Exploring Randomness in Nature: Interpreting an Epistemological Answer

  • Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Randomness
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of randomness in nature and whether it exists independently of human knowledge. The idea of a "Goedel system" and a coin-throwing experiment are mentioned, but ultimately the conversation leads to the conclusion that randomness cannot be proven and is often assumed in scientific experiments.
  • #1
kleinwolf
295
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
  • #2
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?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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
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
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...
 
  • #7
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:
  • #8
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.
 

1. What is randomness in nature?

Randomness in nature refers to the unpredictable and chaotic nature of events and phenomena that occur in the natural world. It is the result of various factors and interactions that cannot be fully predicted or controlled.

2. How does randomness affect scientific research?

Randomness can both hinder and aid scientific research. On one hand, it can introduce uncertainty and make it difficult to draw conclusions. On the other hand, it can also lead to surprising discoveries and help scientists gain a better understanding of natural processes.

3. How is randomness studied in nature?

Randomness in nature is studied through various methods, including statistical analysis, computer simulations, and experiments. Scientists also use mathematical models to understand and predict random events in nature.

4. Can randomness in nature be controlled?

No, randomness in nature cannot be controlled. It is a fundamental aspect of the natural world and is influenced by a multitude of factors that are constantly changing. However, scientists can use statistical methods and models to better understand and predict random events.

5. What are the implications of randomness in nature for our understanding of the universe?

The existence of randomness in nature challenges our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. It suggests that there may be limits to our ability to fully comprehend and predict all natural phenomena. However, it also opens up the possibility for new discoveries and a deeper understanding of the complexities of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
355
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
667
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
679
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
106
Views
12K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
84
Views
1K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top