# Randomness ?

1. Nov 17, 2005

### kleinwolf

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.

2. Nov 17, 2005

### HallsofIvy

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?

3. Nov 17, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

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

4. Nov 17, 2005

### kleinwolf

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

5. Nov 17, 2005

### HallsofIvy

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.

6. Nov 17, 2005

### kleinwolf

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...

7. Nov 24, 2005

### kleinwolf

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 existant 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: Nov 24, 2005
8. Nov 24, 2005

### pallidin

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.

9. Nov 24, 2005