Does Randomness Exist? Evolution & Implicate Order

[RAD4921]

Evolution states that organisms evolve due to random mutations. I question as to whether there is such a thing as randomness. It could be that what appears as randomness to the limited human mind could very well be a extremely complex ordered state that just appears as chaos to us humans who at this point are incapable of seeing the deeply hidden organization. This could very well apply to “inorganic” systems as well such as the conditions immediately after the big bang. Physicist David Bohm believed this. He called the organization that we could see as the explicate order and the hidden organization as the implicate order.

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's one thing to state the truism that our finite capabilities limit our ability to distinguish complex or subtle causality from randomness. It's quite another to reify that uncertainty into some cosmic principle.

 

[RAD4921]

It's one thing to state the truism that our finite capabilities limit our ability to distinguish complex or subtle causality from randomness. It's quite another to reify that uncertainty into some cosmic principle.

I see what you are saying. Thanks for your reply.
I thought for certain I would immediatly receive a reply with concerns of the uncertainty principle and determinism. Bohm believes in determinism and I believe in at least some free will of conscious beings. How much randomness in the universe if any is the question? If there is no randomness does that mean determinism is true and what role would that play with morals?

 

[Evo]

How much randomness in the universe if any is the question? If there is no randomness does that mean determinism is true and what role would that play with morals?

Why do you ask questions that no one can honestly answer? What's the point?

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I always thought the movement of water between two identical bodies of water was purely random etc.

Also, I don't see how the absence of randomness = determinism.

Maybe determinism in one sense but not determinism in the anti-free-will sense.

 

[JierenChen]

"Randomness" is a term that only has meaning when you provide a context. It basically means a lack of information. For example, if we know the state of every molecule in the universe at every point in time since the Big Bang, well those genetic mutations would not be random. But we don't know what sorts of chemicals those fish are going to bump into or what sorts of mistakes are going to happen in the copying of DNA, so we model that as a random process due to a lack of information.

Same deal with determinism. It's a term that only has validity if you consider the entire system of the universe from the dawn of time until the end of time. In that case, yes everything has been predetermined. But in the system of your life at this point in time, no. Too many uncertainties for you to say that your life has been predetermined.

 

[Blueplanetbob]

If you consider that cause exists Now and that its effect, as a predetermined consequence of cause , is the next Now, to become the next cause, and that this is an infinite progression of events only within Now, because the future does not exist, only the present.
And if you consider that Now, or the present, or reality, or your perception exists within a discreet unit of spacetime that governs a conceptual unit of energy and so time, because time is not absolute, and that the universe is only alive within that unit of time, somewhere between the Plank dimensions and zero point energy, then randomness does not exist.
What does exist is the free will of an intelligent observer within the superposition of that discreet unit to influence that cause to achieve a predetermined effect.
This is in the quantum level of unit perception
At the macro level of brain induced cohesive perception finite possibilities of effect would occur

 

[RAD4921]

If you consider that cause exists Now and that its effect, as a predetermined consequence of cause , is the next Now, to become the next cause, and that this is an infinite progression of events only within Now, because the future does not exist, only the present.
And if you consider that Now, or the present, or reality, or your perception exists within a discreet unit of spacetime that governs a conceptual unit of energy and so time, because time is not absolute, and that the universe is only alive within that unit of time, somewhere between the Plank dimensions and zero point energy, then randomness does not exist.
What does exist is the free will of an intelligent observer within the superposition of that discreet unit to influence that cause to achieve a predetermined effect.
This is in the quantum level of unit perception
At the macro level of brain induced cohesive perception finite possibilities of effect would occur

We don't know for sure whether the future already exist or not. Paul Davies seems to think so. I am not quite sure about this but if the future is already there then determinism does exist. The problem I have with determinism and cause and effect is first cause. It is an infinite regression.

 

[RAD4921]

"Randomness" is a term that only has meaning when you provide a context. It basically means a lack of information. For example, if we know the state of every molecule in the universe at every point in time since the Big Bang, well those genetic mutations would not be random. But we don't know what sorts of chemicals those fish are going to bump into or what sorts of mistakes are going to happen in the copying of DNA, so we model that as a random process due to a lack of information.

Same deal with determinism. It's a term that only has validity if you consider the entire system of the universe from the dawn of time until the end of time. In that case, yes everything has been predetermined. But in the system of your life at this point in time, no. Too many uncertainties for you to say that your life has been predetermined.

If randomness is just a lack of information then you are agreeing with Bohm. Later on you state that to some degree that determinsim is limited . I think determinism either is 100% or does not exist at all. There is no in-between ground with determinism

 

[RAD4921]

Why do you ask questions that no one can honestly answer? What's the point?

Its called philosophy

 

[Tournesol]

If randomness is just a lack of information then you are agreeing with Bohm. Later on you state that to some degree that determinsim is limited . I think determinism either is 100% or does not exist at all. There is no in-between ground with determinism

That claim needs justification

 

[VonWeber]

Does Order Exist?

Does Order Exist? Some words are easy to use but hard to really understand. People use the word order a lot. Say that we live in an ordered universe... But few people ever actually say what order means. I've given it a lot of thought. The best I've come up with is that order relates to a persons ability to make a prediction rather then anything intrinsic or universal. I was looking at polkadots and the reason that they seemed ordered to me is that given any dot I could make up a rule to tell me where the next dot is. If found some dots and I couldn't come up with a rule or the rule was too complicated to retain entirely then my brain would (figuratively) cover over them by labeling them random. What is clear to most everyone is that just because something appears random doesn't mean there isn't some rule that could predict it. On the other hand it's not obvious to eveyone but just because something appears ordered doesn't mean there is anything more to order then the way we answere the question: "Can I make up some rule about this?"

Evolution states that organisms evolve due to random mutations. I question as to whether there is such a thing as randomness. It could be that what appears as randomness to the limited human mind could very well be a extremely complex ordered state that just appears as chaos to us humans who at this point are incapable of seeing the deeply hidden organization. This could very well apply to “inorganic” systems as well such as the conditions immediately after the big bang. Physicist David Bohm believed this. He called the organization that we could see as the explicate order and the hidden organization as the implicate order.

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

 

[delirium]

But in the system of your life at this point in time, no. Too many uncertainties for you to say that your life has been predetermined.

just because we are ignorant and lack information doesn't mean that everything is chaotic . you see there was a saying that goes like that : "there is more order in chaos , than in order itself" . you can't just say that nothing is predetemined , only because there are too many uncertainties . the uncertainties are there only to make us weak so we are not able to control our lives , which moreover suggest that everything is predermined in a twisted way , which we don't know
p.s. @Blueplanetbob great post

 

[selfAdjoint]

What does exist is the free will of an intelligent observer within the superposition of that discreet unit to influence that cause to achieve a predetermined effect.
This is in the quantum level of unit perception

Where did the quantum get into this? And what evidence is there for the free will you speak of? What little evidence we have suggests that free will, in the ontological sense, is an illusion.

 

[Hell_SD]

^ Could you please point me to some evidence for what you suggest. Are our choices not free to make ? If not ours then whose ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

^ Could you please point me to some evidence for what you suggest. Are our choices not free to make ? If not ours then whose ?

Here's the wiki article on Libet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet.

Libet discovered that our brain reacts to on oncoming muscle action (lifting a finger) before we decide to perform that action. Although Libet himself tried mightily to preserve free will in the face of this evidence, it is generally believed that he failed, and that it shows our belief in free will to be a mistake. If not ours then whose? Nobodiy's.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So SA, does that mean the 'thought' of us wanting to lift our fingers and hands is an event caused by the brain's pre-emption? Is so how does this account for me thinking about writing this sentence?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So SA, does that mean the 'thought' of us wanting to lift our fingers and hands is an event caused by the brain's pre-emption? Is so how does this account for me thinking about writing this sentence?

Determinism would say that you and I were destined to write these posts from the beginning of the world, driven by a chain of prior causes. This is not to say that determinism is true, just that simple minded asssertions of free will won't fly.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Right, so the absence of randomness isn't = to determinism?

 

[ModernBaroque]

I wish philosophers spent some time learning to program computers. If they did, they would understand that randomness cannot be achieved by any algorithm. And that implies it is absolutely impossible to describe randomness in any logical way.

Now if randomness can't be described, then we can't even establish if it exists. Whatever it is that we have in mind when we think of randomness, it's some form of determinism we don't yet understand. Which is why determinism is so attractive.

There is only one possibility for randomness to exist, and that is if the universe is incomprehensible. In other words, if the world is fundamentally random, then it is fundamentally mysterious and ultimately irrational.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I don't see how a failure in engineering or engineering logic means we cannot describe randomness. I'm not a philosopher but I'm pretty sure randomness is just unpredictability, not something without a cause but just where the result is pure probability. Isn't the chance of measuring an electron to be at a certain spot inside a certain radius of the nucleus just probability/chance? Obviously it's not without cause, but isn't that random?

And how does the existence of a single situation of randomness suddendly make the universe incomprehensible?

 

[ModernBaroque]

I don't see how a failure in engineering or engineering logic means we cannot describe randomness.

It's not a failure in engineering, it's a logical impossibility. Except for hardware failure, computers are 100% predictable - given the same initial conditions, they will always do the same thing. That is why they are useful.

I'm pretty sure randomness is just unpredictability, not something without a cause but just where the result is pure probability.

What you described above is pseudo-randomness, not true randomness. That is the kind of randomness that can, in fact, be generated by computer programs. It appears to be random but it is fully predictable, except it's very hard to predict due to the large number of variables.

True randomness would be something that cannot be predicted at all, even if you knew all the variables.

Isn't the chance of measuring an electron to be at a certain spot inside a certain radius of the nucleus just probability/chance? Obviously it's not without cause, but isn't that random?

I don't know if there is still a debate on whether quantum phenomena involve hidden variables. In any case, I think it's a silly debate because you can always postulate that our failure to predict is due to the existence of variables we cannot measure. (I think they got away with that hypothesis precisely because of that fact, but I'm not sure)

And how does the existence of a single situation of randomness suddendly make the universe incomprehensible?

I didn't say incomprehensible, I said "fundamentally mysterious". That is, the universe may not be predictable at fundamental levels, but it's obviously predictable on average. You cannot know which number you'll get when you throw two dice, but you can make a safe prediction that you'll get more 7's than any other combination.

If the universe is mysterious doesn't mean it's not predictable, and the fact that it is predictable does not mean it's not fundamentally incomprehensible. An intelligent observer will always find a way to perceive order even in a completely chaotic situation. But if there is true chaos the intelligente observer will, from time to time, be confounded by unpredicted observations.

 

[selfAdjoint]

That is, the universe may not be predictable at fundamental levels, but it's obviously predictable on average. You cannot know which number you'll get when you throw two dice, but you can make a safe prediction that you'll get more 7's than any other combination.

If the universe is mysterious doesn't mean it's not predictable, and the fact that it is predictable does not mean it's not fundamentally incomprehensible. An intelligent observer will always find a way to perceive order even in a completely chaotic situation. But if there is true chaos the intelligente observer will, from time to time, be confounded by unpredicted observations

Statistical predictablity, "How many Prussian Cavalry Sergeants will be kicked to death by their horses next year" tells us nothing about the life of any particular Sergeant. The statistical predictability you invoke is simply irrelevant to the issues around determinism and free will.

And do you have a source for your claim that true randomness is logically impossible? Have you or any computer scientist actually proved this? How?

 

[Hell_SD]

Regarding libet's findings : to say it removes free will is a bit of a jump. All I think he has proven is that our consciousness exists in absolute time and our bodies react in local time. Thats not to say that if we are our consciousness (and it exists outside of our bodies) then we don't choose what we will do in any given circumstance rather than just react to outside stimulus in a controlled environment.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Regarding libet's findings : to say it removes free will is a bit of a jump. All I think he has proven is that our consciousness exists in absolute time and our bodies react in local time. Thats not to say that if we are our consciousness (and it exists outside of our bodies) then we don't choose what we will do in any given circumstance rather than just react to outside stimulus in a controlled environment.

ABsolute time? Consciousness existing outside our bodies? This is your response to Libet? Why not god, Buddha, and the IFSM too?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Self Adjoint, I read wiki’s article about Libet’s experiment and, to me, it doesn’t really give more than an interpretation of the delays between different stages of a process that starts in the unconscious and ends with an action performed by the body.

For all we know, and we don’t know much, there could even be other stages that can’t be picked-up by the EEG electrodes.

So, imo, the experiment results offer absolutely no sound proof that would negate free will but rather could be a starting point to try to better define what is and how consciousness works altogether.


VE

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well whatever processes may exist, the subject's own account of what and when he willed must remain our gauge of what human will was involved. If you just hypothesize intermediate stages what to you gain? It is more reasonable to think of them as brain processes than as "will processes", so they wouldn't add anything to the free will discussion.

In general what I am reading in these responses is a tendency to make up imaginary states or processes that would extend the will past the Libet time. But there is no evidence of that, and you can always win any argument by making up "facts" that support your side or contradict the other one. This is contrary to the method of philosophy, not to mention science.

 

[Hell_SD]

ABsolute time? Consciousness existing outside our bodies? This is your response to Libet? Why not god, Buddha, and the IFSM too?

Yeah it is. Do you think he'd like it ? Do you ?

As for why not the others? Because I don't want to complicate things beyond neccessity.

On a side note, are you a 'many worlds' aficianado, a multiversalist ?

 

[ValenceE]

In general what I am reading in these responses is a tendency to make up imaginary states or processes that would extend the will past the Libet time. But there is no evidence of that, and you can always win any argument by making up "facts" that support your side or contradict the other one. This is contrary to the method of philosophy, not to mention science.

Dear sA,
which responses are you referring to ?


VE

 

[mosassam]

Weren't many systems considered to display randomness before chaos theory came along and demonstrated an underlying pattern/order? Similarly, Bohm's implicate order, touched on in the first post, appeared to be an attempt to model some of the non-local (random?) effects thrown up by QM. To me, this demonstrates that the possibility of fully understanding randomness cannot be considered to be out of reach, as it were.
Why does there appear to be a feeling that randomness and determinism cannot coexist? A forest full of trees can be said to be (randomly) different yet they seem "determined" to be trees.
As for free-will. I believe we have to be transcendentaaly aware of ourselves before we can make a genuinely free choice. To escape the bonds of imprinting, conditioning, and many other influences (society, family etc.) may be a lot more difficult than people think. We can say we have made a free choice, but how can we truly know this has been the case?
In short - understandable randomness, general determinism (not specific) and negligable free will.
And I'm an optimist!

 

[RAD4921]

I originally posted this and I am sorry but I can no longer participate in forum discussion efficiently becasue of my decreasing vision. I suffer from macular degeneration and it is robbing me of my central vision. I am now using a magnifyer but it is getting to difficult to participate in discussions

 

[verty]

Can you have a transplant done?

 

[mosassam]

Weren't many systems considered to display randomness before chaos theory came along and demonstrated an underlying pattern/order? Similarly, Bohm's implicate order, touched on in the first post, appeared to be an attempt to model some of the non-local (random?) effects thrown up by QM. To me, this demonstrates that the possibility of fully understanding randomness cannot be considered to be out of reach, as it were.
Why does there appear to be a feeling that randomness and determinism cannot coexist? A forest full of trees can be said to be (randomly) different yet they seem "determined" to be trees.
As for free-will. I believe we have to be transcendentaaly aware of ourselves before we can make a genuinely free choice. To escape the bonds of imprinting, conditioning, and many other influences (society, family etc.) may be a lot more difficult than people think. We can say we have made a free choice, but how can we truly know this has been the case?
In short - understandable randomness, general determinism (not specific) and negligable free will.
And I'm an optimist!

Out of respect for RAD4921 I feel this thread should be carried on as it is an excellent one. I hope that all participants can work towards a consensus on this one rather than waste time trying to trip each other up in wordgames (although I am not trying to undermine genuine criticism for the sake of clearer understanding). It seems often the case that we come to these threads with our minds already made up as to what is what (I'm as guilty of this as the next person). It would be inspiring if we could transcend our own limitations.

 

[-Job-]

Out of respect for RAD4921 I feel this thread should be carried on as it is an excellent one. I hope that all participants can work towards a consensus on this one rather than waste time trying to trip each other up in wordgames (although I am not trying to undermine genuine criticism for the sake of clearer understanding). It seems often the case that we come to these threads with our minds already made up as to what is what (I'm as guilty of this as the next person). It would be inspiring if we could transcend our own limitations.

Well said.

From what i understand, "bounded" randomness can produce something very akin to determinism at different scales, so it sounds more plausible than absolute randomness.
By bounded randomness i mean for example a particle that at time t can move only within some radius, yet the exact position within that radius is random.

 

[mosassam]

Evolution states that organisms evolve due to random mutations. I question as to whether there is such a thing as randomness.

The opening statement of this thread concerns evolution. I am not familiar with 'bounded' randomness (as I am a total layman here) and this may well be a gigantic leap in the wrong direction, but, applying 'bounded' randomness to evolution could we say that there do occur random mutations but in the whole evolution is somehow determined. This opens the door for the God Squad but I refer back to the original post and the concept, put forward by David Bohm, that implicate order guides the evolution of explicate order. It may also be the case that these mutations, which occur on a quantum/genetic level are not as 'random' as they initially appear.
I must stress I'm not laying any law down here, or personal belief, I'm just trying to open up some avenues of exploration to gain understanding in a subject I know very little about.

 

[mosassam]

The opening statement of this thread concerns evolution. I am not familiar with 'bounded' randomness (as I am a total layman here) and this may well be a gigantic leap in the wrong direction, but, applying 'bounded' randomness to evolution could we say that there do occur random mutations but in the whole evolution is somehow determined. This opens the door for the God Squad but I refer back to the original post and the concept, put forward by David Bohm, that implicate order guides the evolution of explicate order. It may also be the case that these mutations, which occur on a quantum/genetic level are not as 'random' as they initially appear.
I must stress I'm not laying any law down here, or personal belief, I'm just trying to open up some avenues of exploration to gain understanding in a subject I know very little about.

Any views on this, anyone?? Let's get this thread moving.

 

[raolduke]

Randomness only exists to human beings.. Just like everything else. Random only applies to human beings because man is the only creature that uses advanced thought process. We are the only creature that expects things; things that surprise us have a very low probability to happen or weren't even taken into consideration. If you want to know what random is read the bible - the only random decision a conscious being could make, (to say that he does exist, and to say that he is conscious) aka. God, would to create a monkey and to have them spend portions of their lives on an electronic hellhole discussing nothing. I take all of that back if any of you are published authors.. my hat is off to you guys that do that.

 

[out of whack]

This opens the door for the God Squad

And they have just send in a rep. See what you've done!

Ok, let me volunteer my interpretation of randomness. I share the point of view that it relates to a lack of information, and I also add that it can also relate to a lack of information processing ability to predict an outcome before the outcome occurs. In short, I consider randomness to be an inability to predict an outcome. What is random to one may not be random to another, depending on available information and processing power. The outcome of a pseudo-random generator is usually predictable just by using a faster machine, for example. And, in spite of deterministic causes, the weather remains random/unpredictable because we are unable to process all information in a timely manner.

This interpretation stands in contrast to what some call "true randomness", a concept which suggests that no possible amount of information and processing power would be sufficient to determine a "truly random" outcome. Of course, if you assume that the same causes must always lead to the same effect, then so-called "true randomness" assumes that some effects are uncaused (another hot topic of debate). Otherwise it would be possible in theory to determine any outcome given knowledge of all initial causes and given sufficient processing power. The premise of true randomness appears to run counter to the premise of cause and effect.

 

[mosassam]

What is random to one may not be random to another, depending on available information and processing power.

So you would say that, given enough processing power, randomness would not exist?

then so-called "true randomness" assumes that some effects are uncaused (another hot topic of debate).

In a Newtonian sense, I believe causality can be transcended (non-locality), but I'm not sure whether this reveals randomness.

 

[out of whack]

So you would say that, given enough processing power, randomness would not exist?

I don't quite go this far because even given unlimited information and unlimited processing power, a "predicting device" still cannot predict its own outcome, it cannot tell what its prediction will be before it predicts it. Given this, you can always find some element of unpredictability somewhere in the universe. Since there is no way to predict absolutely everything then I conclude that randomness does exist, in the sense of my definition.

 

[moving finger]

From what i understand, "bounded" randomness can produce something very akin to determinism at different scales, so it sounds more plausible than absolute randomness.
By bounded randomness i mean for example a particle that at time t can move only within some radius, yet the exact position within that radius is random.

I don't see how one can provide indisputable evidence for any kind of randomness. In the case of the particle scenario above (for example) the most one can do is to show that the position of the particle within the given radius is not predictable using our current knowledge of the "laws of nature" - but this does not lead to the safe conclusion that the particle's position is necessarily random. It may simply be that the particle position is very uniquely determined, but our understanding of the "laws of nature" is inadequate...

The same argument can be applied to any empirical "evidence" of randomness (including quantum randomness).

Hence, any empirical evidence of randomness may be interpreted simply in terms of lack of predictability born of our inadequate understanding of the laws of nature.

IMHO, the reason why many people seem to want to cling on to the idea of genuine randomness is because this seems to be the only hope for any kind of "free will" - such persons are unfortunately (IMHO) misguided.

MF

 

[Royce]

I suggest that you read up on Quantum Physics and Dynamics. "In Search of Schroedinger's Cat" by John Gribbin as wells as "In Search of Schroedinger's Kittens" is a good place for the layman to start.

 

[triverse]

"Randomness" is a term that only has meaning when you provide a context. It basically means a lack of information. For example, if we know the state of every molecule in the universe at every point in time since the Big Bang, well those genetic mutations would not be random. But we don't know what sorts of chemicals those fish are going to bump into or what sorts of mistakes are going to happen in the copying of DNA, so we model that as a random process due to a lack of information.

Same deal with determinism. It's a term that only has validity if you consider the entire system of the universe from the dawn of time until the end of time. In that case, yes everything has been predetermined. But in the system of your life at this point in time, no. Too many uncertainties for you to say that your life has been predetermined.

Opposite and attraction can have random id's.+ and - are attracted due to there characteristics.I believe everything thing is based on characteristics.What makes this like this, and what makes this not like this ,but I also think there is a third element that can contadict what will most likely happen.I think if there was just a right/wrong,good/bad,yes/no there would be no since of time itself because of the lack of complex.Simple means done,nothing is ever done in our universe there is always interactions happening on the small and big scale.With just a plus and a minus with no sometimes there would be no movement.At the basic level of atoms still don't do what they are suppose to do every single time.With this random or if you want to call it unknown source it keeps things moving.That is why you cannot compute a universe because the and inttelegence made would know for sure what is was .In othere words just commands and no questions.Free-will could be the random ID,but you cannot just put this to humans or just living things, but all.

 

[babak462]

It depends on how you define randomness and what you mean by it.It also depends on your personal beliefs. Some evolutionists say that God doesn't exist because evolution was a random process and there were no intelligent behind it. Regardless of the existence of God,The randomness that they are looking for is physically impossible.Believing that randomness exist( the way they define it) is the same as believing in miracles of Moses or Jesus.If it was possible to break the laws of universe, then the miracles of these prophets were also physically possible. Before the beginning of time ( the big bang) there were no laws and if there were any laws they were different than the laws of universe because there was no time,and randomness was scientifically possible ,but life began long after the big bang.It began in our universe. I believe if we explore more and do more research to find the reason behind diversity we won't get to the point were every thing is random and and things are just happening for no reason. I think we will find great laws behind this diversity.Don't tell anyone that you heard it from me ,but both atheists and theists believe in miracles.

 

[Evo]

It depends on how you define randomness and what you mean by it.It also depends on your personal beliefs. Some evolutionists say that God doesn't exist because evolution was a random process and there were no intelligent behind it. Regardless of the existence of God,The randomness that they are looking for is physically impossible.Believing that randomness exist( the way they define it) is the same as believing in miracles of Moses or Jesus.If it was possible to break the laws of universe, then the miracles of these prophets were also physically possible. Before the beginning of time ( the big bang) there were no laws and if there were any laws they were different than the laws of universe because there was no time,and randomness was scientifically possible ,but life began long after the big bang.It began in our universe. I believe if we explore more and do more research to find the reason behind diversity we won't get to the point were every thing is random and and things are just happening for no reason. I think we will find great laws behind this diversity.Don't tell anyone that you heard it from me ,but both atheists and theists believe in miracles.

Exactly what is happening for no reason? Certainly you aren't referring to evolution.

 

[ThomasT]

The opening statement of this thread concerns evolution. I am not familiar with 'bounded' randomness (as I am a total layman here) and this may well be a gigantic leap in the wrong direction, but, applying 'bounded' randomness to evolution could we say that there do occur random mutations but in the whole evolution is somehow determined. This opens the door for the God Squad but I refer back to the original post and the concept, put forward by David Bohm, that implicate order guides the evolution of explicate order. It may also be the case that these mutations, which occur on a quantum/genetic level are not as 'random' as they initially appear.
I must stress I'm not laying any law down here, or personal belief, I'm just trying to open up some avenues of exploration to gain understanding in a subject I know very little about.

Randomness refers to unpredictability. So randomness exists. As for its relationship to the understanding of evolution and biodiversity, the underlying dynamic(s) governing mutation isn't known, and the occurance of any individual mutation is unpredictable. So mutation is said to occur randomly.

Whether wrt genetics or quantum experimental phenomena or whatever, unpredictability/randomness leads to probabilistic formulations and the production and processing of large statistical samples, which in turn reveals a certain predictability wrt the statistical trends of large samples of random individual events.

 

[a4mula]

I wish philosophers spent some time learning to program computers. If they did, they would understand that randomness cannot be achieved by any algorithm. And that implies it is absolutely impossible to describe randomness in any logical way.

Now if randomness can't be described, then we can't even establish if it exists. Whatever it is that we have in mind when we think of randomness, it's some form of determinism we don't yet understand. Which is why determinism is so attractive.

There is only one possibility for randomness to exist, and that is if the universe is incomprehensible. In other words, if the world is fundamentally random, then it is fundamentally mysterious and ultimately irrational.

While it's entirely correct that as it stands today it's impossible to create true random number generators in programming language it's quite another story to say that it doesn't exist.

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

These are devices that use radioactive decay (among other methods) to create a true random event. We use devices like this all across the world from mechanical lottery devices, online poker, pseudodata population ect.

Randomness occurs without a doubt. We put this topic to bed once QM superseded Newtonian Cause and Effect. The world is not a giant tumbling bed of already toppled dominoes. We live in a world where our observations take a direct action on wavefunction collapse. Events that were undetermined are determined once we take action on them. Predetermination is dead.

 

[Navigateur]

Randomness occurs without a doubt. We put this topic to bed once QM superseded Newtonian Cause and Effect. The world is not a giant tumbling bed of already toppled dominoes. We live in a world where our observations take a direct action on wavefunction collapse. Events that were undetermined are determined once we take action on them. Predetermination is dead.

I realize this poster may no longer be on here but this debate is still "alive" in the world so I thought I'd reply because I'm baffled.

I'm baffled because I can't believe there are still people who believe that actual "randomness" exists in the actual world. Let's take human behaviour as an example (because we're human beings). Is it total randomness that determines, for example, what sound we want in our ears at a given time? If the answer was yes, we would all simply listen to white noise all the time. Therefore the answer is no. At a given time our desire reflects something specific, a certain rhythm, harmony, structure, the nature of which only we can know at that time (what we want). Now let's imagine an "outside" (non-human) observer. Even if we were an absolutely proficient composer and performer, performing the exact music we wanted, live, and on the fly, that "outside" observer would not know what the hell we are doing and why. Our actions are based on our desires plus our understanding, but the "outside" observer can only use observable data and try to figure out patterns based on that data. Even for this example, have you ever actually looked at the waveform of a beatiful piece of music? It looks "all over" the place at a micro level. So the outside observer will be mystified. So, if human behaviour, which is based on desires and a person's state of understanding/beliefs, that we know we have, would be so difficult for an outside observer to decipher, why should we expect ANYTHING in the universe to be easy for US to decipher? It's actually remarkable that we do have some things that we can, such as gravity and electromagnetism, but to conclude that everything else is nondeterministic simply makes no sense. It can be useful to designate what is unknown by designating the extent of what we do know, and quantum formulae can be used to predict the range of what might happen, and nothing more, but to derive or imagine the existence of something as nonsensical as "randomness" beyond that simply has no foundation at all.

And then you might say "well if we can just use quantum formulae, and they work, then it doesn't really matter if actual randomness exists or not". Well, it DOES matter. It means you no longer have to explore anything beyond your/our understanding because it can just be labeled as "random". We become scientifically totally stagnant as a human race. Logic is no longer used because things are "just the way they are". That is quite frankly, and obviously, bunk. But it's worse than that. As soon as you stop asking "why", then all is lost. Don't you get it? This is serious. Wake up!

 

[Studiot]

So long as any system can have more than one state ( and the universe would be pretty boring if this were not true as it implies zero change) it is pretty easy to define randomness.

Take any state - it doesn't matter which one - and call it 'order'.
Every other available state is by definition 'random'.

This is a similar process to chosing an origin in maths or physics.

 

[Navigateur]

So long as any system can have more than one state ( and the universe would be pretty boring if this were not true as it implies zero change) it is pretty easy to define randomness.

Take any state - it doesn't matter which one - and call it 'order'.
Every other available state is by definition 'random'.

This is a similar process to chosing an origin in maths or physics.

Dear Studiot, members of a system have TENDENCIES, so their behaviour is not random. As individual beings, we know what we're going to do next, the people who know us extremely well MAY be able to predict this, to a limited degree, those who know us less well to an even less certain degree, "non-human" observers would have no idea, and so on. To ask why or NOT TO ASK WHY. That is the ONLY question in relation to randomness. If something is considered to have no further reasoning, it is "random". Randomness is the GIVING UP or ABDICATION of reasoning, and nothing more. It is the birth of scientific stagnation.