Photons

[sfs]

No.

Who are you to tell the universe what kind of laws it should follow?

Supposedly, Niels Bohr responded to Einstein's repeated comments that God does not play dice with the universe by saying, "Albert, stop telling God what to do with his dice." (It may not have happened, but it should have.)

 

[Chesterton]

Neither. The actual choices are:
1) The universe obeys laws that have a random component;

I gotta stop you at number 1. It's a contradiction. I say a law with a random component is not a law.

 

[kevinmaynard]

I gotta stop you at number 1. It's a contradiction. I say a law with a random component is not a law.

Of course it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sorry, essential, but I am trying to pin you down here because I'm curious. Either:

1) The universe is lawless; or

2) We scientists just haven't figured out the laws yet.

Which would you say?

Obviously this is a false dilemma.

There are at least three options.

The universe is lawless.
The universe is lawful and scientists have figured out the laws.
The universe is lawful and scientists have not figured out the laws.

Now, of course, scientists have not figured out everything, but they have figured out some things.

The answer to the question, "Are some quantum mechanical processes random?" is...

Yes, and scientists understand the relevant laws that govern this randomness.

The decay of a particular uranium nucleus is random, but "the decay of uranium atoms in general" obeys statistical laws.

The randomness of quantum mechanics does not mean that fishcakes will explode out of cat nostrils on Guam every other Thursday.

 

[sfs]

I gotta stop you at number 1. It's a contradiction. I say a law with a random component is not a law.

And we're telling you that your usage of "law" is idioscyncratic. What would you like to call the regularities of physics, including QM, that permit incredibly precise prediction and manipulation of a wide range of physical phenomena?

[Edited to get my meaning right.]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many people think that physics should be deterministic. Quantum mechanics bothered me at first too. The universe did not work the way I wanted it to. It was even worse when I found out from relativity that there was no such thing as simultaneity. And worse yet that time and distance determined upon who was measuring them.

 

[Elendur]

I gotta stop you at number 1. It's a contradiction. I say a law with a random component is not a law.

I'd suggest you read some probability theory it's fun and it helps with understanding a lot of things (not necessarily connected to this issue).

We have the Bernoulli trials as the most basic example.

But I'd like you to provide with a definition of the universes laws, as to try to come to a conclusion whether or not it applies to this universe and whether your conclusion follows from that.

 

[durangodawood]

This is one of the few good threads here.

Why should I care if there is inherent randomness in individual atomic events? Why should it matter to me, other than as a scientific issue?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who are you to tell the universe what kind of laws it should follow?

Supposedly, Niels Bohr responded to Einstein's repeated comments that God does not play dice with the universe by saying, "Albert, stop telling God what to do with his dice." (It may not have happened, but it should have.)

And yet truly random processes would not be so mathematically explainable.

So which is it? Is the universe explainable by mathematics, or is it completely random and therefore beyond the realm of mathematics and laws?

Do you really want me to believe that pure random chances produced the mathematical universe that we observe? I might buy this in one or two cases, but you would need this chance to occur millions of times, over and over in every part of the universe to produce the universe we now observe.

Not even remotely mathematically possible of random processes forming what we observe. One would need faith greater than the faith of someone that believes in a Creator to go against such odds.

 

[durangodawood]

....So which is it? Is the universe explainable by mathematics, or is it completely random and therefore beyond the realm of mathematics and laws?....

Read back. This has been addressed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So which is it? Is the universe explainable by mathematics

Yes.

or is it completely random and therefore beyond the realm of mathematics and laws?

No.

 

[Chesterton]

Obviously this is a false dilemma.

There are at least three options.

The universe is lawless.
The universe is lawful and scientists have figured out the laws.
The universe is lawful and scientists have not figured out the laws.

Now, of course, scientists have not figured out everything, but they have figured out some things. The other two options are the same thing I said.

I disagree with your second option - if the universe is lawful and scientists have figured out the laws, someone should be able to answer my OP. The other two options are the same thing I said.

The answer to the question, "Are some quantum mechanical processes random?" is...

Yes, and scientists understand the relevant laws that govern this randomness.

Almost sounds like Orwellian double-speak. If they are random, they are un-governed.

The randomness of quantum mechanics does not mean that fishcakes will explode out of cat nostrils on Guam every other Thursday.

An intelligent fellow on here (WiccanChild) once told me that basically yes, fishcakes can explode out of cat nostrils on Guam every other Thursday. Didn't say they will, but said they could.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes.

The universe is not completely explainable if theres randomenss somewhere.

 

[durangodawood]

An intelligent fellow on here (WiccanChild) once told me that basically yes, fishcakes can explode out of cat nostrils on Guam every other Thursday. Didn't say they will, but said they could.

Ive heard that things like that are only likely over extreme lengths of time, like the cumulative lifetimes of a godzillion brazillion universes.

 

[Elendur]

The universe is not completely explainable if theres randomenss somewhere.

What kind of randomness is it you're talking about?

 

[Chesterton]

And we're telling you that your usage of "law" is idioscyncratic. What would you like to call the regularities of physics, including QM, that permit incredibly precise prediction and manipulation of a wide range of physical phenomena?

[Edited to get my meaning right.]

I'd suggest you read some probability theory it's fun and it helps with understanding a lot of things (not necessarily connected to this issue).

We have the Bernoulli trials as the most basic example.

But I'd like you to provide with a definition of the universes laws, as to try to come to a conclusion whether or not it applies to this universe and whether your conclusion follows from that.

I guess my idea of "law" involves two ideas: cause-and-effect, and consistency/uniformity. If I'm holding a ball, and release my grip, it will always fall to the ground, and will always do so because of the "law" of gravity. It should not turn into an elephant.

 

[durangodawood]

What kind of randomness is it you're talking about?

Any kind of randomness. One random event, and the universe cannot be said to be completely explainable.

 

[Chesterton]

Ive heard that things like that are only likely over extreme lengths of time, like the cumulative lifetimes of a godzillion brazillion universes.

No, as I recall the conversation, he said an elephant could appear in my room instantly. (You know, he was trying to defend the "something from nothing" idea of how the universe got here.)

 

[Elendur]

I guess my idea of "law" involves two ideas: cause-and-effect, and consistency/uniformity. If I'm holding a ball, and release my grip, it will always fall to the ground, and will always do so because of the "law" of gravity. It should not turn into an elephant.

You can have cause and effect, consistency and uniformity while allowing for randomness.

Any kind of randomness. One random event, and the universe cannot be said to be completely explainable.

Cannot be said to be to be predicted to what exact event will occur.
We still have the possibilities that we can explain, possibilities that the event is a part of.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Almost sounds like Orwellian double-speak. If they are random, they are un-governed.

They are governed by laws that are related to the mathematical laws that allow casinos to make money.