Is Randomness Real or Just Complex Predictability?

[Pythagorean]

Ok, I found a better quote: He's saying that the HUP is a technological limitation, not actually a fundamental principle. I would argue that that is neither the intent of the HUP nor the prevailing view (as per the quote above). It's basically a religious belief.

I agree with you, here.

And, btw, my mind isn't made up about determinism in QM. But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.

 

[DrRocket]

Note again, what's being descirbed in this thread is just relatively simple misunderstandings about how the universe operates and what the implications of randomness are. Again, this link deals with the misunderstandings people are having here completely: http://www.random.org/randomness/

Not only does that link not deal with the misunderstandings "completely" it simply reiterates the misunderstandings themselves -- in short the author offers no understanding but only a boat load of platitudes, culminating in no useful definition of "random" whatever.

That is not particularly surprising since no one else on this planet has formulated a satisfactory physical definition of "random" either. Thus you are stuck with either the everyday definition which is neither testable nor scientifically useful or else you are stuck with the mathematical treatment which also is not testable.

What the mathematical treatment does offer is a rather detailed theory of probability and stochastic processes, suitable for use in physical models. However, the connection between the models and the physical processes being described lies solely in the apparent empirical connection between predictions and observations. Again this is not surprising as the connection between mathematics and physics of necessity lies solely in the empirical evidence. There is no particular reason why mathematics should be as effective as it apparently is -- see Eugen Wigner's essay "The Unreasonable Success of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

There is no misunderstanding as to how the universe operates, although there is the possibility of ignorance. So far as anyone knows, the physical processes of the universe, other than those concerning gravity, are governed by one or another quantum field theory and those theories are inherently stochastic. So, insofar as our current understanding of
physics goes, the universe is indeed governed by probabilistic laws. However, and the mechanism behind this is not fully understood, at the macroscopic level the stochastic laws of quantum theory give way to predictions that are apparently deterministic. This may well be due to the law of large numbers, but again the research in this area is incomplete -- if you like "Google" the subjects of "quantum decoherence" or "collapse of the wave function".

The author of your link gives a rather superficial treatment of the relationship between quantum theory, probability, and macroscopic phenomena. But the bottom line is that, according to the best available theory, radioactive decay is actually a stochastic process. Thus his counter-arguments to the efficacy of radioactive decay as a means of generation of random numbers relies on decidedly speculative physical theories. Those specualtions may or may not eventually prove valid, but at this juncture there is not the slightest experimental evidence for them.

Of course you can always take the philosophical approach, ignore the science and mathematics, and just talk. That seems to be what is going on here.

 

[apeiron]

I wouldn't call a nuclear decay an "uncaused event". What it is is an event who'se exact timing cannot be determined: it is random/non-deterministic and governed by probability.

I would have thought it was clear from my other posts that I see physics - particularly QM - as being absolutely positively non-deterministic. The only way to be a scientist and be deterministic is to believe there is another yet-to-be-discovered theory/law governing these events that currently appear random. That seems unlikely.

If a decay is not uncaused, then does that mean you believe it is caused?

Your wording is very unclear here as you make an ontic statement, then qualify it with epistemological facts (an observer lacks the necessary information, must rely on probablistic modelling, etc).

And if you really believe in ontic randomness, then surely this in turn does justify deeper enquiry into our deterministic conception of physical law, which you seem to agree is the basis of standard science.

My argument here has been 1) QM is hard evidence for something like ontic randomness, 2) to then say nothing further leaves the door open to woo-woo talk about supernatural causation, 3) we can in fact look to other models of causality which reframe both determinism and randomness as global constraint and local spontaneity.

And I have seen no arguments yet against a Peircean approach.

 

[russ_watters]

But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.

That is the point! Certain things can be known, certain things can be predicted as a matter of probability and certain things are just random number generators we're playing with (which is why they are used as random number generators!). QM tells us which is which and how to properly deal with each.

 

[Pythagorean]

That is the point! Certain things can be known, certain things can be predicted as a matter of probability and certain things are just random number generators we're playing with (which is why they are used as random number generators!). QM tells us which is which and how to properly deal with each.

So then, you mean to say that QM has both deterministic and non-deterministic elements? And the question of determinism and applying it to the whole universe is fundamentally flawed? This isn't much different from naive classical mechanics.

 

[russ_watters]

If a decay is not uncaused, then does that mean you believe it is caused.

Lets take it slow:

QM can predict that a decay will happen.

QM can predict a probability distribution of when it might happen.

QM cannot predict exactly when it will happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Not only does that link not deal with the misunderstandings "completely" it simply reiterates the misunderstandings themselves -- in short the author offers no understanding but only a boat load of platitudes, culminating in no useful definition of "random" whatever...

For all that, I see lilttle in your post that characterizes the issue differently!

 

[russ_watters]

So then, you mean to say that QM has both deterministic and non-deterministic elements?

Sure - the HUP tells us that the more accurate your measurement needs, the less accurate your results. If you just need to do a rough-estimate of your weight with Newton's law, you do fine to ignore sources of error and assume it is deterministic and 100% accurate. If you need to know the position of an electron, you can't.

And the question of determinism and applying it to the whole universe is fundamentally flawed? This isn't much different from naive classical mechanics.

I don't understand what you meant there, but it may be just what I said above...


...to expand a little, though, early scientists had no reason to believe they couldn't get whatever measurement accuracy they wanted - that the universe was deterministic. Their measurements weren't accurate enough to find that their measurments had a fundamental accuracy limit.

 

[DrRocket]

I agree with you, here.

And, btw, my mind isn't made up about determinism in QM. But QM would be useless if it wasn't deterministic wouldn't it? I mean, that's the point of theories. You have some chain of causality that explains a phenomena, then you can exploit that chain of causality and manipulate the system. How would we be able to make use of QM if it wasn't deterministic? If there's no chain of causality, what's the point? It may as well be a random number generator you're playing with.

QM is NOT deterministic, period.

The only thing in QM that is deterministic is the evolution of the state function, which is in fact nothing more than a deterministic evolution of probability measures.

This is basic quantum theory, whether you choose elementary quantum mechanics or quantum field theories.

The WHOLE POINT of quantum theories is that they predict only probabilities, not specific events.

 

[Pythagorean]

Sure - the HUP tells us that the more accurate your measurement needs, the less accurate your results. If you just need to do a rough-estimate of your weight with Newton's law, you do fine to ignore sources of error and assume it is deterministic and 100% accurate. If you need to know the position of an electron, you can't.

I don't understand what you meant there, but it may be just what I said above...

Ok, we're on the same page. I guess I assumed you were speaking in absolutes, and you might have assumed the same about my comments.

My argument was basically that there are deterministic events in the universe (and in QM), your argument is that there are non-deterministic events in the universe (and in QM).

These aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[DrRocket]

For all that, I see lilttle in your post that characterizes the issue differently!

Then read more deeply. Not seeing it is not the same as it not being there.

 

[DrRocket]

Sure - the HUP tells us that the more accurate your measurement needs, the less accurate your results. If you just need to do a rough-estimate of your weight with Newton's law, you do fine to ignore sources of error and assume it is deterministic and 100% accurate. If you need to know the position of an electron, you can't.
I don't understand what you meant there, but it may be just what I said above...


...to expand a little, though, early scientists had no reason to believe they couldn't get whatever measurement accuracy they wanted - that the universe was deterministic. Their measurements weren't accurate enough to find that their measurments had a fundamental accuracy limit.

What the uncertainty principle really says is that if you prepare a whole bunch of particles, let's say electrons, in the same way and then do a series of measurements on those electrons, say measuring position, that if you perform the measurements so as to produce a small variance in the positin measurement then the variance in a measurement of the momentum will become large. This is not surprising since the position and momentum are related via the Fourier transform.

There is no inherent accuracy limit to the position measurement itself, just to the ability to measure both an observable (here position) and its complement (here momentum).

But the real heart of quantum mechanics is that phenomena are not deterministic, but rather are actually stochastic. For instance consider a tunnel diode. Classically no electrons should be able to cross the potential energy barrier. In actuallity some, but not all, electrons pass across the barrier. Quantum theory can predict the relative frequency with which this occurs, but it cannot predict whether any given electron will cross the barrier or not. QM is fundamentally stochastic.

BTW the weight example is a bad example. We don't have a quantum theory that applies to gravitational effects.

 

[jostpuur]

So you believe that you have a definition for what "random" actually means?

(So rigor definition, that it can be used to deal with these claims about randomness being supernatural.)

As I already stated, Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. The idea that anyone definition of "random" supersedes all others contradicts this observation. What I am asserting is that because the context is so broad when discussing the truly random (a metaphysical idea) its meaning becomes indistinguishable from the "supernatural".

You could have admitted that you believe that you have some definition for (true) randomness.

Obviously you have some definition for (true) randomness, because you also wrote this:

Something that is truly random, and not merely unpredictable, by definition does not follow any natural laws.

My guess is that you are trying to avoid revealing your definition for (true) randomness, because if you told your definition too clearly, it would become too evident that your original claim was nearly the same thing as your definition.

That means that you have defined the meaning of the concept "true randomness" so that it is supernatural, and then you have arrived at the result that true randomness is supernatural.

The problem with that is that not everybody agrees with your definition for "true randomness". When you distract the discussion away from the definition, the argument becomes endless.

You should have merely stated that you have an intuitive feeling that randomness is supernatural. Then people would not have attacked you. I believe I understand this intuitive feeling, but I'm not pretending that I had a rigour justification for it.

Now... this:

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural.

I don't think that this should be dismissed as obviously incorrect. Consider the following possibilities:

1: It could be, that laws of nature work as described by quantum mechanics, and then randomness is natural.

2: It could be, that real quantum mechanical events are merely pseudo random, and true randomness would be supernatural.

How could you figure out which one is true? You cannot prove that QM events are not pseudo random, by experiment. Also, it could be that we cannot really tell the difference between these two possibilities, because it is too difficult to come up with sufficient definitions for randomness and pseudo randomness.

 

[apeiron]

Lets take it slow:

QM can predict that a decay will happen.

QM can predict a probability distribution of when it might happen.

QM cannot predict exactly when it will happen.

OK, we can take it real slow. All the above are epistemological statements - predictions and measurements of a model.

Now what about the ontology that may be correctly inferred? Your posts have all had an air of naive realism - how things seem is how they are, it really is that simple.

A scientist, on pragmatic grounds, can correctly say I know the model works, and so far as anything else, I take the fifth amendment.

But this was a philosophical thread asking for reasonable inferences about the reality behind the models.

So the actual question you would have to address is, if QM suggests that events can have an essential spontaneity, how can we make sense of that?

Obviously, if we believe in ontic determinism/locality, then it does not make sense. But equally, the opposite choice of causeless events (or more correctly, events lacking in efficient causes) is not an attractive one. So at that point we are justified to look to new ontic frameworks, which is where the philosophy would start and the questions get interesting.

 

[wuliheron]

You could have admitted that you believe that you have some definition for (true) randomness.

Obviously you have some definition for (true) randomness, because you also wrote this:

This is not my definition, read the original post:

Just to help define what random is Dictionary.com states that it is:

"–adjective
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers."

But does random truly exist?
For example the roll of dice is usually referred to as random, but really there are tons of factors that control the result of a roll. Air resistance, friction for the surface the dice land on, how the dice are thrown, their starting position, etc...
In the game of craps, there are people who can actually change the probability of rolling certain combinations of numbers; obviously they are tampering with the factors to change the result.

Is random merely a term dubbed for scenarios too complex for us to break down and predict, or does random exist?

This is not only the dictionary definition, it is the definition requested by the original poster!

 

[Pythagorean]

Russ and DrRocket,

I finally found a thread in which ZapperZ and sA responded in more a more coherent way than the previous example.

My interpretation is this:

0) firstly, philosophical determinism and scientific determinism are two different things (just like the problem with "random").

1) QM is scientifically deterministic. The conditions are determined by the state of the system. Different systems will exhibit different behaviors. This is determinism.

2) No physicist will comment on whether the system is philosophically deterministic, because each philosopher (untrained in either the formalism or experimental experience with quantum systems) has their own preconceptions about what deterministic means.

But here's the thread for you to draw your own conclusions:

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-16253.html

 

[DrRocket]

Russ and DrRocket,

I finally found a thread in which ZapperZ and sA responded in more a more coherent way than the previous example.

My interpretation is this:

0) firstly, philosophical determinism and scientific determinism are two different things (just like the problem with "random").

1) QM is completely scientifically deterministic. The conditions are determined by the state of the system. Different systems will exhibit different behaviors. This is determinism!

2) No physicist will comment on whether the system is philosophically deterministic, because each philosopher (untrained in either the formalism or experimental experience with quantum systems) has their own preconceptions about what deterministic means.

I agree with 0 and 2.

QM is not detereministic. Is it stochastic. In fact the lack of determinism of QM is one of the major stumbling blocks in unifying general relativity with quantum theories.

What is true about QM is that the evolution of the state function is deterministic. At the elementary level that is the implication of the Schrodinger equation.

However, the state function does not determine the events of the system but only the probabilities associated with the various possible outcomes. What is evolving deterministically is a set of probability measures, which is what the state function represents.

The outcome of quantum experiments varies, even with identical conditions. It varies according to the probabilities predicted by the state function for whatever observables are of interest. That is obviously not deterministic. It is in fact the ony example in nature of which I am aware in which probability is fundamenatal and not just an ad hoc model used due to ignorance of the details of the physics.

The fact that macroscopic physics appears to be deterministic is not the issue. This transition from the quantum mechanical to the classical is only partially understood, and is usually explained in terms of "collapse of the wave function" in the Copenhagen interpretation and is also studied under the name of "quantum decoherence" in other circles. It may well be just a manifestation of the law of large numbers, and in my opinion that is most likely the case.

There are also some research avenues being pursued that attempt to find a deterministic model that would still yield the observed quantum effects. This despite the most common interpretation of Bell's theorem which is that hidden variable theories are not viable. The thought there is that the assumptions of Bell's theorem may be erroneous. There are relatively few physicists who are willing to entertain this idea, but among them are Gerardus 'tHooft and there is not a better theorist, particularly with regard to quantum theories, on this planet. Whether this pans out or not is anyone's guess. However, the very existence of this line of inquiry illustrates the stochastic nature of quantum theories.

At the most fundamental level quantum theory is quite obviously stochastic. That is a dead nuts certainty. Any contrary opinion is just plain wrong. Any contrary theoretical approach to mainstream quantum field theories is speculative.

It occurs to me that you may be comingling the notions of "causa"l and "determinism". While the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic is clear, the question of causality is not. Causality is not so clear precisely because quantum theory is stochastic. I would agree that physicists are reluctant to address this question, and I am in that camp myself.

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with 0 and 2.

QM is not detereministic. Is it stochastic. In fact the lack of determinism of QM is one of the major stumbling blocks in unifying general relativity with quantum theories.

What is true about QM is that the evolution of the state function is deterministic. At the elementary level that is the implication of the Schrodinger equation.

However, the state function does not determine the events of the system but only the probabilities associated with the various possible outcomes. What is evolving deterministically is a set of probability measures, which is what the state function represents.

The outcome of quantum experiments varies, even with identical conditions. It varies according to the probabilities predicted by the state function for whatever observables are of interest. That is obviously not deterministic. It is in fact the ony example in nature of which I am aware in which probability is fundamenatal and not just an ad hoc model used due to ignorance of the details of the physics.

The fact that macroscopic physics appears to be deterministic is not the issue. This transition from the quantum mechanical to the classical is only partially understood, and is usually explained in terms of "collapse of the wave function" in the Copenhagen interpretation and is also studied under the name of "quantum decoherence" in other circles. It may well be just a manifestation of the law of large numbers, and in my opinion that is most likely the case.

There are also some research avenues being pursued that attempt to find a deterministic model that would still yield the observed quantum effects. This despite the most common interpretation of Bell's theorem which is that hidden variable theories are not viable. The thought there is that the assumptions of Bell's theorem may be erroneous. There are relatively few physicists who are willing to entertain this idea, but among them are Gerardus 'tHooft and there is not a better theorist, particularly with regard to quantum theories, on this planet. Whether this pans out or not is anyone's guess. However, the very existence of this line of inquiry illustrates the stochastic nature of quantum theories.

At the most fundamental level quantum theory is quite obviously stochastic. That is a dead nuts certainty. Any contrary opinion is just plain wrong. Any contrary theoretical approach to mainstream quantum field theories is speculative.

It occurs to me that you may be comingling the notions of "causa"l and "determinism". While the fact that quantum mechanics is not deterministic is clear, the question of causality is not. Causality is not so clear precisely because quantum theory is stochastic. I would agree that physicists are reluctant to address this question, and I am in that camp myself.

I changed 1) to remove "completely" but you were too quick, so you caught my absolute thinking (which was an error). I think we agree now, even on 1).

The miscommunication comes from determinism, I think. You may have been interpreting my use of the word determinism as similar to the religious notion of determinism, which has roots in "predeterminism" which would say something like "all events are already determined".

But this is not what I'm saying. 1), Scientific determinism refers to the ability to write laws about something, and for them to be more or less true. i.e. we can determine things about the universe. It's not exhaustive, like the religious definition, all outcomes are not predetermined.

Let's look at the tunneling microscope example. This is useful to us. Let's say we set up a finite potential well of some shape such that each electron in a stream has a 5% chance of tunneling. Then we know for every million electrons we drive through it, 50k of them will tunnel. We have determined something about the system that we can exploit and manipulate. There is obviously a chain of causality here, somehow, even though it evades our intuition.

 

[DrRocket]

But this is not what I'm saying. 1), Scientific determinism refers to the ability to write laws about something, and for them to be more or less true. i.e. we can determine things about the universe. It's not exhaustive, like the religious definition, all outcomes are not predetermined.

If that is your definition then Ok, but that is not how the term is used in science.

The scientific defintion of determinism is actually like the religious definition. It does back to Newtonian mechanics and the observation of LaPlace that were one to have complete knowledge of the state of the universe at any particular point in time then all future events are predicted by applicatoin of Newton's laws of motion. Newtonian mechanics is deterministic. So is general relativity. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think they're quite different. Scientific determinism, or causal determinism is about a causal chain. Were getting into ontology vs epistemology at this point. We can only speculate about the causality so far. We can't 'determine' some things about causality with QM but this is not what causal determination is about. You've given your interpretation, for instance, that reality is fundentally numbers? I think? CI uses wave collapse, but there's no concrete physical mechanism for it, so it avoids a discussion on causality.

Anyway, I don't think determinism has changed with QM so much as we've had to change the definition of causality, which affects the definition of causal determinism, since the classical view is insufficient. I also assume QM will eventually be 1up'd, and the underlying reality will be better understood with time and discovery. This is how paradoxes are solved!

Anyway, my question is how does a probabilistic basis undermine causality?

 

[Pythagorean]

Here's an interesting journalism read based on an interview with experimentalists, Conway and Kochen:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/35391/title/Do_subatomic_particles_have_free_will%3F

That makes compelling arguments for non-determinism. There are comments from determinists as well.

 

[unusualname]

DrRocket has the most appealing argument in this thread, for me.

Obviously we can't know for certain whether random exists, but we need it for free-will, so I'm betting random exists, and at a granularity that evolution could make use of, so at (molecular) particle level (not sub-planckian etc).

It's not so friggin bad you know

 

[SW VandeCarr]

To believe in the truly random is to believe in the supernatural. By definition the supernatural is "beyond natural law".

You can make some mathematically justified statements about an infinite 'truly' random sequence that you can't justify for other infinite sequences. For example: A truly random infinite sequence of digits must contain every finite digit sequence.

The proof is straightforward: For any arbitrarily large finite digit sequence within an infinite random digit sequence, the probability of some finite ordered sequence of n digits is 10^{-n}. No matter how large n is, the probability can never be zero. Therefore, any finite sequence that is possible in an infinite random sequence must occur.

By definition, this cannot be said of any infinite digit sequence that is not truly random.

EDIT:You may not consider some mathematical concepts to be "real" or justified (for example, if you are a strict constructivist) , but to say such concepts are "supernatural" is nonsense.

 

[JoeDawg]

Anyway, I don't think determinism has changed with QM so much as we've had to change the definition of causality, which affects the definition of causal determinism, since the classical view is insufficient. I also assume QM will eventually be 1up'd, and the underlying reality will be better understood with time and discovery.

I agree with this. I think conceptually it follows like this:

Newtonian Mechanics->Causation->Determinism->Freewill

The further along you get the less well understood.
Unfortunately, its even worse in terms of modern physics.
We don't really have an understanding of what is described by QM.

Quantum Mechanics->(entanglement??)
Cosmic Mechanics->(dark matter,dark energy?)

I don't think you can really draw much of anything in the way of conclusions about free will from either of these, because they just aren't working on the same level, both in relation to scale and conceptually.

When Newton described gravity he was accused of describing 'action at a distance', because no one understood how an object could affect another one without being in the same region of space. Until Einstein it was all just observation and math... no theory.

 

[unusualname]

By an "event with no cause" I mean one that has no preceding event with which it can be unambiguously mathematically linked.

This is not so difficult to imagine, eg at a space-time singularity, what comes out the other side has no preceding event associated with it in this sense.

If you get non-continuous phenomena or singularities, then the usual causal model's can't apply.

So quantum events might just be the outcomes of plank scale black holes evaporating and their associated singularity, or something similar.

Random just requires a singularity in the mathematical model, certainly nothing supernatural.

 

[GeorgCantor]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'Supernatural', because there is no 'natural' explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. Everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs on these questions. People seldomly appreciate what to exist or to be means.

 

[wuliheron]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'Supernatural', because there is no 'natural' explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.

I'd add that merely defining something as a "singularity" does not mean ipso facto that it is not supernatural. Thus far there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that infinity exists in nature much less singularities and, personally, I can't imagine how one might go about proving their existence.

In his famous Scientific American article on how black holes evaporate Stephen Hawking noted that a black hole could spontaneously emit a color TV or the complete works of Proust just by virtue of how random it is. One person might describe such an event as merely random, while another might describe it as supernatural and both could be correct. To assert that this can only occur with a singularity neither defines singularities as "natural" nor their products.

 

[SMERSH]

Interesting discussion. A few thoughts.

By "random" I assume the definition of an event or events without a "cause" to such an event.

I think if there exists ANY such "random" events without cause then logical induction implies the idea that ANY imaginable (or unimaginable) event is not only possible, but must occur - the genie is effectively out of the bottle so to speak and everything collapses.

Let's imagine a universe ( A type universe ) in which everything has a cause (random does not exist). The "phase space" or possible states of such a universe is effectively "closed", there are certain states of such a universe that are simply impossible because the chain of events could not possibly lead to such a state.

Let's now imagine a universe ( B type universe ) in which NOT everything has a cause, there truly is a "wiggle" room somewhere for some event or events to occur outside of the chain of causality. Immediately, I think this creates an open "phase space" of possible states since such uncaused events can trigger an ever larger chain reaction of larger events that dramatically alter the state of the universe into an infinite vareity of possible states - anything is possible in such a universe.

Not only will random events in such a B type universe by definition be "outside" any framework of laws in this universe (since they are uncaused), but these events could then in turn cause a chain of events such that whatever laws exist in the B type universe are inconsistent.

For example in the B universe A causes B causes C by some given law in universe type B. Random event D occurs which prevents A from causing B. All of a sudden the causal chain in this universe is broken - that means the law of that universe is broken or inconsistent.

For any given law in a B type universe, the same scenario would exist as stated in the prior paragraph so such a B type universe would have NO universal laws - and randomness seems to take over everything in such a universe by inductive logic - like some kind of virus.

Is such a B type universe even possible and logically coherent? Perhaps Einstein had a point when he difficulty with such a universe when he said "God does not play dice"... this idea seems to lead to total chaos.

 

[unusualname]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with 'Supernatural', because there is no 'natural' explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing. Everyone is entitled to his/her own beliefs on these questions. People seldomly appreciate what to exist or to be means.

By "supernatural" I usually assume people mean stuff that can't ever be explained by physics/mathematics.

Since random can come out the other end of a black-hole singularity it doesn't need to be "supernatural".

I'm only suggesting that quantum mechanics can have a truly random nature without huge leaps of imagination into the "supernatural", though obviously Planck-scale black holes evaporating is a wildly speculative guess.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'd add that merely defining something as a "singularity" does not mean ipso facto that it is not supernatural. Thus far there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that infinity exists in nature much less singularities and, personally, I can't imagine how one might go about proving their existence.

In his famous Scientific American article on how black holes evaporate Stephen Hawking noted that a black hole could spontaneously emit a color TV or the complete works of Proust just by virtue of how random it is. One person might describe such an event as merely random, while another might describe it as supernatural and both could be correct. To assert that this can only occur with a singularity neither defines singularities as "natural" nor their products.

Well, I agree with you in the ideal case, but I think "singularities" in physics are already taken to be ideals. So a real singularity will just involve really big numbers (i.e. a large amount of mass in a small amount of space). Not necissarily an inifinite amount of mass existing in 0 space.

But I agree, infinite doesn't seem to exist in nature.