Is random real?

[ThinkForYourself]

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.
...

You are confused here Jim.

The "robot" couldn't predict the next flip of the coin with 100% success.

All it did was know the outcome of a flip earlier, ie without having to wait for the coin to settle.

And thus this has nothing to do with the randomness of flipping a coin.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Not before the flip, they don't.

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.

If Brownian motion was non-random then you would not get dispersal. You would see the suspended matter concentrate themselves and move with intention. We don't observe that.

How would thermodynamics work without randomness? How would heat disperse in a system without the random kinetic interactions between molecules? Without randomness, you would be equally likely to see entropy decrease as you would increase. It is the natural laws that produce randomness.

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.

How do you explain the fact that random walks model Brownian motion so well?

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.

We use correlations to find random processes.

Begging the question fallacy.

How is that begging the question? You claim that nature is non-random. I am referring to a process that is thought to be random. Show us how it is non-random as you claim.

 

[Michael]

You are confused here Jim.

The "robot" couldn't predict the next flip of the coin with 100% success.

All it did was know the outcome of a flip earlier, ie without having to wait for the coin to settle.

And thus this has nothing to do with the randomness of flipping a coin.

In terms of cause/effect relationships and *intent*, I'd say the whole coin thing is a bad example of something truly being random. It turns out that coin flipping is not even 100 percent random when humans get involved since the coin is more statistically likely to land on the side that is up when it's flipped.

Heads or tails? It all depends on some key variables

 

[Michael]

The decay of isotopes.

FYI, that's not actually "random" either:
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

More than likely the "cause" of decay is related to neutrinos and the number of neutrinos present.

 

[Loudmouth]

FYI, that's not actually "random" either:
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

How does that make it non-random?

How do those observations allow you to predict which atom in a group of atoms will decay next?

 

[Michael]

How does that make it non-random?

It demonstrates a cause/effect relationship and variation depending on external influences.

How do those observations allow you to predict which atom in a group of atoms will decay next?

I might try bombarding one atom with an excess of neutrinos.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

In terms of cause/effect relationships and *intent*, I'd say the whole coin thing is a bad example of something truly being random. It turns out that coin flipping is not even 100 percent random when humans get involved since the coin is more statistically likely to land on the side that is up when it's flipped.

Heads or tails? It all depends on some key variables

I agree it's not 100% random, but I think we can all use it as far as this discussion is involved.

I haven't thought about it, but what could we use in everyday life that is truly random?

 

[Michael]

I agree it's not 100% random, but I think we can all use it as far as this discussion is involved.

I haven't thought about it, but what could we use in everyday life that is truly random?

Everything that "happens" has a "cause" as far as we know, so the notion that anything is completely "random" is somewhat misleading. A lot of things *seem* random, but they all have a "cause" at some level.

 

[Loudmouth]

It demonstrates a cause/effect relationship and variation depending on external influences.

Increasing the decay rate only increases the number of random counts per time period. To use an analogy, if a poor economy increases lottery ticket sales it doesn't make the lottery any less random.

I might try bombarding one atom with an excess of neutrinos.

We are talking about natural decay. Which atom decays next is considered to be a random event.

 

[Michael]

Increasing the decay rate only increases the number of random counts per time period. To use an analogy, if a poor economy increases lottery ticket sales it doesn't make the lottery any less random.



We are talking about natural decay. Which atom decays next is considered to be a random event.

My basic complaint relates to cause/effect relationships. You can't really ignore that everything we know about has a *cause*. Since everything has a cause, the notion of random is somewhat misleading. You can site many examples that *seem* random, but ultimately each one of them is "caused" by something else.

 

[Loudmouth]

My basic complaint relates to cause/effect relationships. You can't really ignore that everything we know about has a *cause*. Since everything has a cause, the notion of random is somewhat misleading. You can site many examples that *seem* random, but ultimately each one of them is "caused" by something else.

Why can't there be a cause that [produces] random results? If something is non-random, shouldn't it seem non-random? (late edit)

 

[oi_antz]

Everything that "happens" has a "cause" as far as we know, so the notion that anything is completely "random" is somewhat misleading. A lot of things *seem* random, but they all have a "cause" at some level.

This was precisely my hypothesis in the OP. Does anyone have a reason to challenge this idea?

Can someone please provide a link to a resource that explains the coin flip robot experiments?

 

[Michael]

Why can't there be a cause that [produces] random results? If something is non-random, shouldn't it seem non-random? (late edit)

Not necessarily. Consider that example of solar flares and radiometric decay. Using that knowledge, we might be able to *increase* or *decrease* the number of decay processes simply by changing a variable (lets say neutrinos). The events may 'seem' random, but by virtue of our *intent*, we can have a direct effect on the outcome.

The same is true of the coin flip issue. I can 'preload' the coin in my hand and thereby stack the odds in my favor, if only slightly.

A completely random event wouldn't change based upon the intent of the observer. Even QM suggests that simply by virtue of *observing*, we tend to have an effect on the experiment.

 

[Loudmouth]

This was precisely my hypothesis in the OP. Does anyone have a reason to challenge this idea?

The lack of evidence, for one. It is just asserted that a cause would necessarily result in a non-random result. No justification is given for this.

 

[sfs]

My basic complaint relates to cause/effect relationships. You can't really ignore that everything we know about has a *cause*. Since everything has a cause, the notion of random is somewhat misleading. You can site many examples that *seem* random, but ultimately each one of them is "caused" by something else.

I can't ignore that everything we know about has a cause, because that isn't true. We know quite a bit about decays of unstable nuclei, and particular decays do not have particular causes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not necessarily. Consider that example of solar flares and radiometric decay. Using that knowledge, we might be able to *increase* or *decrease* the number of decay processes simply by changing a variable (lets say neutrinos).

Changing the number of random events does not make them non-random. The path of the neutrino is still going to be described by quantum mechanics which is going to involve a wave function that describes a random distribution of where the neutrino is at any given moment. Where that neutrino hits within that random distribution is . . . well, random. Just with this fact, you can't predict which atom the neutrino will hit. It will hit a random atom. When that neutrino interacts with an atom is also random.

On top of that, the amount of energy may only increase the chances that a decay will happen. You are still looking at a random order of molecules decaying.

The events may 'seem' random, but by virtue of our *intent*, we can have a direct effect on the outcome.

The problem is that outcome is random.

The same is true of the coin flip issue. I can 'preload' the coin in my hand and thereby stack the odds in my favor, if only slightly.

In relation to the neutrino example, you are only increasing the number of times you flip the coin in a set amount of time. You aren't weighting the results.

A completely random event wouldn't change based upon the intent of the observer.

That is exactly what we see for the game of craps. Putting your bet on "8 the hard way" does not increase your chances of rolling two 4's. The dice are random with respect to the chips on the table. We intend to win, but our intentions mean nothing with respect to the randomness.

Even QM suggests that simply by virtue of *observing*, we tend to have an effect on the experiment.

Yes, we collapse the wave function which produces random results.

 

[oi_antz]

I agree it's not 100% random, but I think we can all use it as far as this discussion is involved.

I haven't thought about it, but what could we use in everyday life that is truly random?

I am a bit confused now about what random means, basically my understanding of the word has changed a bit since learning about the odds of die rolls in the game of craps (page one).

So, random as it seems to be understood by others on this thread is more like the word "unpredictable" or "uncontrollable". Those words are different from the dictionary definition.

random

adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.
2.
Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3.
Building Trades.
(of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions:
random shingles.
(of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
constructed or applied without regularity:
random bond.
4.
Informal.
unknown, unidentified, or out of place:
A couple of random guys showed up at the party.
odd and unpredictable in an amusing way:

Note that unpredictable appears in a definite context in the definition of informal use here, which is different from what unpredictable would mean in a literal context (ie, statistically).

Definition 1 here is most like what I had in mind when I opened this thread, because it is based on the observation of patterns which are assumed to have formed over time from a state of less pattern.

The most compelling fact on that page I linked to in the original post, is the proportion of moon to earth size:

Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360 = 33 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5
Radius of Earth plus Radius of Moon = 5,040 miles = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 = 7 x 8 x 9 x 10
The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days. 27.3 days is also the average rotation period of a sunspot. The closest : farthest distance ratio that Venus and Mars each experiences in the Mars-Venus dance is incredibly 3:11. The Earth orbits between them.

This pattern is definitely not random by any definition, yet it is assumed by most common contemporary scientific theory that it has come about from a practically random situation (a collection of dust particles forming relative objects). Note the specific meaning of that word "relative" wrt the mathematical observation of these objects:

.. So when I saw these facts, it just seemed that if a bunch of dust is just flung into space and observed, a truly random result would not produce such perfect proportions as this. But then there are perfectly non-random patterns in the observation of the orbits of other planets (see the link in OP).

I just am left to wonder, that if randomness (that is, without pattern) is real, then how can there be so much evidence against it when we look at the things around us?

Thus "is random real or imagined?"

If randomness is defined as a lack of pattern, then pattern becomes a key word. What is a pattern? Does it require repetition? Eg, is pi considered to be random? (This stuff is way beyond my education btw).

I am still fascinated by these patterns for what seems too uncanny. If it was just one orbit relationship that had a pretty pattern, fine, it can be random. But look at all those patterns in our solar system. It blows my mind.

 

[oi_antz]

The lack of evidence, for one. It is just asserted that a cause would necessarily result in a non-random result. No justification is given for this.

Please see my last post here, just now. I think the definition of "random" is something that needs to be established. Even if it is only for my sake

 

[Michael]

Changing the number of random events does not make them non-random.

I would argue that it does make them 'non random'. Assuming that adding neutrinos does the trick in terms of changing the number of decay events, we've identified the *empirical cause* of the event. In other words it would make perfect sense from what we've learned recently about neutrino mass that a series of neutrinos slamming into a radioactive element may be the "cause' of the instability of that element. It may not decay at all in the absence of neutrinos. If we know the *cause* of something, it's not really 'random'. The fact we can *change* the process is evidence that it's not a 'random' process at all, but rather a *caused* event, from an empirical physical process which we can identify in the lab.

The path of the neutrino is still going to be described by quantum mechanics which is going to involve a wave function that describes a random distribution of where the neutrino is at any given moment. Where that neutrino hits within that random distribution is . . . well, random.

Um, even QM has "minority" points of view that suggest that there may be a "cause" for even QM events.

Just with this fact, you can't predict which atom the neutrino will hit. It will hit a random atom. When that neutrino interacts with an atom is also random.

I would argue that while it *appears* to be random, the fact that they must interact to produce the instability would preclude it from being an entirely 'random' event. The fact that there are 'billions" of neutrinos flowing by makes it *appear* to be random, but it's still a 'cause/effect' relationship which we can control to some degree or another.

On top of that, the amount of energy may only increase the chances that a decay will happen. You are still looking at a random order of molecules decaying.

IMO that's only because of local conditions (our proximity to a huge neutrino source), and the *number* of neutrinos present. If would could reduce the number, and/or direct them with better precision, we might be able to come up with a completely "controlled" process.

The problem is that outcome is random.

If it's influence by the number of neutrinos present, I might be able to move further away from the sun and thereby influence the process. It really only *appears* to be random, mostly because we don't understand the process very well. If we understood it better, controlling it might become child's play.

I think the key point I'm making relates to known and demonstrated cause/effect relationships. I we can identify those relationships (like EM fields for instance) controlling electricity isn't a problem, even if lightning strikes remain rather unpredictable due to all the variables involved.

 

[Michael]

Please see my last post here, just now. I think the definition of "random" is something that needs to be established. Even if it is only for my sake

You're absolutely right. The term 'random' is somewhat ambiguous as it relates to empirical cause/effect relationships. I'm making "assumptions" about what *you* might mean by "random" (and everyone else too).