Is random real?

[oi_antz]

I'd be more surprised if we wouldn't find any kind of patterns in nature.

Does that inspire you to make an assumption wrt whether randomness is real or imagined? If patterns are rare in nature, does this lead you to make an observation that nature appears to be mostly not random, or that random is something totally unrelated to pattern?

 

[Elendur]

Does that inspire you to make an assumption wrt whether randomness is real or imagined?

No, no assumption.
It doesn't matter either, whether the universe is truly random or not. It effectively is random to us in all ways that matter.

If patterns are rare in nature, does this lead you to make an observation that nature appears to be mostly not random, or that random is something totally unrelated to pattern?

Neither, as rare is so relative it's silly. How would I be able to discern what constitutes rare versus plenty? I have no idea.
All that I'm claiming is that no patterns at all would be the only discernible state.

 

[oi_antz]

sfs' example of the cards is a really good one. It would have been impressive if you had predicted these relationships between the Earth and Moon BEFORE they were made just as it is impressive to predict the first 5 cards pulled from a deck. If you predict them only after they have been observed, then it really doesn't hold up.

I am pretty sure you are trying to test my hypothesis using some system that is totally impractical. There is no possible way that I can predict the uncanny proportions of moon to earth before it has happened, and the fact of how I came to this realisation just isn't consistent with your preference.

The fact I refer to is that a few days ago I saw a picture of the moon, earth, a square and a circle. I saw some numbers that described their proportions and relative movements. I observed that there is a pattern. It impressed me and inspired me to think that if random is a real thing, and that throwing dust into the universe will produce patterns such as this, then either three things can explain it:

1. The universe is not random, but governed or influenced by some pattern-preferring force.
2. This is a fluke.
3. Pattern does not negate randomness.

Of course, I had not understood it that day as I do today, so I was not aware of those options. I chose to consider this, and to discuss it, and during the process of doing so, I observed other patterns.

Now, you are saying that for some reason my observation is fallacious, and you seem to be saying that you believe so because I am not using the facts to prove a prediction. But, whether I do or don't does not change the facts or the observation. All I am left to understand of this, is that your belief about correct procedure is altering your view of fact and your opinion of an observation.

 

[oi_antz]

It effectively is random to us in all ways that matter.

If you think this statement is reliable and true, can you please explain why you think so?

 

[Elendur]

If you think this statement is reliable and true, can you please explain why you think so?

The first four points are my assumptions for this argument, feel free to disagree with any of them. Before those though, I present you with my definition of a non-random: universe
A non-random universe is one which is deterministic.
This means that given the entire set of variables, at any time, it is possible to map the entire history of the universe, from start to finish.

1. We are a subset of the universe.
2. The universe can be described by a set of variables at any given time.
3. A set of variables cannot be fully described (for a lack of better words) by a subset of itself.
4. The universe is either random or non-random.
   1. If the universe is random, done.
   2. Therefore we now (for this line of argument) assume that the universe is not random.
      1. We, as a subset of the universe, cannot describe the universe fully. (point 1,2 and 3)

If we, even given a deterministic universe, cannot describe it fully, how are we to predict what will happen?
Is that not equivalent to the universe appearing random to us?

I hope this answers your question fully.

 

[oi_antz]

The first four points are my assumptions for this argument, feel free to disagree with any of them. Before those though, I present you with my definition of a non-random: universe
A non-random universe is one which is deterministic.
This means that given the entire set of variables, at any time, it is possible to map the entire history of the universe, from start to finish.

1. We are a subset of the universe.
2. The universe can be described by a set of variables at any given time.
3. A set of variables cannot be fully described (for a lack of better words) by a subset of itself.
4. The universe is either random or non-random.
   1. If the universe is random, done.
   2. Therefore we now (for this line of argument) assume that the universe is not random.
      1. We, as a subset of the universe, cannot describe the universe fully. (point 1,2 and 3)

If we, even given a deterministic universe, cannot describe it fully, how are we to predict what will happen?
Is that not equivalent to the universe appearing random to us?

I hope this answers your question fully.

Thank you, it does. However, my question was raised due to my understanding of how humans use knowledge. Human knowledge is the result of observation and evaluation of information to identify patterns, leading to an understanding of how to reliably achieve a goal. Therefore, the human understands and relies on a non-random universe (for example, that when a rocket is launched from earth, the destination planet is expected to be where it is predicted to be. The movement of the planet is not random, for the purpose of the intent). Therefore, when discussing "random universes", the universe is always assumed to be a finite set of variables. We don't yet know whether the entire universe is finite or not, so any observation of the universe must be made of a limited set of information, while acknowledging that it is not the complete universe.

I see what you are saying, and that in theory your statement appears to be true, but reality indicates otherwise. Even if it does have a margin of impurity and therefore imprecision, you seem to be the type of person who makes a big deal of that while I am not.

Thanks for explaining this though, it was an interesting point of view to learn.

 

[morse86]

We cannot even get true randomness using computers (I'm a programmer), true randomness is impossible for man.

It is also impossible for nature, because when God layed the foundations of the earth...he did not do it by randomness. I'll let the word of God speak for itself.

 

[JustMeSee]

Pick a random card fanned out before you. Using no other resource, you choose a card. You decided on a card, but there was a non random reason for your choice.

Things at this level are chains of events. Freewill is very limited.

 

[morse86]

Freewill is very limited.

Is that biblical? Let's see.

Romans 7:25:
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


Matthew 6:24:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Romans 6:22:
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Revelation 22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

I hope these verses from the word of God help point out that one is either serving sin or serving God. So there is freewill.

Luckily, God has given us salvation as a gift of God.

 

[JustMeSee]

Is that biblical? Let's see.

Romans 7:25:
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Matthew 6:24:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Romans 6:22:
But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Revelation 22:3: And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

I hope these verses from the word of God help point out that one is either serving sin or serving God. So there is freewill.

Luckily, God has given us salvation as a gift of God.

I am not sure what my icon shows. I don't perceive the actions of the gods. Through actions we make decisions. I don't choose not to believe your text. Through my biology and experiences, I think, do, and make decisions. Our beliefs are based on past and present events.

To hold a book in front of me and causing me to believe it is the writings of a deity is not so simple. Faith in truth requires conditioning. Freewill does not cause me to believe. It is a complex chain of events.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We cannot even get true randomness using computers (I'm a programmer), true randomness is impossible for man.

It is also impossible for nature, because when God layed the foundations of the earth...he did not do it by randomness. I'll let the word of God speak for itself.

It is possible to tap quantum transitions that are random in that there is no possible physical means of predicting exactly when the transition will occur. No physicist has ever demonstrated anything but sheer randomness for a given photon to pass through, or be reflected by, a partially silvered mirror. One can take a sample radioactive source and set a geiger counter to record a count on the average of every two seconds, and then in any single duration of one second it is purely random whether or not a count of a decay will occur.

There is much speculation as to whether or not the human brain has a quantum level random generator available to it for decision making purposes. It does seem certain that the human brain generates impulses in a chaotic way which gives good pseudo-randomness as an option to help us make our choices.

 

[JimFit]

That's not what quantum physics says. Do you have some reason for rejecting it?

What quantum physics have to do with randomness?

 

[JimFit]

That is your made up definition.

No its not, something completely random lucks any structure. To have something you need a Deterministic event.

Empty assertions.

No they are not.

 

[Elendur]

Thank you, it does. However, my question was raised due to my understanding of how humans use knowledge. Human knowledge is the result of observation and evaluation of information to identify patterns, leading to an understanding of how to reliably achieve a goal. Therefore, the human understands and relies on a non-random universe (for example, that when a rocket is launched from earth, the destination planet is expected to be where it is predicted to be. The movement of the planet is not random, for the purpose of the intent).

You're looking at the wrong scales when trying to differentiate the random from the deterministic. You have two other, very important scales, to keep in mind. Everyday life and particle level.

People successfully earn a living of using the random nature which affects us in the former and physicists model the latter very exactly using random processes.

Therefore, when discussing "random universes", the universe is always assumed to be a finite set of variables.

No. No such assumption is made.

We don't yet know whether the entire universe is finite or not, so any observation of the universe must be made of a limited set of information, while acknowledging that it is not the complete universe.

Sure.

I see what you are saying, and that in theory your statement appears to be true, but reality indicates otherwise. Even if it does have a margin of impurity and therefore imprecision, you seem to be the type of person who makes a big deal of that while I am not.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. I'm taking a stab at a reply though:
The impurity and imprecision of humanity is exploitable and therefore not negligible. It often behaves in a random, but describable, way and therefore we're effectively not in an deterministic situation.

Thanks for explaining this though, it was an interesting point of view to learn.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

No you cannot observe randomness. Randomness is defined lacking a purpose or reason for occurring. But in reality it has been proven time and again that our lack of understanding blocked our ability to perceive the viewpoints and interactions of smaller and more minuscule phenomenon with enormous universal forces, then we deem the misunderstood as random, or without a reason for occurring, simply because we do not understand the reason yet. Randomness is really a useless word. I have not observed randomness because I am a determinist and I believe everything has a reason for occurring, or it never would have existed. Magically popping into the air is the sole responsibility of randomness in this sense. 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.
Secular Humanism is a collection of atheistic beliefs. Just like a bunch of zeros is a collection of numbers, or a toupee conference is a collection of bald men.
You assume that the word "random" is anything more than an artificial band aid for the word ignorance. Because in reality, everything has a reason for occurring. To state otherwise is delusional and egotistical grandstanding. To state that because we cannot discern the correct answer it must not exist at all is foolish. The purpose is what comes after the reason. Purpose in the future comes from reasons of the past. The universe is a causality chain. Because we have not deciphered a link does not mean that a link does not exist, and that the occurrence spontaneously popped magically out of the air, yet this is what the sadistic word "random" implies.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I have not observed randomness because I am a determinist and I believe everything has a reason for occurring, or it never would have existed. . . .

You have admitted your preconceived idea that all is determined prevents you from accepting that there are random events.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

You have admitted your preconceived idea that all is determined prevents you from accepting that there are random events.

YOU have admitted your preconceived idea that all is random which prevents you from accepting that things happen for reasons you simply don't know how to observe properly.

 

[sfs]

What quantum physics have to do with randomness?

QM says that some things happen randomly. That two absolutely identical systems, like two unstable nuclei, will behave differently.

 

[oi_antz]

Through actions we make decisions.

Are you sure the words "actions" and "decisions" are not the wrong way round here?

I don't choose not to believe your text.

You must do, otherwise there would be no response, or am I misunderstanding what you mean?

Faith in truth requires conditioning.

Does a lack of faith in truth require conditioning too?

People successfully earn a living of using the random nature which affects us in the former and physicists model the latter very exactly using random processes.

Can you give me examples?

No. No such assumption is made.

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.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. I'm taking a stab at a reply though:
The impurity and imprecision of humanity is exploitable and therefore not negligible. It often behaves in a random, but describable, way and therefore we're effectively not in an deterministic situation.

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.

 

[oi_antz]

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?

QM says that some things happen randomly. That two absolutely identical systems, like two unstable nuclei, will behave differently.

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