Defining Randomness

[infamous]

TINNY; I'm a little confused, how can you agree with my conclusion and then state (sorry if I didn't get what your saying). If you like, I'll try to elaborate on the points that you are having difficulity with.

[TINNY]

how can you agree with my conclusion and then state (I don't understand what you were trying to say

your conclusion is that these people "cling to a hidden agenda and build walls for the prisons of mediocrity with bricks of ignorance". assuming your premise is right ("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 agree. But, this does not address QM. that's why i am in disagreement unless I misunderstood you.

If you like, I'll try to elaborate on the points that you are having difficulity with.

I mentioned:

"but first, you'd have to refute QM's implications, coz quantum fluctuations is still the uncaused of cause."

[infamous]

your conclusion is that these people "cling to a hidden agenda and build walls for the prisons of mediocrity with bricks of ignorance". assuming your premise is right ("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 agree. But, this does not address QM. that's why i am in disagreement unless I misunderstood you.

I mentioned:

"but first, you'd have to refute QM's implications, coz quantum fluctuations is still the uncaused of cause."

OK TINNY; I understand your point. You are quite right that to prove this point I must refute QM. You are aware that I'm not prepared to accomplish that task at present. However I believe that if we persevere, that event will take place one day. Like I stated before, I believe that there is a cause for quantum fluctuations. We just have not discovered it at the present.

[Turtle]

___That last point specifying "at present" is at the crux of the discussion. The whole idea of "randomness" implies an unrecognizable pattern, moreover the math of probability outlines reproduceable patterns & therefore is taken to imply non-randomness. I point out probability is based on an assumption, ie, fairness, or "equaprobability" & only an assumption. As was pointed out here, there is no fairness at the qauntum level. Ergo, if the assumption is false, everything built on it is false.

___Enter the time element, ie. the reference to the present. Chaos theory clearly shows that systems deemed "random", (no recognizable pattern) by probability theory indeed do have patterns. They only register on our cognizance however when the mathematical construct of a recursive algorithm is introduced; something new in other words.

___To suppose even now that there is nothing else new awaiting discovery that clarifies the issue further is rather shallow. So, I suggest we needn't redefine randomness, but rather do away with the term & concept concept altogether inasmuch as we now know that randomness is only a matter of semantic perspective. :)

[infamous]

___That last point specifying "at present" is at the crux of the discussion. The whole idea of "randomness" implies an unrecognizable pattern, moreover the math of probability outlines reproduceable patterns & therefore is taken to imply non-randomness. I point out probability is based on an assumption, ie, fairness, or "equaprobability" & only an assumption. As was pointed out here, there is no fairness at the qauntum level. Ergo, if the assumption is false, everything built on it is false.

___Enter the time element, ie. the reference to the present. Chaos theory clearly shows that systems deemed "random", (no recognizable pattern) by probability theory indeed do have patterns. They only register on our cognizance however when the mathematical construct of a recursive algorithm is introduced; something new in other words.

___To suppose even now that there is nothing else new awaiting discovery that clarifies the issue further is rather shallow. So, I suggest we needn't redefine randomness, but rather do away with the term & concept concept altogether inasmuch as we now know that randomness is only a matter of semantic perspective. :)

My point exactly; the term randomness to excuse us from honest research should be done away with. Never should we construct a wall which we claim will never be scaled. As a scientific term it should be thrown in the trash can.

[Biochemist]

My point exactly; the term randomness to excuse us from honest research should be done away with. Never should we construct a wall which we claim will never be scaled. As a scientific term it should be thrown in the trash can.

This is a good insight. However, the term remains useful, particularly in the context of specific system boundaries. It would be prefectly reasonable to note that a system (e.g., in a QM experiment) appears random. The term has meaning in this context, but allows for additional discovery that might reveal the nature of the chaotics underlying the apparent randomness.

[TINNY]

Like I stated before, I believe that there is a cause for quantum fluctuations. We just have not discovered it at the present.

causality will stretch endlessly until a point is reached when time was created at the singularity. causality only exists in time. Outside of time, all time is 'now'.

[infamous]

This is a good insight. However, the term remains useful, particularly in the context of specific system boundaries. It would be prefectly reasonable to note that a system (e.g., in a QM experiment) appears random. The term has meaning in this context, but allows for additional discovery that might reveal the nature of the chaotics underlying the apparent randomness.

Yes Biochemist: I'll concede too this notion, some events APPEAR random. The important word here is appear, without doubt this will change with new information. Remember this old phrase: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[Biochemist]

Yes Biochemist: I'll concede too this notion, some events APPEAR random. The important word here is appear, without doubt this will change with new information. Remember this old phrase: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

I concur.

 

Further, things are more like they are now than they have ever been before.

[infamous]

I concur.

 

Further, things are more like they are now than they have ever been before.

 

 

Absolutely Biochemist; Sounds like we are talking about "The Law of Entropy" if I'm not mistaken. There is another thread here that discusses a direction for universal evolution, and if I may be so bold, this Law fills the bill quite nicely.

[TeleMad]

Yes Biochemist: I'll concede too this notion, some events APPEAR random.

 

According to our current knowledge, based on some 70 years of experimentation, certain quantum events ARE random.

 

infamous: The important word here is appear, without doubt this will change with new information.

 

Uhm, you have absolutely no basis for that assertion. Don't confuse your personal beliefs with what will without a doubt occur in science.

 

infamous: Remember this old phrase: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

So you are saying that just as we find quantum events to be random now, we will find the same thing in the future!?

[TeleMad]

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?

 

If quantum events are truly uncaused, then our brains (cognitive actions) surely aren't causing them. So we would still have no control over what happens.

[infamous]

According to our current knowledge, based on some 70 years of experimentation, certain quantum events ARE random.

 

 

 

Uhm, you have absolutely no basis for that assertion. Don't confuse your personal beliefs with what will without a doubt occur in science.

 

I stand corrected TeleMad; this view is truly just an opinion, but this opinion is based upon what I believe to be the direction for universal evolution as defined by the "Law of Entropy".

 

So you are saying that just as we find quantum events to be random now, we will find the same thing in the future!?

No, this is not what I'm saying. If we assume quantum events to be random now, the change comes when we are forced to change our minds because of new information. "The more things change.................the more they remain the same". This frankly means that all things are destined to change. That is why existence in this universe will always remain the same, changing constantly. This quote is from John S. Mill, one of the most intelligent men that ever lived.

[Turtle]

___I think there is reason to assert 'Without Doubt' inasmuch as it followed the proposition that 'the only certain thing is change'. Moreover, the point here is to discover whether or not said change is predictable.

___Probability theory only emerged in the 1600's - 1700's and so before that change there was no well formed (ie. mathematical) system to address the concept of predictability. As the saying goes, 'this too will pass' & several hundred years later we have a better well formed system to describe this idea of predictability. Guess what? This too will pass.

___For us humans, the only end to this change is the end of us, & the pertinent question is will we find a well formed system adequet to predict our demise in time to forestall it. In our end is our beginning. :)

[infamous]

___I think there is reason to assert 'Without Doubt' inasmuch as it followed the proposition that 'the only certain thing is change'. Moreover, the point here is to discover whether or not said change is predictable.

___Probability theory only emerged in the 1600's - 1700's and so before that change there was no well formed (ie. mathematical) system to address the concept of predictability. As the saying goes, 'this too will pass' & several hundred years later we have a better well formed system to describe this idea of predictability. Guess what? This too will pass.

___For us humans, the only end to this change is the end of us, & the pertinent question is will we find a well formed system adequet to predict our demise in time to forestall it. In our end is our beginning. :)

 

Excellent post Turtle; and by the way, I'm also quite impressed with your signature.

[Turtle]

___Thanks Infamous. You compelled me to check your signature & it brings some small comfort as well. Learning is to the mind as vigorous work is to the body; no strain, no gain.

[Queso]

i love that feeling when you put your mind to work and really try hard to figure something out. gives me the same physical and mental satisfaction as a runner would get after a marathon.