertainty  indeterminacy of states. 



#22
Feb2212, 11:18 AM

PF Gold
P: 290

If you view the world as some sort of solution to an equation with time as a variable, then you are stuck with this. But if you view the world as sequences of moments like frames in a movie where you set the distance zoom and the frame rate, you get a very different view of the world. Never can you simply show the orbit of a planet as a solution to an equation, but now you must do many sequental calculations over a specific time scale to calculate the orbit. You can start with Newtons law, and it works well for a view orbits. But as you zoom out on the time scale you find you must deal with the precession of Mercury and you have to add the calculations of relativity. As you zoom in on a distance scale, you start to see coulombs law break down and principles of quantum physics must be applied (ie paulis principle). You never have complete causality in this world because you can always zoom in for more detail either on a time scale or a distance scale to resolve apparent randomness. There is not a "complete" picture that will ever emerge, only an ongoing quest for knowledge. In this world, God does not play dice, but there seems to be an infinite amount of detail. 



#23
Feb2212, 01:27 PM

P: 962

I think the inherent inaccuracy comes from the fact that there may inherently be many possible sequences of events that lead from a cause to the same effect, which introduces probability from any cause to any effect. 



#24
Feb2212, 06:05 PM

P: 198





#25
Feb2212, 11:29 PM

P: 143





#26
Feb2212, 11:36 PM

P: 143





#27
Feb2212, 11:50 PM

P: 143

also irrational numbers to me just represent maths failure to model reality with100 percent certainty, also representing limits on the info we can acquire. a true perfectly curved sphere for example, may be a human intuition creation, and may not exist in reality. 



#28
Feb2312, 06:38 AM

P: 6

Yea, I'd have to say I'm with jadrian on this one. Quantum Mechanics always bugged me, especially when it's interpreted as literally random and not just an approximation.
Does anybody know any equations from Quantum Theory that may make it easier to understand (and if possible explained to someone who's extent of mathematical knowledge is calculus)? 



#29
Feb2312, 06:56 AM

P: 216

To the OP: Why do you expect randomness to conflict with causality at all?
They are two different properties and I don't see how randomness would in any way imply a failure of causality. The cause of an event can be random, but as long as the effects of that event happen after the cause there is no problem? 



#30
Feb2312, 07:22 AM

P: 198





#31
Feb2312, 11:02 AM

P: 5





#32
Feb2312, 06:12 PM

P: 198





#33
Feb2312, 07:06 PM

P: 5

Apples have more features...
The waves are a series of correlated events, not vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubleslit_experiment 



#34
Feb2312, 09:05 PM

P: 198

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) < copy and paste If you scroll to the bottom it even has some of the same words about quantum interference. 



#35
Feb2412, 06:01 PM

P: 219

In probability theory each roulette result is considered indepedent from any past events, however this assumption does not disagree with the possibility that all future events are predetermined by past events (determinism) like the orbits in an elastic collision simulator. The question is whether all events are determined by past events, or a human has the freedom to choose more than one choices like an elastic collision simulator where the future orbits of the spheres are not determined by the past orbits because some balls can choose to go up or down instead of the otherwise predetermined down orbit. Double slit experiment indicated nothing more than determinism, because indeed it's impossible to predict where each next "electron" or "photon" (dot on the film) will appear, but after many dots appear, the wave interference tossils shape on the film. So, quantum seems a little useless to answer the question, it's better to think on it supposing that where the roulette ball landed, was determined from the moment it left the hand of the dealer (which is rather false), and then wonder, was that dealer's choice predetermined by the events that took place an hour ago?




#36
Feb2412, 10:03 PM

P: 198

I suppose at this point there just isn't enough evidence to really determined it's either, but so far there is no evidence that there is actually something that determines with 100% certainty where particles move and where everything will ultimately end up, and since there's nothing determining them, things are free to happen in random orders as far as our evidence shows. You'd also have to consider how probability dies how, but also how force and energy distribute through an object. At macroscopic distances, particles don't really appear and disappear much because their wave function's die down at those distances. However, the exchange of energy and force happens on a molecular levels and so how energy and forces distribute is still random with areas of probability. As far as our consciousness goes, we don't really know if it occupies the classical realm or the macroscopic realm or really what it is, so it's hard to say how it effects things. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
can someone please explain to me how randomness is possible constrained by causality  Special & General Relativity  5  
better understanding of causality  Special & General Relativity  13  
quantum randomness vs. "dice randomness"  Quantum Physics  42  
Would you agree  Introductory Physics Homework  3 