Does Randomness Intrinsically Exist in Nature?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Randomness
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether randomness intrinsically exists in nature, exploring philosophical and epistemological implications. Participants reference Gödel's incompleteness theorems and engage in thought experiments involving coin tossing to illustrate their points. The conversation touches on concepts from quantum mechanics and the nature of determinism versus randomness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a Gödel-type answer to the question of intrinsic randomness could yield a "No," but the epistemological interpretation of such an answer is questioned.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the relevance of Gödel systems and coin-tossing experiments to the question of randomness.
  • Another participant asserts that any occurrence in nature, independent of human knowledge, is random, consistent, and true.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of self-referential sentences in Gödel's work and their relation to randomness, with one participant suggesting a hypothetical scenario involving divine knowledge and randomness.
  • One participant argues that throwing a coin multiple times does not provide insight into whether results are "truly random," suggesting that hidden variables might influence outcomes.
  • Another participant raises the possibility that hidden variables could themselves be randomly distributed, questioning the determinism of such variables.
  • One participant emphasizes that randomness cannot be proven and is merely an assumed event, suggesting that no mathematical models can definitively establish randomness.
  • A reference to Bell test experiments is provided, indicating a connection to quantum mechanics and discussions of randomness at the quantum level.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the existence and nature of randomness, with no consensus reached on the topic. The discussion remains unresolved, with differing interpretations and hypotheses presented.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of randomness and determinism, as well as unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of hidden variables and their potential randomness.

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 [tex]\lambda[/tex] is hidden but we only know that [tex]p(\lambda)=\rho(\lambda)[/tex] or even if we take that [tex]\lambda=\lambda(x,t)[/tex]...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

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 106 ·
4
Replies
106
Views
16K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
13K