Randomness

[Skwim]

Good grief. I said I should have left the term "hard" out of my statement to avoid just this type of confusion and needless semantics. Well needless or not you let the semantics fly.

In main for shunyadragon's benefit

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sagan? I don't remember. Stephen Hawking was.

Okay: Big Bang Theory, TV show, began in 2007.

Sagan died back in 1996. As far as I know, he did not travel into the future...

So definitively, no.

He may have conflated Sagan with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Sagan was on the original Cosmos, Neil on the reboot. Neil was on the Big Bang Theory.

 

[1robin]

In main for shunyadragon's benefit

.

I don't know what role your distinction would have in our debate but do as you wish.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You were in math club before FM???

No, but long before personal computers. Before hand held calculators too.

 

[Polymath257]

Is radioactive decay a quantum effect? If yes, then is the half life prediction not non random?

The half-life is the *average* of the individual random decays. As I have noted before, we can have random events that give predictable averages.

 

[Polymath257]

No, but long before personal computers. Before hand held calculators too.

When I went to college, I was given a *slide rule* as a parting gift. And found it useful for classes.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that is what compatibalism means, though I used to because it's real meaning is so stupid (and I hope your not referring to Daniel Dennett). I believe compatibalism means that even though there is no such thing as freewill (their position not mine) that things like punishment for crimes (accountability) are compatible with it.

I support a version of compatabilism not necessarily Dennett's as I said before. I do not discount Dennettt completely, but disagree with him.

However were getting the cart before the horse, lets see if freewill exists or not first. Every day in virtually every life there are thousands of examples of freewill. Every time my mind intends to do something, I usually have the capacity to make that desire become actualized. What I mean is this. If a thought pops in my head that I want to make a sandwich and if only determinism is true I stand similar chances of doing anything but making a sandwich. If the only causes are atoms in motion then my next act might as well be to jump in the kitchen sink, kick the dog, build a unicycle, or see how many marbles I can fit in my mouth. Atoms in motion don't care if I get a sandwich to eat but my freewill does. So for every desire out there that is responded to by a fulfillment of that desire it must be an act of freewill, not unintentional atoms bouncing off one another. First off forget whether you agree or not do you at least understand my argument because if you do then you are constantly surrounded by trillions of actions which freewill (agent causation) is by far the best explanation. You can't possibly think that your ability to respond to me on topic and in appropriate time is the result of blind forces that began trillions of years ago which are so obliging as to let us have a conversation even though nature has no desires or intentions at all.

You apparently did not read and did not respond to what I said. All these examples indicate choices within a limited range, and not complete Free Will. As I said . . .

Disagree if you like, but pretty much all examples you come up with would fall within predictable outcomes within a range of possible outcomes. I do believe in a form of Dennett's compatabilism where a degree of potential free will exists. Maybe what you call intentionalism, but nonetheless that largely takes place within a range of possible predetermined choices and outcomes..

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life

As far as the contemporary view of the science of evolution and science in general Fred Hoyle is an antique. No by the present knowledge it is not valid that "The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Bogus use of probability.

Hoyle smells of bogus Intelligent Design, so does your referenced website, and in the above anthropomorphizes the nature of our physical existence. Nothing is sighted nor blind in the physical nature of our existence.

Apparently intent is even blindingly obvious in pure sterile science.

Not clear nor coherent. Science is what science is, and thank goodness without the religious assumptions of Fred Hoyle, and Intelligent design advocates.

 

[shunyadragon]

When I went to college, I was given a *slide rule* as a parting gift. And found it useful for classes.

When I was at Oklahoma State in 1968 all the engineering students had slide rules hanging from their belt. By 1970 they all had Texas Instrument calculators.

 

[Polymath257]

When I was at Oklahoma State in 1968 all the engineering students had slide rules hanging from their belt. By 1970 they all had Texas Instrument calculators.

And those calculators probably could add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

I think the timing is strange, though. The first TI calculator was 1971, I think. Texas Instruments

 

[shunyadragon]

And those calculators probably could add, subtract, multiply, and divide.

I think the timing is strange, though. The first TI calculator was 1971, I think. Texas Instruments

It may have been 1972.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

When I went to college, I was given a *slide rule* as a parting gift. And found it useful for classes.

I used a slide rule in 11th and 12th grades. Hand calculating machines were only just coming onto the market, at a very high price-- I did not see one in the "wild" until college.

My high school graduation present? One of those high priced machines. It used something called Reverse Polish Notation, quite useful for solving equations. It had a red LED display too. I kept it far longer than it's usefulness, out of nostalgia.

Eventually, I purchased a series of Texas Instruments: first another red LED one, that you could program, followed by the last major calculator I ever bought, also by Texas Instruments, but in liquid crystal. Ironically? Although that one had far more functions, it wasn't as generally useful as the previous (programmable) one was. Both the LED machines used the ubiquitous 9v battery, good for about a month or so. The last one used two coin lithium ion batteries-- and the original batteries were still in use, when I retired that thing after leaving college...

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was at Oklahoma State in 1968 all the engineering students had slide rules hanging from their belt. By 1970 they all had Texas Instrument calculators.

Are you sure that it was by 1970? That sounds a little early to me. I had to check it out. in 1972 TI introduced this beast:

$149.99 back then. That would make it just over $900.00 in today's dollars. A few years later I got a SR-50, again about $150.00 back then:

That was an amazing advance in only three years at the most. That was the calculator that most engineers had. Unless you had a few more bucks then you bought an HP.

 

[viole]

Good idea. Let me open the batting, then.

To me, randomness is a total absence of order or predictability.

Conversely, non-random systems or occurrences have some measure of order or predictability.

The presence of order does not, it should be needless to say, necessarily signify purpose or intelligent agency. The high degree of order in a crystalline solid is a case in point. Such ordered structures can appear spontaneously, for instance when water freezes on a cold day.

The foregoing is from a scientific perspective. There are however many religious believers who feel, aesthetically, that the presence of order in the cosmos may point to the existence of God. Einstein, indeed, came close to identifying the order itself with God - a sort of pantheistic outlook.

In this sense, then, randomness can come to be seen as the absence of the guiding hand of God.

I would not subscribe to that view, knowing as I do some kinetic theory and statistical thermodynamics. To me, randomness and order dance together, to make the world we know.

So, if I throw a coin 1 million times and I predict that about 50% of the outoomes are head, and I find it to be a pretty good prediction, does that entail that the experiment is not random?

I ask because I think that what you consider not random does not exist. What we see, as solid and predictable as it might seem, is just the average of many somethings which are individually inherently random.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

So, if I throw a coin 1 million times and I predict that about 50% of the outoomes are head, and I find it to be a pretty good prediction, does that entail that the experiment is not random?

I ask because I think that what you consider not random does not exist. What we see, as solid and predictable as it might seem, is just the average of many somethings which are individually inherently random.

Ciao

- viole

See posts 3, 6, 21, 22 and subsequently.

Ciao.

 

[viole]

See posts 3, 6, 21, 22 and subsequently.

Ciao.

Oh ok. I always read the end first, lol

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

I have heard (in a scientific documentary) the emergence of life on earth described as a "fortunate accident" -which suggests the underlying belief that things could have happened differently/that "everything" is inherently unpredictable on a most basic level (random).

It seems to me, however, that such a belief equates to science believing in magic/the absolutely unknowable -and that things are only unpredictABLE from the perspective of incomplete understanding. Not knowing enough to predict something is not the same as that thing being unpredictable/not inevitable.

It also seems logical to me that the only thing that can be truly unpredictable is decision -which is the only thing able to alter what was otherwise inevitable. However, even decision is somewhat or mostly predictable -and can only be applied to options available at the time (even though it can be employed to create more/different options at a later time).

Still -decision (or the development of one able to consciously decide) itself would necessarily have been inevitable. Decision need not be based on anything (though it usually is) -and a true decision cannot be truly known until it is made -but the ability to decide is possible by arrangement of predictable things.
The inevitable apparently leads to the development of that which can decide otherwise.

That "otherwise" is creation.

Creation can then reproduce what has been, or cause otherwise-impossible arrangements.

"God" is often considered to have always been exactly as he is now, but perhaps the things above apply at an all-inclusive level -to that which has "always" been -and "everything" initially and inevitably became self-aware -and was inevitably THE creator.

 

[ecco]

Yep. I was part of a 17 year project in computing, and we required random numbers for some of our calculations.

We were using compiled BASIC (with a numerical library to take full advantage of the numerical co-processor...yes, that's how old this was. 1981. )

The BASIC library had a RND function-- but was absolutely repeatable, if you didn't re-seed the RND function. The description explained how to re-seed the calculation. Obviously, it was simply a complex mathematical equation, and selected a section of the answer for the "random number".

My favorite solution to this? I build it into the start-up library that initialized all the shared data files the programs used (they would run each other, to create a seamless whole, but each was independent in a way. Data/variable values were shared via binary files).

Intel computers used an interesting clock: the number of miliseconds counting forward, from 1978. At least that is what my memory recalls. It may have been earlier? Some year in the 1970's, for sure. That was ZERO for the CPU. The number increased with each clock-tick. These ran at 4.77 kiloherz, if memory serves. So you knew the correct "time" by reading this upwards-counting register.

Since this number was always different, every time the CPU was initialized? Even if you did not set the clock to the current time, the odds of getting the exact same number was pretty slim... so I'd pull the time of day, and using that, I'd query the raw data from the time-register-- the time of day selected which section of the raw number I'd use (if I remember, it was a 16 digit long integer) Then, I'd feed that into the RND function as a new seed.

A Kludge? Absolutely! But not terrible as Random Numbers go, due to using miliseconds, even if then computer booted at 8 am every day, and the time wasn't set, there'd be a minor variation of the milisecond value from day to day...

The problem isn't the seed. The problem is that the algorithm that does the RND function does not really generate a string of truly random numbers. For the purposes of any commercial application like accounting or inventory control, the number generated was more than sufficient.

However, the RND functions in most commonly used languages fall far short of producing what science would refer to as random numbers.

 

[ecco]

In theory, Analog Computer would have the potential to store many-many times the raw information that a Digigal one ever could.

Think: You could get a whole music album (roughly 40-45 minutes of uncompressed information) onto a fairly short cassette tape. But, to store the same length in digital form? (if uncompressed), you'd need about 300-400 megabytes of digital memory. The information density of analog is always many times that of digital.

But. And it's a BIG but: What is the quality of retrieval between the two formats?

With digital, if you include strong error correction? You can expect 100% perfection, every time, until the media is destroyed.

With analog? How do you tell if the information has degraded? How do you separate the noise from data?

Analog works very well, if the media is high quality: Using an actual violin, and a master musician, you can get prefect recall of the information (a piece of sheet music). Or not-- is there noise in the room? Is the violin slightly out of tune? Etc.

Analog also works, if the information has a high tolerance of "sloppy", i.e. audio music-- humans are very good at filtering noise.

Bottom line: Digital is much-much easier to differentiate nose from information.

For example: if you store the information as electrical pulses? Say, you define ZERO as negative 5 volts, and ONE as positive 5 volts, and further define each value as plus or minus 4 volts? Any value between +1v and +9v, is a ONE, and any value between -1v and -9v is a ZERO and all other values are noise: discard.

To increase the reliability? You can add in commands to re-send corrupted data, as needed. This is exactly how the very chaotic internet functions: It has many error-correcting engines built right in. Multiple ID values is one (adding redundancy), the ability to request a re-send of corrupted data is another. Tags which indicate a mathematical formalization of the data packet (as good are corrupt), to trigger a re-send, etc.

How would you do this using Analog? Not easy: just ask Dolby Labs.

And yet, many prefer the "inexactness" of analog music as can be seen by the resurgence of vinyl.

 

[atanu]

The half-life is the *average* of the individual random decays. As I have noted before, we can have random events that give predictable averages.

Does that mean that the randomness is constrained by some distribution/decay equation?

 

[ecco]

True randomness likely does not exist

It could be argued...every quark was created precisely as predetermined by what preceded it...every quantum fluctuation occurred precisely as predetermined by what preceded it....

Given that everything started from a single "point"...

... everything is predetermined.

Actually, someone in these forums made that the basis for his argument that there is no "Free Will".

For the record, I do not agree with this.