Is random a valid scientific cause?

[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.

 

[M Quack]

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.

Winning the jackpot of being alive in a sterile universe is certainly less likely than winning this weeks lottery draw. As to how likely exactly and possibly even "mathematically indistinguishable from impossible" (whatever that may mean) - I don't think there is enough data to make such sweeping statements. Not so long ago there were estimates that resulted in the conclusion "so where is everyone". Even today estimated values of the Drake equation range from 10^-20 to 182 millions (10^8).

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

This enormous spread of 28 orders of magnitude shows just how little we know about the conditions needed for the emergence of life as we currently know it.

 

[Maui]

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

I thought that the consensus on the infinitely low entropy at the time of the Big Bang that led to this conversation already suggested that the odds of having this universe and life was very very close to 1 to infinity.

 

[russ_watters]

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. [emphasis added]

...and there are most scientists who think the quantum world is not.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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

No. Again, "cause" and "random" don't have much of anything to do with each other. Again, the cause of decay is instability. The fact that the effect of instability includes a component of randomness does not in any way imply that decay does not have a cause.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

You need to learn about how science works, because pretty much every post demonstrates an incorrect understanding. Here you are misunderstanding the point of axioms/assumptions. They are invoked for reasons of logical necessity, not because they are considered self-evident. In many cases (such as the constancy of the speed of light in SR), they have experimental support and are themselves conclusions of theories, but in order to use it as a logical foundation, you must first assume it to be absolutely true. That's why you can start a line of logic with: "Assuming X is true..." It doesn't much matter where "X" came from, though good ones are not merely self-evident or pulled out of thin air.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought that the consensus on the infinitely low entropy at the time of the Big Bang that led to this conversation already suggested that the odds of having this universe and life was very very close to 1 to infinity.

Since that's gibberish, no.

 

[Containment]

I have not heard many uses of random that did not have a scope that limits the randomness. Take random number generators for example it is assumed that they are not completely random because they are based off the computer systems internal clock. But they are still considered random enough to not worry too much about it. If your talking about true/complete randomness it may in fact be impossible because it would have to include the possibility's that are impossible and as far as I understand that in it self is impossible. However asking for that type of randomness is like asking for a dog that's a cat. It's hardly important to science or anyone except for understanding that the question is in essence meaningless.

To me my understanding of random has been a lot like the gambler who's slowly learning that the odds are in the houses favor more and more and hopefully before I bet the deeds.

 

[Maui]

Since that's gibberish, no.

Roger Penrose, (the famous British mathematician), wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose(in The Emperors New Mind), the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123(larger than a googolplex).

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

 

[Maui]

...and there are most scientists who think the quantum world is not.

And since you can't propose an experiment that will reveal who's right, your objections are philosophical in nature. Which was all i was saying to you.

No. Again, "cause" and "random" don't have much of anything to do with each other. Again, the cause of decay is instability. The fact that the effect of instability includes a component of randomness does not in any way imply that decay does not have a cause.

But if decay has a cause, it goes against your point of there being inherent randomness in qm(which is typically defined as the observation of non-causal events and you just defended the non-determinism of qm)?!

 

[phyzguy]

Roger Penrose, (the famous British mathematician), wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang.

According to Penrose(in The Emperors New Mind), the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123(larger than a googolplex).

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

Yes, but what does this have to do with the probability of life originating? The two questions are completely different.

 

[Evo]

We've done as much as we can. Thread closed.