Randomness

[ecco]

...
This is in contrast to someone, a designer, who plans something then executes it. This is the "smart" approach.
...
Perhaps the best process is the one that weds the "dumb" and the "smart" through a series of evaluations which result in re-creations.

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.

 

[viole]

True randomness likely does not exist,

It looks like it is the only things that exists. What we see are just averages of many purely random events. The bigger the object, the more stable is the average and more realistic is the illusion of non randomness.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

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

The randomness isn't constrained, but the fact of randomness leads to a decay equation. The simple fact that the decay is truly random, so far as we can tell, means that the rate of decay of the atoms is proportional to the number of undecayed atoms present.

When the rate of change of a quantity at a given instant is proportional to the value of the quantity at that instant, that means there is an exponential relationship. (eˣ is the only thing in maths that differentiates into itself.) More here, including half-life etc: Exponential decay - Wikipedia

This is a nice example of how order arises, quite naturally, out of randomness. (Somebody should tell this to followers of Intelligent Design! )

 

[sealchan]

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.

From the point of view of the whole organism, the replication process of DNA replication is dumb.

If the roast tastes good, why change how you cook it? How adaptive would that be?

On the other hand, my wife complains to me about why I have to change how I do something when I am so habitual in my actions otherwise. I follow my intuition, I say. At some point the human brain wants to know what is necessary and what is changeable. I can rationalize about it later, but my brain just does this because, perhaps, that is the brain I got as the result of my evolutionary inheritance.

 

[sealchan]

The randomness isn't constrained, but the fact of randomness leads to a decay equation. The simple fact that the decay is truly random, so far as we can tell, means that the rate of decay of the atoms is proportional to the number of undecayed atoms present.

When the rate of change of a quantity at a given instant is proportional to the value of the quantity at that instant, that means there is an exponential relationship. (eˣ is the only thing in maths that differentiates into itself.) More here, including half-life etc: Exponential decay - Wikipedia

This is a nice example of how order arises, quite naturally, out of randomness. (Somebody should tell this to followers of Intelligent Design! )

Decay is constrained otherwise the concept of half-life would have no meaning. Although the individual event cannot be predicted, the group of events will follow closely a graphable pattern of behavior.

 

[shunyadragon]

It looks like it is the only things that exists. What we see are just averages of many purely random events. The bigger the object, the more stable is the average and more realistic is the illusion of non randomness.

Ciao

- viole

I do not believe there are purely random events by definition. The cause and effect out come relationships are well known in the macro world, and generally predictable in the micro (Quantum) world, even though the 'timing' occurrence of individual events cannot be predicted.

 

[shunyadragon]

The randomness isn't constrained, but the fact of randomness leads to a decay equation. The simple fact that the decay is truly random, so far as we can tell, means that the rate of decay of the atoms is proportional to the number of undecayed atoms present.

When the rate of change of a quantity at a given instant is proportional to the value of the quantity at that instant, that means there is an exponential relationship. (eˣ is the only thing in maths that differentiates into itself.) More here, including half-life etc: Exponential decay - Wikipedia

This is a nice example of how order arises, quite naturally, out of randomness. (Somebody should tell this to followers of Intelligent Design! )

As previously posted I disagree with this use of random and randomness. It is only the occurrence of the individual event that cannot be predicted. This alone does not make anything random.

From the scientific perspective this all can be explained without the ambiguous use of the concept of 'randomness.'

 

[sealchan]

I do not believe there are purely random events by definition. The cause and effect out come relationships are well known in the macro world, and generally predictable in the micro (Quantum) world, even though the 'timing' occurrence of individual events cannot be predicted.

This reminds me of our other discussion about chicken and the egg and species evolution. It seems that some of our understandings of reality apply at the group level but not at the individual level. This has a very systemic quality to it.

 

[viole]

I do not believe there are purely random events by definition. The cause and effect out come relationships are well known in the macro world, and generally predictable in the micro (Quantum) world, even though the 'timing' occurrence of individual events cannot be predicted.

Well, if an electron spin is in a pure superposition of states, then the outcome of a measurement is purely random. I am sure someone already mentioned the fact that the experimental violation of some inequality provids conclusive evidence that there are no hidden variables that would make such events deterministic again.

So, that is the evidence as we know it today. And therefore I have to ask: is your disbelief that there are no inherently random events the consequence of some a priori metaphysical prejudice, or is it based on some scientific reason?

Be careful: Einstein had similar prejudices and he lost.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

This reminds me of our other discussion about chicken and the egg and species evolution. It seems that some of our understandings of reality apply at the group level but not at the individual level. This has a very systemic quality to it.

Very true. Some people misuse the concept of 'randomness' to raise the fog index of the nature of our physical existence combine with the ambiguous misuse of probability to justify agendas such as 'Intelligent Design.;

 

[Polymath257]

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

Well, in a sense. In the same way that randomness in a coin flip would be 'constrained' by the 50%-50% split for heads and tails. To be a fair coin requires that. But it would still be meaningful to say the coin flip was random (outside of physical issues which don't happen in the quantum situation).

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, if an electron spin is in a pure superposition of states, then the outcome is purely random.

No.

I am sure someone already mentioned the fact that the experimental violation of some inequality provides conclusive evidence that there are no hidden variables that would make the even deterministic again.

So, that is the evidence as we know it today. And therefore I have to ask: is your disbelief that there are no inherently random events the consequence of some a priori metaphysical prejudice, or is it based on some scientific reason?

Be careful: Einstein had similar prejudices and he lost.

Ciao

- viole

I do not believe Einsein lost, only his understanding was incomplete.

Purely scientific. Again, again and again . . . the unpredictability of the outcome of the timing of individual events, such as 'in a spin is pure superposition of states, and outcome of the specific timing of the individual event is not known does not make the process random.

As a side note if people want to take a stand on describing the limits of predicting the timing of individual events as random, OK,

. . . but my response is so what?!?!?!?!

It is not meaningful in understanding the processes involved in the over all cause and effect outcomes of the process as a whole.

 

[Polymath257]

No.



I do not believe Einsein lost, only his understanding was incomplete.

Purely scientific. Again, again and again . . . the unpredictability of the outcome of the timing of individual events, such as 'in a spin is pure superposition of states, and outcome of the specific timing of the individual event is not known does not make the process random.

No, he actually lost when it came to the EPR effect. His *bias* was that the real world would not agree with the quantum prediction. And he was wrong about that. This is NOT a matter of some 'unknown cause'. In fact, that is precisely why Einstein thought the actual experiment should not come out in agreement with QM: the aspects of the experiment rule out hidden variables...i.e, hidden causes.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, he actually lost when it came to the EPR effect. His *bias* was that the real world would not agree with the quantum prediction. And he was wrong about that. This is NOT a matter of some 'unknown cause'. In fact, that is precisely why Einstein thought the actual experiment should not come out in agreement with QM: the aspects of the experiment rule out hidden variables...i.e, hidden causes.

Well OK, but I just interpreted the Einstein as not having the information that later became available.

 

[viole]

No.

Yes. Unless you can show me where the hidden variables are, your refusal is not much different from the refusal that evolution can be true.

Metaphysical prejudices are all the same. They just block even intelligent people to accept the evidence for what it is.

I do not believe Einsein lost, only his understanding was incomplete.

Purely scientific. Again, again and again . . . the unpredictability of the outcome of the timing of individual events, such as 'in a spin is pure superposition of states, and outcome of the specific timing of the individual event is not known does not make the process random.

Yes, and the fact that planets obey to the laws of gravitation, does not mean that they are not in fact carried around by invisible agents in love with conic sections.

True, QM theory is based on pure randomness and it is by far the most successful theory we have ever had in terms of precision and predictions. But, I suppose, it is only a theory, right?

You really seem to have a problem with randomness that goes beyond the scientific facts. What is it?

Metaphysical beliefs, right?

If that is the case, how are you different from a garden variety creationist?

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Decay is constrained otherwise the concept of half-life would have no meaning. Although the individual event cannot be predicted, the group of events will follow closely a graphable pattern of behavior.

Yes, decay of the ensemble is constrained, by the decay law, which results from a fairly trivial application of the laws of probability. However the individual decay events are not, otherwise they would not be random, which they are, according to modern physics. Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3] regardless of how long the atom has existed. However, for a collection of atoms, the collection's expected decay rate is characterized in terms of their measured decay constants or half-lives "

 

[exchemist]

As previously posted I disagree with this use of random and randomness. It is only the occurrence of the individual event that cannot be predicted. This alone does not make anything random.

From the scientific perspective this all can be explained without the ambiguous use of the concept of 'randomness.'

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.

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?

 

[sealchan]

Yes, decay of the ensemble is constrained. However the individual decay events are not, otherwise they would not be random, which they are, according to modern physics. Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay,[1][2][3] regardless of how long the atom has existed. However, for a collection of atoms, the collection's expected decay rate is characterized in terms of their measured decay constants or half-lives "

So one could tap this behavior for a source of randomness...but this is always to be understood with respect to a system with no detectable, orderly connection to the system generating the randomness. Many other contrived systems of behavior could serve the same role.

I suspect that the overall behavior of the atom or particle undergoing the weak force occurs within a given context and that context is an orderly one even if we cannot observe that level of order. This, of course, is a speculation that goes beyond the current scientific understanding.

However, it is more than just a belief on my part. Looking at the systemic nature of the vast majority of natural systems we can see that this random behavior within an overall order may indicate an unknown systemic behavior in which the weak force participates.

Consider as an analogy the cooling of a cloud of gas in a static volume. As the gas cools the individual atoms undergo changes in kinetic energy in a entirely unpredictable way. Although we understand the laws of physics that apply to atoms and their kinetic interactions, we simply can't measure all the atoms in a gas or even one atom in the gas, nor can we measure their trajectories in such a way to make a prediction as to when one or another atom will collide and what their resulting kinetic energies will be. But we can on a statistic level of the whole.

So I think that randomness does exists, but I doubt that it exists in a vacuum without some amount of orderly behavior suggesting that it is not intrinsically random, only random with respect to another frame of reference.

 

[exchemist]

So one could tap this behavior for a source of randomness...but this is always to be understood with respect to a system with no detectable, orderly connection to the system generating the randomness. Many other contrived systems of behavior could serve the same role.

I suspect that the overall behavior of the atom or particle undergoing the weak force occurs within a given context and that context is an orderly one even if we cannot observe that level of order. This, of course, is a speculation that goes beyond the current scientific understanding.

However, it is more than just a belief on my part. Looking at the systemic nature of the vast majority of natural systems we can see that this random behavior within an overall order may indicate an unknown systemic behavior in which the weak force participates.

Consider as an analogy the cooling of a cloud of gas in a static volume. As the gas cools the individual atoms undergo changes in kinetic energy in a entirely unpredictable way. Although we understand the laws of physics that apply to atoms and their kinetic interactions, we simply can't measure all the atoms in a gas or even one atom in the gas, nor can we measure their trajectories in such a way to make a prediction as to when one or another atom will collide and what their resulting kinetic energies will be. But we can on a statistic level of the whole.

So I think that randomness does exists, but I doubt that it exists in a vacuum without some amount of orderly behavior suggesting that it is not intrinsically random, only random with respect to another frame of reference.

Are you arguing in favour of some Hidden Variables theory, then, involving the weak force? That would put you in the "God does not play dice" determinist camp, then, with Einstein, presumably.

I note you recognise this is only speculative; a conviction based on the previous experience of science in discovering ever deeper layers of order.

You may one day be shown to be right, but for now there seems to be no evidence of it. I have read, I think, that radioactive decay is thought to be triggered by vacuum field fluctuations, just as spontaneous atomic emission processes are. But all that does is push the random actor back another level - it is still at the end of the day random.

Personally, I embrace randomness with enthusiasm. To me it seems a splendid thing that randomness can itself generate order. Your example of the cooling gas is just that, it seems to me. We can't follow the atoms, but we can say their speed and hence energy distributions are in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve and hence all sort of bulk properties can be derived, quantitatively.

 

[sealchan]

Are you arguing in favour of some Hidden Variables theory, then, involving the weak force? That would put you in the "God does not play dice" determinist camp, then, with Einstein, presumably.

I note you recognise this is only speculative; a conviction based on the previous experience of science in discovering ever deeper layers of order.

You may one day one shown to be right, but for now there seems to be no evidence of it. I have read, I think, that radioactive decay is thought to be triggered by vacuum field fluctuations, just as spontaneous atomic emission processes are. But all that does is push the random actor back another level - it is still at the end of the day random.

Personally, I embrace randomness with enthusiasm. To me it seems a splendid thing that randomness can itself generate order. Your example of the cooling gas is just that, it seems to me. We can't follow the atoms, but we can say their speed and hence energy distributions are in accordance with the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve and hence all sort of bulk properties can be derived, quantitatively.

I think my motivation in quibbling here is regarding those who attempt to extend such scientific understandings beyond to spiritual considerations. I fully agree with you regarding the scientific context.