Random Numbers

[Exist]

I want to discuss Random numbers, but first, let me give some background.

I'm a Determinalistic Fatalist, which means that every situation we find ourselves in is the way it is because of past determinants/variables, and there are no random numbers, so everything works like clockwork.

If you put so much force onto a sphere of so much mass and density with a trajectory of such and such degrees, then you could, if you knew all these variables, and all variables in the environment (air resistance, gravity, etc. etc.), you could map out it's exact path through the air, where it will land on the ground, how many times it will bounce, how far it will roll, and where it will stop.

So, right as the ball was being thrown, it's destination was already determined by these variables. It was just fate being played out. Now, say that everything is just the laws of nature and variables, even the human brain (just chemicals and electric currents)...everything was clockwork machinery. That means that everything has a fate; everything will play out how it was destined to play out (and being Atheist, I say that there are no outside forces that disrupt the system).

This is what most 18th century Naturalists agreed to, but then came Quantum Physics. It says that there are random numbers, so the future is not set. I have absolutely no emotional attachment to "fate", I only believe it exists because of my philosophical beliefs (and fate is like the universe: uncaring, indifferent).

But the reason I continue believing in fate while the majority of the scientific community has dropped it is because I cannot comprehend random numbers. "It was this instead of this." Why? "Just because." Doesn't that go against the whole cause and effect deal?

I'm not arguing against QP, I'm arguing the conclusions drawn from it. I subscribe to the "Hidden Variable" theory, which says that there are variables that we cannot see that make QP appear random, just as much as the variables of physics makes a die appear random.

So, if all that talk hasn't bored you already, let's talk about random numbers. Is it logical? I can't think of any argument against it, really, except maybe "Every effect has a cause," but that falls a bit short, because the effects do have causes, but one cause can produce any of several effects, for whatever reason.

It just doesn't make sense, and I don't see how people can wrap their brains around it enough to believe in it.



I know I'm on a Christian board, so there aren't many people coming here to talk Atheistic philosophy, but it's always fun to get others to entertain beliefs they don't hold, and roll them around.

And I see there are several other topics on Determinism here, and I've glanced through one, but if you want to attack my beliefs (in a completely civil way), I'll be happy to defend them the best I can.



Hah, I get long-winded and rambly when I'm tired.

 

[Multi-Elis]

and there are no random numbers

howcome? I mean, lets say I flip a coin, or lets say I use a stop watch with a random option on it. Let's say I make decisions based on it (and I have). Is this not random enough? Who/what determines how hard I throw the coin, or the mechanism of the watch?

 

[The Nihilist]

Ok, let's start with this. Why are you a determinist? Just because something is your philosophical belief doesn't make it true, and you have to consider that.
More to the point, though, I don't think quantum physics is seriously at odds with determinism. The reason I say this is that quantum physics is insufficient to solve the matter of free will vs. determinism. This is still a subject of some importance in academic philosophy. So basically, this shouldn't bother you all that much, really.
I'd like to solve the puzzle, but before I do, it's important to point out that causality is not a thing given in nature. It's not a rule, and it's not the result of study. Causality is, however, a necessary precondition for human understanding. For those poor, unfortunate souls out there who haven't read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, our mind basically just interprets the world in terms of cause and effect.
Now, for the moment you've all been waiting for. Frankly, I don't know enough about quantum physics to be absolutely certain about this, but I know that at subatomic levels, you can no longer talk about matter in a way that makes sense to you and me. Subatomic particles have bizarre properties that, as of yet, do not make a lot of sense. There is almost certainly also some sort of Heisenberg element at play, such that, holes in our understanding aside, we can't know enough about what's going on at a given point to be able to make a prediction about it. Basically, I'm suggesting we have random numbers for the same reason we can't predict rainfall in Tallahassee for the next century.

 

[Merlin]

Random numbers aren't.
There are other variable unknown to us.

If we were limited to machine like performance, as you suggest, I'd agree with you.
But our mind exists outside of the causal universe.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I want to discuss Random numbers, but first, let me give some background.

I'm a Determinalistic Fatalist, which means that every situation we find ourselves in is the way it is because of past determinants/variables, and there are no random numbers, so everything works like clockwork.

If you put so much force onto a sphere of so much mass and density with a trajectory of such and such degrees, then you could, if you knew all these variables, and all variables in the environment (air resistance, gravity, etc. etc.), you could map out it's exact path through the air, where it will land on the ground, how many times it will bounce, how far it will roll, and where it will stop.

So, right as the ball was being thrown, it's destination was already determined by these variables. It was just fate being played out. Now, say that everything is just the laws of nature and variables, even the human brain (just chemicals and electric currents)...everything was clockwork machinery. That means that everything has a fate; everything will play out how it was destined to play out (and being Atheist, I say that there are no outside forces that disrupt the system).

This is what most 18th century Naturalists agreed to, but then came Quantum Physics. It says that there are random numbers, so the future is not set. I have absolutely no emotional attachment to "fate", I only believe it exists because of my philosophical beliefs (and fate is like the universe: uncaring, indifferent).

But the reason I continue believing in fate while the majority of the scientific community has dropped it is because I cannot comprehend random numbers. "It was this instead of this." Why? "Just because." Doesn't that go against the whole cause and effect deal?

I'm not arguing against QP, I'm arguing the conclusions drawn from it. I subscribe to the "Hidden Variable" theory, which says that there are variables that we cannot see that make QP appear random, just as much as the variables of physics makes a die appear random.

So, if all that talk hasn't bored you already, let's talk about random numbers. Is it logical? I can't think of any argument against it, really, except maybe "Every effect has a cause," but that falls a bit short, because the effects do have causes, but one cause can produce any of several effects, for whatever reason.

It just doesn't make sense, and I don't see how people can wrap their brains around it enough to believe in it.



I know I'm on a Christian board, so there aren't many people coming here to talk Atheistic philosophy, but it's always fun to get others to entertain beliefs they don't hold, and roll them around.

And I see there are several other topics on Determinism here, and I've glanced through one, but if you want to attack my beliefs (in a completely civil way), I'll be happy to defend them the best I can.



Hah, I get long-winded and rambly when I'm tired.

Quantum physics is entirely deterministic as long as you don't make any observations. That is all the probabilities are determined by the theory and the weights of various things happening evolve deterministically over time.

An observation forces the system to randomly choose among the possible events that have come (deterministically) to be.

That is to say whereas in pre-quantum physics events were determined by the theory, in quantum physics, the probabilities of events are determined by the theory.

The issue is one of observation, but this does not in the theory lead to free will. What happens is still determined by the physics involved.

The only thing quantum physics really renders impossible is perfect prediction of events in the future (but it can still make statistical predictions).

 

[Blackguard_]

I know I'm on a Christian board, so there aren't many people coming here to talk Atheistic philosophy, but it's always fun to get others to entertain beliefs they don't hold, and roll them around.

Its not inherently Athiest, Einstein was talking about the hidden variable theory when he said "God does not play dice".

I'm a Determinalistic Fatalist, which means that every situation we find ourselves in is the way it is because of past determinants

What exactly makes you a Fatalist? Fatalism is not a synonym for Determinism if you think that. I for one am a Fatalist but not a Determinist.

That is to say whereas in pre-quantum physics events were determined by the theory, in quantum physics, the probabilities of events are determined by the theory. An observation forces the system to randomly choose among the possible events that have come (deterministically) to be.

And determining the probabity of an event =/= determining an event. Its like saying coin tosses are Deterministic because the coin having 2 sides determines the probability of 50% heads. A Determined event would have a 100% probabiliy of happening. In other words, that QT says an election has a 70% chance of showing up in an area is not Determinism. Ignoring whether that electron shows up and then calculating an 80% chance of it showing up somewhere else, than 60% and so on while not bothering to check if the electron actually arrives does not mean QT is deterministic. It means the mathematical model of atoms is incomplete or QM is not Deterministic.

The only thing quantum physics really renders impossible is perfect prediction of events in the future (but it can still make statistical predictions).

..then its not Deterministic.

 

[Exist]

"Basically, I'm suggesting we have random numbers for the same reason we can't predict rainfall in Tallahassee for the next century."

But that isn't random. There are just variables you don't know of afffecting play, making it seem random. When I say random, I mean "a law of nature picking option B instead of option A for no reason whatsoever." That's to say, if you photocopied the universe, if there were no random numbers, both universes would play out both the same. If there were random numbers, the universes would start to differ.

"What exactly makes you a Fatalist?"

I am a Fatalist because I believe in fate. It's not just Fatalism though, it's Determinialistic Fatalism: Fate caused by the clockwork Determinalistic nature of the universe.

 

[phsyxx]

howcome? I mean, lets say I flip a coin,

Can you not understand, that no matter how many times you flip the coin, you will receive either head or tails....
there is no RANDOM third element at work here.
You flip the coin, it will be heads or tails.
With mathematical statistics, it shows that after 100 flips, the coin will be pretty balanced when it comes to amounts of heads and amounts of tails, measuring in at 50/50.
So how is that random?
It seems that even in "chance", there is a pattern waiting to be formed.

or lets say I use a stop watch with a random option on it. Let's say I make decisions based on it (and I have). Is this not random enough? Who/what determines how hard I throw the coin, or the mechanism of the watch?

"a random option"? Similar to that of a random number generator on a computer eh?
Yes...well, it can't be random if it's generated.
Given long enough, and enough statistical data, the computer will give its ordered programming away.

 

[phsyxx]

What exactly makes you a Fatalist? Fatalism is not a synonym for Determinism if you think that. I for one am a Fatalist but not a Determinist.

Yeah...erm, not that'd I'd like to refute what you just said, but I simply have to refute what you just said.
How can you be a fatalist with holding some belief that means that all of your actions and all actions will lead to a set point that is already plotted out?

For me, personally, determinism means that you are systematically controlled and influenced by a number of factors surrounding you, including: opinions, religious beliefs, education, and the type of people you are surrounded by.

How you react to these influencing factors is determined by your genetic make-up and past incidents that you recall- so your decision will always be intrinsically the one that you remember to have the best outcome. (often in terms of yourself and your own needs)
See it as you like, a form of stimulus response.


Fatalism feels to me like that- but in a spiritual sense.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was essentially a fatalistic society, believing that their destinies were made up by the spirits of the desert (jinn) and the gods.

Doesn't that mean then, that Fatalism and Determinism essentially follow the same sets of belief; with one looking logically and mathematically at all the factors, and the other looking to some form of divine being for answers?

 

[Exist]

"Ok, let's start with this. Why are you a determinist?"

I am a Naturalist. I can see that something happens, and as a result, this other thing happens. For most effects, I have seen a causes, and I can see how the cause directly influenced the effect to be the way it is. Since I believe that physics teachers don't lie to the students, and everything that exists is material (or at least, is subject to physical laws, or natural laws), then everything is bound by this cause and effect.

"Just because something is your philosophical belief doesn't make it true, and you have to consider that."

I know

"More to the point, though, I don't think quantum physics is seriously at odds with determinism."

I believe this is still subject to debate, but:

"The reason I say this is that quantum physics is insufficient to solve the matter of free will vs. determinism."

I agree. But, quantum physics does seem to contradict Determinalistic Fatalism quite a bit. If random numbers do exist, then Fate (this sort of fate) does not.

"Subatomic particles have bizarre properties that, as of yet, do not make a lot of sense."

Such as time travel and teleportation. I really need to know more about QP.

"If we were limited to machine like performance, as you suggest, I'd agree with you.
But our mind exists outside of the causal universe."

Do you believe this directly, or do you have religious reasons to make you fill in the blanks and say this. If you follow my meaning. :\

Let me try again. Do you have any direct observations that lead you to believe this, or does your belief in God/magick/whatever kinda dictate that this be so?

"Can you not understand, that no matter how many times you flip the coin, you will receive either head or tails....
there is no RANDOM third element at work here."

"Either heads or tails." So it's one or the other, without any real reason why? That would be random. But I would go about saying this another way. Can you not understand that the result of the flip is determined by trillions of variables, and the laws of nature? We just simply can't keep up with all these variables during the flip, so when the result comes, it appears to be random.

"How can you be a fatalist with holding some belief that means that all of your actions and all actions will lead to a set point that is already plotted out?"

I've heard many Fatalists that say they believe that there are many roads one can take, but all of them will lead to the same fate. Maybe this is what Blackguard believes?

"..then its not Deterministic."

I've heard many people try and call this Deterministic, but I don't see how it is either. Maybe the result is determined, in a way, by the odds of the randomness coming out a certain way. *shrugs*

 

[The Nihilist]

I kind of think the differences among fatalism, determinism, and fatalist determinism is a handful of letters. What goes on in the world seems to change for none of these. And because we already have an agreement that quantum physics does not rule out determinism, I think I'm going to need someone to explain to me the difference between determinism and fatalist determinism in a way that is clear and not flakey. I mean convince me there's a problem, because I don't really think there is.

 

[Blackguard_]

Yeah...erm, not that'd I'd like to refute what you just said, but I simply have to refute what you just said.

Well, I'd love to confute your refution.

How can you be a fatalist without (?)holding some belief that means that all of your actions and all actions will lead to a set point that is already plotted out?

Easily. all actions don't have to lead to an event as part of a causal chain. Fate can intervene and make things happen regardless of a causal chain.

The Bible is full of stuff like this.

What exactly Determined the Ressurection of Jesus? It can't be a part of any causal chain that Determinism ussually puts forward. For the Ressurection(and anyother instance of Divine intervention) to have been Determined it means God's plan must be Determined, and that means God is Determined. What Determined, or even could Determine, God? If God Determined himself, why couldn't he break that "Determinism"'s chain? God is all-powerfull, except in the face of cause and effect? So God can't be Determined, as he would be able to break any causal chain, so God's plan and his intervention is not Determined either, so God acting to make an event comes to pass is not Determinism.

For me, personally, determinism means that you are systematically controlled and influenced by a number of factors surrounding you, including: opinions, religious beliefs, education, and the type of people you are surrounded by.

How you react to these influencing factors is determined by your genetic make-up and past incidents that you recall- so your decision will always be intrinsically the one that you remember to have the best outcome. (often in terms of yourself and your own needs)
See it as you like, a form of stimulus response.

Which is all just a fancy way of saying "chains of cause and effect, and there can only be one effect, i.e. its not probalistic".

Fatalism feels to me like that- but in a spiritual sense.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was essentially a fatalistic society, believing that their destinies were made up by the spirits of the desert (jinn) and the gods.

I'm not following you. But I know almost nothing of Arab paganism.

What do you mean "a spiritual sense"? You think God's actions are Determined or something?

Doesn't that mean then, that Fatalism and Determinism essentially follow the same sets of belief; with one looking logically and mathematically at all the factors, and the other looking to some form of divine being for answers?

No, its not just us supperstitious Theists attributing to the Divine what's actually only cold math and unbreakable causal chains.

What you describe sounds sort of like Deism, i.e. God set a causal chain in motion, and doesn't intervene in the world. Deism would be Determinist Fatalism, since God can start the causal chain in such a way as to bring about certain events, what the Deist often calls Providence.

Is that what Arab-pagans believed? Or did you mean Fatalism and Determinism both have inevitable events? You might not think they how or why of why the event is inevitable is important, but to me it is an important distinction. Inevitable events in Fatalism do not have to be inevitable because of a causal chain, which is the case with Determinism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, if all that talk hasn't bored you already, let's talk about random numbers. Is it logical? I can't think of any argument against it, really, except maybe "Every effect has a cause," but that falls a bit short, because the effects do have causes, but one cause can produce any of several effects, for whatever reason.

Not everything that happens is necessarily an effect, therefore, not every event necessarily needs a cause.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[pneo]

I'm a Determinalistic Fatalist, which means that every situation we find ourselves in is the way it is because of past determinants/variables, and there are no random numbers, so everything works like clockwork.

So, your circular argument begins here. I don't believe there can be random numbers, so "Are random numbers logical?" -- Clearly you have already made up your mind.

But the reason I continue believing in fate while the majority of the scientific community has dropped it is because I cannot comprehend random numbers. "It was this instead of this." Why? "Just because." Doesn't that go against the whole cause and effect deal?

Interesting that random numbers are the focal point of your belief in fate.

I'm not arguing against QP, I'm arguing the conclusions drawn from it. I subscribe to the "Hidden Variable" theory, which says that there are variables that we cannot see that make QP appear random, just as much as the variables of physics makes a die appear random.

Sure, so do I. I think most physicists do, in their hearts.

So, if all that talk hasn't bored you already, let's talk about random numbers. Is it logical?

What you are really asking is, can there be exceptions to causality?

As far as "random numbers" go, within the human context, and using common parlance, of course there are random numbers. Someone in this thread used the term "random enough." The common, meaningful use of "random" might be defined: "A condition in which the next outcome in a sequence cannot be predicted within the sequence context."

Computers have "random number generators" -- no they are not truly random: in fact they are lists. But for all intents and purposes they can be used to create apparently random effects. Mix in things like the picosecond of the last keypress, and you get stuff which is unpredictable and shows a uniform dispersal pattern. We call that random.

You I understand are not interested in the meaningful definition of random; you are interested in the headgame of causality.

You can call yourself a "determinalistic fatalist" if you want, but you still live in a world that you cannot predict with any accuracy. You must make the same judgements as the rest of us, and deal in a blurry world where causes are unseen and effects are unpredictable. In short, whatever philosophical name tag you wear at conferences, you still are going to live with the same chaotic, scary, unknowable future as every other human on earth ever has.

 

[Exist]

"Not everything that happens is necessarily an effect, therefore, not every event necessarily needs a cause."

What's an example of something that isn't an effect...doesn't have a cause?

"So, your circular argument begins here. I don't believe there can be random numbers, so "Are random numbers logical?" -- Clearly you have already made up your mind."

So being an Agnostic Atheist is using circular logic? I don't believe there can be random numbers, that is true. I'm still not sure if my beliefs are strong enough to hold. That's what I'm trying to discuss here.

"Interesting that random numbers are the focal point of your belief in fate."

Why do you say this?

"As far as "random numbers" go, within the human context, and using common parlance, of course there are random numbers. Someone in this thread used the term "random enough." The common, meaningful use of "random" might be defined: "A condition in which the next outcome in a sequence cannot be predicted within the sequence context.""

Agreed.

"You I understand are not interested in the meaningful definition of random; you are interested in the headgame of causality."

A meaningful definition of "random"? I gave one already. It's there, go read it. If you don't want to call my definition "random", then what would you suggest? We'll go with whatever you come up with, as long as the convo can continue.

"You can call yourself a "determinalistic fatalist" if you want, but you still live in a world that you cannot predict with any accuracy. You must make the same judgements as the rest of us, and deal in a blurry world where causes are unseen and effects are unpredictable. In short, whatever philosophical name tag you wear at conferences, you still are going to live with the same chaotic, scary, unknowable future as every other human on earth ever has."

Where the god that came from, I don't believe I'll ever know, but on a side note, did you read everything I wrote? Fate is like the universe, it's uncaring and indifferent. Don't say that it was fate that you met your wife unless you also say it was fate you dropped your keys twice in the parking lot. And I honestly believe that humans will never be able to know the future of much anything at all. If I'm not mistaken, I already said this. I also am pretty sure that I stated that my belief in fate does nothing to me at all, changes me in no way. So you're little monologue trying to attack me, or whatever it was, was truly a waste of both of our time.

"And because we already have an agreement that quantum physics does not rule out determinism"

If random numbers do exist, then the future is not set, it has different paths it can take. If there are no random numbers, then the future is set in stone, playing out cause and inevitable effect. So if QP says that random numbers exist, and it was right, it would rule out fate by determinism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Not everything that happens is necessarily an effect, therefore, not every event necessarily needs a cause."

What's an example of something that isn't an effect...doesn't have a cause?

Radioactive decay is just one example. Study quantum physics to find more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sojourner<><]

Some tidbits on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws.

Thought based on Newtonian physics supports the idea that if one had the ability to know all the physical laws and variables behind some occurrence, he/she could calculate its outcome with precision.

Newton saw the universe in a way similar to determinism but he could not rule out the possibility of God. To him, the natural laws were the means by which God governs His universe.

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.

So, theologically, natural law can take form in the idea of 'sovereignty' and, perhaps, the theological equivalent of the apparent contradiction between determinism and free will most clearly appears in the debate between Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It's very difficult to reconcile the two viewpoints but both may be true, from different viewpoints: God's and man's. This is because the salvation of a believer is dependent on some choices he/she makes and yet it is only through God's sovereign empowerment and allowance that he/she can be saved. With this in mind and in regard to determinism vs free will (theologically speaking), it seems likely that free will can possibly be affected or determined by some exterior forces, however, it is the belief in God's sovereignty that allows for the possibility that He can and does preserve free will.

About QP and randomness, I don't know much but I do know that probabalistic models are viable, workable models in situations where knowing all the underlying factors is too difficult or impossible. If one wants to predict, for instance, the exact number of customers a certain grocery store will have on a certain day, he or she could theoretically do so with precision if he/she had the abilities of God. Fortunately for us we're stuck with statistics. So then wouldn't that mean that the probababilities expressed by QP are representative of unknown variables?