Can randomness exist?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?

It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.

What distinguishes the future from the past?

You mean aside from the way we perceive the flow of time? Scientifically, the only distinction would be the symmetry breaking between the two directions. Just like the only distinction between matter and anti-matter. The two just behave slightly differently. We don't know why yet. We just know that they do.

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".

Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?

I am not going to claim that it did, or did not, happen. I have no evidence either way. You clearly don't understand what the falsification principle actually means.

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

But I still wonder if Stimpson or any other physicalist/materialist would agree that random things happen. I didn't see a direct answer in any of the above.

I can only answer for myself. My direct answer is that I don't know whether they do are not. All I know is that acausal things happen, and that right now, the best model we have for those things is one which describes them as being random.

I am sure that there are some pysicalists out there who believe that these events probably are truly random, and others who believe they probably are not. Neither of these positions are supported by scientific evidence, though.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

Thank you

How about this:

Can the physical existence of things be explained through cause and effect?

i.e. The occurance of the physical particles that make up my rock causally necisitate their occurance in the next time?

if f[X(t)] has rock at this location then

f[X(t+a)], where a is the smallest slice of time, requirse my rock to be at this location (unless it has moved).

Would it be accurate for me to describe the existence of this rock as a causal relationship with the prior occurances of it's existence?

 

[wraith]

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

...coming from an Atheist...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,



It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.



You mean aside from the way we perceive the flow of time? Scientifically, the only distinction would be the symmetry breaking between the two directions. Just like the only distinction between matter and anti-matter. The two just behave slightly differently. We don't know why yet. We just know that they do.



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?

I am not going to claim that it did, or did not, happen. I have no evidence either way. You clearly don't understand what the falsification principle actually means.

That said, this is all completely off-topic for this thread. Please show Rusty a little more respect, by not trying to derail his honest search for knowledge with your vendetta against skepticism and science.

Dr. Stupid

I have no vendetta against science. And I think it's you who is f*cking clueless about what falsification means. The mere fact that one cannot falsify something doesn't make it false. Go get a f*cking clue, and that applies to the rest of the Skeptical arseholes on here.

Materialism isn't falsifiable. So why the f*ck doesn't it mean that isn't true. Talk about double standards.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Maybe. I'll tell you what. If you can come up with a logical reason to believe this might actually be the case, and construct a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.

Name those theories that it contradicts.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?

There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable. It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

Let's all calm down. All Stimpson is saying is that unless we can test an argument we have little reason to accept it.

And what Ian is saying is that just because we have little reason to accept it does not mean that it must be false!

So everyone is correct here.

 

[evildave]

In any system in the universe wherein "all of the variables" are not accounted for, randomness exists, if only pseudo-randomness.

Especially in systems where the signal to noise ratio is very low.

As an example, take the electromagnetic spectrum. You tune a receiver to a channel where nobody's broadcasting, and there's "noise" there. (That noise is present even if someone is broadcasting, but the broadcast signal is drowning it out.) This noise is hiss and pops and other fun things.

Things happened in/to stars and other bodies long before whatever became mankind emerged from the primordial ooze, and the electromagnetic effects have only just now reached the solar system, and we're supposed to account for that?

Without randomness existing at all, randomness exists in the form of "too much information" to account for. A whole universe' worth of state (and a whole history of universal state bouncing off of things) versus the tiny amount of state we can collectively knock together in a portion of a lifetime.

These electromagnetic (and other) effects are of tiny mangnitude, but they surround us. If you want a "random" seed for unpredictable systems, you need look no further than the universally pervasive noise that is present everywhere. From minute shifts in gravity because bugs flew past the room, to exploding stars in other galaxies.

Without total information about everything, there is no way to say whether "real" randomness, or only pseudo-randomness is what exists.

But since utterly unpredictable things exist within the world on a micro and macro scale, it's "random enough" to be treated as "random" and simply deal with it. Just as an unforeseen sequence of events that has a result can be simplified down to "luck", a sequence of events that can not be predicted can be simplified down to "randomness" for models that have to deal with it.

Not that there aren't gains to be had by studying the minute causes of apparent randomness. Quite the contrary.

If a thousand physicists beat their heads on a "random" problem until one of them says "Eureka!" (not meaning he needs a vacuum cleaner) who can say what the results will be? In 20/20 hindsight, it will seem totally inevitable. Looking forward, no one can say.

 

[viper]

...coming from an Atheist...

..coming from a booger eating moron..

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

In any system in the universe wherein "all of the variables" are not accounted for, randomness exists, if only pseudo-randomness.

Especially in systems where the signal to noise ratio is very low.

As an example, take the electromagnetic spectrum. You tune a receiver to a channel where nobody's broadcasting, and there's "noise" there. (That noise is present even if someone is broadcasting, but the broadcast signal is drowning it out.) This noise is hiss and pops and other fun things.

Things happened in/to stars and other bodies long before whatever became mankind emerged from the primordial ooze, and the electromagnetic effects have only just now reached the solar system, and we're supposed to account for that?

Without randomness existing at all, randomness exists in the form of "too much information" to account for. A whole universe' worth of state (and a whole history of universal state bouncing off of things) versus the tiny amount of state we can collectively knock together in a portion of a lifetime.

These electromagnetic (and other) effects are of tiny mangnitude, but they surround us. If you want a "random" seed for unpredictable systems, you need look no further than the universally pervasive noise that is present everywhere. From minute shifts in gravity because bugs flew past the room, to exploding stars in other galaxies.

Without total information about everything, there is no way to say whether "real" randomness, or only pseudo-randomness is what exists.

But since utterly unpredictable things exist within the world on a micro and macro scale, it's "random enough" to be treated as "random" and simply deal with it. Just as an unforeseen sequence of events that has a result can be simplified down to "luck", a sequence of events that can not be predicted can be simplified down to "randomness" for models that have to deal with it.

Not that there aren't gains to be had by studying the minute causes of apparent randomness. Quite the contrary.

If a thousand physicists beat their heads on a "random" problem until one of them says "Eureka!" (not meaning he needs a vacuum cleaner) who can say what the results will be? In 20/20 hindsight, it will seem totally inevitable. Looking forward, no one can say.

I'm not defining random as unpredictable. I'm defining random us uncaused, meaning that the cause will never be fully perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state.

It's an honest concern. How can this static be uncaused? And if it is, isn't that a valid reason for concern (with our current generally held belief systems)?

If this static is uncaused but still occurs then we have a non-physical thing. But, this static, as you said in your post, is caused by interference. You say that it is caused by interference from stars? Well that is a cause, and if we knew enough about the universe then we could predict this exact interference.

Hence not random.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

Thank you

How about this:

Can the physical existence of things be explained through cause and effect?

I seriously doubt it. Our current cosmological models suggest that existence itself was an acausal event. Of course, we don't know for sure.

i.e. The occurance of the physical particles that make up my rock causally necisitate their occurance in the next time?

They don't causally necessitate it. But they do indicate an absurdly high probability of it.

In other words, according to QM, it is possible that your rock could literally vanish from existence right now. The odds are almost infinitesimally small.

Where such effects do manifest in a noticeable way, is at the microscopic level. Particles do all sorts of nifty things there, from popping in and out of existence, to changing into other particles, to teleporting to different locations.

Would it be accurate for me to describe the existence of this rock as a causal relationship with the prior occurances of it's existence?

No, but it would be a very, very good approximation. Imagine having a coin for every grain of sand in the world. Now imagine flipping all those coins, and having them all come up heads. The odds of your rock suddenly vanishing are far smaller than that.


Ian,

I have no vendetta against science. And I think it's you who is f*cking clueless about what falsification means. The mere fact that one cannot falsify something doesn't make it false.

I am quite aware of that. And I have never claimed that it does. I don't recall anybody ever claiming that it does.

Go get a f*cking clue, and that applies to the rest of the Skeptical arseholes on here.

You only undermine your own credibility with such outbursts. Try to control yourself.

Materialism isn't falsifiable. So why the f*ck doesn't it mean that isn't true. Talk about double standards.

I am not going to rehash this old argument again. You have just ignored my arguments every other time that I have, so why should I again? Anyway, this thread is not about materialism. Stop trying to derail the conversation.

If we can dream about past events then why is it inherently absurd to dream about future events?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't inherently absurd. It is just contrary to our current theories about the way the World works, which are supported by substantial reliable evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name those theories that it contradicts.

General Relativity. This theory holds that information cannot be transmitted backwards in time without the presence of an extraordinarily strong gravitational field.

Falsify that I've just been to my local shop (store?) to buy a Sunday Times. What you can't?? Can't have happened then! Such is the stupidity of Skeptical "reasoning".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you agree that it is, in principle, falsifiable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some things that are unfalsifiable. But that's not important in this context as dreaming about the future is in principle falsifiable.

I never said that it was. On the contrary, I told you that if you could come up with a falsifiable hypothesis for how it happens, I would be interested. I also said is that there is no supporting evidence, and that it contradicts theories for which there is substantial supporting evidence.

It would just be incredibly difficult to do so. Besides, it's not a question of falsifiability but rather of verification. Retard.

Perhaps you should try reading what I actually said, before you call me a retard for saying something I didn't actually say.

Dr. Stupid

 

[c4ts]

In a purely physical sense (which does not apply to living things), can a body at rest start moving randomly, that is, move without an apparent external force acting upon it?

 

[evildave]

I'm not defining random as unpredictable. I'm defining random us uncaused, meaning that the cause will never be fully perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state.

It's an honest concern. How can this static be uncaused? And if it is, isn't that a valid reason for concern (with our current generally held belief systems)?

If this static is uncaused but still occurs then we have a non-physical thing. But, this static, as you said in your post, is caused by interference. You say that it is caused by interference from stars? Well that is a cause, and if we knew enough about the universe then we could predict this exact interference.

Hence not random.

But the static is caused... by just about anything that could generate a EM pulse (nearly everything). There's just too much cause.

The problem is not that it's "uncaused", only that any investigation for the determination of actual cause for the vast majority is generally impossible. Exceptions might be a loud "pop" in static that coincided with an observed nova.

Even in "brownian" motion, there is clear and obvious cause/effect. All of the molecules getting heated up and bouncing off each other, while emitting and soaking up "heat" energy. There are just too many molecules with too many side effects happening too fast to predict outcomes for what they will all do, even before considering someone walking in the next room, transmitting mechanical energy from footsteps to the media through the floor, stirring it ever-so-slightly. We literally can't even predict a tempest in a teacup for the quantity of information.

Eventually, no matter how you attempt to prove it one way or another, you run into the problem of being utterly overrun by data which you can not even begin to harvest, let alone process faster than real-time to "predict" with.

So the answer is both yes and no. Yes, effect follows cause, and no it can not all be "perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state".

Too much information, changing too fast: not enough brains and none fast enough to handle the simulation.

Even if you record a fairly tiny subset of "the universe", you will fail to do so with sufficient resolution (both in detail of sample and in sample rate) to make its outcome knowable to the last detail.

What you can do is build a broad model based on what a LOT of matter does at the same time (leaving out the details), or simplified detailed models based on what small amounts of it do, (leaving out what external events and variables do).

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

But the static is caused... by just about anything that could generate a EM pulse (nearly everything). There's just too much cause.

The problem is not that it's "uncaused", only that any investigation for the determination of actual cause for the vast majority is generally impossible. Exceptions might be a loud "pop" in static that coincided with an observed nova.

Even in "brownian" motion, there is clear and obvious cause/effect. All of the molecules getting heated up and bouncing off each other, while emitting and soaking up "heat" energy. There are just too many molecules with too many side effects happening too fast to predict outcomes for what they will all do, even before considering someone walking in the next room, transmitting mechanical energy from footsteps to the media through the floor, stirring it ever-so-slightly. We literally can't even predict a tempest in a teacup for the quantity of information.

Eventually, no matter how you attempt to prove it one way or another, you run into the problem of being utterly overrun by data which you can not even begin to harvest, let alone process faster than real-time to "predict" with.

So the answer is both yes and no. Yes, effect follows cause, and no it can not all be "perceivable or reducable to a fully perceivable state".

Too much information, changing too fast: not enough brains and none fast enough to handle the simulation.

Even if you record a fairly tiny subset of "the universe", you will fail to do so with sufficient resolution (both in detail of sample and in sample rate) to make its outcome knowable to the last detail.

What you can do is build a broad model based on what a LOT of matter does at the same time (leaving out the details), or simplified detailed models based on what small amounts of it do, (leaving out what external events and variables do).

Perhaps in application it currently is not completely reducable to a perceivable state but in premise it most certainly is (asserted by materialism, and I would agree).

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty,



I seriously doubt it. Our current cosmological models suggest that existence itself was an acausal event. Of course, we don't know for sure.



They don't causally necessitate it. But they do indicate an absurdly high probability of it.

In other words, according to QM, it is possible that your rock could literally vanish from existence right now. The odds are almost infinitesimally small.

Where such effects do manifest in a noticeable way, is at the microscopic level. Particles do all sorts of nifty things there, from popping in and out of existence, to changing into other particles, to teleporting to different locations.



No, but it would be a very, very good approximation. Imagine having a coin for every grain of sand in the world. Now imagine flipping all those coins, and having them all come up heads. The odds of your rock suddenly vanishing are far smaller than that.

I know that this is the best viewpoint to take scientifically thinking. But I think we are having a misunderstanding of terms. I totally agree with the premises of sceptical thought. I totally agree that some members of this forum really need to pick up Demon Haunted World and absorb it.

But as a physicalist you cannot believe that anything was not caused. If it wasn't caused then it wasn't physical. Philosophically physical things must have two traits:

1) 'it' is a cause.
2) 'it' is an effect.

So a non-caused event would not be an effect, hence it would not be physical. It would, in fact, fit the philosophical definition of random.

It appears that perhaps the word random is carrying too many connotations. In science random appears to mean highly unpredictable. In philosophy it means not an effect of anything.

So QP does appear to demonstrate things that are philosophically random?

But if I'm reading everything correctly there are disagreements about whether that is just an appearance or that is correct.

If it does, then I believe I can work QP into an argument suggesting that the "agent" does exist. All I need is any non-caused occurance to suggest that the "agent" is possible.

 

[Dancing David]

Oooh what's the quantum probabilty that otherwise normal and intelligent people will just start throwing out swear words and acting stupid? (As long as there is the emmission of opposing anti-swear words and anti-stupid actions)

Rust THBR: I am not sure I follow all of this, to be random would mean that we can't know the causal agent or that in the future we can't know the causal agent.

I think the Universe answers the question;
I suggest that we can't know what happened prior to the big bang.
The causes of the big bang will never be known.
Therefore the Universe itself is a random event.

By causal do you mean deterministic. I think we can have random causation.

Peace
dancing David

 

[DrChinese]

But as a physicalist you cannot believe that anything was not caused. If it wasn't caused then it wasn't physical. Philosophically physical things must have two traits:

1) 'it' is a cause.
2) 'it' is an effect.

So a non-caused event would not be an effect, hence it would not be physical. It would, in fact, fit the philosophical definition of random.

It appears that perhaps the word random is carrying too many connotations. In science random appears to mean highly unpredictable. In philosophy it means not an effect of anything.

So QP does appear to demonstrate things that are philosophically random?

But if I'm reading everything correctly there are disagreements about whether that is just an appearance or that is correct.

If it does, then I believe I can work QP into an argument suggesting that the "agent" does exist. All I need is any non-caused occurance to suggest that the "agent" is possible.

You are engaging in tautology, I'm afraid. The above statements expose the nature of your circular reasoning. Essentially, by stating that all effects must have causes you deny that true randomness exists in nature. This is a big leap, and is not justified.

I have written a paper on the matter called Hume's Determinism Refuted. In part:

Philosopher David Hume developed an ingenious and historically important argument regarding cause-and-effect. In his book, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [1], Hume showed that our belief in the existence of cause-and-effect is a direct result of observation, experience and inference. Our belief rests on empirical evidence; yet this belief can never be substantiated by a formal proof. We may be able to discern and express natural laws, but we cannot be sure they will be valid in the future (for example). Since we will never be able to deduce the existence of cause-and-effect (i.e. that the laws of nature are causal), Hume argued that we must assume its existence as a postulate of any scientific theory.

When quantum theory was introduced in the late 1920’s, a surprising discovery was made: the success of the theory is dependent on the existence of statistical, non-causal forces. The behavior of individual atomic particles is completely indeterministic. As a group, particles act as part of a “deterministic ensemble.” The bigger the group, the more determinism which is seen. But detail analysis has demonstrated that all fundamental particles display completely random behavior at the atomic level. They appear, in some sense, to have “free will” when observed individually; their behavior is not “caused” by anything.

The so-called “Copenhagen interpretation” described above has been the subject of much controversy, scrutiny, debate and attack. Einstein believed until his dying day that an underlying cause for the observed indeterministic behavior of quantum particles would one day be discovered. In a famous quote [3], he said “God does not play with dice.” However, the following situation exists today: 1) empirical evidence supports the concept that nature is fundamentally comprised of microscopic particles which obey indeterministic, statistical laws; 2) a theory has been presented which ties such statistical laws to large-scale (macroscopic) patterns which otherwise appear causal; and 3) modern quantum theory is the most accurate of all scientific theories.

Based on the above, it is concluded that an empirical counter-example has been presented to the theory of cause-and-effect. A single such unanswered counter-example is sufficient to refute any theory.

In other words, quantum theory runs counter to your hypothesis and is in fact the cornerstone of physical theory. Attacks by determined determinists have yet to budge the view that indeterminism reigns at the quantum level. There are variations of QM which are non-locally deterministic (i.e. David Bohm) but it makes no testable predictions which are different than standard QM. So at that point it truly becomes one's opinion. Regardless, the assumption that all physical things have causes does not stand. That is the centerpiece of your argument against randomness.

 

[DrChinese]

Oops, the link got messed up. It is:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Hume's_Determinism_Refuted.htm

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Thanks for the link. I've only read through the first three pages but I want to quickly (very quickly) address your three challenges in a defense of determinsm (which, btw, I do not believe):

1.1) The definition of TLOP is such that, analytically, there can be no statistical laws. I would assert that there are underlying TLOP in control of QP, hence your statistical laws are not laws, only statistics.

1.2) I don't know what theory you are referring to.

1.3) I don't know enough about QP or physics to comment. I don't know what theory you are referring to.

2) Hume addressed this point. We will never know that the law is truly causal, but we have no reason to believe that the law only exists by our defining of similar, and many reasons to believe that the law is truly causal.

Also you assert that if we continue to assert "unknown" variables we can create an unfalsifiable theory. I assert that in principle you are absolutely incorrect. It is possible, in principle, to render everything into an observable state and observe it. Hence it is possible, in principle, to discover the falsisity in any theory.

3) I would assert that all things you list (time, mass, space, energy) are all ultimately physical so all causal relations are independant and it is possible, in principle, to render the physical relations to an observable state and hence discover an independant variable. By simply stating that it has not been done yet it does not validly follow that it cannot be done.


Now to address your post:

You are engaging in tautology, I'm afraid. The above statements expose the nature of your circular reasoning. Essentially, by stating that all effects must have causes you deny that true randomness exists in nature. This is a big leap, and is not justified.

I am not stating that all effects have causes.

I am stating that all physical occurances must analytically have cause and effect. And if something lacks one or both then it is not physical, analytically.

There is not tautaology because I am not asserting that randomness does not exist, you misunderstood what I posted.

In other words, quantum theory runs counter to your hypothesis and is in fact the cornerstone of physical theory. Attacks by determined determinists have yet to budge the view that indeterminism reigns at the quantum level. There are variations of QM which are non-locally deterministic (i.e. David Bohm) but it makes no testable predictions which are different than standard QM. So at that point it truly becomes one's opinion. Regardless, the assumption that all physical things have causes does not stand. That is the centerpiece of your argument against randomness.

What hypothesis? The definition of physical? That is not my hypothesis. I started this thread because I wanted to know if anyone had any proof that anything random could occur.

Ultimately I would *like* to see proof that randomness could occur.

I have no argument against randomness! I am saying that by definition an uncaused occurance is not physical. That is part of the definition of physical!

It's like me saying that a healthy horse has four legs. It's analytically correct.