Defining Randomness

[infamous]

Webster defines random as, purposeless, haphazard. These two words, purposeless and haphazard can be defined as; undeterminate, not planned, random, and by chance.

 

How far removed from the initial action must one travel before applying the term randomness to the system? I'm sure everyone at this forum is familiar with the phrase; "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Cause and effect are primary ingredients for good scientific investigation.

 

Present to me what you would call a random event and I'll present to you this rebuttal; The cause for this reaction is already known and if not presently understood, will with sufficient effort be found.

 

So again I ask, how far removed must one be from the initial action for the term random to apply. Consider the Big Bang as our starting point. The Law of Entropy defines our present position in history as the result of all former events compounded togeather to achieve the present state.

 

I contend that the use of the word randomness is not only misguided, but also intentionally misleading. For a scientist to concede to a notion of randomness is to abandon the search for the cause. When this happens, we can no longer call ourselves scientists. So when someone says to me "Oh that was just a random event" that statement only exposes their lack of understanding. It would be much more honest for one to say; "I just don't know why this event occured".

[Biochemist]

... Present to me what you would call a random event and I'll present to you this rebuttal; The cause for this reaction is already known and if not presently understood, will with sufficient effort be found....For a scientist to concede to a notion of randomness is to abandon the search for the cause. When this happens, we can no longer call ourselves scientists....

IF- Thanks for steering the discussion that I started in Phil & Hum into a new thread.

 

I agree with your several assertions above. I think (as an opinion) that it is fairest to default to a deterministic view of observed phenomenon. There are cases where we can establish a narrow contex for randomness (e.g., dice experiments) but those are the exceptions. Early in the previous thread, I gave in to the notion that one cannot assume a random state-of-universe at any point, except perhaps at the point of the Big Bang.

 

If the series of changes-in-state of the universe is deterministic from first cause, it has lots of interesting implications.

[Fishteacher73]

There are cases where we can establish a narrow contex for randomness (e.g., dice experiments) but those are the exceptions.

 

I think that can even be reduced and predictable. Pobably much easier than we predict the weather. If all the factors are known (Position, mass, velocity, angle of toss etc.) I think it would be just a physics problem.

[bumab]

I agree. Something is only random if you stopp looking for causes beyond some point, i.e. when the dice left your hand. Then it's "random" only because you stopped looking for causal information that came from your hand itself- it's location, vectors, etc.

 

If you define random as uncaused, which I think you must, then nothing in the universe is random, unless there is a supernatural force involved.

 

If you define random as there being more then one possible output from identical inputs, then science is hamstrung, in that causal relationships no longer apply. (note i didn't say meaningless :friday: )

[Biochemist]

I think that can even be reduced and predictable. Pobably much easier than we predict the weather. If all the factors are known (Position, mass, velocity, angle of toss etc.) I think it would be just a physics problem.

Agreed.

 

To establish a valid random framework, one would have to define the environment to preclude definition of initial state. In the example, if I told you, "I have six equally weighted cubic dice, and I am going to throw them, what are the odds it will come up X? You could perform a valid "random" calculation, but only because I precluded data on the initial state.

 

That is we can create randomness, but it does not naturally exist.

[infamous]

Thank everyone for their input concerning this question of randomness. I believe that we are all on the same page with respect to the valid use of the term randomness. I will submit to you also that even when scrutinizing the causality of so called quantum fluctuations, if we investigate with dilligence, someday we will understand the stimuli for these events also. This knowledge could lead to a much greater understanding of the Big Bang itself.

[TeleMad]

True randomness does exist at the quantum level.

[infamous]

True randomness does exist at the quantum level.

Or maybe we only refer to these events as random because we don't have enough information presently to understand the stimuli for these occurrences. Let's be brave and admit that we may not know all the facts yet.

[TINNY]

True randomness does exist at the quantum level.

so if we reduce every bit of matter to its quantum level, then everything is truly random. Taking it further, determinism is only an illusion?

[infamous]

so if we reduce every bit of matter to its quantum level, then everything is truly random. Taking it further, determinism is only an illusion?

Excellent point TINNY. Point, counter point.

[TeleMad]

so if we reduce every bit of matter to its quantum level, then everything is truly random. Taking it further, determinism is only an illusion?

 

Yes, determinism (in the strong sense) is an illusion. That is, the "clockwork universe" concept is no longer held by physicists.

 

Religious people are also comfortable with this as it allows for free will. If the deterministic clockwork universe were true, then everything we think and do would be nothing more than particles colliding, with every movement predetermined from the instant of the Big Bang when the particles first arose.

[TeleMad]

Experiments conducted over the past 70 years or so have confirmed that nature is nondeterministic at the quantum level. One can setup an experiment in which it is impossible to know, even in theory, what the outcome will be. The best that can be done is to assign a probability to each possible outcome. Nature is probabilistic, not deterministic, at the quantum level.

[TINNY]

I got this from wikipedia. Can't fully comprehend it but it might be relevant to the discussion:

If non-deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, and uncaused events occur, these events are not the products of human cognition. Rather, the actions of a person influenced by these events would be attributable to a truly independent quantum mechanism, not the person's own free will.

 

 

If the deterministic clockwork universe were true, then everything we think and do would be nothing more than particles colliding, with every movement predetermined from the instant of the Big Bang when the particles first arose.

it also begs the question of how we are aware of ourselves, when we are merely particles colliding with each other. There is no whole entity that exhibits an independent consciousness separate from the particles.

[Aki]

When I see the word "randomness", it naturally makes me think about "entropy", and then the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[infamous]

Those that embrace the notion of randomness, cling to a hidden agenda and build walls for the prisons of mediocrity with bricks of ignorance. Just to clarify one point here, I'm not accusing anyone of being ignorant. Weather these views are arrived at consciously or not, the results are the same. When no cause for a reaction is known, instead of trying to find the stimuli, these same individuals throw up their hands in surrender and claim randomness. I still contend that, even though we don't have the information yet, there is a cause for these events we call quantum fluctuations.

[TeleMad]

I got this from wikipedia. Can't fully comprehend it but it might be relevant to the discussion:

 

****************************

If non-deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, and uncaused events occur, these events are not the products of human cognition. Rather, the actions of a person influenced by these events would be attributable to a truly independent quantum mechanism, not the person's own free will.

****************************

 

Interesting. Sounds like religious people would have nothing to gain by accepting the randomness of quantum mechanics vs. a purely deterministic clockwork universe.

 

I should point out that I read about accepting quantum randomness as a means of allowing a place in the universe for free will back when I was religious, and was reading a book by a physicist name something Shroeder. He seemed to believe quantum randomness did allow for free will.

 

Anyway, here's something that supports the other thing I said....

 

Traditionally, randomness takes on an operational meaning in natural science: something is apparently random if its cause cannot be determined or controlled. When an experiment is performed and all the control variables are fixed, the remaining variation is ascribed to uncontrolled (ie, 'random') influences. The assumption, again, is that if it were somehow possible to perfectly control all influences, the result of the experiment would be always the same. Therefore, for most of the history of science, randomness has been interpreted in one way or another as ignorance on the part of the observer.

 

With the advent of quantum mechanics, however, it appears that the world might be irreducibly random. According to the standard interpretations of the theory, it is possible (and in fact very, very easy) to set up an experiment with total control of all relevant parameters, which will still have a perfectly random outcome. The resistance to this idea takes the form of hidden variable theories in which the outcome of the experiment is determined by certain unobservable characteristics (hence the name "hidden variables").

 

[i believe that hypotheses based on hidden variables have largely been rejected]

 

Many physical processes resulting from quantum-mechanical effects are, therefore, believed to be irreducibly random. The best-known example is the timing of radioactive decay events in radioactive substances.

(bold emphasis added, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness)

[TINNY]

from my earlier quote:

If non-deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, and uncaused events occur, these events are not the products of human cognition.

can you explain to me what is meant here? it doesn't get into me. it seems to say that events are assumed as the products of human cognition and that, in contrast, QM shows events are uncaused. what does this mean?

 

Those that embrace the notion of randomness, cling to a hidden agenda and build walls for the prisons of mediocrity with bricks of ignorance. Just to clarify one point here, I'm not accusing anyone of being ignorant. Weather these views are arrived at consciously or not, the results are the same. When no cause for a reaction is known, instead of trying to find the stimuli, these same individuals throw up their hands in surrender and claim randomness. I still contend that, even though we don't have the information yet, there is a cause for these events we call quantum fluctuations.

I agree with the conclusion. but first, you'd have to refute QM's implications, coz quantum fluctuations is still the uncaused of cause. (sorry if I didn't get what you're saying.)

When I see the word "randomness", it naturally makes me think about "entropy", and then the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

what makes you say so? it is more about chaos, i think.

With the advent of quantum mechanics, however, it appears that the world might be irreducibly random. According to the standard interpretations of the theory, it is possible (and in fact very, very easy) to set up an experiment with total control of all relevant parameters, which will still have a perfectly random outcome. The resistance to this idea takes the form of hidden variable theories in which the outcome of the experiment is determined by certain unobservable characteristics (hence the name "hidden variables").

the hidden variables is unknown and cannot be known, as yet. The quote stems from a determinist's mindset and thus does not seem to solve the problem.