Is random real?

[oi_antz]

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).

Do you think this might produce somewhat random results?

 

[Michael]

Do you think this might produce somewhat random results?

Sure, they might "appear" random.

 

[oi_antz]

Sure, they might "appear" random.

The blue pill was easier.

 

[JimFit]

When Scientists talk about Randomness they don't mean that something is truly random, randomness was included in our daily vocabulary for describing things that we don't know yet. If Randomness existed we would observe properties of the Universe that aren't attached to any physical law. This happens only in the Universe of Harry Potter where magic can create something from nothing uncaused.

 

[sfs]

When Scientists talk about Randomness they don't mean that something is truly random, randomness was included in our daily vocabulary for describing things that we don't know yet. If Randomness existed we would observe properties of the Universe that aren't attached to any physical law. This happens only in the Universe of Harry Potter where magic can create something from nothing uncaused.

When physicists talk about the timing of radioactive decay being random, they mean truly random.

 

[oi_antz]

When Scientists talk about Randomness they don't mean that something is truly random, randomness was included in our daily vocabulary for describing things that we don't know yet. If Randomness existed we would observe properties of the Universe that aren't attached to any physical law. This happens only in the Universe of Harry Potter where magic can create something from nothing uncaused.

Maybe my use of random is not best suited to that definition. Think of this, because this is definitely too coincidental for me to believe is random:

Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360
The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days.

If this is not evidence of some absolute force at work to impose uncanny coincidence and disprove that our universe and life itself is random, how can we rationalize the extremely high odds of one person on one day in the Roman era making one decision to define the length of a mile in such a way that it describes to ~ .1% accuracy the ratio of the moon's radius to earth's radius as it perfectly describes as a percentage, the orbits of moon to the rotations of earth? And I have looked briefly at how the unit of mile was established, which is 5000 Roman foot lengths. The length of a given Roman's foot had to be exactly right at that time in civilization for this perfection to have manifested, and they had to magically decide that 5,000 was a good number. Either that, or it was reverse-engineered, and they knew at the time that one mile was equivalent to 1/1080 of the moon's radius.

I don't know if random is even the right word for what I am describing.

 

[lost999]

Maybe my use of random is not best suited to that definition. Think of this, because this is definitely too coincidental for me to believe is random: Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360 Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360 The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days. If this is not evidence of some absolute force at work to impose uncanny coincidence and disprove that our universe and life itself is random, how can we rationalize the extremely high odds of one person on one day in the Roman era making one decision to define the length of a mile in such a way that it describes to ~ .1% accuracy the ratio of the moon's radius to earth's radius as it perfectly describes as a percentage, the orbits of moon to the rotations of earth? And I have looked briefly at how the unit of mile was established, which is 5000 Roman foot lengths. The length of a given Roman's foot had to be exactly right at that time in civilization for this perfection to have manifested, and they had to magically decide that 5,000 was a good number. Either that, or it was reverse-engineered, and they knew at the time that one mile was equivalent to 1/1080 of the moon's radius. I don't know if random is even the right word for what I am describing.

Very interesting stuff, oi_antz!

 

[Loudmouth]

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

It is like I described earlier. We use models to predict what a random system would look like, and then we compare that to the real world. If the real world matches the model, then we have support for a random system.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe my use of random is not best suited to that definition. Think of this, because this is definitely too coincidental for me to believe is random:

Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360
The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days.

That is called hindsight bias, or the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can find such coincidences in any random set.

 

[Loudmouth]

If Randomness existed we would observe properties of the Universe that aren't attached to any physical law.

The physical laws predict randomness. That is what you keep missing.

Random doesn't mean "anything can happen", in case you were under that illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The event would still be random. Think of the double slit experiment with electrons. The causes for the interference pattern are known, yet the electrons land randomly according to the probabilities described by its wave function. The same would apply for the neutrino. You wouldn't be able to determine which atom the neutrino would hit.

Also, changing the variables of a random process does not negate the randomness of the unchanged system. Atoms still decay without bursts of neutrinos.

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.

Nuclear instability already explains it just fine.

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

Crackpots do not a science make. There will always be those who disagree with any consensus. There are still Geocentrists around.

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.

I still see no reason why a cause/effect relationship could not result in a random outcome.

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.

If you are able to purposefully pick ping pong balls out of a lottery machine to get a pre-determined outcome, does that make the lottery without the controlled process non-random?

 

[oi_antz]

Maybe my use of random is not best suited to that definition. Think of this, because this is definitely too coincidental for me to believe is random:

Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360
The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days.

That is called hindsight bias, or the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can find such coincidences in any random set.

Can you please explain why you think I am presenting a fallacy?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe my use of random is not best suited to that definition. Think of this, because this is definitely too coincidental for me to believe is random:

Radius of Moon = 1,080 miles = 3 x 360
Radius of Earth = 3,960 miles = 11 x 360
The ratio 3:11 is 27.3 percent, and the orbit of the Moon takes 27.3 days.
Can you please explain why you think I am presenting a fallacy?

It is a fallacy because you are pretending that it was meant to be that way from the start.

The fallacy is often described as a Texas sharpshooter bragging that he could hit a bullseye the size of a quarter from 500 yards on the first shot. To prove his skills, he fires at a large barn, walks up to the barn, and then draws a quarter sized bullseye around the bullet hole. That is what you are doing with your measurements.

 

[oi_antz]

It is a fallacy because you are pretending that it was meant to be that way from the start.

The fallacy is often described as a Texas sharpshooter bragging that he could hit a bullseye the size of a quarter from 500 yards on the first shot. To prove his skills, he fires at a large barn, walks up to the barn, and then draws a quarter sized bullseye around the bullet hole. That is what you are doing with your measurements.

I think you have misread me. I actually asked how it can be rationalized another way. Do you have an idea?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you have misread me. I actually asked how it can be rationalized another way. Do you have an idea?

Yes. It can be explained by hindsight bias as discussed above. You are drawing the bullseye around the bullethole, pretending that the observed outcome was always the intended outcome.

You can find coincidences in any random set. For example, I could probably find the same strange coincidences for any random set of three numbers that you give me.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes. It can be explained by hindsight bias as discussed above. You are drawing the bullseye around the bullethole, pretending that the observed outcome was always the intended outcome.

You can find coincidences in any random set. For example, I could probably find the same strange coincidences for any random set of three numbers that you give me.

Do you think you can find the same pattern using kilometers instead of miles?

Edit: btw, I think your use of the word "pretending" is presumptuous based on information given. Do you have information to suggest otherwise?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think you can find the same pattern using kilometers instead of miles?

Edit: btw, I think your use of the word "pretending" is presumptuous based on information given. Do you have information to suggest otherwise?

You can find patterns in any set of random numbers.

 

[oi_antz]

You can find patterns in any set of random numbers.

Ok, thank you.

Well, I still have to say:

If it looks like a duck and walks etc. like a duck, it is a duck - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

.. unless someone can give me a reason to think it might not actually be a duck.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, thank you.

Well, I still have to say:

If it looks like a duck and walks etc. like a duck, it is a duck - Idioms by The Free Dictionary

.. unless someone can give me a reason to think it might not actually be a duck.

You can find ducks in random cloud patterns.

 

[oi_antz]

You can find ducks in random cloud patterns.

So, do you think that cloud is a duck? (Note: your answer could adversely impact your reputation IMO).