Is random a valid scientific cause?

[rasp]

Is the use of the term random a valid scientific explanation or just a pseudoname for unknown? I'm asking if it isn't essentially illogical to ascribe the existence of an event, (e.g the origin of the universe) to a random predecessor event. My humble understanding of logic adheres to a cause and effect process (if this / then that). I realize that randomness has been given a fundamental role in reality, via qm. What I'm asking is why randomness (which is the unknown) should be accepted as a logical cause.

How is logically consistent to rely on an explanation which cites the random action of certain phenomena to be in a certain place and time and having certain properties of spin, etc. etc. as the fundamental cause of macro events which then proceed logically (sequentially and continuously) through space and time.

Doesn't it seem a stop gap stretch of the imagination explanation, that doesn't refute anything?

Furthermore, when we look at events which have occurred and which have been calculated to have had infinitessimal likely probablites to have occurred in the time given (e.g. the origin of life on earth) is it not illogical to ascribe these events to randomness? Would the logical person not conclude that something very very improbable would not happen by chance, and that there must be some unknown but overriding reason, which overtook the improbabilities?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think random-ness is relative:

Consider a simple example: a class of students takes a 100-item true/false test on a subject. Suppose that all students choose randomly on all questions. Then, each student’s score would be a realization of one of a set of independent and identically distributed random variables, with a mean of 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

We could guarantee the student's answers were random by, say, presenting the test in Swahili, or otherwise preventing them from even knowing what the questions were, but insisting they guess at the correct answers. Each student might guess true or false according to some non-random pattern, for example, marking all as true, or all as false, or alternating, or marking only prime numbered questions as false, but in the frame of the test the answers can't be regarded as anything but random.

 

[wuliheron]

Is the use of the term random a valid scientific explanation or just a pseudoname for unknown? I'm asking if it isn't essentially illogical to ascribe the existence of an event, (e.g the origin of the universe) to a random predecessor event. My humble understanding of logic adheres to a cause and effect process (if this / then that). I realize that randomness has been given a fundamental role in reality, via qm. What I'm asking is why randomness (which is the unknown) should be accepted as a logical cause.

Turn your own logic on itself and try to explain in physical terms what "reality" and "causality" are and you'll perhaps appreciate the situation better. Causality and other metaphysical concerns such as "reality" are the purview of philosophy and theology, not physics. As far as I'm concerned those who insist it must be possible to know the mind of God might as well start praying for a miracle. All that Indeterminacy suggests is that it may be impossible for physics to answer such questions and since this isn't the role of science in the first place it is a non-issue.

 

[lmoh]

Randomness is indeed a valid explanation, just as possible as any other explanation of phenomena. The main problem is just going about proving it. Since that is impossible, the only way to prove indeterminism is to provide evidence for the impossibility of alternative, causality. At best, though, we can only appeal to negative proofs (QM works somewhat along those lines, but mind you, there are multiple interpretations, not all of which are indeterministic). Perhaps there is nothing to explain, nothing to "refute", but of course, there had better be a good reason for saying that this is so.

 

[M Quack]

Randomness is an important part of physics. At the quantum level, nearly nothing is certain and everything happens randomly, but with propabilities that can be determined very precisely.

At the macroscopic level that you observe directly with your eyes and hands you only see the average outcome of millions of such random events. Knowing the probabilities this average can be calculated with good precision. The laws and formulae derived for these large-number averages must of course match the non-quantum laws of classical physics. This is known as the correspondence principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle

Using averages to calculate the behavior of observable macroscopic quantities is the underlying basis for all statistical physics. The best-known example is maybe the microscopic derivation of thermodynamics from microscopic origins, statistical mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

 

[M Quack]

Furthermore, when we look at events which have occurred and which have been calculated to have had infinitessimal likely probablites to have occurred in the time given (e.g. the origin of life on earth) is it not illogical to ascribe these events to randomness? Would the logical person not conclude that something very very improbable would not happen by chance, and that there must be some unknown but overriding reason, which overtook the improbabilities?

Does a guy win the lottery because of divine intervention? Of course not. Someone wins the lottery almost every month, even if for each single person the probability of doing so is exteremely slim.

You argument is usually countered by referring to the Antropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Dawkin's The God Delusion has a rather nice discussion of this topic, even if much of the rest of the book is repetitive sledge-hammering of simple reason into thick skulls.

 

[phyzguy]

rasp - your fundamental assumption is that we live in a universe where all events have a cause. Our empirical data says otherwise - it isn't true that all events have a cause - at the quantum level it appears that things just happen with no underlying cause.

 

[rasp]

Randomness is an important part of physics. At the quantum level, nearly nothing is certain and everything happens randomly, but with propabilities that can be determined very precisely.

Using averages to calculate the behavior of observable macroscopic quantities is the underlying basis for all statistical physics. The best-known example is maybe the microscopic derivation of thermodynamics from microscopic origins, statistical mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

I'm not disputing that there appears to be both true randomness in qm systems, and the different seemingly random nature of chaotic systems, whose causes are unknown but not unknowable in principle, as well as other systems like you mention which have large numbers of elements and which can only be described statistically.

My question is one of philisophical integrity, "should we be allowed to say that the original cause of some event is random, when by random we really mean unknowable?" Should we not attach an asterick to every explanation which employs random, to simply say unknown?

 

[rasp]

rasp - your fundamental assumption is that we live in a universe where all events have a cause. Our empirical data says otherwise - it isn't true that all events have a cause - at the quantum level it appears that things just happen with no underlying cause.

Phyzguy, you're correct about my assumption. But on the other hand to accept the evidence that things happen without cause is to deny the fundamentals of logic, which could lead one to even deny the logic one has reached that things happen without cause.

My solution is to suspend my belief that things "just happen" at the quantum level so as not deny the logic of cause and effect, until such time as science advances further.

For all I know, in the future we may find a new type of mathematics in which random numbers can be generated by algorithms that do have a shorter information content than the actual number. Such a finding would point to the liklihood that there are physical systems which generate random events.

 

[wuliheron]

Phyzguy, you're correct about my assumption. But on the other hand to accept the evidence that things happen without cause is to deny the fundamentals of logic, which could lead one to even deny the logic one has reached that things happen without cause.

Logic is a tool, not a form of metaphysics. There isn't even one type of logic, but several like having a variety or different screwdrivers to chose from. This is a category mistake of the worst kind.

My solution is to suspend my belief that things "just happen" at the quantum level so as not deny the logic of cause and effect, until such time as science advances further.

For all I know, in the future we may find a new type of mathematics in which random numbers can be generated by algorithms that do have a shorter information content than the actual number. Such a finding would point to the liklihood that there are physical systems which generate random events.

Science is about objectivity, not metaphysics and denial.

 

[M Quack]

My question is one of philisophical integrity, "should we be allowed to say that the original cause of some event is random, when by random we really mean unknowable?" Should we not attach an asterick to every explanation which employs random, to simply say unknown?

Some things in physics are fundamentally random=unknowable. The decay of radioactive nuclei is one example. No one can predict when a radioactive nucleus, left on its own will, decay. Schrödinger's famous cat illustrates that such random effects can directly affect the macroscopic world. It goes even further in saying that a quantum system will not "decide" in what state it is unless an observation takes place. A more mundane example is the double-slit experiment, in particular if carried out with "delayed choice". There is no intuitive interpretation of the experiment, yet the formulae always give the right answer.

The quantum world is strange and counter-intuitive in many ways. But it is mathematically self-consistent, and it describes the physical world as observed through measurements and experiments in great detail and with extreme precision. Randomness is an integral part of QM and it cannot be removed. Bell's theorem shows that the randomness can not be attributed to "hidden variables" that could in turn be observed by further experiments.

Things happen without a cause of reason. In the case of nuclear decay, there is no cause for the time of decay, but physics tells you that the decay must happen sooner or later. For the when, QM only gives you probabilities.

Randomness is part of reality. Deal with it.

 

[DragonPetter]

Is OPs premise accurate? My understanding of QM is that randomness is not a fundamental property, but rather probabilistic.

By OPs presumption, I could turn into a balloon at any time if the universe were truly random. The universe might have the possibility for a state that seems random (we can't predict that state), but that probability is very low, so I would not call it random.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not disputing that there appears to be both true randomness in qm systems, and the different seemingly random nature of chaotic systems, whose causes are unknown but not unknowable in principle, as well as other systems like you mention which have large numbers of elements and which can only be described statistically.

My question is one of philisophical integrity, "should we be allowed to say that the original cause of some event is random, when by random we really mean unknowable?" Should we not attach an asterick to every explanation which employs random, to simply say unknown?

Random is not the same as unknown/unknowable. It doesn't mean a pattern we haven't figured out yet, it means no pattern.

Also, this has nothing to do with lack of "cause". Radioactive atoms decay because they are unstable.

 

[russ_watters]

Is OPs premise accurate? My understanding of QM is that randomness is not a fundamental property, but rather probabilistic.

By OPs presumption, I could turn into a balloon at any time if the universe were truly random. The universe might have the possibility for a state that seems random, but that probability is very low, so I would not call it random.

The fact that a process has a random component does not mean it is completely without order/constraints. A process like decay includes random and non-random elements superimposed on each other.

 

[DragonPetter]

The fact that a process has a random component does not mean it is completely without order/constraints. A process like decay includes random and non-random elements superimposed on each other.

But how can you separate random events from non random events? Aren't they all just events with different degrees of probability?

 

[Maui]

Random is not the same as unknown/unknowable. It doesn't mean a pattern we haven't figured out yet, it means no
pattern.

Then we have never seen randomness.

 

[skippy1729]

Randomness is a scientific concept since it is falsifiable.

 

[phyzguy]

Phyzguy, you're correct about my assumption. But on the other hand to accept the evidence that things happen without cause is to deny the fundamentals of logic, which could lead one to even deny the logic one has reached that things happen without cause.

Whether or not everything has a cause is not a question of logic, but an empirical question to be decided by observation and experiment. You statement is like my saying that "logic says that if I'm walking forward at 10 miles/hour and I throw a ball forward at 10 miles/hour, the ball will be going at 20 miles/hour." You may think that's what logic says, but experiment says otherwise.

 

[Maui]

Randomness is an assumption even in quantum physics, the OP is right about that.

 

[Maui]

Randomness is a scientific concept since it is falsifiable.

No, it's not falsifiable. This thread belongs to philosophy.

 

[wuliheron]

No, it's not falsifiable. This thread belongs to philosophy.

It got thrown out of the philosophy message board, I assume for being so much rambling gibberish.

 

[russ_watters]

Then we have never seen randomness.

To whatever scientific accuracy applies, yes we have.

 

[russ_watters]

No, it's not falsifiable. This thread belongs to philosophy.

You are incorrect. The absence of a pattern is just as falsifiable as the existence of one.

 

[DragonPetter]

But how can you separate random events from non random events? Aren't they all just events with different degrees of probability?

Here is what I was getting at originally. To be a truly random event would imply the process has an equal probabilitly for an outcome for all possible outcomes. My point was that we are still talking about probability distribution, even if we have a special name for a flat one across all possible events called "random".

That is why I think his presumption is false. He is presuming that randomness is a fundamental property from QM, but that would be equivalent to saying "the probability density being flat across all possible events is a fundamental role in reality". That's where I think the presumption is inaccurate. He is describing a special case as fundamental to reality.

 

[russ_watters]

But how can you separate random events from non random events? Aren't they all just events with different degrees of probability?

Most (all?) randoms in science are issues of probability, yes.

For having both elements, are you familiar with the mathematical concept of superposition? Have you ever done any programming?

 

[DragonPetter]

Most (all?) randoms in science are issues of probability, yes.

For having both elements, are you familiar with the mathematical concept of superposition? Have you ever done any programming?

Yes to both. See, the decay of an atom being called a random process implies a specific variable is isolated and, when all other things are ignored, that variable has a random PDF. Implying that isolated consideration is fundamental to reality, or a fundamental property of the universe, is where I think he has gotten into trouble. If you take those special cases, and apply it as fundamental to reality (randomness is only a special case of a more fundamental concept of probability), then superposition is moot, and that is why I said his presumption is wrong.

 

[Maui]

To whatever scientific accuracy applies, yes we have.

The foundations of science are philosophy, hence your statement that you have observed "no pattern behavior"(that you might presume was not deterministic) is not a scientific one, but philosophical. If random is as you define it - "no pattern" then we have never seen randomness because you'd need an expermental evidence that doesn't exist(only philosophical)

 

[skippy1729]

The foundations of science are philosophy, hence your statement that you have observed "no pattern behavior"(that you might presume was not deterministic) is not a scientific one, but philosophical. If random is as you define it - "no pattern" then we have never seen randomness because you'd need an expermental evidence that doesn't exist(only philosophical)

The foundation of science is experiment.

1. You can never prove that a sequence of decays occur at random time intervals since it would require examination of an unbounded sequence of numbers.

2. You might disprove randomness by detecting a hitherto unnoticed pattern or causality.

Science consists of theories that can be disproven (but haven't yet been).

 

[alan2]

Interesting replies. I am content with the notion that everything is deterministic and randomness is a tool. Roll a die or flip a coin. If I knew every piece of information about its initial position and trajectory, the material that it was made of, the surface on which it landed, the weather, etc., I could spend the rest of my life calculating which face would land up. I can't do that so I use the mathematical tool of probability which works quite well. Thermodynamics is deterministic (we use both molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations) and there are many people who think that the quantum world is also. We use mathematical tools all the time to solve things that we are either unable to solve or don't fully understand, such as perturbation theory in non-linear systems. I see randomness as another tool to help understanding and predictive ability.

 

[rasp]

Would the following statement be considered correct?
All effects have causes, some known others unknown, but in the QM world, the causes are not only unknown (except as probability functions) but are also unknowable because they have no discernable past space/time paths. The causes in QM are therefore labeled random.

 

[Maui]

The foundation of science is experiment.

No. The experiment is a tool, not foundations. The foundations are a set of axioms and assumptions that are considered self-evident for establishing a testable theory. Self-evident doesn't necessarily mean correct.

1. You can never prove that a sequence of decays occur at random time intervals since it would require examination of an unbounded sequence of numbers.

Your examination cannot give a clue if a process is truly random or deterministic. It could simply be random looking(self-evident as in the example above).

2. You might disprove randomness by detecting a hitherto unnoticed pattern or causality.

Science consists of theories that can be disproven (but haven't yet been).

And if you don't detect a pattern, is it random or just of unknown cause?

 

[Maui]

Would the following statement be considered correct?
All effects have causes, some known others unknown, but in the QM world, the causes are not only unknown (except as probability functions) but are also unknowable because they have no discernable past space/time paths. The causes in QM are therefore labeled random.

Yes. However it makes little sense to say that reality is truly random, as there are(as someone already pointed out) many constraints acting on the possible outcomes.

 

[rasp]

Does a guy win the lottery because of divine intervention? Of course not. Someone wins the lottery almost every month, even if for each single person the probability of doing so is exteremely slim.

You argument is usually countered by referring to the Antropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Dawkin's The God Delusion has a rather nice discussion of this topic, even if much of the rest of the book is repetitive sledge-hammering of simple reason into thick skulls.

M Quack, I think you misundertand the enormity of the odds in equating the origion of life to winning the lottery. Of course, unlikely events happen in finite space time. I also admit that whatever can happen, will happen in infinite time. However, it is my understanding that the mechanisms required to start life on Earth are so unlikely to have come together in a finite universe as to be mathematically indistinguishable from impossible. It is therefore absurd to think a prior that it would happen "by itself". However, it did happen, but posterior the Anthropic principle, which is more a description of several unlikely events is small comfort as an explanatory tool.

 

[phyzguy]

M Quack, I think you misundertand the enormity of the odds in equating the origion of life to winning the lottery. Of course, unlikely events happen in finite space time. I also admit that whatever can happen, will happen in infinite time. However, it is my understanding that the mechanisms required to start life on Earth are so unlikely to have come together in a finite universe as to be mathematically indistinguishable from impossible. It is therefore absurd to think a prior that it would happen "by itself". However, it did happen, but posterior the Anthropic principle, which is more a description of several unlikely events is small comfort as an explanatory tool.

I disagree. Nobody understands the origin of life well enough to be able to calculate the odds.

 

[DragonPetter]

However, it is my understanding that the mechanisms required to start life on Earth are so unlikely to have come together in a finite universe as to be mathematically indistinguishable from impossible.

Where did you get this understanding from? Those are some pretty specific mathematical claims, so it should be possible to show calculations/assumptions/etc.

I know some have attempted to calculate it with models (drake equation), but those are not fact and use lots of assumptions. At least the drake equation results are contrary to your understanding, although you should never base any conclusions on those results.