What is your take on random vs deterministic reality

[sneez]

Do you think that 'deterministic' properties we observe in universe are subset/emergent from 'random/chaotic' reality or that 'random/chaotic' behavior is a subset of purely 'deterministic' reality?
What is the strongest proof you would present to support what you belief?

 

[octelcogopod]

Those are odd choices because determinism can't co-exist with chaos/randomness.

At least how I see it, unless you have something to add.

 

[sneez]

Those are odd choices because determinism can't co-exist with chaos/randomness

How can we say this? Do we observe and study chaos? Yes. So according to your answer the reality is chaotic completelly. Yet, you defend determinism on other threads.

We observe order, and causes in universe (gravity) as well as chaotic behavior such as dynamics in atm. So my question is, is completelly deterministic system able to produce at some scales completelly chaotic behavior or is it that completely chaotic universe is able to produce on some scale uniform, ordrly, deterministic behavior?

If you insist that those 2 cannot coexist, support your claim somehow.

 

[octelcogopod]

Determinism on the fundamental level is universal, it is ever existing and eternal, you cannot have randomness in a fundamentally deterministic system.
It only makes sense that if the universe is deterministic, then all emergent systems built on this deterministic system are also deterministic.

Here's an excerpt from wikipedia:

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

As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorentz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Weather is chaotic, but its statistics - climate - is not.

I'm not a chaos theory expert, but it seems that chaos is also deterministic and not random.
To me it seems a matter of emergence.

 

[sneez]

dear octelcogopod,

Determinism on the fundamental level is universal, it is ever existing and eternal, you cannot have randomness in a fundamentally deterministic system.

You are assuming the above. Show that being correct view.

As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters.

Its never-repeating, sensitive to initial conditions. Even if god send me down the exact equations of fluid dynamics with all the terms we usually omit for simpifications or we don't know yet we are bound not to predict weather 100% accurate. This is because we can never have perfect initial conditions. This goes back to the fact we will never know initial condition at the beginning of the universe. There is emergence of chaos/randomnes. Random is different from arbitrary, because to say that a variable is random means that the variable follows a probability distribution.

There are many other examples of randomness which appears in the nature. Mathematical sequences that are random proved to be usefull in explaining nature. Random decay of particles. Irrational numbers proved to be significant in physical science. Our statistical treatment of systems which are too complex reveals our bias toward 'determinism'. But i give these only as few examples to chaos/randomness. I wish as not to dwell on it on this thread, as long as you are willing to accept there are chaotic/random patterns in some systems in this universe.

I would like to further point out that our perception of universe is already stripped down to great abstractions. We do not perceive individual atoms, or force field between them in the totality of our perception of universe. WE do not resolve the finest scales at which this "fundamental" chaotic nature might work. (im just proposing for sake of argument)

And if we talk of determinism, we have to realize we just talk math. Because we can describe our perceptions in terms of mathematical equations, we observe order/determinism. But math is just a model. (unlees one adopts platonic view, but that not relevant here). If i ask you to present the strongest proof for determinism you have to talk math. (be it indirectly or directly). But here we would get to another completely different question.

Do not be bothered by my post, i do not claim that universe is random. I just claim that i can observe (and study for living) (not exclusively) chaotic behaviors in physical systems.

But my question remains, is it possible that universe is all random (hypothesis) where apparent deterministic behavior emerges from it, or vice versa. What is your take on it? If you claim that no chaos is possible, which might be true outside my knowledge, present you theory that would explain the apparent chaotic behavior. (And if that the case you anwered my question, so we all win )

[i did not present my take on it yet, so do not let me make you feel like I am protecting either of the belief, but still want to stress they are both beliefs because we do not have the answers yet]

 

[octelcogopod]

OK, I believe that randomness/chaos is a perspective, not an absolute truth.
Something, even anything, can look chaotic when viewed by someone not in the know.

It doesn't matter if you have 2 particles or 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of them in the universe, if they are deterministic, then ALL of the universe is.

I believe your question is a matter of perspective too.
If you want to define chaos as something that has no precursor event, and that there truly is no explanation for why that event happened, then I say it is unsolvable by us.
If you are saying that something is chaotic because we lack the knowledge to see every little detail to form a complete picture, then I say it can be BOTH of your options in your question.

All these forms, sounds, visual experiences, they exist only in our minds exist only as concepts we make in our heads..
Usually similar animals inside the universe will form the same opinions for objects, but others might not.
The object itself may have unlimited potential, depending on the viewpoint one looks at it from.

Does that give a satisfactory opinion from me?

 

[sneez]

It doesn't matter if you have 2 particles or 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000 of them in the universe, if they are deterministic, then ALL of the universe is.

yes and no. More particles might reveal behavior what 2 can not. 10^10000 particles can reveal another property of system. Ex, its only through convergence of expression as some parameter goes to infinity we are able to solve some of the equations of quantum, EM and other mathematical tools we use to symbolize our perceptions. Stability of solutions etc, but that's really not important here, i know you get my point.

Here you point that we might just be bound to our perception capabilities. Maybe where we see 2particles some other observers might see 10^1000 particles. I am just making a point, i don't know what that means.

I believe your question is a matter of perspective too.

Absolutelly, like many on similar matters.

If you want to define chaos as something that has no precursor event, and that there truly is no explanation for why that event happened, then I say it is unsolvable by us.

Note that chaos is not defined (universaly) and in strict mathematical language, we cannot even describe chaos as we naturally understand it.

If you are saying that something is chaotic because we lack the knowledge to see every little detail to form a complete picture,

i think we do and will, as far as my imagination can take me into future, lack complete description of all details. Practically i don't think it matters if universe is deterministic fundamentaly or random but its interesting philosophical question.

Does that give a satisfactory opinion from me?

sorry to keep you so long on what appears purely belief question.

Quote that would signify importance of resolving it in future from einstein:
"Theory determines what we observe".

THis is excellent book to introduce you to different line of thinking:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0786868449/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Depends what you mean by deterministic, if you mean that you can't choose then random is deterministic however if you mean that everything is set in motion then there can easily be 2 extremes.

 

[dcclxxvii]

Would you expect to build a house of cards by throwing them over your shoulder?

 

[sneez]

Would you expect to build a house of cards by throwing them over your shoulder?

why would you not? (isnt this the argument of multiple-universes?). Given enought time, yes. Describe a physical law that prohibits it.

Just like they generated shakespear works from random word generator.

 

[Royce]

I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both.

If, for the moment, we accept that the Universe was created by intelligent design, then it makes sense that cause and effect plays such a large part so that the system would run and continue to run in an orderly manner; and, yet randomness permits the system to run in an indeterminate manner so that the system could change and evolve in an unpredictable way.

Why would the designer/creator build a precise clock that never deviates from its preset condition and the entire operation is predetermined throughout its entire life span? How long would and intelligent entity watch a perfect clock run?

Now, assume that there is no designer/creator and it is all happenstance, even one of an infinite number of universes. Why does this completely rule out randomness and chance when the entire shebang is a random event in the first place?

I just cannot see how or why Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.

Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.

Is it just we humans crying out for order and predictability in a chaotic world, or is it a liberal, left wing plot taught in universities to absolve themselves of personal responsibility and accountability and keep their tenure?

 

[sneez]

I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both.

Chaos is random from non-randomness. Chaos as we know it is generated from purelly deterministic variables.

So my question does not give the false choice of universe being either or. My question is, since we observe both chaos and determinism, which one is subset of the other? (if it possible at all to have it like this)

Chaos can be said to be new kind of order. There are certain universal laws that govern transition from regular to chaotic behavior.

Concernig your designer theory, maybe a random event cause beginning or universe which is producing in certain physical states the deterministic behavior (maybe its only issue of scale, or angle which we are looking at it) we observe.

Or, maybe a completely deterministic even cause beginning of universe (will of creator, some other physical law, etc), which due to its composition (non-linarity and interconnectedness/coupling) is producing the chaos and apparent randomness we observe.

I am interested which one is your take and why?

 

[Royce]

sneez, I don't think either is a subset of, nor emergent property of the other. I think that they are separate, individual intrinsic properties of the system.
Yes, Chaos may have a completely deterministic cause but it is random in it's effect.
Since the the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe, system, is unknowable,
indeterminate and in some cases random chaos exists from the Planck scale to the macro and universal scale.

 

[sneez]

I don't think either is a subset of, nor emergent property of the other. I think that they are separate, individual intrinsic properties of the system.

Do you propose there is no interaction between them. And how is the influence between them. By what mechanism can 2 opposites coexists intrinsically? If one even is chaotic can it revert back and forth to deterministic? What does that do to your philosophy?

So you don't think we have wrong model to represent reality, you think reality is indeed modular?

chaos exists from the Planck scale to the macro and universal scale

DO you think the chaos on one scale does not influence the other scale?
Does each chaotic behavior has each own scale?

I do not think i understand your intrinsic properties. How many intrinsic properties there are you think. Your thinking implies that determinism and chaos are opposites, which they are not.

can you elaborate?

 

[Royce]

Do you propose there is no interaction between them. And how is the influence between them. By what mechanism can 2 opposites coexists intrinsically? If one even is chaotic can it revert back and forth to deterministic? What does that do to your philosophy?

First, I don't think that there is such a thing as determinism. There is cause and effect, but I don't think that that makes the universe hard or soft deterministic.

There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable.

They are not opposites. they are different types of events and I see not conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.

So you don't think we have wrong model to represent reality,

Determinism only holds up, even in principle, using Classical, Newtonian, Physics. It fails in both fact and principle using modern physics, i.e. Relativity and Quantum theory

you think reality is indeed modular?

Huh? I don't understand what your asking.

DO you think the chaos on one scale does not influence the other scale?
Does each chaotic behavior has each own scale?

No, I think that the micro scale effects the macro and the reverse. Scales exist only as a convenient way of thinking about them and working with them. There are no scales there is only a continuum.

I do not think i understand your intrinsic properties. How many intrinsic properties there are you think. Your thinking implies that determinism and chaos are opposites, which they are not.

can you elaborate?

Okay, forget the word intrinsic. I used it only to mean an inherent and inseparable property of the universe.
I think, in this case that determinism is a way of saying cause and effect and chaos is another word for random, unknowable and unpredictable.

 

[sneez]

What you say is against my knowledge i have of chaos and determinism. If we proceed on other than pure belief, you need to give me clues how you derive what you saying. Do you have any evidence that would support what you are saying, or is that your personal belief?

 

[octelcogopod]

First, I don't think that there is such a thing as determinism.

I don't even know how to respond to this in truth..

There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable.

Unknowable things != not deterministic.
We are talking about a concept where at the most fundamental level, there is something that is truly random, where it has no logical, physical or deterministic cause.. It just happens completely out of nowhere.
This is what the opposite of determinism is.

They are not opposites. they are different types of events and I see not conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.

That makes absolutely no sense, at least to me.
They ARE opposite by every definition. A deterministic event is driven by cause and effect, and indeterministic event is not ran by anything, it just happens. It is completely against logic.

I think, in this case that determinism is a way of saying cause and effect and chaos is another word for random, unknowable and unpredictable.

At least for me I always thought chaos in the popular way of using it was something which had no logic.
Thus you cannot use math to calculate it, you can't study it, you can't even observe it. One day light exists, the other day it doesn't.
I mean if the universe is as you say, why is everything 'written in stone?'
Why don't things change?

 

[Pythagorean]

Those are odd choices because determinism can't co-exist with chaos/randomness.

At least how I see it, unless you have something to add.

I was going to say that those were odd choices because they can co-exist without one being the 'subset' of the other.

 

[octelcogopod]

Can you explain exactly how they can do that?

Imagine a universe consisting of random events.
The moment something random happens, it turns into a deterministic event as it happens, as it manifests itself. This is because if the event wants to last more than 0 in any kind of time measurment, it must have some kind of physical property that manifests itself, and as it manifests it becomes deterministic, because it is physical.
But that assumes that there is some sort of system guiding how this deterministic event happens.
If there are truly no deterministic events AT ALL, then it is indeed just chaos.. There would be no rules, no systems, nothing, I can't even imagine how that would be.

My point is that there are no inbetweens. You can't have random events in a deterministic universe, UNLESS something from the "outside" is suddenly forced into timespace as we know it.
But hopefully we are talking about something more fundamental than just timespace, in which case that external event would also be "run" by some kind of system too.

My bottom line is that I don't see any way that random events can even happen, on the most fundamental scale.

 

[sneez]

My point is that there are no inbetweens. You can't have random events in a deterministic universe, UNLESS something from the "outside" is suddenly forced into timespace as we know it.
But hopefully we are talking about something more fundamental than just timespace, in which case that external event would also be "run" by some kind of system too.

My bottom line is that I don't see any way that random events can even happen, on the most fundamental scale.

There is inbetween. Threre are chaotic events. There is randomness in nature. (At least as far as we know by evidence). If you really want to know what you arguing against, see the book i recomended to you.

Chaotic events exhibit sensitive dependence on Initial Conditions.
- The trajectory never repeats.
-They are nonlinear.
- The transition to chaos is preceded by infinite levels of bifurcation.
- The infinite bifurcations preceding the transition to chaos are characterised by the Feigenbaum number.
- Fractional dimensionality.
- A Lyapunov plot of the distance between trajectories versus time will exhibit a straight line.
- The initial points of the first return map always lie above a line making an angle of 45 degrees with the
horizontal.

Purelly mechanistic non-linear dynamics are example of deterministic chaos (3 body gravitational problem). [if in theory you can start the system with the same exact initial conditions the system will be always behave the same.

On the other hand on quantum level we are talking non-deterministic chaos. No matter if you have the same god given same conditions, the non-linear dynamic system will not repeat itself. If god started this universe with some conditions, he is surelly not able to do it again in theory of our present understanding of chaos on quantum level.

2 chaotic systems can be in synchrony without being periodic.

-In determinism current state determines the future state uniquely!
-In chaos every point is point of instability
-Chaotic system cannot be taken appart. They must be analyzed as whole.
-In chaos whole is not sum of the parts.

Spontaneous order can arise from coupled 'disorder'. It seem nature has great ability to cooperate/self-synchronize. Your brain, ecology, life, human psychology, immune response and others are daily examples of the above.

Behaviors of chaotic systems are unpredictable. Chaotic systems are deterministic, their evolutions being governed by dynamical equations. Are the two statements contradictory? They are not, because the theory of chaos encompasses two levels of description. On a higher level, unpredictability appears as an emergent property of systems that are predictable on a lower level.
http://www.creatingtechnology.org/papers/chaos.pdf#search="what is chaos pdf""

SO if you could elaborate what do you mean "I don't see any way that random events can even happen"?

 

[dcclxxvii]

why would you not? (isnt this the argument of multiple-universes?). Given enought time, yes. Describe a physical law that prohibits it.

Just like they generated shakespear works from random word generator.

I can't help but imagine Isaac Newton spending his life throwing cards over his shoulder.Thinking to him self,(ill build the Rajarajeshvara temple in a single through);latter on his death bed,thinking,(if i had only had enough time).Given that you could obtain the incalculable information that would be required.You could predict where every card
would fall with exact detail.Randomazation is an illusion as where there is effect so there is always cause regardless
of if you can fathom of its complexity.

 

[octelcogopod]

On a higher level, unpredictability appears as an emergent property of systems that are predictable on a lower level.

My bottom line is that I don't see any way that random events can even happen, on the most fundamental scale.

I never spoke about emergent chaos. Although in a way they aren't completely chaotic either.

 

[sneez]

Why are you protecting your belief instead of searching for truth, even though it means changing your current belief?

There is quantum chaos and 'classical chaos'. I explained both. Nuclear decay, quantum optics and solid state physics is fundamental enough for me. What is fundamental for you?

It has been shown that the statistics of eigenvalues, and eigenfunctions of classically chaotic systems are similar to infinite symmetric matrices whose elements are random numbers. Futhermore, systems which have time reversal symmetry follow matries with real elements, and which do not have complex elements. Recently it has also been noted that the 0-dimensional sigma model of supersymmetry yields similar results to Random Matrix Theory.

Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.

 

[-Job-]

Randmoness and determinism can co-exist if the randomness is bounded.

 

[Pythagorean]

Can you explain exactly how they can do that?

some examples:

a) the end point and begininng point are deterministic, but the path taken is chaotic.

b) "when I shoot my 44 into a block plexiglass, that's determinsitic. When I came home late for dinner, now that's chaos."

c) there's no rule for how a single atom in a material decays. In any given material, a single decay happens spontaneously, without any sort of design for which atom goes next (chaos?). However, we can construct and predict the half life, if we look at all the atoms at once (deterministic?)

e) two damped driven pendulums, same exact weight, same length of string, same system. Eventually, the two pendulum's motion will diverge, they will not stay in sync with each other. That's chaos in physics. Further explored by Lorenz and his weather machine.



I don't know... how could we ever prove or observe whether we live in a deterministic existence or a chaotic one anyway, or are we just labeling to phenomena and drawing assumptions by applying them to the rest of the universe?

We did that with light at one time. It would have been impossinble for light to be seen as both a particle and a wave. The truth is it's neither (or both, depending on how you look at it). We have to deconstruct our assumptions about what a wave and what a particle is our everyday life.

 

[octelcogopod]

OK, to both sneez and pythagorean;

Imagine, that you have no knowledge.
Your knowledge level of the physical world is 0%, a creators knowledge level is 100%.

At 0% everything is chaos, you don't have anything to associate with, no systems to analyze, there is almost nothing.
At 100%, my theory is that EVERYTHING becomes deterministic.

The most fundamental particle is not a quark, or not even a string, it's something deeper.
What my original point was that everything we have ever studied, are emergent properties, we have never gone to the rock bottom.

Thus there can exist emergent chaos, of which you have both given examples of above.
But that's not really enough, and the whole problem of infinite regress vs eternal existence comes to mind, but then again this is relative to your perspective.

I think you can never fully call a system deterministic until you have 100% knowledge of it.
Once there are unknown variables, to any physical system, there will always be a chance that something random can happen, even if observation shows otherwise.
But I'm talking about the philosophical proposition that there are no truly random events, on any scale/level objectively, there is ALWAYS a cause for an effect, and that effect leads to another effect and so forth.

 

[sneez]

dear octelcogopod,

At 0% everything is chaos, you don't have anything to associate with, no systems to analyze, there is almost nothing.
At 100%, my theory is that EVERYTHING becomes deterministic.

Chaos theory is not based on fact that we do not know everything 100%.
The opposite is true, if you know something 100% there is conditions where system becomes unpredictable.

I think you can never fully call a system deterministic until you have 100% knowledge of it.
Once there are unknown variables, to any physical system, there will always be a chance that something random can happen, even if observation shows otherwise.
But I'm talking about the philosophical proposition that there are no truly random events, on any scale/level objectively, there is ALWAYS a cause for an effect, and that effect leads to another effect and so forth.

only god can know 100% of system. What is your proposition based upon then? Its the same for someone to claim the exact opposite with the same weight. How did you deduce philosophically that there is always a cause for an effect? (to define those in general is almost impossible).

Once there are unknown variables, to any physical system, there will always be a chance that something random can happen, even if observation shows otherwise.

Like i said before, chaos is not about hidden variables. Chaos is about instability and un-linearity.

I don't think we going to move from here. But at least justify to me your assumption that there cannot be chaos on fundamental level. (I mean why would not creator create completelly random universe and we live on such scale that the time as we perceive allows us to observe almost deterministic properties of universe). For example, we can predict orbits of planets on 1000yr scale with simple Newton laws, but anyone who tries for next bilion years cannot succeed because of chaos nature of the orbits on this time scale. (btw, this is a fact).

 

[Pythagorean]

octel, I think you may have a different definition of chaos than the way it's generally used in physics.

In the end, these idea of determinism and free-choice are human constructs...

 

[octelcogopod]

Well it's only logical that there cannot be chaos on the fundamental level..

Chaos cannot be the movement or change of the current energy in the universe, it MUST be the addition of new energy from outside the universe.
Or at least, a completely random event.

This is because, logically, something physical won't change unless it's inclined to, it has been this way since forever.
If something appears to be changing out of nowhere, it is only a matter of gaining the knowledge needed to figure out why.

I don't even think this is an assumption.

 

[octelcogopod]

octel, I think you may have a different definition of chaos than the way it's generally used in physics.

In the end, these idea of determinism and free-choice are human constructs...

Let's not use the word chaos then, but an indeterministic, random event, one which has no cause.

 

[sneez]

octelcogopod, if you define some concept and create for it your own rules what it is and etc and then try to deduce it cannot exists that's fine. But dont, however, substitute it for a concept that is defined and observed. That is where our misunderstanding comes from.

You should not use the word chaos/random to describe your concept of those at least as you used them so far.

indeterministic, random - i bet we are not going to even agree on what those are.

The explanation you give that "its only logical" and that "something physical won't change unless it's inclined to", are pretty arbitrary rules. Logic is not property of universe but of mind.

Im not sure if this topic should have been in philosophy or not, but anyway...thanx for attempt to clarify it .

 

[Pythagorean]

Well it's only logical that there cannot be chaos on the fundamental level..

Chaos cannot be the movement or change of the current energy in the universe, it MUST be the addition of new energy from outside the universe.
Or at least, a completely random event.

This is because, logically, something physical won't change unless it's inclined to, it has been this way since forever.
If something appears to be changing out of nowhere, it is only a matter of gaining the knowledge needed to figure out why.

I don't even think this is an assumption.

Actually, it was an assumption, and society rested on that assumption for like 100 years. It was Newton's assumption, and it was hard to challenge for that 100 year period where no one in England questioned Newton, and people that did from other countries were 'wrong'.

Eventually, the quantum revolution came along, which is something that offended even Eisntein, (famous quote of his, "God does not play dice") Einstein went on to attempt to disprove the implications of the results of qunatum theory because he didn't like the disorder and sense of randomness to it.

That's why a lot of modern physics relies on statistics, because the behavior of individual particles is completely chaotic, but if we measure over and over again in different circumstances, we can see that a particle has a higher chance of doing certain things under certain situations. This is the source of fermi-dirac statistics, and bose-einstein statistics to name a few.

Also look into quantum tunneling.

Look into Schroedinger's Equation, and the conceptual counterpart to it, 'the cat in the box'.

 

[Pythagorean]

The explanation you give that "its only logical" and that "something physical won't change unless it's inclined to", are pretty arbitrary rules. Logic is not property of universe but of mind.

it sounds to me like someone's taking Newton's "laws" too literal or something...

 

[octelcogopod]

Pythagorean, sneez,

It's only chaotic because we don't have complete understanding of it.

I still hold my position that if we knew 100% of everything in the universe nothing would be random.
I'm still not certain that we are clear on the terms here, when I say particle, I don't mean a quark or an electron, nor do I mean a string, I mean the most fundamental "building block" the universe is made up of.

All of those examples you have given above of chaos/randomness are /emergent/ on that fundamental block.
It's a matter of seeing the big picture, and the big picture includes all scales, all particles and all emergent phenomena.
Once you have that, there is no room for random events.

Not to my way of thinking anyway. :P

 

[sneez]

it sounds to me like someone's taking Newton's "laws" too literal or something...

what do you mean Pythagorean?

 

[Tournesol]

Microscopic and Macroscopic Randomness
A common reaction to QM is that it doesn't matter since quantum randomness will never manifest itself at the macroscoic level -- that is, in the world of sticks and stones we can see with the naked eye. An appeal is usually made to the "law of large numbers", according to which random fluctuations at the atomic (or lower level) will cancel each other out in a macrscopic object, so that what is seen is an averaged-out behaviour that is fairly predictable.

Something like this must be happening in some cases, assuming QM is a correct description of the micro-world, or there would not even be an appearance of a determinstic macro-world. Since deterministic classical physics is partially correct, there must be a mechanism that makes the QM micro-world at least approximate to the classical description.

However, it it were the case that all macroscopic objects behaved in a 100% deterministic fashion, there would be no evidence for QM in the first place -- since all scientific apparatus is in the macro-world ! A geiger-counter is able to amplify the impact of a single particle into an audible click. Richard Feynman suggested that if that wasn't macroscopic enough, you could always amplify the signal further and use it to set off a stick of dynamite! It could be objected that these are artificial situations. This is rather desprate, however, because there is a well-known natural mechanism that could do the same job: classical chaos.

A clasically chaotic system is by definition one that is critically sensitive to its initial conditions. "critically" sensitive means that any variation in initial conditions, no matter how slight, can bring about a change in the macroscopic behaviour of the system, no matter how large. Since there is no lower limit to critical sensitivity, it must extend all the way "down" to me microscopic world of quantum phsyics. Thus, hurricans need not be started by butterfly wings, they can be started by electrons!

The term "classical" misleads some people. Chaos can be defined within the framework of classical physics, which is strictly deterministic. This is sometimes taken to mean any chaotic system encountered in nature (such as a weather system) is classical and deterministic. However, when we tall about ordinary, non-chaotic systems being classical, we mean they are *approximately* classical. Classical physics is not entirely wrong; it worked for 100's of years after all. But it is not entirely right either. "Classical" systems are quantum systms that approximate classical behaviour.

Thus any chaotic system that you can actually encounter, such as a weather system, is only approxiamtely classical. It has no underlying determinism. At the most fundamental level it is a quantum system -- because everything is.

So we can have classical system that behave predictably (ordinary Newtonian phsyics), quantum systems that behave predictably on the macroscopic level (through the Law of Large Numbers), classical systems that behave unpredictably (through classical chaos) and quantum systems that unpredictably on the macroscopic as well as microscopic level (chaos and othe "quantum amplifiers").

In fact, this is not just theoretical. Conventional big-bang theories generally require an input of quantum indeterminism to provide the large-scale structure of the universe. A singularity exploding according to classical laws would expand evenly in every direction, leading to a boring universe consisting of an evenly dispersed cloud of gas. So when you look at the night sky, you are seeing evidence for macroscopic randomness!

One last word: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does include a constant "h", and it is very small. But is is not an upper limit that prevents uncertainty from leaking into the macroscopic world. In fact, the mathematical form of the Uncertainty principle:
delta_x . delta_p >= h_bar
is an inequality. It sets a lower limit on the amount of uncertainty but no upper limit.

 

[octelcogopod]

In fact, this is not just theoretical. Conventional big-bang theories generally require an input of quantum indeterminism to provide the large-scale structure of the universe. A singularity exploding according to classical laws would expand evenly in every direction, leading to a boring universe consisting of an evenly dispersed cloud of gas. So when you look at the night sky, you are seeing evidence for macroscopic randomness!

But how can anyone say this with certainty?
Any scientific theory will always be a compressed model of reality, thus the model may have random events but reality doesn't.
What if you have to go deeper to find the real cause for the seemingly random event.

I see no logical reasoning to explain a truly random event, there is always an explanation. It might include TONS of processing power and tons of math and physical models, but in the end you will find some sort of cause.
If there truly is no cause for something, then I don't know how I will be able to continue with a serious attitude.

edit: to elaborate a little bit..
It seems like people haven't grasped the seriousness of a truly random event, even if we can use statistics to get approximate values..
If there is such a thing as a truly random event, then that event will forever have /no explanation/
We can't find the source, the cause, because it has no such thing, not only does this seem completely illogical and counterintuitive, it also breaks down everything we work for.

 

[sneez]

octelcogopod ,

random does not mean uncaused. Random can be cause as well. Where do you get your reasoning concerning this?

Any scientific theory will always be a compressed model of reality, thus the model may have random events but reality doesn't.

You must explain by which physical law reality is not random. You state it as a fact, while in fact it is not. Your statement implies you know reality. (?)

If there is such a thing as a truly random event, then that event will forever have /no explanation/
We can't find the source, the cause, because it has no such thing, not only does this seem completely illogical and counterintuitive, it also breaks down everything we work for.

You are not correct. Only models (our models) or reality can be right or wrong. Reality just is.

 

[octelcogopod]

You have to understand the basis I'm basing this on.

Random has usually meant that one cannot with certainty get a 100% accurate value for something, as such one uses probability and statistics.

This is an error in the model used to describe reality, not reality itself(is my idea.)
Determinism states that everything that has happened since the big bang has happened in a cause and effect scenario, where there are no random things.
This is what I believe MUST be the truth.

Also, if it truly was a random event it wouldn't have a cause, if it did it would be deterministic.

 

[sneez]

Also, if it truly was a random event it wouldn't have a cause, if it did it would be deterministic.

Dear octelcogopod,

this is where i feel copeled to remind you to get more information about our current theory on chaos. You work still in linear scenario. (not implying i know enough)

In chaos effects are not proportional to causes.

plus, determinism is about being able to UNIQUELY determine future state from current one. Once you cannot uniquely do just that, you are not deterministic. Therefore, random event can and do have cause!
Random/chaos being unpredictable, not uncaused!

 

[octelcogopod]

But that makes no sense, at least to me.

If a ranom event does not have a cause, it cannot be determined from a previous state, if on the other hand it does have a cause, it CAN be determined, but you keep saying it cannot be determined, but does have a cause?
Hypothetically if there is a cause for an event, it is deterministic,.

How is that possible?
I'm also speaking hypothetically, not literally based on our current work in the labs/etc.

 

[Pythagorean]

But that makes no sense, at least to me.

Maybe you're expectations of sense are what's complicating the subject for you?

I don't know if you're trying to tie this to human decision making or purely physical occurences, or if you use the assumption that all decisoin making are actually physical processes or what.

I can see where you'd argue that events we call chaos have a chance of having some hidden order to them, but I think there's some clever tests that have been passed. I trust that your doubt and question has been confronted by these theories in the scientific realm and peer review.

Even today, some countries with emporer's don't like the notion that their prophecies can't be true if there's randomness, and so don't allow modern cosmology to be taught if it threatens their political-religion basis for power to keep order.

 

[3trQN]

I believe that proving one way or the other is undecidable.