Randomness

[Sayre]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

 

[Paradoxum]

I suppose it depends what you mean by random. You could say the movement of air particles might seem random... but it isn't really random because it's controlled by physics.

Some quantum events might be random. If it has a cause then I'd think it would no longer be random.

That probably doesn't answer your question, but I'm not really sure how else to answer right now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is some debate, I believe, as to whether quantum processes are truly random or just seem random; that is, if we had enough information we might predict their motions. My understanding is that the consensus is for truly random.

If it is true that these things are truly random, then it would seem that question of cause is moot. Randomness is what we observe; it is what it is. I'd avoid the word necessary since because I can't know whether a universe is possible without it. (A sophisticated mathematician might be able to model something like it, but I am not that math guy/gal.)

So then a question of whether a random process can be caused goes back to a cause for the universe and whether a cause is even necessary.

Now a more prosaic answer might be this. Turn on a light switch. There, you've started a random process.

 

[Sayre]

Hmm thanks. I really can't wrap my head around how randomness is possible. We definitely observe what appears to be random events. Can you please explain how turning on a light starts a random process? I'm not a scientist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I am being a little glib. And I am not a scientist either. But until someone comes along, let me try.

By flipping a switch, you closed the circuit which allows electrons to flow. As I understand it, it's not so much that a unique stream of electrons is sent through the wire as the excitation impels electrons in the copper to replace each other in the subsequent atoms of copper ... you could think of this as sequential along the wire. Which electrons are replaced is random; where they are around the copper nucleus is random; and which atoms of copper in the light bulb (assuming that is the circuit) give light at any given instant is random.

 

[variant]

Hmm thanks. I really can't wrap my head around how randomness is possible. We definitely observe what appears to be random events. Can you please explain how turning on a light starts a random process? I'm not a scientist.

If you define an increase in entropy as the amount of additional information required to specify the exact physical state of the system, and note that observational systems must be more complex than the systems they describe (because the observer is part of the observed), then the exact physical state of the universe would necessarily require a more complex system than exists in universe to describe it.

So randomness exists because of the upper limitations of any possible observer within the universe.

The universe has more entropy than any system that would describe it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

I don't think anyone really has a definite answer on this issue, Sayre. Since the question that you pose is somewhat abstract, it will likely elicit non-exacting answers.

 

[Gottservant]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

Philosophy you are a gold mine.

I really loved this last question.

I am going to think about it some more.

 

[Sayre]

I don't think anyone really has a definite answer on this issue, Sayre. Since the question that you pose is somewhat abstract, it will likely elicit non-exacting answers.

Hmm can you help me make the question less abstract?

 

[quatona]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

Throw a dice, for example. Even though everything will happen according to natural laws and causality, the process and result will be random, for any intent and purpose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

As far as we know, certain quantum processes are random, in the sense of being unpredictable, apart from as part of a statistical ensemble. For instance, the decay of nuclei. If you have zillions of identical uranium nuclei, we can determine the half-life of that isotope, but we have no way of predicting the decay of a particular nucleus.

Yes, alternative formulations of QM exist that eliminate randomness, but they suffer from other problems and are on the fringe of physics at best. (Other other formulations eliminate randomness in a different way. In the 'many worlds' interpretation, everything happens, with each different result occurring in a different universe; so it is only an accident of which universe you happen to be in that you see a particular 'random' result. Or rather, all the yous in all the universes see all the results, but since you can't compare notes, you can't tell that every possible thing has happened.)

You can cause a random process to begin by preparing an appropriate quantum state. As an example, in an undergraduate lab, we measured the half-life of a particular silver isotope. That silver isotope (and its random decays) was prepared by irradiating ordinary silver with radiation from a plutonium source. IIRC, the plutonium emits neutrons that are absorbed by the silver nuclei, transforming them into a radioactive isotope of silver.

A non-nuclear example might involve preparing an atom in a particular angular momentum state. It turns out that if you measure the angular momentum around a particular axis (say the z-axis), this scrambles the angular momentum around the x-axis, so that it is in a quantum state with (for example) a 50% chance of being parallel or antiparallel to the x-axis. Measuring that causes an event that is statistically random, equivalent to flipping an idealized, truly random coin.

 

[Chesterton]

Is there a natural source of randomness? Is randomness the kind of thing that needs creating, or is it necessary?

I really struggle with the idea of natural random processes. (This isn't about evolution or natural selection - I believe in both.)

How do you cause a random process to begin?

You posed the question well. Is there a natural source? No, there cannot be. Effects are caused, and A will lead to B will lead to C...

Now if there is a supernatural source, such as might give me free will, I could have typed "K will lead to V will lead to G...".

 

[Sayre]

I am not a "God of the gaps" kind of person. I simply don't know enough physics to understand how randomness works. Thanks for all your help essebntialsaltes. I think I need to go back a step and understand some of the physics you spoke about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm can you help me make the question less abstract?

Hi Sayre,

First off, please don't take my previous comment about 'abstraction' as a criticism of your initial questions. Your questions are cogent. When I say that your questions are a bit abstract, I am saying that I think it is more feasible, from a philosophical evaluation, to attempt to pin down an essential definition of what we mean by randomness before using it in a question. We might also want to see how it both compares and/or relates to other similar concepts, like chance, unpredictability, chaos, or entropy. Then, we ask the question: To what extent do we think we observe manifestations of 'randomness' in our world/universe? And how might it work itself out in our terrestrial lives?

These are not the only questions, as I'm not saying that the approach above is exhaustive, but that it is perhaps something that we should think about first.

What do you think about this?

 

[Sayre]

OK - thanks.

Is randomness a suitable explanation of a causal agent?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK - thanks.

Is randomness a suitable explanation of a causal agent?

It could be, although we might want to differentiate between natural randomness and artificial randomness. The first being what happens in nature within the processes of physical laws, the second being an included component as part of an approach used by human beings in research or development of systems.

 

[durangodawood]

You posed the question well. Is there a natural source? No, there cannot be. Effects are caused, and A will lead to B will lead to C.......

Thats what we observe at the human scale.

But at the subatomic scale, we've been provided with examples where that might not be the case. Your confidence that those effects are caused is a matter of faith.

 

[durangodawood]

Also, randomness is the ONLY thing that keeps the history of the universe and all its contents from being a totally closed book.

Without randomness all things would carry on with their precise cause-effect relationships. No deviations possible. Carved in stone, as it were.

Cheers to randomness!!!

 

[Chesterton]

Thats what we observe at the human scale.

Sorry, I don't have another scale available.

But at the subatomic scale, we've been provided with examples where that might not be the case. Your confidence that those effects are caused is a matter of faith.

A matter of logic.

Also, randomness is the ONLY thing that keeps the history of the universe and all its contents from being a totally closed book.

How can you know it's not?

Without randomness all things would carry on with their precise cause-effect relationships.

How can you know they don't?

 

[Sayre]

Also, randomness is the ONLY thing that keeps the history of the universe and all its contents from being a totally closed book.

Without randomness all things would carry on with their precise cause-effect relationships. No deviations possible. Carved in stone, as it were.

Cheers to randomness!!!

This is exactly why the issue of randomness is interesting! However I am not a consequentialist... so I think it best not to decide that randomness exists because we don't like the consequence if it doesn't.