Every event occurs as a consequence of some previous event

[prasannapakkiam]

Here is an interesting argument I always win. Can someone out-argue me with a statement that there is such a thing as random?

My main statement is that every event occurs as a consequence of some previous event, thus nothing can be random...

 

[Crosson]

every event occurs as a consequence of some previous event

How do you know this?

 

[prasannapakkiam]

I am not exactly sure what you mean. But I am sure every event they call 'random' in science or anywhere, is; as I said, a consequence of a previous event.

 

[Crosson]

But I am sure very event they call 'random' in science or anywhere, is; as I said, a consequence of a previous event.

You don't have much of an argument unless you convince me of this point; I could similarly say "I'm sure there is such a thing as a random event".

Do you think that the power of cause resides in objects themselves? Or is causation just a habit, a belief that we have formed from our limited experience?

I would argue that you have never experienced a cause; you have seen billiard balls, but you have not 'seen' the cause of their motions.

I want you to define your term, random. Mathematically, a random distribution is just a uniform distribution (ever value within some range is equally likely). What do you mean by 'nothing is random'? If you mean 'everything follows necessarily from a cause' then you certainly can't assume that.

 

[prasannapakkiam]

I am talking because I the science department could not come up with an answer to counter my claim.

They seem to accept my claim that if certain minute variables are neglected: most things, nearly everything could just become random.

For example, Brownian Motion; in the experiment, the pollen grain is said to move 'randomly'. But this is from a Macroscopic view. At microscopic view, the motion is due to the net force caused by the particles hitting upon it at the direction at that time. The motion could be predicted is all the forces (remembering that it is a vector) and masses of all the particles were known. Thus it is not random.

 

[Smurf]

ask the philosophy department, specifically any professor of Hegel.

 

[christianjb]

Um, I think Einstein tried this argument out last century with his 'God does not play dice' bon mot.

You're arguing for deterministic laws of physics that are in principle non-random.

Unfortunately (for you), QM seems to scrap all of that.

 

[prasannapakkiam]

But 'christianjb' what I am saying is that if one think that something is of a random presence, that person does not know about a Certain Variable or Physical Quantity in which that certain ('random') event occurs. Oh and who or what or where is Hegel?

 

[out of whack]

This "random" question seems to be asked once in a while here. There is a difference between random and non-deterministic, that's why different terms exist. Even if reality is entirely deterministic and if the future is already set, it remains impossible to know in complete details what it will be. Randomness exists because we cannot predict everything.

 

[prasannapakkiam]

But that is whay I said... However, all I am saying is that random only exists only because we do not know certain parameters or variables. This is the same question everyone asks, and I am saying yes. The future is already set. It can be predictable if every single parameter and discrete variable is known... Thus if anything is random, we don't know something - i.e. a variable or parameter...

 

[prasannapakkiam]

Also why is it IMPOSSIBLE to know comlete details?

 

[out of whack]

Also why is it IMPOSSIBLE to know comlete details?

The state of every tiny bit of the universe cannot be known because you cannot store this much data. You may have heard this line: "You can't have everything, where would you put it?"

 

[sneez]

My main statement is that every event occurs as a consequence of some previous event, thus nothing can be random...

Everything is random , only to a certain approximation something can be in causual relationship . ?

 

[Crosson]

Also why is it IMPOSSIBLE to know comlete details?

How tall are you? Measurements are approximate, everytime we measure your height we will only do so up to a certain precision, e.g. 5' 8'' +/- 1''.

And yet you still believe you have an exact height, but what is this based on?

Answer: custom, habit, belief.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Imagine you have a giant computer that stores the exact information of every piece of the universe. It must have stored within it its exact information too. But contained within its exact information is its exact information... you can kind of see how this goes on forever

 

[Crosson]

Imagine you have a giant computer that stores the exact information of every piece of the universe. It must have stored within it its exact information too. But contained within its exact information is its exact information... you can kind of see how this goes on forever

This argument does not take into account quantum mechanics. There is really nothing to say about 'a classical computer that knows the position and momentum of every particle in the universe', because this is a fantasy.

It is not necessary to prove the futility of knowing all details precisely, because it is impossible to make a single measurement exact. As I said, we have no reason to think that the physical quantities we are measuring metaphysically-have exact values.

 

[prasannapakkiam]

This argument is straying into whether anything can be measured to an absolute value. I obviously know about the impracticalities and the obvious immeasurability of every constant. That is irrevelant.

All I am asking is that, what are wrong with my 2 statements overall?:

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".
"If we think something is random, then we do not know a certain parameter or variable corresponding to that event..."

 

[out of whack]

All I am asking is that, what are wrong with my 2 statements overall?:

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".
"If we think something is random, then we do not know a certain parameter or variable corresponding to that event..."

The second claim is a consequence of the first one. It is true if the first one is true.

The first claim expresses a common sense assumption that is fundamental to science, but I have yet to see its proof. Most people call it "obvious" but cannot produce irrefutable evidence to that effect. It seems to be an unprovable yet essential axiom of science.

 

[sneez]

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".
"If we think something is random, then we do not know a certain parameter or variable corresponding to that event..."

On top of what out of whack said which is definitelly true. I can postulate that everything is random (which is as we know today better statement that everything is causual) and only to a certain approx. we can observe relationships which we interpret as causual. There were attempts to recast everything in this matter and quite new and interesting things came out of it. Unfortunatelly, it did not caught up yet. It will, however, as we learn that whole is not sum of the parts on philosophical level.

Lets not forget that this philosophy (of mechanical universe) was deliberatelly started as a project. It won, because its true in degree of approximation, over back then competing philosophies of science. Its been dedicated more than 400years of all scientific attention and institutional privilage in teaching. This shadows the fact that its not the only one and creates false mirage for many ppl that its correct one.

Again, as a falacy of mechanistic logic may come forth in potential comments to this, I am not proposing competition to current scientific way but rather complement. The greatest blunder of moder science is that it thinks that there is only way of doing it. Just like in any other creative field, there are multiple complementary ways of doing same thing which usually uncover/expose the nature of the problem from many different angles.

 

[daveb]

The state of every tiny bit of the universe cannot be known because you cannot store this much data. You may have heard this line: "You can't have everything, where would you put it?"

I already have everything and have simply decided to leave it where it is.:tongue2:

 

[baywax]

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".

As far and so far this is what we have come up with. Since we are not privy to the chain of cause and effect at all times we cannot assume it is the sole mechanism of all events. And, the human perception of events and their causes may be limited by its physiological nature in such a way that humans can only see events as being a result of a cause.

"If we think something is random, then we do not know a certain parameter or variable corresponding to that event..."

All you're saying is that "random" is relative to the observer and what has been observed or not. This statement comes up a lot in many different areas of thought.

 

[Crosson]

This argument is straying into whether anything can be measured to an absolute value. I obviously know about the impracticalities and the obvious immeasurability of every constant. That is irrevelant.

All I am asking is that, what are wrong with my 2 statements overall?:

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".

Just because we could not imagine it otherwise being the case, does not make it necessarily true. Consider the negation:

There are some events that were not the direct consequence of any other event.

Can you show me that this is a contradiction? All you have done so far is to repeat yourself.

 

[Fra]

This argument is straying into whether anything can be measured to an absolute value. I obviously know about the impracticalities and the obvious immeasurability of every constant. That is irrevelant.

I would not reject these "practicalities" as irrelevant, that's an issue of reality we better face.

All I am asking is that, what are wrong with my 2 statements overall?:

"An event only occurs as a direct consequence of another previous event".

IMO, before this statement makes completely sense I think you should define and identify the implication you refer to, and relative to what prior assumptions this implication is evaluated. Would every object agree upon the nature of the implication?

"If we think something is random, then we do not know a certain parameter or variable corresponding to that event..."

Until you actually identify that parameter or variable that statement doesn't make much sense either. Unless you can define what the point/sense is in talking about something that you have NO information about in definite form so to speak? You seem to be trying to use information that you do not possesses in making conclusions.

/Fredrik

 

[prasannapakkiam]

It is interesting that human perception and way of thinking has been brought up. Of course every theory is rooted from this.

Okay can there be a negotiation between what can be random? Because my human perception seems to think that if random exists, then theoritically nothing would be predictable - not even a bit...

Sidetrack: Also my friend also argued that if random seized to exist, we as humans have no free will... But is it not that this free will is determined by consequences experienced in life?

 

[Fra]

I'd even stretch myself to say that random is be relative. Probabilities are also relative, as they relate to your current information, and the information as typically different. It does not make sense to use these things as if there were universal. What's apparent random to you, isn't necessarily similarly random to me, and at least the distributions doesn't look alike.

If I do not have the same information as you have, I have no choice but to make a guess. I have two choices, I may think that since I do not know anything exact, I can as well throw dice. However, more often than not, the information we neverthelss have (though incomplete) can be used to infere an educated guess, which will typically be far better than a blind guess.

The senseible use of probabilistic approaches in science is NOT as a way to get "rid of what we can't explain" and label it random. That's really an akward view and misses the whole point. Random is not an explanation, it's just a name for the case where we can not infere from information at hand, that one guess is beter than the other. And that happens! Everyday, and all over the place. That's reality.

Rather, the concepts can be used to optimize the scientific principle, and make the optimal inference from any given information. Sure, you can make completely unfounded guess (called ad hoc) and "get lucky", but that's not what I call a scientific method.

/Fredrik

 

[sneez]

The senseible use of probabilistic approaches in science is NOT as a way to get "rid of what we can't explain" and label it random. That's really an akward view and misses the whole point. Random is not an explanation, it's just a name for the case where we can not infere from information at hand, that one guess is beter than the other. And that happens! Everyday, and all over the place. That's reality.

Rather, the concepts can be used to optimize the scientific principle, and make the optimal inference from any given information. Sure, you can make completely unfounded guess (called ad hoc) and "get lucky", but that's not what I call a scientific method.

I think Fra is stating the fact that randomness of a process is not random. By definition of randomness it follows a probability distribution.

However, as original question implies, we are trying to find relationships other than casual. Indeed , upon a light thought we see that casual relationships are only a special kind of relationships. Consider listening to a music or observing a beautiful painting. Both of these examples have much common and obviously the "parts" (if in reality there is such thing at least in these examples) of which they are made of are not in causual relationships. Does one note determine the flow of another? Does the first note determine the last one? (here we see that even non-random, non-chaotic system can be unpredictable )

Does one stroke of a paining determine the next one? On top of all that, in both of these examples strokes and notes are in highly ordered system which is obviously not random. Still we arrive in non-causual relationships... I will save the randmoness examples for later, but one could see upon reflecting how limited it is to think in only a subset of possible relationships.

 

[Crosson]

Because my human perception seems to think that if random exists, then theoritically nothing would be predictable - not even a bit...

I agree with you, until the 'not even a bit'. For example, classical statistical mechanics how random motions can lead to observable, predictable aggregate behavior.

Sidetrack: Also my friend also argued that if random seized to exist, we as humans have no free will... But is it not that this free will is determined by consequences experienced in life?

This pattern of thought is common, but upon careful examination it would take a lot more than "random" for us to be able to manifest our thoughts as actions. I don't know of any serious philosophers who believe in free will.

 

[Fra]

I think Fra is stating the fact that randomness of a process is not random. By definition of randomness it follows a probability distribution.

Perhaps I missed the intention of the original question, but that wasn't my main point. My point was to move focus from speculation to fact and fact beeing information at hand, accounted for the quality of information. Possible reasons for the information at hand are speculation.

However, as original question implies, we are trying to find relationships other than casual. Indeed , upon a light thought we see that casual relationships are only a special kind of relationships. Consider listening to a music or observing a beautiful painting. Both of these examples have much common and obviously the "parts" (if in reality there is such thing at least in these examples) of which they are made of are not in causual relationships. Does one note determine the flow of another? Does the first note determine the last one? (here we see that even non-random, non-chaotic system can be unpredictable )

Does one stroke of a paining determine the next one? On top of all that, in both of these examples strokes and notes are in highly ordered system which is obviously not random. Still we arrive in non-causual relationships... I will save the randmoness examples for later, but one could see upon reflecting how limited it is to think in only a subset of possible relationships.

IMO the concept of causal is sometimes quite ambigous. The only causality I find relevant is the howto infere B from A. If we call that causality that is fine with me. Wether A and B are "true" or "correct" (whatever that would mean in the general setting) is a completely different question and has no impact on the inference. I think that is the nature of apparent causality in physics as well. I think nature only worries how to take the next step, give the prior position.

/Fredrik

 

[jackle]

...I don't know of any serious philosophers who believe in free will...

Do you still take philosophers seriously after they mention free will?

 

[sneez]

IMO the concept of causal is sometimes quite ambigous. The only causality I find relevant is the howto infere B from A. If we call that causality that is fine with me. Wether A and B are "true" or "correct" (whatever that would mean in the general setting) is a completely different question and has no impact on the inference. I think that is the nature of apparent causality in physics as well. I think nature only worries how to take the next step, give the prior position.

Indeed casual is ambigous. Every concept that has no "physical" extension will be ambigous. (Thats why its quite nonsensical try to define absolute definitions for such words and I am glad you did not ask me to do that). However, I beg to differ with you Fra, on the impact of A being truth/correct before infering B. You see, all what you are stating is "mechanistic philosophy" of reality. Indeed, nothing wrong with that supposition except failing to acknowlege it and/or being aware of it. We can use it in the broad sense of word of casual: predictability -> parts determine at time ,t, can determine other parts at t+dt. Not necessarily but also parts determining the whole concept could be under this as well, but not strictly.

The only causality I find relevant is the howto infere B from A.

IMHO, this is like trying to define absolute definition for non-extensional concepts. Yes, this will work in classical mechaincs physics, for example, but fails in quantum and relativity. I don't have to go far to show that for complex systems this is total failure.
And one cannot even approach certain issues with this philosophy at all. (consciousness, etc..)

 

[JonF]

I am talking because I the science department could not come up with an answer to counter my claim.

why would they bother if you don't support your claim? I can list endless claims that you can't give a counter example for, that almost everyone would agree are false.

 

[Fra]

Hmm your response reminds me on how difficult it is to discuss philosophy in a sensible way. I totally disrecognize you comments on what I wrote I an suspect that you got me wrong, and perhaps because I failed to express what I meant to say in a clear way. Also since we don't know each other and lack a joint mutually agreed upon terminology, it gets even harder.

However, I beg to differ with you Fra, on the impact of A being truth/correct before infering B. You see, all what you are stating is "mechanistic philosophy" of reality.

I do not recognize "mechanistic philosophy" one bit I wonder what you mean by it? If you mean something like a Newtonian deterministic philosophy, you couldn't be more off, because my philosophy really takes a right angle to that.

"Infere" was just a word and it has nothing to do with "mecahnical implications", like pool. What I rather meant is that A and B are typically probability distributions, or a set thereof. One probability distribution (or more realistically, a set of distributions from different, but related event spaces) can infere/imply/induce/suggest new distributions.

But usually, the BEST inference, is still fuzzy.

Actually A => B is fuzzy itself, we can only propose a probability distribution at a certain probability so to speak. So the implication is fuzzy, but my point was that the very BEST scientifc implication we can make is fuzzy.

IMHO, this is like trying to define absolute definition for non-extensional concepts. Yes, this will work in classical mechaincs physics, for example, but fails in quantum and relativity. I don't have to go far to show that for complex systems this is total failure.
And one cannot even approach certain issues with this philosophy at all. (consciousness, etc..)

Again, I don't follow you here. I suspect we simply don't understand each other. The philosopy I advocate most definitely comply to QM and GR, and moreover I think it can resolve it's problems in the quest for QG. And it will even have the form (when done) as a kind of artifical learning model.

What I talk about is what I'd called an information theoretic relational approach.

I figure you know of thermodynamics, that's basic. The macroscopic variables, temperatur and energy *induces* a probabilitydistribution on the microstates. If one want, can can interpret it as two different probability spaces that have a defined relation.

In the full theory, all prior information is specificed in the language of probability distributions, and each information has a sort of "mass", which is comparable to confidence level. Then we construct a grand microcanonical ensemble (or something thereabout), from a mix of event spaces that are related. Then dynamics of physics will be derived as a "generalised diffusion" in those spaces. This dynamics is simply identified with the inference. This approach is yet under progress and not mature yet, but I am optimistic. Also, several other people are trying to derive general relativity from such approaches, where the physical spacetime geometry(http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301061) , and it's dynamics are identified with various kinds of information geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry) where the measure is defined on various probability spaces, finally yielding metrics. The evolution of this is simply a stochastic evolution, which in turn is the optimally inferred educated guess. But there is more to it, and that's how dimensions and structure should come automatically.

I have hard to tell how long it will take. But I hope more people get into this.

/Fredrik

 

[sneez]

Hmm your response reminds me on how difficult it is to discuss philosophy in a sensible way. I totally disrecognize you comments on what I wrote I an suspect that you got me wrong, and perhaps because I failed to express what I meant to say in a clear way. Also since we don't know each other and lack a joint mutually agreed upon terminology, it gets even harder.

Well I was commenting on your statement that ONLY RELEVANT causality... I understood that you think that there is only one kind of relationship and that is casual. This is trully not so and moreover it just one of the relevant to understand reality. My point was that such thinking is comming from classical mechanics philosophy.

I do not recognize "mechanistic philosophy" one bit I wonder what you mean by it? If you mean something like a Newtonian deterministic philosophy, you couldn't be more off, because my philosophy really takes a right angle to that.

Well, don't take me wrong , I am not saying this is your case, but I know ppl who say such things but are unaware of the assumptions of classical mechanistic philosophy in their rendering of the world. (There are many sub-philosophies that sprang from this, empiricism, materialism, etc... which all have evolved into stong, weak ...etc. however, they have one common divisor and that's why I am so keen on maybe overlly to spot this) This is in general and I just might have wrong impression from your post earlier.

actually A => B is fuzzy itself, we can only propose a probability distribution at a certain probability so to speak. So the implication is fuzzy, but my point was that the very BEST scientifc implication we can make is fuzzy.

Sure, my question: is there a better way to form relationships than casual and still get something out of it. My answer is, most definitelly. Probabilistic approach is good but only to a degree (just like everything else).

The philosopy I advocate most definitely comply to QM and GR, and moreover I think it can resolve it's problems in the quest for QG. And it will even have the form (when done) as a kind of artifical learning model.

I think we don't have time and space but I would want to see that philosophy of yours. Since QM and GR have a lot of similarities and a lot of contradictions between each other.
The model you describe sound interesting, some new ideas. I do not know it so i will refrain from commenting on it, but I know a lot of similar aspirations which are about to fail or will fail since the inherent mechanistic philosophy in their assumptions. Note that physics is only one area where we are stuck. Dont let me go into biology or sociology economics,... So my "complaint" is with general philosophy because I can given enough time show you how they are all connected, but I think you seem honest enough to see it yourself.

I think there has to be in general a paradigm shift away from this desperate philosophy. I am not sure at this point if trying to just find a way to combine the 2 is sufficient. There have been many attempts of interdisciplinary this and that but all it does it serves as another dividing point. This is due to wrong philosophy. You see, there is a double edged sword in this because we can always adjust theory to fit observed data. The problem is how to recognize that this is not enough and approach it with new paradigms in mind. This will in turn change the observations prior to that. Well, I am not going to bore you with history of that, but just something to have on mind in general.

In the full theory, all prior information is specificed in the language of probability distributions, and each information has a sort of "mass", which is comparable to confidence level. Then we construct a grand microcanonical ensemble (or something thereabout), from a mix of event spaces that are related. Then dynamics of physics will be derived as a "generalised diffusion" in those spaces. This dynamics is simply identified with the inference. This approach is yet under progress and not mature yet, but I am optimistic. Also, several other people are trying to derive general relativity from such approaches, where the physical spacetime geometry(http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301061) , and it's dynamics are identified with various kinds of information geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_geometry) where the measure is defined on various probability spaces, finally yielding metrics. The evolution of this is simply a stochastic evolution, which in turn is the optimally inferred educated guess. But there is more to it, and that's how dimensions and structure should come automatically.

This sounds very familiar to me in analogy. I am into bayes theorem and probabilistic spaces and its application in remote sensing. I would have to study it more to have sensible comment on it, hope it will yeild some move in new direction.

 

[Fra]

I completely agree that we need a fundamental shift in physics, that would start from the philosophy.

I also completely agree about more general systems - biology, human brain. I definitely have that in mind.

I think we agree on a lot actually.

I think we don't have time and space but I would want to see that philosophy of yours. Since QM and GR have a lot of similarities and a lot of contradictions between each other.
The model you describe sound interesting, some new ideas. I do not know it so i will refrain from commenting on it, but I know a lot of similar aspirations which are about to fail or will fail since the inherent mechanistic philosophy in their assumptions. Note that physics is only one area where we are stuck. Dont let me go into biology or sociology economics,... So my "complaint" is with general philosophy because I can given enough time show you how they are all connected, but I think you seem honest enough to see it yourself.

I have no intention of fooling anyone, and definitely not myself. If I find out that I was completely wrong, I will dump the approach immediately. However I've got sufficient ideas and thinking that has been cooking for a few years now, and I recently resume physics thinking. I would not resume this if I didn't think it had potential. I dropped my other hobby completely since I resume this.

In fact the triggering factor that brought me back to physics after ten years is a long story, but during a few years I've taken as a hobby to understand yeast cells during bewing fermentations, which lead me to sensory analysis and finally when I was reading a neurology book on the human brain, thinking about the possibility of how the brain can be trained to make sense, basically out of a bunch electrical signals I felt that now it's time to get back to physics.

This sounds very familiar to me in analogy. I am into bayes theorem and probabilistic spaces and its application in remote sensing. I would have to study it more to have sensible comment on it, hope it will yeild some move in new direction.

Yes it's about probability spaces, and probability spaces of probability spaces even. And how structure emerges. I see it as analogous to learning logic.

I do not however want to spend too much time on explaining philosophy alone. My intention is to instead try to prove that this will in fact lead somewhere. I've started from scratch but is also scanning online papers to see what others have done in related approaches.

I have a few details to solve before it get really concrete though. But I've got a good intuitive guide, so it's mainly a matter of getting time to get to it step by step.

I could do some semi-classical synthesis of my ideas to get quicker sample theories, but I don't want to contaminate myself too much with the standard stuff yet, so I'm trying to do it the right way. I choose this because I'm sufficiently convinced by intuition and current approaches alreday elaborated that this most certainly will work out. I wouldn't want to waste time if I wasn't convinced.

I will probably post stuff for comments when I have something explicitly worked out.

My experience with phsycology is that nonone, not having the seem philosophy aren't very likely to even try to understand it unless there is proof of success. I definitely hope to find some "proof of success" of these ideas.

Explaining some standard physics from first principles is one thing. I'm currently fiddling with basic gravity and entropy bounds. But I am not doing it within ordinary GR, I'm doing it from more basic information theoretic approach. But of course, in some classical limit, GR should probably pop out as "statistical law" in the generalized probability spaces.

/Fredrik

 

[sneez]

Exceedingly interesting to hear that. I was going in similar direction, then i got intersted in connection of connections in relations, ie. society where individual brains cooperate/compete. I attempted some primitive modeling from self conceived whollistic framework but did not have enough drive. I am digesting fractals and non-linear dynamics on higher level now but feel not good philsophically about that approach. on long term.

Since my second hobby is philosophy of science and its history I realize that until philosophy changes, no new discoveries will be accepted. I have numerous example of how ideas which we now think are correct were present long before ppl which we attribute them to today. The problem was that the "priesthood" and hence general society did not accept them.

Well this is just to sidetrack. Wish you luck, I am always happy to hear new thinking.