Can Randomness and Causality Coexist Logically?

[ThomasT]

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?

Not that I know of. So, I agree with you. That is, given the extant physical evidence, the assumption of a fundamental determinism seems to me to be more reasonable than the assumption of a fundamental indeterminism or randomness.

I think you can sleep well tonight with the assumption that the world isn't suddenly going to do anything ... really weird.

 

[Joncon]

Not that I know of. So, I agree with you. That is, given the extant physical evidence, the assumption of a fundamental determinism seems to me to be more reasonable than the assumption of a fundamental indeterminism or randomness.

I think you can sleep well tonight with the assumption that the world isn't suddenly going to do anything ... really weird.

Why does it have to be one or the other? The universe clearly is deterministic to a large degree but why is a certain amount of randomness such a problem? I'm not saying true randomness exists but you can't rule it out simply because you don't like the idea.

 

[questionpost]

in order for randomness to be true in a sense you might have to regard the electron to be moving not at c, but at INFINITE speed to result in the conclusion that it is undefined. also the assumption of randomness in qm leading to what we consider very precise compared to everyday measurement but might be grossly imprecise compared with absolute prediction, does not mean we should be forced to accept randomness

Electrons don't move at infinite speed...
Things like randomness and causality seem to make more sense in quantum field theory, because instead of everything existing as these solid objects that have to cause something and lead to another event, everything, all matter, exists as a culmination of different fields of probability whos shapes change depending on different circumstances. This way, you can still have randomness but also have a high probability of one event making another event to be probable.

Why does it have to be one or the other? The universe clearly is deterministic to a large degree

Do you have evidence to support that? Because for all we know the universe could be infinitely large and therefore has infinite factors.

 

[ThomasT]

Why does it have to be one or the other? The universe clearly is deterministic to a large degree but why is a certain amount of randomness such a problem? I'm not saying true randomness exists but you can't rule it out simply because you don't like the idea.

It isn't one or the other. Randomness refers to unpredictability. Obviously, lots of things are unpredictable. If one assumes fundamental determinism, then this unpredictablility is just a function of our ignorance. And I suppose you're right, fundamental randomness or indeterminism can't be ruled out. But given the more or less orderly and predictable evolution of our universe, then that doesn't seem like a very good assumption to me.

This thread is in the wrong forum. Why hasn't it been put into Philosopy or General Discussion yet?

 

[questionpost]

This thread is in the wrong forum. Why hasn't it been put into Philosopy or General Discussion yet?

Because

Electrons don't move at infinite speed...
Things like randomness and causality seem to make more sense in quantum field theory, because instead of everything existing as these solid objects that have to cause something and lead to another event, everything, all matter, exists as a culmination of different fields of probability whos shapes change depending on different circumstances. This way, you can still have randomness but also have a high probability of one event making another event to be probable.

 

[edguy99]

...

1.) determinism of effect: Given a well defined quantum system and a known intermediate dynamic, can we assure a given future measurement of a specific value by controlling the initial conditions? In QM the answer is yes.
2.) determinism of cause: (Dual to the above) Given a well defined quantum system and a known intermediate dynamic, can we be assured of a specific value of a given past measurement by a future observation? In QM the answer is yes.

...

I like to think of this: you can see one step forward and one step back, but there is no certainty as to the depth of how far back or forward you can go (or need to go) to determine causality.