Is random real?

[sfs]

[quoting The ImmortalJellyfish]
'Any random act which you perceive as being unpredictable is computable and determinable with the right point of view and amount of information. Simply because of ignorance, seems to be the only argument for the word , "random," to even exist.'

Is there anyone here who believes an opposing opinion to this?

I doubt that it is true, and see no evidence in its favor.

Does this contradict or rely on the falsity of the above statement, or something else?

QM casts considerable doubt on the above statement. If QM is correct (and quantum theories provide a very good description of the world), then any theory that would let you predict apparently random events would also have to include faster-than-light communication. (Put more technically, QM rules out local hidden-variable theories.) There's lots of evidence against FTL communication, there's no evidence for it, and no one has ever formulated a theory that would provide the kind of predictability that's in question.

That doesn't absolutely rule out strict determinism, but to me, it puts the burden of proof on those who claim determinism is true. Where's the evidence?

 

[oi_antz]

I doubt that it is true, and see no evidence in its favor.


QM casts considerable doubt on the above statement. If QM is correct (and quantum theories provide a very good description of the world), then any theory that would let you predict apparently random events would also have to include faster-than-light communication. (Put more technically, QM rules out local hidden-variable theories.) There's lots of evidence against FTL communication, there's no evidence for it, and no one has ever formulated a theory that would provide the kind of predictability that's in question.

That doesn't absolutely rule out strict determinism, but to me, it puts the burden of proof on those who claim determinism is true. Where's the evidence?

Can you provide an example that you think casts doubt on this statement:

'Any random act which you perceive as being unpredictable is computable and determinable with the right point of view and amount of information.

 

[Elendur]

Can you give me examples?

One of the most obvious ones: Casinos. (pick any game)

Factories which get production errors and optimize using data they've gathered and analyzed.

Polling. (Questionnaires)

Healthcare. (Patient data)

Also, a more theoretical example: The utilization of stochastic differential equations to solve problems which would take too long with a deterministic numerical method. This is applied to, as one example, structural integrity analysis (not sure whether that's correctly translated though).

Then the conclusion must always be made with the clause that there is more to the equation than has been used. The conclusion therefore cannot be assumed to be true.

A conclusion is never assumed.
Also, why on earth would that additional clause be required when you apparently think it wasn't before? We're, more often than not, unable to work with the entire set of data when it comes to the real world.
I suspect you don't have the terminology nailed down.

I have forgotten how I jumped to that statement. I have been wanting to make that point since several posts ago. Do you think imprecision is negligible some times? I accept that it sometimes is not.

Of course it's negligible sometimes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Can you provide an example that you think casts doubt on this statement:

'Any random act which you perceive as being unpredictable is computable and determinable with the right point of view and amount of information.

Yes we can.

Any given atom that is radioactively unstable will decay but at a time not specified, there is absolutely no known way to predict the time of its decay. All one can do is assign probabilities based on past experiences with identical atoms.

A photon can be sent towards a half silvered mirror. A half silvered mirror is a piece of glass with such a thin layer of silver applied to it that when light shines on it, half the intensity gets through and the other half is reflected. (Some, of course, is simply absorbed, but this is a very small fraction).

So when a single photon is sent to the mirror, there is no known way to predict whether it will go through or be reflected.

That single photon could be paired with a photon detector that is rigged to, say, set off an atomic bomb.

You send the single photon through the mirror, its a strictly random possibility that either your whole city will be consummed or nobody will ever even know you did it.

These are demonstrable effects with current scientific equipment.

You can take it on faith that there are hidden variables we don't happen to be able to observe that account for what happens, but you will be taking a leap of faith instead of relying on the evidence.

These results cast doubt on the idea of strict determinism in the minds of many many scientists.

 

[sfs]

Can you provide an example that you think casts doubt on this statement:

'Any random act which you perceive as being unpredictable is computable and determinable with the right point of view and amount of information.

See Paul's examples. As he says, one can posit a hidden variable to explain these cases . . . but as I already noted, it would have to be a very strange kind of hidden variable, a nonlocal one. The hidden variables would also have to perfectly match the predictions made more simply by QM.

 

[oi_antz]

One of the most obvious ones: Casinos. (pick any game)

Factories which get production errors and optimize using data they've gathered and analyzed.

Polling. (Questionnaires)

Healthcare. (Patient data)

Also, a more theoretical example: The utilization of stochastic differential equations to solve problems which would take too long with a deterministic numerical method. This is applied to, as one example, structural integrity analysis (not sure whether that's correctly translated though).

Are these examples of the particle scale randomness you mentioned? These appear to be real life examples, if my understanding of your terminology is sufficient.

A conclusion is never assumed.

I am lost in this rabbit hole. When they launch the rocket, they must have concluded the expected position of the destination planet. However, there is a negligible margin of imprecision, into which some random factors can fit. We are way off track though, and I think it is my fault.

I was meant to steer us to my understanding of why you have said it makes no difference whether random is real or whether we just think it is.

Also, why on earth would that additional clause be required when you apparently think it wasn't before? We're, more often than not, unable to work with the entire set of data when it comes to the real world.

I don't know, and I think it is unnecessary argument. It is my fault again, sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the clarification.

Of course it's negligible sometimes.

What about when rounding to 360, the earth:moon radius proportions in miles, earlier?

 

[oi_antz]

You can take it on faith that there are hidden variables we don't happen to be able to observe that account for what happens, but you will be taking a leap of faith instead of relying on the evidence.

See Paul's examples. As he says, one can posit a hidden variable to explain these cases . . . but as I already noted, it would have to be a very strange kind of hidden variable, a nonlocal one. The hidden variables would also have to perfectly match the predictions made more simply by QM.

Why are you both so sure that "the right point of view and amount of information" will not appear some time in the future which will cause you to retract these statements?

 

[sfs]

Why are you both so sure that "the right point of view and amount of information" will not appear some time in the future which will cause you to retract these statements?

Because Bell's theorem shows that any hidden variable holding the information that determines the outcome has to be nonlocal, and I find it hard to take nonlocal theories seriously. There are alternatives (e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM), but I don't find them plausible as solutions either.

ETA: Also, I never said I was sure. I said at this point I felt the burden of proof was on those who proposed strict determinism. Where is the evidence for it?

 

[oi_antz]

Because Bell's theorem shows that any hidden variable holding the information that determines the outcome has to be nonlocal, and I find it hard to take nonlocal theories seriously. There are alternatives (e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM), but I don't find them plausible as solutions either.

ETA: Also, I never said I was sure. I said at this point I felt the burden of proof was on those who proposed strict determinism. Where is the evidence for it?

Thanks. I asked because you seemed to be more sure than unsure. I would like to see Paul's answer too.

 

[sfs]

Thanks. I asked because you seemed to be more sure than unsure. I would like to see Paul's answer too.

You're welcome. I used to be an experimental particle physicist, and I have an outlook on these things shaped by that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Thanks. I asked because you seemed to be more sure than unsure. I would like to see Paul's answer too.

Well, you did ask for any thing that allows for doubt about determinism.

These things allow for the very doubt you asked for, don't they?

It appears to me that the only way to rescue determinism is to indulge in the many worlds interpretation. Are you willing to do that?

 

[oi_antz]

Well, you did ask for any thing that allows for doubt about determinism.

These things allow for the very doubt you asked for, don't they?

It appears to me that the only way to rescue determinism is to indulge in the many worlds interpretation. Are you willing to do that?

I would like to know more (that is, something) about it, but that goes for most of the physics sciences that have been brought to the discussion. If you can relate it to me accordingly, sure I would like to know what you think, and meanwhile I am going to resolve to assign some time to learn about physics (I was quite ignorant at school, plus it was a topic I did not take, and I have not been in the situation of needing that knowledge until now).

Suggestions for links to fast-track physics concepts will be appreciated, and by that I mean to install a useful understanding. I will make appropriate time for this.

 

[Elendur]

Are these examples of the particle scale randomness you mentioned? These appear to be real life examples, if my understanding of your terminology is sufficient.

Sorry abut that, forgot to give you example of the particle scale. I'm no physicist though, so I can give you pointers and not much else:
Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I'm not mistaken Feynman diagrams deals with particle interactions at a subatomic level and the stochastic representation serves it well.

Another example might be the motion of an individual atom within an homogeneous gas. The path it takes can be approximated by a brownian motion (If I remember correctly) which is stochastic.

I am lost in this rabbit hole. When they launch the rocket, they must have concluded the expected position of the destination planet. However, there is a negligible margin of imprecision, into which some random factors can fit. We are way off track though, and I think it is my fault.

Ok.

I was meant to steer us to my understanding of why you have said it makes no difference whether random is real or whether we just think it is.

Indeed, because we couldn't make full use of the deterministic properties of the universe should it be so.

I don't know, and I think it is unnecessary argument. It is my fault again, sorry for the confusion, and thank you for the clarification.

Ok.

What about when rounding to 360, the earth:moon radius proportions in miles, earlier?

When determining whether a deviation is negligible or not you need a purpose to set the frame of tolerance.

The allowed deviance of a screw is determined by its specifications, most often within a small interval. If I were to order a screw just for a demonstration of how it looks though, I'd not care much of its dimensions.

If you're looking to show some cool relation from observed facts in the universe, I want a very exact calculation, integer level just doesn't cut it. I don't know whether I've mentioned but I'm a mathematician and I'm very unimpressed with how people treat numbers in general.

 

[sfs]

I would like to know more (that is, something) about it, but that goes for most of the physics sciences that have been brought to the discussion. If you can relate it to me accordingly, sure I would like to know what you think, and meanwhile I am going to resolve to assign some time to learn about physics (I was quite ignorant at school, plus it was a topic I did not take, and I have not been in the situation of needing that knowledge until now).

Suggestions for links to fast-track physics concepts will be appreciated, and by that I mean to install a useful understanding. I will make appropriate time for this.

In QM, all you can say about the decay of an unstable nucleus is the probability that it will happen in a certain amount of time; you can't say when you will actually observe it. The Many Worlds interpretation includes the observer in the probability. It says that you actually observe the decay at all possible times; the you that sees it decay after 14.2 seconds is just as real as a you that sees it decay after 21.7 seconds and so on. You're not aware of all of the other versions of you, and there's nothing special about any one of you.

It's fully deterministic, in that the final state is completely determined by the earlier state, but at the cost of making particular observations -- and observers -- kind of unreal.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

In QM, all you can say about the decay of an unstable nucleus is the probability that it will happen in a certain amount of time; you can't say when you will actually observe it. The Many Worlds interpretation includes the observer in the probability. It says that you actually observe the decay at all possible times; the you that sees it decay after 14.2 seconds is just as real as a you that sees it decay after 21.7 seconds and so on. You're not aware of all of the other versions of you, and there's nothing special about any one of you.

It's fully deterministic, in that the final state is completely determined by the earlier state, but at the cost of making particular observations -- and observers -- kind of unreal.

Yes, and there is also the question as to whether or not the number of alternate universes is finite or infinite.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The allowed deviance of a screw is determined by its specifications, most often within a small interval. If I were to order a screw just for a demonstration of how it looks though, I'd not care much of its dimensions.

If you're looking to show some cool relation from observed facts in the universe, I want a very exact calculation, integer level just doesn't cut it. I don't know whether I've mentioned but I'm a mathematician and I'm very unimpressed with how people treat numbers in general.

Very small differences have a way of building up into very large different outcomes. Everyone that tries to aim pool ball one to hit pool ball two so that it hits pool ball three knows that to be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

No its not, something completely random lucks any structure.

Any scientific references to back up that claim?

 

[Elendur]

Very small differences have a way of building up into very large different outcomes. Everyone that tries to aim pool ball one to hit pool ball two so that it hits pool ball three knows that to be true.

Agreed, often referenced as the butterfly effect.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Because Bell's theorem shows that any hidden variable holding the information that determines the outcome has to be nonlocal, and I find it hard to take nonlocal theories seriously. There are alternatives (e.g. the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM), but I don't find them plausible as solutions either.

ETA: Also, I never said I was sure. I said at this point I felt the burden of proof was on those who proposed strict determinism. Where is the evidence for it?

Alas, the many worlds interpretation doesn't solve the non-locality problem of apparently faster than light communication between separated events. It only resolves the problem of how to reinstate determinism when multiple alternate possibilities seem to be real.