Randomness

[Polymath257]

We can always extract patterns out of so called random-ness.

Yes, but they don't last. They aren't good for prediction.

 

[PureX]

OK, so in the traditional flipping of a coin, the fact that over the long run, there is an average of 50% heads and 50% tails (a new level of order) makes it non-random?

It is possible to go to the next level and say that there is order in the second order means as well.

The *complete* absence of order would mean that the coins turn into dice, or elephants.

By choosing the flipping of coins we set up parameters, which means that we impose an order on what we otherwise presume to be disorder: "chance". Because the order we impose is in balance with disorder we assume, we get a balanced "50/50" result.

Disorder, alone, cannot be identified, or even conceptualized beyond the ideal (like infinity, or perfection). It can only be 'perceived' in relation to the perception of order/pattern/etc.,. We humans 'think' by comparing and contrasting different, and often opposing information sets, hot/cold, here/there, order/chaos, and so on. And it's through this compare/contrast process that we cognate our existence within the greater whole (us/not us). It's how consciousness happens.

So we look at existence, and we see both order and chaos: 'designed chance'.

As a human, I cannot help but ask (because this is how the human brain thinks); where did the ordering limitations within the chaotic expression of energy that is ultimately responsible for generating all that exists (as chaos, alone, can generate nothing but chaos)? And why these specific limitations, generating this specific existence, as opposed to any other?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I disagree with your characterization of quantum randomness. As far as we can tell, it is truly random by your usage: there is literally no way to predict quantum results given previous events. It doesn't appear to be simply a matter of ignorance, as shown by things like the violation of Bell's inequalities.

Well, the distinction I make between chaotic and random is that randomness *cannot* be predicted, even in theory, while chaos could be given enough information. Turbulence is chaotic. Quantum events appear to be random.

"As far as we can tell" and an inability to "predict" speak only to our ability to determine the nature of the event, and not to its actual nature, which is what is under question: did it have a cause or not. Bell's inequalities says in part that in the case of quantum events; some are absolutely random; however, this has been challenged by theories of superdeterminism, all of which is why I hedge my conclusion and say "TRUE, Uncaused Randomness does not appear to exist; however, I'm not ready to rule it out entirely."

.




.

What I know of quantum theory I have learned from a free android app, but it seems to me from those that Bells inequalities rely on the uncertainty principle and so cannot be statements about absolute randomness but must include measures of our inability to predict which seems to leave the question open as to whether they fall into Polymath's chao or randomness categories. Practically we cannot predict the outcomes, but how does this translate to actual knowledge about what causes collapse to go one way or the other?

 

[Etritonakin]

Many seem to assume that the Big Bang, formation of elements, expansion of the universe, stars, black holes, planets, moons, conditions becoming ideal for the unintentional formation of molecules to produce RNA, DNA, simple life leading to complex life, a complex ecosystem, various life forms developing and passing on increasing ability and capability, etc., etc., must all have preceded the sort of self-aware, intentional creativity and increasing mastery of environment possessed by humans.

Technically, all of those things did precede OUR creativity.

However, it seems more logical to me that self-aware, intentional creativity necessarily existed/developed initially -allowing for a step-by-step formation/creation of an increasingly complex and purposeful self and environment -then allowing for the intentional and purposeful creation of an extremely complex environment and its many interdependent inhabitants.

Such not only answers all fundamental questions, but there is extremely abundant evidence that things cannot move beyond the otherwise-natural in the absence of self-aware intentional creativity.

Such would require the existence of more basic interactive "elements" preceding the "physical" elements of the periodic table, but even the physical elements were formed by and from that which preceded them -and where there is interaction, "systems" are possible.

Furthermore, production/development of an extremely complex prototype (even if it increasingly self-developed as increasingly able) logically precedes mass-production of similar complex and purposeful things (even if the prototype initially required availabilty of abundant
resources of a more simple nature which may have been mass-produced without intent or purpose)

The seemingly-unguided process which led to physical life on earth might seem to suggest that a creator was not necessary, but the design, packaging and execution of a generally self-extracting and self-developing extremely complex and purposeful reality would actually indicate extreme intelligence and creative capability.

Believing that things are basically random/unpredictable, etc., some suggest something to the effect that our universe is one of possibly infinite universes of every possible or infinitely possible configuration/s (and we are apparently fortunate enough to inhabit one of the better ones), but the unintentional and inevitable leading to the intentional and not inevitable is far more logical -and there is abundant evidence to support it.

 

[shunyadragon]

As you probably guessed I am not much of a Dennett fan, I think he is a lousy philosopher.

Is your trashing of Dennett based on knowledge or a religious agenda. I disagree to a degree with Dennett to a certain extent, but I acknowledge his qualifications and academic works,

Choices don't exist without freewill.

I did not assert choices do not exist.

Also the range of events I described did not occur within too limited of a range.

You have not supported this beyond an assertion.

If Atoms ricocheting off each other is all that determines events then after every intentional thought I had just about any secondary event could have taken place.

Determinism does not propose this.

The fact that hundreds of events transpired that allowed me to fulfill my intention suggest that blind forces are not what governed these events (choices).

Again the accusation concerning 'blind forces' is anthropomorphic 'Intelligent Design' foolishness based on a religious agenda. The nature of our physical existence and the LAws of NAture are neither blind nor sighted.

Again if you get hungry (and atoms in motion don't care if you starve to death) why were these blind forces so obliging as to perform the hundreds of necessary actions that allowed you to actual eat some food? No, the fact is to explain the set of all events you need both determinism and free will). Either one alone just isn't enough to explain intentional fulfillment.

I don't agree that the event that follows another occurs within a narrow range.

I did not specifiy that the range of possible choices was narrow.

If atoms in motion determine all events can you imagine the size of the set of all possible actions that follow from a previous action?

Simplistic incorrect description of what determinism proposes

]quote]
It's incomprehensively large. Lets say you think to yourself that you want to call a family member, the amount of actions that can follow that thought are countless if blind physics is determining events. Why is a force that has no intentionality so obliging as to let you go through the hundreds of actions required for you to actually place the call? So far I simply can't make you reconcile this fact with your worldview. Nothing else in our posts makes any difference unless you can reckon with these trillions of intentional thoughts that are being fulfilled (supposedly) by a force that does not care anything about fulfilling anything. [/quote]

Again your assertion of blind forces is ID anthropomorphic foolishness. The problem is obviously your religious agenda asserting 'Libertarian Free Will,' and not the facts of the nature of our existence.

I don't find your rejection of a scholar as well credentialed as Fred Hoyle persuasive. It appear to be a desperation move but maybe you could explain further. I am not sure what aspect of reality Fred was referring to when he made the statement about but I can think of one that it does apply to. The teleological argument for God (Fine tuning argument) suggests very strongly that our universe exhibits intentionality in even it's most remote events. For the universe to support advanced life (be consistent with God's purpose) it must be balanced on a knife edge. Many of the relationships like strong nuclear force, expansion rate, symmetry breaking have constants thrown into their relationships that must all be exactly what they are to get any universe than can support life. Keep in mind this is no sharp shooter fallacy, this (if life is the prize) is basically the universe winning the life lottery over and over and over again against unimaginable odds and these odds are multiplication not additive. Just as if the same person kept winning the same lottery over and over and over we would all suspect manipulation of an intelligent source so with the universe. It appear as he stated that a super intellects has monkeyed with all the relationships in the universe. Sorry I did not intend to spend so much time on this footnote.

I can quote similar conclusions from hundreds of scientists including the most modern but you can see that Hoyle logic is sound just by looking at the example I gave above. I suspect your rejection of Hoyle is based on some level of bias instead of his actual abilities. In a contest between your credentials and Hoyle's it should be obvious (all things being equal) who's I should place my trust in.

Again modern science has move past Fred Hoyle. I acknowledge Fred Hoyle's contributions to physics, but here he is drifting over to theology, which is not science. NO, there are not similar conclusions by hundreds of scientists(?).

Modern science (abstract science) is because of the faith of men like Hoyle.

No, modern science is not abstract science. and the faith of Hoyle and his theological assumptions are not science.

One of the greatest works on the subject (can't recall the name) written by an atheist examined why it was that modern science (not technological innovation) was discovered only in the heart of the Christian west of all places. As much as the Atheist author tried he kept having to conclude that the reason was directly related to the scientists faith (78% of Nobel Laureates are Christians with many of the rest being Jews). The reason was that Christian scientists believed that God (being rational) would create a rational universe. Their scientific efforts were the result of their trying to decode the rationality out of the universe they believe God had put in it.

Look, all this stuff is interesting but you have not touched my central claim. Why are trillions of intentional states fulfilled by a force that has no interest in fulfilling anyone's intention. Why are atoms in motion so obliging despite having no will.

Atoms in motion are obligated by the Laws of Nature.

You can't explain this by determinism alone but I wish you would at least try. Until you do my trillions of examples of freewill remain perfectly intact. Explain to me why uncaring physical forces would enable us to carry on a debate it cares nothing for. Which cares for and intends nothing at all.

There does not exist trillions of examples of Free Will. This is an assertion on your part based on a religious agenda for Libertarian Free Will.

 

[shunyadragon]

My wife always cut the roast in half before putting it in the oven. One day I asked: Honey, why do you always cut the roast in half before putting it in the oven. She replied: Because that's how my mother and grandmother always did it.
She decided to ask grandma why she always cut the roast in half before putting it in the oven.

Grandma's response: Because I had a small oven.

My sister, my mother and my grand mother peal their mushrooms, and I do not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Many seem to assume that the Big Bang, formation of elements, expansion of the universe, stars, black holes, planets, moons, conditions becoming ideal for the unintentional formation of molecules to produce RNA, DNA, simple life leading to complex life, a complex ecosystem, various life forms developing and passing on increasing ability and capability, etc., etc., must all have preceded the sort of self-aware, intentional creativity and increasing mastery of environment possessed by humans.

Technically, all of those things did precede OUR creativity.

However, it seems more logical to me that self-aware, intentional creativity necessarily existed/developed initially -allowing for a step-by-step formation/creation of an increasingly complex and purposeful self and environment -then allowing for the intentional and purposeful creation of an extremely complex environment and its many interdependent inhabitants.

Such not only answers all fundamental questions, but there is extremely abundant evidence that things cannot move beyond the otherwise-natural in the absence of self-aware intentional creativity.

It may be logical to you, but it is not necessary. All of the history and evolution of our physical existence and our universe is explained adequately without a 'self-aware, intentional creativity necessarily existed/developed initially allowing for a step by step formation of an increasingly complex and purposeful self and environment.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes it does. It make the individual events random. There is nothing wrong with that, surely? There is nothing ambiguous about the concept of randomness in relation to radioactive decay. Each decay event occurs randomly, ie. with no order, no pattern.

Disagree, individual events have no meaning as far as pattern or order, and it is not meaningful to equate order and pattern to randomness.

What I think has emerged in a number of the discussions in this thread is that individually random events or behaviour, eg. at the level if individual atoms or molecules, can lead to ordered and predictable bulk behaviour. This, surely is the basis of kinetic theory and statistical mechanics, is it not?

A very real problem with the above highlighted. The unpredictability of the 'timing occurrence' of individual events is simple an observed property and has absolutely no causal effect on the over all order, pattern nor bulk behavior(?), The cause of the predictability of order and patterns of the nature of our physical existence are natural laws.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We can always extract patterns out of so called random-ness.

Indeed we can. I have seen a hypothesis that in any given string of infinite random numbers, like say Pi, if you search the sequence long enough, you can find patterns within it, such as a JPEG file with a picture of a circle.

And since the sequence is infinite? We can expect an infinite number of such files...

Or so I am told by people much cleverer than I could ever be. In an infinite, randomly organized sequence of numbers, I suppose you could reasonably expect to find anything.

Part of this is due to the fact that there are only the 10 symbols (in base 10), which constrains how random it can be.

 

[Polymath257]

Choices don't exist without freewill.

That is debatable. In part, it depends on what you mean by a *choice*.

Also the range of events I described did not occur within too limited of a range. If Atoms ricocheting off each other is all that determines events then after every intentional thought I had just about any secondary event could have taken place. The fact that hundreds of events transpired that allowed me to fulfill my intention suggest that blind forces are not what governed these events (choices). Again if you get hungry (and atoms in motion don't care if you starve to death) why were these blind forces so obliging as to perform the hundreds of necessary actions that allowed you to actual eat some food? No, the fact is to explain the set of all events you need both determinism and free will). Either one alone just isn't enough to explain intentional fulfillment.

One big problem here is that you are mixing levels of description. It's sort of like talking about pressure and also about the individual atoms in the gas. It can be done, but it is likely that your explanations will get confused unless you are very careful.

First, atoms obey the laws of physics. They don't simply 'ricochet' off each other randomly.

Second, when you speak of an 'intentional thought', that is an extended sequence of events that encompasses the actions of many, many atoms. So, the firing of a neuron is produced by a depolarization in the membrane that is, in turn, caused by gates opening in that membrane, which is in turn caused by rearrangements of the atoms in the gate molecules, which is caused by that gate molecule binding with some transmitter, etc. These are *all* events government by the laws of physics and chemistry.

So, it is those atoms interacting and bonding with each other, not simply ricocheting off each other, that produces what we call an 'intentional thought'. And yes, those atoms continue to obey the laws of physics and chemistry so that other nerves fire to induce your muscles to contract, which is what we call a 'voluntary act'. Since the atoms in your brain do *not* randomly ricochet, but instead bond together in organized patterns, we *do* get that they 'allow' you to achieve your 'intentions': recall that those intentions are *also* patterns of atoms bonding together in organized ways.

For example, your being hungry can mean that your blood sugar level is low, which triggers the action of certain neurons, which through various circuitry induce food-seeking behavior. Any of your ancestors that didn't have this reaction died of starvation and so didn't pass their genes on to you.

I don't agree that the event that follows another occurs within a narrow range. If atoms in motion determine all events can you imagine the size of the set of all possible actions that follow from a previous action? It's incomprehensively large. Lets say you think to yourself that you want to call a family member, the amount of actions that can follow that thought are countless if blind physics is determining events. Why is a force that has no intentionality so obliging as to let you go through the hundreds of actions required for you to actually place the call? So far I simply can't make you reconcile this fact with your worldview. Nothing else in our posts makes any difference unless you can reckon with these trillions of intentional thoughts that are being fulfilled (supposedly) by a force that does not care anything about fulfilling anything.

Intentionality doens't happen at the level of atoms. it happens above the level of neural activity. But those atoms interact in structured ways through the action of natural laws, so we get consistency over time.

I don't find your rejection of a scholar as well credentialed as Fred Hoyle persuasive. It appear to be a desperation move but maybe you could explain further. I am not sure what aspect of reality Fred was referring to when he made the statement about but I can think of one that it does apply to. The teleological argument for God (Fine tuning argument) suggests very strongly that our universe exhibits intentionality in even it's most remote events. For the universe to support advanced life (be consistent with God's purpose) it must be balanced on a knife edge. Many of the relationships like strong nuclear force, expansion rate, symmetry breaking have constants thrown into their relationships that must all be exactly what they are to get any universe than can support life. Keep in mind this is no sharp shooter fallacy, this (if life is the prize) is basically the universe winning the life lottery over and over and over again against unimaginable odds and these odds are multiplication not additive. Just as if the same person kept winning the same lottery over and over and over we would all suspect manipulation of an intelligent source so with the universe. It appear as he stated that a super intellects has monkeyed with all the relationships in the universe. Sorry I did not intend to spend so much time on this footnote.

Hoyle did some very good work on fusion reactions in stars. He proposed a model of the universe (the Steady State model) that was later shown to be wrong. And he did some absolutely silly calculations about the probability of life which showed he was stepping into subjects he had no specialty in. I can go into detail concerning how his calculations were wrong on basic principles, but let's suffice it to say that similar calculations can be done showing the proteins could never fold. But they do. By neglecting the non-random aspects produced by the physical laws, the calculations become meaningless.

Arguments for the 'fine-tuning' of the universe always seem desperate to me. The water in the pond can be surprised that it precisely fits into the edges of the hole it is in. But that get's cause and effect mixed up. We do not know what, if anything, determines the values of the physical constants we observe. It is quite possible they can vary and, if they do, it might just be a stable state for them to have the values they do. Or it may be that they cannot vary, which negates the whole discussion. Invoking an external intelligence with unknown and unknowable properties isn't an explanation. It is an invocation of per-conceived biases.

 

[Polymath257]

Indeed we can. I have seen a hypothesis that in any given string of infinite random numbers, like say Pi, if you search the sequence long enough, you can find patterns within it, such as a JPEG file with a picture of a circle.

And since the sequence is infinite? We can expect an infinite number of such files...

Or so I am told by people much cleverer than I could ever be. In an infinite, randomly organized sequence of numbers, I suppose you could reasonably expect to find anything.

Part of this is due to the fact that there are only the 10 symbols (in base 10), which constrains how random it can be.

One caution in this: we do NOT know that pi is 'random' in this sense. Numbers with that property are common, but at this point there is no proof that pi is one of them. It is possible to be irrational and still not have random digits in this sense. For that matter, I don't think it is known if the square root of 2 is random in this sense.

 

[Etritonakin]

It may be logical to you, but it is not necessary. All of the history and evolution of our physical existence and our universe is explained adequately without a 'self-aware, intentional creativity necessarily existed/developed initially allowing for a step by step formation of an increasingly complex and purposeful self and environment.'

Not all -not adequately -but I am not denying what has been shown to be absolutely true THUS FAR.
Having a history (especially an incomplete one) does not equate to having an explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I found this: [math/0512404] On the simple normality to base 2 of the square root of s, for s not a perfect square

This does NOT show that the square root of 2 has a random decimal expansion. It *does* show that in base 2, there are as many 0's as 1's in the expansion. But this is a long long way from the randomness required here.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not all -not adequately -but I am not denying what has been shown to be absolutely true THUS FAR.
Having a history (especially an incomplete one) does not equate to having an explanation.

Absolute Truth is not a test for a scientific explanation, but it is often a claim from the perspective of a religious agenda.

 

[Etritonakin]

It may be logical to you, but it is not necessary. All of the history and evolution of our physical existence and our universe is explained adequately without a 'self-aware, intentional creativity necessarily existed/developed initially allowing for a step by step formation of an increasingly complex and purposeful self and environment.'

That is absolutely untrue (not factual). Otherwise, things such as multiverses would not be considered as possible explanations.
You have no clue why or how the singularity or big bang existed/happened in the first place -the history which preceded it (it is often assumed to be the beginning of any sort of history/time) -and you have extremely incomplete information about what has transpired since.

You may be satisfied, but that is not the same as all history and evolution of our physical existence being adequately explained -even if not considering self-aware, intentional creativity as a possible explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

That is absolutely untrue (not factual). Otherwise, things such as multiverses would not be considered as possible explanations.

No, that is NOT the motivation for looking at multiverses. In fact, the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics has long been of great theoretical interest in physics. It seems that any attempt to do such a unification has multiverses arising naturally in the theory. Now, that may well change tomorrow with a new proposal, but there are good, fundamental reasons why it is probably the case (sum over histories version of QM).

You have no clue why or how the singularity or big bang existed/happened in the first place -the history which preceded it (it is often assumed to be the beginning of any sort of history/time) -and you have extremely incomplete information about what has transpired since.

Correct. It may not even make sense to ask what happened 'before the singularity'. Even the existence of the 'singularity' as an actual singularity is in doubt if quantum theories of gravity are correct (the singularity gets smoothed out by quantum effects).

You may be satisfied, but that is not the same as all history and evolution of our physical existence being adequately explained -even if not considering self-aware, intentional creativity as a possible explanation.

Why would we jump to an inherently complicated 'explanation' that has no actual explanatory power, no testability, and requires a much more intricate system based on no hard evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, that is NOT the motivation for looking at multiverses. In fact, the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics has long been of great theoretical interest in physics. It seems that any attempt to do such a unification has multiverses arising naturally in the theory. Now, that may well change tomorrow with a new proposal, but there are good, fundamental reasons why it is probably the case (sum over histories version of QM).



Correct. It may not even make sense to ask what happened 'before the singularity'. Even the existence of the 'singularity' as an actual singularity is in doubt if quantum theories of gravity are correct (the singularity gets smoothed out by quantum effects).



Why would we jump to an inherently complicated 'explanation' that has no actual explanatory power, no testability, and requires a much more intricate system based on no hard evidence?

No need for me to reply. You did fine.

 

[shunyadragon]

What I know of quantum theory I have learned from a free android app, but it seems to me from those that Bells inequalities rely on the uncertainty principle and so cannot be statements about absolute randomness but must include measures of our inability to predict which seems to leave the question open as to whether they fall into Polymath's chao or randomness categories. Practically we cannot predict the outcomes, but how does this translate to actual knowledge about what causes collapse to go one way or the other?

First, science does not and cannot make any statements concerning absolute nothingness. It is a philosophical/ theological assumption concerning what existed prior to Creation assuming "ex nihilo." This is not a falsifiable concept in science, and its existence is antithetical to science.. The nothing of the Quantum World is not absolute nothing, but the Quantum zero-point energy of the matrix of the Quantum world. It in reality is not nothing.

Chaos theory nor randomness(?) define Quantum Mechanics nor are they categories. The variability of cause and effect outcomes are descriptive observations from the human perspective of both the macro world, and micro world measured in planc units. The problem of the predictability of individual 'timing' of events does detract from science developing predicable theories, and hypothesis of the over all patterns and order in both the macro and micro worlds.

Such things as the 'uncertainty principle' are not conclusions, they are simply descriptive observations of behavior in the Quantum world not fully understood.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, that is NOT the motivation for looking at multiverses. In fact, the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics has long been of great theoretical interest in physics. It seems that any attempt to do such a unification has multiverses arising naturally in the theory. Now, that may well change tomorrow with a new proposal, but there are good, fundamental reasons why it is probably the case (sum over histories version of QM).



Correct. It may not even make sense to ask what happened 'before the singularity'. Even the existence of the 'singularity' as an actual singularity is in doubt if quantum theories of gravity are correct (the singularity gets smoothed out by quantum effects).



Why would we jump to an inherently complicated 'explanation' that has no actual explanatory power, no testability, and requires a much more intricate system based on no hard evidence?

I had heard that multiverses were considered at least partly to explain fine tuning (as an alternative to the idea of design) -and they (if true) would certainly be part of the history/explanation for our present situation.

My point -in relation to the original post -was that nothing could have been any different before the existence/development of conscious decision -and that the development thereof was therefore inevitable.

"Random" has been used (perhaps improperly) to mean "accidental" or "one of many or infinite possible outcomes" when describing that which is naturally (without decision, intent, etc.) produced overall -but that is essentially natural lawlessness, and the scientific equivalent to unexplainable magic.

The workings of conscious decision may be known -and so not lawless -and are by arrangement of the knowable, but the decision can not necessarily be known beforehand (though somewhat predictable). Conscious decision allows for many different possible and (beforehand) unknowable outcomes based on what is possible at the time (whereas a more simple generator of "random" numbers, for example, would act unconsciously according to its nature alone).

There is an extreme difference between "it will" and "I will" -because "I" is able to understand itself and the environment, itself in relation to its environment, mirror and model in imagination, predict and knowingly change (or decide not to) what would otherwise be before it happens, etc.

"I" essentially becomes a lawmaker -not able to break any natural law, but able to manipulate them and create new applicable laws on a different level by arrangement/rearrangement.

 

[Miracle]

OK, so in the traditional flipping of a coin, the fact that over the long run, there is an average of 50% heads and 50% tails (a new level of order) makes it non-random?

It is possible to go to the next level and say that there is order in the second order means as well.

The *complete* absence of order would mean that the coins turn into dice, or elephants.

Reminds me of the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.