Does Randomness Intrinsically Exist in Nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Randomness
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of intrinsic randomness in nature, questioning whether it exists independently of human knowledge. Participants explore the implications of using a coin-tossing experiment to derive answers about randomness, with some arguing that such experiments cannot definitively prove true randomness due to potential hidden variables. The conversation touches on Gödel's incompleteness theorems and their relevance to self-referential statements, suggesting that the nature of randomness may be complex and intertwined with determinism. Additionally, there is skepticism about the ability of mathematical models to fully capture or prove randomness, emphasizing that randomness is often treated as an assumption rather than a proven fact. The overall conclusion is that while randomness may be a fundamental aspect of nature, its true nature remains elusive and difficult to define.
kleinwolf
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
If a Goedel system type answer to the question :

"Does randomness intrisically exists in the nature ?" (i.e. independently of human knowledge for example).

I play a coin-throwing similar experiment and get the answer "No"...How is the value of this answer to be interpreted epistemologically ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kleinwolf said:
If a Goedel system type answer to the question :
"Does randomness intrisically exists in the nature ?" (i.e. independently of human knowledge for example).
I play a coin-throwing similar experiment and get the answer "No"...How is the value of this answer to be interpreted epistemologically ?
Thanks.

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about here. What is a "Goedel system" and how does it answer any question?

How does a "coin-throwing similar experiment" answer a question?
 
kleinwolf said:
If a Goedel system type answer to the question :
"Does randomness intrisically exists in the nature ?" (i.e. independently of human knowledge for example).
I play a coin-throwing similar experiment and get the answer "No"...How is the value of this answer to be interpreted epistemologically ?
Thanks.

Any happening in nature independent of human knowledge, is random, consistent, and true.
 
Random

For HallsofIvy...I just meant a similar in the approach system of answer like Goedel : if i rememer it was like : giving the answer : "This sentance is not deduceable from the axioms"..which means if it is true (relatively to the sys. of axioms cited inside it), that it's wrong. So if it's wrong, then it's true...Some kind of...

So let say we admit the hypothesis of the previous intervening person that I modify a bit : Is God's knowledge random (??)...Then I throw a coin and if it's head I say yes...Does that in anyway is interesting at all...I begin to hesitate about this
 
Goedel was talking about self-referential sentences. That has nothing to do with the question of randomness in nature.

Similarly, throwing a coin a large number of times is not going to tell you anything about whether the result is "truly random" (as opposed to completely determined by air currents, how you hold you finger, etc.), that we might call "hidden" (or unknown) variables.

On the quantum level, there exists good evidence that such things as the position or momentum of an elementary particle really are random and do not depend on "hidden" variables.
 
Well, good...but on the other hand, who told you the hidden variable was not itself randomly distributed like \lambda is hidden but we only know that p(\lambda)=\rho(\lambda) or even if we take that \lambda=\lambda(x,t)...a space-time dependence...? On the second : you can give the answer only one time with a coin...why make several trials ? Or Just tell a different answer to everyone, if you feel like for example...
 
Similarly, throwing a coin a large number of times is not going to tell you anything about whether the result is "truly random"

No, I don't want to study a coin throwing to discover if it can be made deterministic...I just do the game : let suppose a truly random process that is then used to answer the question : "is true randomity existent in nature ?"...if you do a lot of time, it's more or less like a quantum notion : it is a superposition of random (hazard isn't it meaning : danger/menace ?) and determination...for example

a) you put 10$ at a bank, they give you .1$ after 1 year, however, if the bank gives you 10$ they ask 1$ for you after 1 year (for example)...this is deterministic, you know the force ratio is 10/1...independ of time...however the bank is asking this because there are non vanishing probabilities (random/hazard=menace) the single people cannot give back ? I don't know how the calculation is done by the financial institution.
 
Last edited:
Randomness, by nature, can not be proven. It is an "assumed" event.
That are no mathematical models which exists, or can ever exist, which can prove randomness.
 

Similar threads

I Random variable vs Random Process
Replies
2
Views
2K
A Concrete examples of randomness in math vs. probability theory
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Sample space, outcome, event, random variable, probability...
Replies
6
Views
3K
Can Nature take exact random samples?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Sinusoidal sequences with random phases
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Why randomness means incomplete understanding
3
Replies
106
Views
15K
A Does true randomness exist in nature?
Replies
9
Views
3K
B Matter-antimatter asymmetry - a simple explanation?
Replies
12
Views
4K
I The Mystery of Atomic Decay: Is it Truly Random or is There More at Play?
Replies
13
Views
3K
B Is Randomness in Quantum Mechanics Truly Non-Deterministic?
2
Replies
88
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top