Is Randomness a Myth in the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tepster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    random
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether randomness exists in the universe, with participants asserting that all events have causes according to physics. The conversation highlights the deterministic nature of the universe, while acknowledging the role of quantum mechanics, which introduces probabilities rather than certainties. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as Bohm's deterministic view and the many-worlds theory, suggest that while events may appear random, they are part of a larger deterministic framework. The topic remains contentious and is open to further exploration. Ultimately, the discussion hints at the philosophical implications of these scientific interpretations.
Tepster
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'd like to ask you if is there (in universe) anything random - any event which hasn't a reason. I say no but I haven't enough knowledge about physics so perhaps there are some things I don't know.

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are asking if there are effects that happen without cause, then no, there are not. Not according to physics.
 
So that mean the future is already defined, doesn't it?
 
Tepster said:
So that mean the future is already defined, doesn't it?

It means that future events must have causes, nothing more.
 
If by a "reason" you mean that based on the previous situation this had to happen, then you are asking whether the universe is deterministic. This depends on how you understand quantum mechanics. According to the standard way of formulating QM, there are only probabilities about a range of things that may happen. But there are other interpretations such as Bohm's which are deterministic. Then you have the "many worlds" idea: That all the "options" happen but we see them as parallel universes, so looking at the whole picture there is determinism, but anyone copy of you, in one of the worlds, seem a random process. These different interpretations are still the subject of much debate, so one can say that your question is still open.
 
I think maline's post sums up the standard argument pretty well. This thread seems destined to spiral down into the depths of a philosophical discussion, so I'm going to lock it now before it reaches the philosophical event horizon. Tepster, if you have a non-philosophical question, feel free to start a new thread.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top