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

Tags: agree, causality, logical, randomness
P: 982
 Quote by jadrian then why was possibly the grandest discovery in history derived from alberts logic?
Reality is the ultimate arbiter between theories. And it was not clear from the beginning how one could derive physics from logic. So we have settled on using a trial and error method for finding mathematics for curve fitting the data from experiment. Thus our theories are contingent on future experiments not falsifying them. So we can never really know, by this method, that a theory is true beyond all doubt. The ONLY way to derive a TOE beyond all argument is to derive it from logic, the very rules of argument themselves.
P: 198
 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.
That's what I use to think when I was maybe 10-12, but some things just actually don't occur for a reason as well as the fact that there may be infinite factors or infinite levels of determinism making things on any specific level not deterministic or strictly incalculable with 100% accuracy, possibly because of fractal symmetry which mathematically goes on infinitely or an infinitely large universe. As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.
P: 5
 Quote by questionpost As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.
Of course, because QM is a statistical model only.
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.
PF Gold
P: 294
 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?
You are suggesting that if there is no randomness then there must be complete causality. I would disagree.

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.
P: 982
 Quote by edguy99 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.
This is resting uncertainty on the inability of humans to measure accurately. This does not address what might in theory be uncertain. It's imaginable that there be a theory which IS exact except we cannot practically calculate to an infinite degress of accuracy nor measure with an infinite degree of accuracy, even though the theory itself might be infinitely accurate.

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.
P: 198
 Quote by alsor Of course, because QM is a statistical model only. 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.
A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position. As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality.

 Quote by friend This is resting uncertainty on the inability of humans to measure accurately. This does not address what might in theory be uncertain. It's imaginable that there be a theory which IS exact except we cannot practically calculate to an infinite degress of accuracy nor measure with an infinite degree of accuracy, even though the theory itself might be infinitely accurate. 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.
Have you ever heard of irrational numbers? Well it's sort of impossible to have 100% accuracy with those around.
P: 143
 Quote by questionpost That's what I use to think when I was maybe 10-12, but some things just actually don't occur for a reason as well as the fact that there may be infinite factors or infinite levels of determinism making things on any specific level not deterministic or strictly incalculable with 100% accuracy, possibly because of fractal symmetry which mathematically goes on infinitely or an infinitely large universe. As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.
how could infinite determinism lead to nondeterminism?
P: 143
 Quote by edguy99 You are suggesting that if there is no randomness then there must be complete causality. I would disagree. 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.
im pretty sure there isnt an infinite amount of detail per unit volume. also, your zooming in or out is a cause in itself which you cant ignore
P: 143
 Quote by questionpost A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position. As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality. Have you ever heard of irrational numbers? Well it's sort of impossible to have 100% accuracy with those around.
i understand a particle is not a point, but that does mean the wave has some defined shape, that we will never be able to measure.

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.
 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)?
 P: 231 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?
P: 198
 Quote by jadrian i understand a particle is not a point, but that does mean the wave has some defined shape, that we will never be able to measure. 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.
You can come up with whatever reasoning you want for causality you want but experiments in reality say otherwise. So far no lower levels of particles have been discovered, and even if we somehow detected manifolds, I doubt scientists would say anything so small would act predictably. If you say there's a causality, then you will have to define infinite factors, which is impossible.
P: 5
 Quote by questionpost A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position.
Of course, because wave is a statistical entity too - statistical particle has only a statistical position.

 Quote by questionpost As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality.
In the QM does not exist these parameters, because it is just statistics - minimalistic model.
P: 198
 Quote by alsor Of course, because wave is a statistical entity too - statistical particle has only a statistical position. In the QM does not exist these parameters, because it is just statistics - minimalistic model.
Saying the property of a particle being a wave is just statistics and isn't anything to do with reality at all is like saying if I have one apple then add another, then I don't actually have two apples just because it's mathematically modeled by 1+1=2.
 P: 5 Apples have more features... The waves are a series of correlated events, not vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
P: 198
 Quote by alsor Apples have more features... The waves are a series of correlated events, not vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
This property of interference can be seen even with classical waves, and the equations for both the particles and the waves of the surface of water can be modeled by the same types of equations. This leads to the connection that particles are waves in at least some respects.

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.
 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?
P: 198
 Quote by luckis11 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?
There's a lot of factors that are "probable" and would be relatively predictable but only because they happen in such slow rate of time. If you throw a ball, you can predict a relative area that it's likely to land even thought there's plenty of air molecules that could fractal-ly distribute energy in random ordinances as to cause it to move slightly one way or another and it's really not that much force and speed, so there's smaller parameters for where it could go. Or say I launch a rocket. If it uses virtually no energy to lift itself off the ground, you can predict with like 99% certainty it won't even make it off the ground, and so the area it will end up in is where it started. However, if you give it a ton of NO2, there's like a 1 mile radius of where it could possibly end up.
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.

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