Is random real?

[oi_antz]

I don't know if this is best for science or philosophy, but it is inspired by scientific facts, so I will put it here and see how it goes. Check this out:

Ensign Software - ESPL: Dances of the Planets

It demonstrates an incredibly beautiful pattern of mathematics in the universe which just blew me away. When I saw all these facts this way, I just had to praise God for His creativity and style, but then I also had to consider how it might inspire the awe of non-believers, which led me to a thought that destiny/fate is the most obvious conclusion, that regardless of whether one personally believes God designed it this way or that physical laws described mathematically have caused this to happen over time, either point of view would lead to the conclusion that everything is ultimately following the path of some absolute influence.

So it's not something I have thought much about yet, and mostly I want to share it with someone because it is cool, but go ahead and share whatever your thoughts about this tend to be. I think it would be an interesting topic to know more about.

 

[RichardParker]

I don't know if this is best for science or philosophy, but it is inspired by scientific facts, so I will put it here and see how it goes. Check this out:

Ensign Software - ESPL: Dances of the Planets

It demonstrates an incredibly beautiful pattern of mathematics in the universe which just blew me away. When I saw all these facts this way, I just had to praise God for His creativity and style, but then I also had to consider how it might inspire the awe of non-believers, which led me to a thought that destiny/fate is the most obvious conclusion, that regardless of whether one personally believes God designed it this way or that physical laws described mathematically have caused this to happen over time, either point of view would lead to the conclusion that everything is ultimately following the path of some absolute influence.

So it's not something I have thought much about yet, and mostly I want to share it with someone because it is cool, but go ahead and share whatever your thoughts about this tend to be. I think it would be an interesting topic to know more about.

Well, as a non-believer, I certainly still get a lot of beauty out of the natural laws of the universe, and the magnificant things it can create.
Actually, since I used to be a christian, I can tell you from both sides:
None of this sense has gone lost, when I lost my faith. I don't attribute it anymore to a deity, but this doesn't make it any less wonderfull.

Actually, today I think that it makes it more beautifull, or at least interessting and exciting, because today I don't believe that any of this has been made for "me", but rather that the universe itself just plays out in this wonderfull thing that I can enjoy.
I don't think that's a fair assesment though; I doubt that I really apprisiate it more than I used to, even though that's the impression I get when looking back. We always see things in the light of the point of view we are currently holding, we can't really help it.

Now, to the point of randomnes:
Yes, the universe is fallowing a certain path, to an ultimate conclusion. I don't think that we have any "real" coincidences here, we have only things that we can predict or not predict.
This has become the essence of what we humans mean when we talk about "coincidences". We don't usually mean things that aren't really determined by anything and are just random, we are talking about things that are influenced by so many little factors, that predictions become impossible.
Does real randomnes exist? I don't know. Maybe. Inside our universe this seems to be an impossibility, given that everything influences each other.
But maybe there is true randomnes beyond the bounderies of our universe. Maybe our universe is the result of a truely random event?
I don't know.
I also don't think that it makes much of a difference to us humans. Because if something is just unpredictable because there are too many factors influencing it, or if it is truely random because nothing is actually influencing its outcome seems indistinguisable to us on a practial level.

 

[Resha Caner]

Does real randomnes exist? I don't know. Maybe. Inside our universe this seems to be an impossibility, given that everything influences each other.
But maybe there is true randomnes beyond the bounderies of our universe. Maybe our universe is the result of a truely random event?
I don't know.
I also don't think that it makes much of a difference to us humans. Because if something is just unpredictable because there are too many factors influencing it, or if it is truely random because nothing is actually influencing its outcome seems indistinguisable to us on a practial level.

Yep.

There might be some philosophical reasons for thinking randomness does/doesn't exist, but I don't see how it would impact practice.

 

[Paulos23]

Rolling a die is accepted as random. In theory, you could predict the roll if you knew every detail that will effect the roll (how it came out of the hand, how fast, what is the spin, how hitting the table will change that, etc.) but there is so many it is imposible to do it in the time it takes to roll a die.

So while the physical laws (as we understand them) don't seam to allow for random events, in practis we call them that because we don't know all the forces effecting everything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rolling a die is accepted as random. In theory, you could predict the roll if you knew every detail that will effect the roll (how it came out of the hand, how fast, what is the spin, how hitting the table will change that, etc.) but there is so many it is imposible to do it in the time it takes to roll a die.

So while the physical laws (as we understand them) don't seam to allow for random events, in practis we call them that because we don't know all the forces effecting everything.

The roll of the dice is a good example. What we are ultimately looking at is if the roll of the dice is random with respect to the bet. Does placing a bet on hard eights increase the rate at which we see hard eights? In a random system, it shouldn't. We can use statistics to determine if there is a deviation from the expectation of a random system.

Philosophically, we can argue back and forth whether the dice are being controlled by an evil demon. In the real world, we look to see if the system is statistically random.

 

[oi_antz]

[...]
because today I don't believe that any of this has been made for "me", but rather that the universe itself just plays out in this wonderfull thing that I can enjoy.
[...]

Hi Richard, while this is not a discussion intended for apologetics or even religion at all, I just have to tell you that I don't see how the statement after the comma here negates the statement before it. From my Christian perspective, it actually appears to support it.

Now, to the point of randomnes:
Yes, the universe is fallowing a certain path, to an ultimate conclusion. I don't think that we have any "real" coincidences here, we have only things that we can predict or not predict.
This has become the essence of what we humans mean when we talk about "coincidences". We don't usually mean things that aren't really determined by anything and are just random, we are talking about things that are influenced by so many little factors, that predictions become impossible.

Understood, and agreed.

Does real randomnes exist? I don't know. Maybe. Inside our universe this seems to be an impossibility, given that everything influences each other.
But maybe there is true randomnes beyond the bounderies of our universe. Maybe our universe is the result of a truely random event?
I don't know.

This is a valid point to make. What we cannot observe really cannot be known, and therefore hypothesized about. Let's leave that speculation aside unless it has relevance to the topic, which is, can we observe randomness (therefore, is randomness real or is it something imagined).

I also don't think that it makes much of a difference to us humans. Because if something is just unpredictable because there are too many factors influencing it, or if it is truely random because nothing is actually influencing its outcome seems indistinguisable to us on a practial level.

Only while we cannot predict it, but you know that is only due to lack of information or lack of understanding of the mechanisms of influence. Therefore, our ability to predict some things that are so-called random, could change.

Rolling a die is accepted as random. In theory, you could predict the roll if you knew every detail that will effect the roll (how it came out of the hand, how fast, what is the spin, how hitting the table will change that, etc.) but there is so many it is imposible to do it in the time it takes to roll a die.

Not impossible, just so difficult that no human has achieved it yet (according to the present theory we have established regarding the mechanics of predestination).

The roll of the dice is a good example. What we are ultimately looking at is if the roll of the dice is random with respect to the bet. Does placing a bet on hard eights increase the rate at which we see hard eights? In a random system, it shouldn't. We can use statistics to determine if there is a deviation from the expectation of a random system.

Philosophically, we can argue back and forth whether the dice are being controlled by an evil demon. In the real world, we look to see if the system is statistically random.

So the definition of "random" as you propose is measured by a range of probability? Isn't a high probability just as probable as a low probability in true random theory?

 

[Loudmouth]

So the definition of "random" as you propose is measured by a range of probability?

No. It is defined by an expected and an actual outcome (e.g. a million rolls of the dice). For example, in the game of craps we would expect 7 to be the most common outcome, and that 7's are rolled at a certain rate (1 out of ever 5 rolls on average). If we see a deviation from the expected outcomes, then we may suspect a non-random factor. Otherwise, we can conclude that the actual outcome is indistinguishable from the random model.

Isn't a high probability just as probable as a low probability in true random theory?

Probabilities are established by the system.

 

[oi_antz]

No. It is defined by an expected and an actual outcome (e.g. a million rolls of the dice). For example, in the game of craps we would expect 7 to be the most common outcome, and that 7's are rolled at a certain rate (1 out of ever 5 rolls on average). If we see a deviation from the expected outcomes, then we may suspect a non-random factor. Otherwise, we can conclude that the actual outcome is indistinguishable from the random model.



Probabilities are established by the system.

I see. Thank you, I will have to think more about that so it sinks in well.

 

[JimFit]

Randomness = Nothingness, something truly random can't exist when there are laws and constants that arrange everything, what it looks as a random event isn't truly random because the cause was determined by something. There is a structure for everything around you from energy to matter, randomness can't exist when there is something because this something demands determinism to even created in the first place.

 

[Loudmouth]

Randomness = Nothingness,

Dice produce random results, and yet they are not nothing. Brownian motion is the random motion of molecules in a medium, and yet molecules are not nothing.

something truly random can't exist when there are laws and constants that arrange everything, what it looks as a random event isn't truly random because the cause was determined by something.

The act of rolling the dice produces random results. The laws of the universe predict random results, such as with Brownian motion.

There is a structure for everything around you from energy to matter, randomness can't exist when there is something because this something demands determinism to even created in the first place.

Then show us how to predict which atom in a group of radioactive atoms will decay next.

 

[Elendur]

Randomness = Nothingness, something truly random can't exist when there are laws and constants that arrange everything, what it looks as a random event isn't truly random because the cause was determined by something. There is a structure for everything around you from energy to matter, randomness can't exist when there is something because this something demands determinism to even created in the first place.

Of course determinism and lack of random interference leads to non-randomness.

However, these properties are far from certain (I'd even argue that one or both are false) when it comes to the universe.

 

[Elendur]

Dice produce random results, and yet they are not nothing. Brownian motion is the random motion of molecules in a medium, and yet molecules are not nothing.

The act of rolling the dice produces random results. The laws of the universe predict random results, such as with Brownian motion.

Then show us how to predict which atom in a group of radioactive atoms will decay next.

Perception =/= reality. Keep that in mind. I think he's getting at how the deterministic outlook of reality, coupled no interference, leads to set results, with no variation allowed.

 

[sfs]

Perception =/= reality. Keep that in mind. I think he's getting at how the deterministic outlook of reality, coupled no interference, leads to set results, with no variation allowed.

The problem is that the universe, at the quantum level, doesn't seem to share a deterministic outlook on reality.

 

[Delphiki]

I think nothing is ultimately random, but there is a degree to which the chain of cause and effect is beyond our capacity to detect or understand.

For example, a programmer can make a program that spits out a random number between 1 and 10 every 5 minutes. The numbers are seemingly random to the end users, but in actuality, they are derived by a complex formula that pulls variables from the current time, processor temperature, storage capacity, and so on. It's about enough to be immediately unpredictable to the programmer. The numbers aren't really random, but we call them so because they are perceptually random.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perception =/= reality. Keep that in mind. I think he's getting at how the deterministic outlook of reality, coupled no interference, leads to set results, with no variation allowed.

What I am arguing is that reality is statistically indistinguishable from a random process.

 

[Elendur]

The problem is that the universe, at the quantum level, doesn't seem to share a deterministic outlook on reality.

Indeed, I did not mean to hint otherwise

What I am arguing is that reality is statistically indistinguishable from a random process.

Agreed

 

[JimFit]

Dice produce random results, and yet they are not nothing. Brownian motion is the random motion of molecules in a medium, and yet molecules are not nothing.

No they don't, this is delusional randomness, it is like the paradigm with the flip of the coin, if we knew the forces we could find the result, scientists have built a robot that guess the side of the coin by 100% sucess.

The act of rolling the dice produces random results. The laws of the universe predict random results, such as with Brownian motion.

If you consider something that you can't predict truly random, then yes, Brownian motion can be considered truly random.Most people, especially in science circles don't find the premise 'things one can't predict' sufficient to define something as truly random. I would argue that Brownian motion is not truly random, because if you were able to measure the initial positions and velocity vectors of all the particles involved, you could calculate the outcome of your Brownian movement. The problem is that you don't usually know all the initial conditions and therefore can only treat the problem as if it was truly random. That is why the most common way of simulating Brownian motion is with random walks. Science today, by looking for correlations, is making the assumptions that things are not truly random. Otherwise, correlations would not be observable, and therefore the ability to predict things based on probable causes would not exist.

Then show us how to predict which atom in a group of radioactive atoms will decay next.

Begging the question fallacy.

 

[sfs]

No they don't, this is delusional randomness, it is like the paradigm with the flip of the coin, if we knew the forces we could find the result, scientists have built a robot that guess the side of the coin by 100% sucess.

It's not "delusional"; it's a description of a measurable outcome as a random variable. Many things are treated as random in science.

Science today, by looking for correlations, is making the assumptions that things are not truly random. Otherwise, correlations would not be observable, and therefore the ability to predict things based on probable causes would not exist.

Your conclusion does not follow. Outcomes can be random but still have nonuniform probability. The probability of a quantum mechanical particle tunneling through a barrier is correlated with its energy, but whether tunneling occurs is still random.

Begging the question fallacy.

Why? Even if you are given an arbitrarily precise description of an unstable nucleus, can you predict when it will decay?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't know if this is best for science or philosophy, but it is inspired by scientific facts, so I will put it here and see how it goes. Check this out:

Ensign Software - ESPL: Dances of the Planets

It demonstrates an incredibly beautiful pattern of mathematics in the universe which just blew me away. When I saw all these facts this way, I just had to praise God for His creativity and style, but then I also had to consider how it might inspire the awe of non-believers, which led me to a thought that destiny/fate is the most obvious conclusion, that regardless of whether one personally believes God designed it this way or that physical laws described mathematically have caused this to happen over time, either point of view would lead to the conclusion that everything is ultimately following the path of some absolute influence.

So it's not something I have thought much about yet, and mostly I want to share it with someone because it is cool, but go ahead and share whatever your thoughts about this tend to be. I think it would be an interesting topic to know more about.

Very cool and beautiful designs.

With regards to the thread questions, I think calling something random kind of presents a "god of the gaps" problem. If you call something random, it seems to me that what you are saying is epistemologically equivalent to "god did it".

For example, hundreds of years ago, many people ascribed lightning to the gods. Other people may have said the lightning is random. Both are wrong, and both are arguing from ignorance.

I think to admit something is truly random is to reach a dead end of enquiry.

I see it as entirely possible that the randomness of quantum mechanics may later be discovered to be governed by other underlying principles. Perhaps I am wrong but I don't want to close off that line of thinking.


Loudmouth has already touched on another aspect of statistical randomness, although I don't know if that's the idea you were getting at in the OP. Statistical randomness means that a system behaves in a probabilistically predictable way given enough trials.

 

[sfs]

I see it as entirely possible that the randomness of quantum mechanics may later be discovered to be governed by other underlying principles. Perhaps I am wrong but I don't want to close off that line of thinking.

Nothing closes off that line of thinking. What makes it unattractive to most physicists is Bell's Inequality, which says that any hidden variables explaining quantum phenomena have to be nonlocal. Nonlocal variables raise all kinds of problems.