How can randomness possibly exist?

[ZeeJustin]

When I think of the universe, I think of the laws of science, and randomness doesn't seem possible to me. Some people may use the double slit experiment to prove randomness exists, but that is simply something we cannot determine, and is not necessarily something that cannot be determined with more knowledge.

I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws (or algorithms) that determine how the matter that the universe is made up of moves about. Just like an algorithm, someone can look at the "script" of the universe and predict what will happen next.

However, it is impossible for computers to do anything random. Sure, they can look at a super accurate clock, or use a huge set of predetermined numbers, but that is simply using outside sources to create the illusion of randomness.

It doesn't make sense to me that the universe has any tool to possibly create randomness. If you fully understand all the laws of the universe, and can map every particle that exists in the universe, then you must also be able to predict what will happen to each one of those particles. I can't think of how this could not be true.

This is why I do not believe in free will.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't make sense to me that the universe has any tool to possibly create randomness. If you fully understand all the laws of the universe, and can map every particle that exists in the universe, then you must also be able to predict what will happen to each one of those particles. I can't think of how this could not be true.

This is why I do not believe in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the second post in a row I've read this morning where the argument is made along the lines of "it doesn't make sense to me ... therefore.." It's gotta be me misreading these things ( I hope).

At present the evidence is that at a quatum level there IS randomness, so to base an argument on "I can't think how .." seems to leap ahead of the evidence. Now, with the M-string brane theories perhaps some hidden variables will show up ( there's been some strong cases made that they can't show up ) but at this stage I have to stay agnostic about randomness or not - evidence so far is it's random at the quantum level, my mini-einsteinian brain says ..huh?!

If I've misinterpreted your claim, I apologize ZJ,
Daniel Dennett has an interesting book "Freedom Evolves" that discusses human freewill in a universe with determination in it. Worth a read.

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I do not believe in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit off topic - It's hard to make a case for free will in a universe with randomness, also, perhaps moreso.

luckyme

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the second post in a row I've read this morning where the argument is made along the lines of "it doesn't make sense to me ... therefore.." It's gotta be me misreading these things ( I hope).

[/ QUOTE ]

In this post I am stating what I believe with my limited knowledge, and am not making any conclusions. I think it is likely that a reply to my post will change my opinion drastically. I am seeking knowledge in this thread.

[Sabrazack]

My exact thoughts. And i mean exact. I have a hard time imagining something random can really exist.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
and am not making any conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, sorry, so you haven't decided to believe we don't have free will. good. we can talk :-)

I don't relate well to the concept of 'believe in', more along the lines of "at this point my knowledge of the evidence seems to point to XYZ". With free will, as interesting at it is to discuss, if we found out we didn't have it we'd not do anything different. hmmmm.
We seem to have no choice but to act as if we have it, however it works at whatever level of quantum or otherwise.

One, of many, ways to approach it is from the question .. why would this experience of having free will exist if it was serving no purpose for us? To use the horrid computer analogy, we have some pretty impressive computer programs solving complex problems, we've never felt the need to program them with a 'feeling' of free will. Is there some level of complex self-referential intelligence that an illusion of free will emerges and it doesn't have to be programmed in?

Free will suffers from the ill-formed question problem, I don't know ( outside of Dennett's work) any clear statement of what free will is in any specifically useful way, and until that happens it seems premature to try and definitively answer 'does It exist?'. It may well exist if we define it in some meaningful way. Randomness doesn't seem to help, but..?

luckyme, .... I had this extra ink..

[The Don]

Who said free will is random? I make my own decisions, but I always have a reason for them.

[Darryl_P]

I started a thread about this same topic a couple of weeks ago. It's here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3793411&an=&page=&vc=1) in case you're interested.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and am not making any conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, sorry, so you haven't decided to believe we don't have free will. good. we can talk :-)

I don't relate well to the concept of 'believe in', more along the lines of "at this point my knowledge of the evidence seems to point to XYZ". With free will, as interesting at it is to discuss, if we found out we didn't have it we'd not do anything different. hmmmm.
We seem to have no choice but to act as if we have it, however it works at whatever level of quantum or otherwise.

One, of many, ways to approach it is from the question .. why would this experience of having free will exist if it was serving no purpose for us? To use the horrid computer analogy, we have some pretty impressive computer programs solving complex problems, we've never felt the need to program them with a 'feeling' of free will. Is there some level of complex self-referential intelligence that an illusion of free will emerges and it doesn't have to be programmed in?

Free will suffers from the ill-formed question problem, I don't know ( outside of Dennett's work) any clear statement of what free will is in any specifically useful way, and until that happens it seems premature to try and definitively answer 'does It exist?'. It may well exist if we define it in some meaningful way. Randomness doesn't seem to help, but..?

luckyme, .... I had this extra ink..

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this thread was not meant to be about free will. I should have left that line out of my OP.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said free will is random? I make my own decisions, but I always have a reason for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our future is predetermined (which I believe it is), there is no free will. If nothing is random, then our future has already been determined.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said free will is random? I make my own decisions, but I always have a reason for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our future is predetermined (which I believe it is), there is no free will. If nothing is random, then our future has already been determined.

[/ QUOTE ]
how could randomness change anything about free will?

chez

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said free will is random? I make my own decisions, but I always have a reason for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our future is predetermined (which I believe it is), there is no free will. If nothing is random, then our future has already been determined.

[/ QUOTE ]
how could randomness change anything about free will?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If randomness exists, then our future has not been predetermined.

Again, free will was NOT the point of my OP.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said free will is random? I make my own decisions, but I always have a reason for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If our future is predetermined (which I believe it is), there is no free will. If nothing is random, then our future has already been determined.

[/ QUOTE ]
how could randomness change anything about free will?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If randomness exists, then our future has not been predetermined.

Again, free will was NOT the point of my OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I'm in the wrong thread but the lack of predetermination doesn't help with free-will. If stuff happens at random then its not am atter of will at all.

Back OT, the existence of randomness is a metaphysical question, we have no way of telling if things happen at random or not.

chez

[lastchance]

You really need to read up on Quantum Theory.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I'm in the wrong thread but the lack of predetermination doesn't help with free-will. If stuff happens at random then its not am atter of will at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that free will cannot exist if our futures have aleady been determined. I never implied that the converse is true.

[ QUOTE ]
Back OT, the existence of randomness is a metaphysical question, we have no way of telling if things happen at random or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? It seems to me that this is purely an issue of scientific advancements. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by metaphysical, but it sounds like you are trying to turn this into a philisophical question when it is purely a scientific questin.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
You really need to read up on Quantum Theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any recommendations? I recently bought A Brief History of Time , but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Will that help?

"Randomness" only comes in during the measurement process. In quantum mechanics, states evolve deterministically. The point, though, is that the measurement process only appears random if you make the measurement. If we put Sklansky in a box and tell him to measure some quantum mechanical system, the rest of us outside the box will describe the combined system "Sklansky+system" evolving in a completely deterministic way -- it is only Skalansky that sees a random "wave function collapse."

If the universe as a whole can be described by a pure quantum mechanical state, there is a very real sense in which there is no randomness, since there is no "external observer." However, we as humans, described ourselves by quantum mechanical subsystems of the universe, will always see randomness when performing measurements on other subsystems.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
"Randomness" only comes in during the measurement process. In quantum mechanics, states evolve deterministically. The point, though, is that the measurement process only appears random if you make the measurement. If we put Skalansky in a box and tell him to measure some quantum mechanical system, the rest of us outside the box will describe the combined system "Skalansky+system" evolving in a completely deterministic way -- it is only Skalansky that sees a random "wave function collapse."

If the universe as a whole can be described by a pure quantum mechanical state, there is a very real sense in which there is no randomness, since there is no "external observer." However, we as humans, described ourselves by quantum mechanical subsystems of the universe, will always see randomness when performing measurements on other subsystems.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to equate a lack of knowledge with randomness. I understand what that dude's Uncertainty Principle is (although I forget his name), but I don't see how it relates to the question at hand, other than the fact that it will hinder progress towards the answer to my question.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if I'm in the wrong thread but the lack of predetermination doesn't help with free-will. If stuff happens at random then its not am atter of will at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that free will cannot exist if our futures have aleady been determined. I never implied that the converse is true.

[ QUOTE ]
Back OT, the existence of randomness is a metaphysical question, we have no way of telling if things happen at random or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? It seems to me that this is purely an issue of scientific advancements. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by metaphysical, but it sounds like you are trying to turn this into a philisophical question when it is purely a scientific questin.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, there's no scientific experiment that could prove that things happen by random.

Suppose an experiment that provides evidence of randomness. Now suppose that the universe is a simulation running on a deterministic computer that uses a randomising algorithm. There is no way to distinguish the two.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to equate a lack of knowledge with randomness. I understand what that dude's Uncertainty Principle is (although I forget his name), but I don't see how it relates to the question at hand, other than the fact that it will hinder progress towards the answer to my question.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I thought you might want to know how quantum mechanics actually treats randomness (since that is the subject everyone will bring up as soon as you bring up this topic), but if it's just going to "hinder your progress" -- fine, I'll shut up.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
When I think of the universe, I think of the laws of science, and randomness doesn't seem possible to me. Some people may use the double slit experiment to prove randomness exists, but that is simply something we cannot determine, and is not necessarily something that cannot be determined with more knowledge.

I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws (or algorithms) that determine how the matter that the universe is made up of moves about. Just like an algorithm, someone can look at the "script" of the universe and predict what will happen next.

However, it is impossible for computers to do anything random. Sure, they can look at a super accurate clock, or use a huge set of predetermined numbers, but that is simply using outside sources to create the illusion of randomness.

It doesn't make sense to me that the universe has any tool to possibly create randomness. If you fully understand all the laws of the universe, and can map every particle that exists in the universe, then you must also be able to predict what will happen to each one of those particles. I can't think of how this could not be true.

This is why I do not believe in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]So does Pi not exist, or is there a pattern to it's digits?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
So does Pi not exist, or is there a pattern to it's digits?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not random. Each digit is important and non-random. Pi has a specific meaning. It may look random, but it most certainly is not.

Hello Zee,

With regards to randomness, consider the following situation:

We have one Deuterium atom (An atom with one proton and one neutron). Deutrium is radioactive, and we want to know when this atom will decay.

Using our current model understanding of neuclear physics, we can calculate the probability that this atom will decay whithin any given period of time.

However there is no known experiment that could allow us to look at the atom and say exactly when it will decay. Furthermore, It is currently beleived that there is no possible experiment that can look at what's going on inside the atom, in order to predict when it will decay. so if you had two atoms that were indistinduishable, under any conceivable observation, and subjected to the same outside forces, they could, and most likely would decay at different times.

Clearly if the above is true, then neuclear decay is an example of a random process. Of course, it is always possible that there is something going on that we do not understand, but our current understanding of the science does not suggest that any future discovery will change the above view of neuclear deacy.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Each digit is important

[/ QUOTE ] Probably a very good definition of random.

[bearly]

usually when a person takes a position and essentially states that it could not be changed by rational argument, we call that "faith". you are obviously not qualified to argue your position on scientific grounds, yet you are virtually certain that no counter-argument could sucessfully be made. now that is faith of the most non-rational kind. it is my belief that
true, abiding faith must be non-rational. that is, not subject to the scrutiny of reason in the eyes of those having that faith. getting back to relevant cases: given your faith in this matter, you have no poker skills as the term is commonly understood. you are simply the vehicle through which the hands are played. traditionally, taking credit would be called "vanity". sorry this has to be so compact, w/out every detail spelled out. i have to go cook some pasta...................b

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
usually when a person takes a position and essentially states that it could not be changed by rational argument, we call that "faith". you are obviously not qualified to argue your position on scientific grounds, yet you are virtually certain that no counter-argument could sucessfully be made. now that is faith of the most non-rational kind. it is my belief that
true, abiding faith must be non-rational. that is, not subject to the scrutiny of reason in the eyes of those having that faith. getting back to relevant cases: given your faith in this matter, you have no poker skills as the term is commonly understood. you are simply the vehicle through which the hands are played. traditionally, taking credit would be called "vanity". sorry this has to be so compact, w/out every detail spelled out. i have to go cook some pasta...................b

[/ QUOTE ]

You're reading comprehension needs work. I am not even remotely close to certain on the position that I stated in my OP. I understand that I am not very knowledgeable on this subject, and that is why I am asking these questions. I am here to learn.

Perhaps you didn't read my second post in this thread which I thought I made very clear:
[ QUOTE ]
In this post I am stating what I believe with my limited knowledge, and am not making any conclusions. I think it is likely that a reply to my post will change my opinion drastically. I am seeking knowledge in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to ask, what is your problem?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello Zee,

With regards to randomness, consider the following situation:

We have one Deuterium atom (An atom with one proton and one neutron). Deutrium is radioactive, and we want to know when this atom will decay.

Using our current model understanding of neuclear physics, we can calculate the probability that this atom will decay whithin any given period of time.

However there is no known experiment that could allow us to look at the atom and say exactly when it will decay. Furthermore, It is currently beleived that there is no possible experiment that can look at what's going on inside the atom, in order to predict when it will decay. so if you had two atoms that were indistinduishable, under any conceivable observation, and subjected to the same outside forces, they could, and most likely would decay at different times.

Clearly if the above is true, then neuclear decay is an example of a random process. Of course, it is always possible that there is something going on that we do not understand, but our current understanding of the science does not suggest that any future discovery will change the above view of neuclear deacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Husky. This was the type of response I was looking for. Atom decay intertwines perfectly w/ the subject at hand, and I will certainly do some research on this subject in the near future.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]

We have one Deuterium atom (An atom with one proton and one neutron). Deutrium is radioactive, and we want to know when this atom will decay.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) , Deuterium is stable.

Also, apparently Atomic Clocks use the speed at which atoms decay to measure time. To date, they are the most accurate clocks we have. [ QUOTE ]
National standards agencies maintain an accuracy of 10-9 seconds per day, and a precision equal to the frequency of the radio transmitter pumping the maser.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation which corresponds to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the article that the above quotes are from: Atomic Clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock) , it sounds like this is a pretty accurate science with no randomness.

Edit: Ok, I'm confused. Radioactive Decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_decay#Decay_timing) states [ QUOTE ]
the decay of an unstable nucleus (radionuclide) is entirely random and it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. However, it is equally likely to decay at any time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What am I misreading in the Atomic Clock entry?

[ZeeJustin]

Ok, I'm slow. Apparently the atomic clock does not measure time based on the decay of atoms, but instead based on the wavelike movement of electrons inside the atom. Can someone just confirm this for me to make sure I'm understanding it correctly?

[MelchyBeau]

watch this series.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

As far as books go, how knoweldgable on math/physics are you?

I would read an elegant universe

Melch

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'm slow. Apparently the atomic clock does not measure time based on the decay of atoms, but instead based on the wavelike movement of electrons inside the atom. Can someone just confirm this for me to make sure I'm understanding it correctly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. When an electron in an atom drops to a lower energy level, radiation is emitted. That radiation has a specific frequency. Combined with the (constant) speed of light, this provides the most accurate known measures of time.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as books go, how knoweldgable on math/physics are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I took AP physics and AP calc in high school, but only went to college for a semester before dropping out.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have one Deuterium atom (An atom with one proton and one neutron). Deutrium is radioactive, and we want to know when this atom will decay.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) , Deuterium is stable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, sorry, I was under the impression that deuterium was radioactive, (just with a verry long halflife). But I havn't looked at that stuff in a long time. If i am wrong (which it appears i am, just substitute any other radioactive atom into my first post and my point should work fine.

[bearly]

people have a problem when they take you at your word? perhaps taking a gratuitous swipe at my reading comprehension is not the way to go (you wouldn't know)...........maybe some writing practice is in order. how's about something like "i don't know if there is free will or not, but my studies and musings have me thinking that there is not". there, now that leaves you lots of 'outs' as you poker champions like to say...............b

[garion888]

First of all...deuterium is incredibly stable. It is in no way radioactive. Without that stability...none of us would be here.

I am looking at the definitions of random and I was wondering which one you think is impossible.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose or objective.
2. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Definition 2 is the one we generally talk about in physics. If there is a white marble and a black marble in a bag and we choose one of them without looking, there is a 50% chance that the marble in our hand is black and a 50% chance it is white. Let's do a gedanken experiment. If I choose a marble from the bag(and replace it) 100 times, is there any way you can predict in advance how many times I am going to choose white? If I do the experiment twice, am I going to pick white the same number of times? The rules of the experiment are the same everytime yet there is no way I can predict what the outcome is going to be.

If this demonstrates randomness to you that is good. If not I can come up with more examples...

Thanks,
-J

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all...deuterium is incredibly stable. It is in no way radioactive. Without that stability...none of us would be here.

I am looking at the definitions of random and I was wondering which one you think is impossible.

1. Having no specific pattern, purpose or objective.
2. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.

Definition 2 is the one we generally talk about in physics. If there is a white marble and a black marble in a bag and we choose one of them without looking, there is a 50% chance that the marble in our hand is black and a 50% chance it is white. Let's do a gedanken experiment. If I choose a marble from the bag(and replace it) 100 times, is there any way you can predict in advance how many times I am going to choose white? If I do the experiment twice, am I going to pick white the same number of times? The rules of the experiment are the same everytime yet there is no way I can predict what the outcome is going to be.

If this demonstrates randomness to you that is good. If not I can come up with more examples...

Thanks,
-J

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that either of these defintions are accurate to what my OP is about. The second one certianly isn't.

I guess unpredictability given infinite knowledge is what I'm talking about. I don't think such a thing exists. I think the entire outcome of all the particles in the universe has already been determined. We certainly don't have the knowledge to predict that outcome, but hypothetically, the answer exists.

[garion888]

Can I ask where you get this "feeling" from. I want to really understand what you're saying so I can argue effectively.

If you re-read my earlier post, I tried to create a simple universe. This universe contains a bag, two marbles, and me. I have "infinite knowledge" of the system right? All I have to do know is show that there is something about the system that I cannot predict. I chose to use the result of 100 choices of the marble from the bag.

Alternatively I could show that there is no such thing as "infinite knowledge." You talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle before. One version of this principle states that if you know one thing really precisely(position) then that knowledge comes at the expense of the precision of knowledge of another thing(momentum). In effect, no observer can know everything about a system to begin with, so there is no challenge to the existence of randomness.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess unpredictability given infinite knowledge is what I'm talking about. I don't think such a thing exists. I think the entire outcome of all the particles in the universe has already been determined. We certainly don't have the knowledge to predict that outcome, but hypothetically, the answer exists.

[/ QUOTE ] Infinite knowledge is not possible. We know this to be true. Infinite knowledge, of course, would forbid randomness. Your problem is not with randomness but your belief that infinite knowledge is possible.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
At present the evidence is that at a quatum level there IS randomness, so to base an argument on "I can't think how .." seems to leap ahead of the evidence. Now, with the M-string brane theories perhaps some hidden variables will show up ( there's been some strong cases made that they can't show up )

[/ QUOTE ]

I talked to a physics major who's studying quantum right now, and the way he discussed it, it said it is more likely that the randomness is merely apparent due to the lack of precision in our measurement tools, and hidden variables. Even in the scientific world, the jury is still out.

I'm not saying that there isn't true randomness at the quantum level. I'm not saying there is. I'm saying that I don't know, and that you probably don't either. Quantum physics gets tossed around like a hacky-sack whenever there's a deterministic argument by people who really don't know dick about it.

On both occasions when I held a discussion group IRL on free will vs determinism, it ALWAYS boiled down to the libertarians saying "science says I'm right" and the determinists saying "no it doesn't."

It will be a VERY long time, if ever, that science conclusively proves the existence of randomness that is not attributable to lack of precision in measuring tools. I think we need to accept that this is something that is a little beyond our comprehension.

[garion888]

Not to insult your friend, but...

Who is this physics major and how the hell is he passing quantum with the thought anywhere near his brain that the randomness discussed in that class has anything to do with a measuring device...

There is uncertainty in every measurement. If I have a ruler with 1mm an acceptable amount of uncertainty in my measurement is .5mm. There is uncertainty inherent in every measuring device. It has to do with how graduated your device is.

This experimental uncertainty is very different from the randomness implied by quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle is not stated, it is derived. This says that no matter how graduated your instrument is, there is a limit to the precision of an instrument that has nothing to do with the instrument but with the universe in which the instrument exists.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At present the evidence is that at a quatum level there IS randomness, so to base an argument on "I can't think how .." seems to leap ahead of the evidence. Now, with the M-string brane theories perhaps some hidden variables will show up ( there's been some strong cases made that they can't show up )

[/ QUOTE ]

I talked to a physics major who's studying quantum right now, and the way he discussed it, it said it is more likely that the randomness is merely apparent due to the lack of precision in our measurement tools, and hidden variables. Even in the scientific world, the jury is still out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a Ph.D. in physics, and I can tell you unequivocably that this is incorrect. Randomness at the quantum level is not due to lack of precision in our measurement devices.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that there isn't true randomness at the quantum level. I'm not saying there is. I'm saying that I don't know, and that you probably don't either. Quantum physics gets tossed around like a hacky-sack whenever there's a deterministic argument by people who really don't know dick about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a while, but I know a little bit more than dick about it.

[ QUOTE ]
On both occasions when I held a discussion group IRL on free will vs determinism, it ALWAYS boiled down to the libertarians saying "science says I'm right" and the determinists saying "no it doesn't."

It will be a VERY long time, if ever, that science conclusively proves the existence of randomness that is not attributable to lack of precision in measuring tools. I think we need to accept that this is something that is a little beyond our comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it this. You have a sample of some radioactive material. Each atom in the material has some probability of decaying in the next x minutes. But there is no possible way to predict when an individual atom will decay. You can measure each atomic decay essentially perfectly. There is no imprecision. Either an atom pops off, or it does not. Uncertainty in your measuring device has no bearing on the process at all.

[garion888]

Damn...I'm gonna have to clean up my phrasing with a Ph.D around...

/lowly grad student
//we're cheap slave labor..

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]


I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws (or algorithms) that determine how the matter that the universe is made up of moves about. Just like an algorithm, someone can look at the "script" of the universe and predict what will happen next.



[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like you have very little imagination. We have been designed by nature and evolution to have a fairly intuitive understanding of approximately 1000 m length scales in a fairly low gravity system. We have deduced many surprising things that in retrospect we call "intuitive", but how "intuitive" is Electricity and Magnetism if it took us 10000 years to develop?

By the way, there are perfectly well understood, simple, and predictable mathematical models that can be used to generate "random" numbers. I believe that currently, there is no strict mathematical definition for "random", although there are a number of tests that we believe "random" numbers should satisfy. This basically comes from the fact that mathematically we cannot define something negatively (i.e. there are huge consistency problems if we define random as being the lack of repeating patterns). So the fact that we have an intuitive idea of "random" probably means that it is somehow useful.

I also think the idea that there must be some final simple theory beneath everything is also a quest for God in some sense. I will believe in it when they find it.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess unpredictability given infinite knowledge is what I'm talking about. I don't think such a thing exists. I think the entire outcome of all the particles in the universe has already been determined. We certainly don't have the knowledge to predict that outcome, but hypothetically, the answer exists.

[/ QUOTE ] Infinite knowledge is not possible. We know this to be true. Infinite knowledge, of course, would forbid randomness. Your problem is not with randomness but your belief that infinite knowledge is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion. It's reasonable to assume infinite knowledge is not possible to obtain.

I'm not sure what infinite knowledge entails. Let's make a bold assumption (that almost certainly isn't true) that the universe is nothing but an infinite number of locations, and those locations either have or don't have the smallest possible unit of matter. The amount of matter in the universe is finite, so if we simply map out all the known peices of matter in the universe, we are working on a finite scale.

Obviously we cannot do this for every particle in the universe, but theoretically, we could do it for any particle in the universe. If every particle is mappable, that means that the information that would lead to infinite knowledge is out there. It wouldbe impossible for humans to ever obtain all of that data, but it's out there.

I dont think that whether or not we can gather all of the information is relevant. The point is that it's out there.

I oversimplified things w/ my false assumption, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure how to phrase it better.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
If you re-read my earlier post, I tried to create a simple universe. This universe contains a bag, two marbles, and me. I have "infinite knowledge" of the system right? All I have to do know is show that there is something about the system that I cannot predict. I chose to use the result of 100 choices of the marble from the bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bag would be transparent if you had infinite knowledge. You would always know which color the marble would be.

[garion888]

Do you see how far from our actual universe your "model" is? I don't think there are any conclusions one could draw from your model that would actually coincide with reality. Your analogy is sub-par.

[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively I could show that there is no such thing as "infinite knowledge." You talked about the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle before. One version of this principle states that if you know one thing really precisely(position) then that knowledge comes at the expense of the precision of knowledge of another thing(momentum). In effect, no observer can know everything about a system to begin with, so there is no challenge to the existence of randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the uncertainty principle itsself doesn't have much to say about the availability of information. I could tell you complete information about a quantum system without violating the UP. The UP simply says that certain questions (like knowing exact position and momentum simultaneously) are undefined in the context of quantum mechanics. You might know a state exactly -- but it will simply never turn out to be an eigenstate of both position and momentum, because states like those don't exist in the theory.

[hmkpoker]

Not sure. I could probably be misinterpreting what he said. However, the uncertainty principle as you described it is suggestive of apparent randomness, not true randomness. It outrules practical determinism (I don't think anyone believes in that though), but I don't think it effectively disproves it.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see how far from our actual universe your "model" is? I don't think there are any conclusions one could draw from your model that would actually coincide with reality. Your analogy is sub-par.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was hoping you would understand where I was going with that, but I guess not.

Basically I'm just saying that the fact that we will never be able to gather infinite knowledge as people does not matter. The fact that the solution is out there is what matters, even if we will never have the complete solution.

[garion888]

I knew there was a reason I'm an experimentalist. Of course I could construct a quantum system and completely describe any state I want to. Also of course I'll never be able to measure them unless they fit the selection rules etc...(i.e. they won't be an eigenstate of the system).

FWIW, I really meant to talk about DeltaX in my post not xbar. My phrasing always lapses when I type things unless I really get down to editing...

[DougShrapnel]

I'm not sure if this post further flushes out the topic at hand or if it merely obfuscates the truth of the situation. end discalimer.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess unpredictability given infinite knowledge is what I'm talking about. I don't think such a thing exists. I think the entire outcome of all the particles in the universe has already been determined. We certainly don't have the knowledge to predict that outcome, but hypothetically, the answer exists.

[/ QUOTE ] Infinite knowledge is not possible. We know this to be true. Infinite knowledge, of course, would forbid randomness. Your problem is not with randomness but your belief that infinite knowledge is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusion. It's reasonable to assume infinite knowledge is not possible to obtain.

I'm not sure what infinite knowledge entails. Let's make a bold assumption (that almost certainly isn't true) that the universe is nothing but an infinite number of locations, and those locations either have or don't have the smallest possible unit of matter. The amount of matter in the universe is finite, so if we simply map out all the known peices of matter in the universe, we are working on a finite scale.

Obviously we cannot do this for every particle in the universe, but theoretically, we could do it for any particle in the universe. If every particle is mappable, that means that the information that would lead to infinite knowledge is out there. It wouldbe impossible for humans to ever obtain all of that data, but it's out there.

I dont think that whether or not we can gather all of the information is relevant. The point is that it's out there.

I oversimplified things w/ my false assumption, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure how to phrase it better.

[/ QUOTE ]The problem is not that we can not know the location of all the matter. It's that we cannot know, amongst other things, the location and the speed of an object at the same time.
Uncertainty Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) or Quatum indeterminancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy) may help to clarify the impossibility of infinite knowledge.

Now it's also important that I bring up a physcological arguement that I like to call "The all the worlds a" problem. The human mind is very well equiped to learn something and then apply that to all the world. One learns of general physics and then says All the worlds a deterministic thing. We have these great theories that can give us increadible close aproxiamtions of observable outcomes, and we then applies them to all of the world. Hence, free will is thought to be non existant. The problem is that a theory that is useful for describing planets and Galaxies, or a theory that is useful to describe the realy small, aren't neccessarily the ones you wish to use regarding people. Many great thinking minds have made this mistake.

Ok but your post wasn't really about free will vs determinism but was about randomness. And you are correct that if it was possible to know everything about a system nothing would be random. Randomness is almost excluded by definition when one uses the term infinite knowledge. The universe just doesn't work that way. It doesn't let you know everything about a system. Other things exist mereley as a probablity. I'm not a good scientist so I won't go into these things, other than that what we know about is that the process is random. Genetic mutation, radio active decay, the path of traveling light, the digits of Pi, I wish to add some decision making processes(the rest of the world hasn't yet decided that) are examples of random processes.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think that whether or not we can gather all of the information is relevant. The point is that it's out there.

[/ QUOTE ] Quoted again because I'm not sure if my post answers this point. Just because we can't know the exact speed when we know the exact location, does it follow nessesary that it doensn't have an exact speed? I don't know, but it appears there are other types of randomness that don't depend on the uncertainty princple. Is radio active decay determined by quatum indertimanacy? What is the principle that makes Pi's digits random?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws


[/ QUOTE ]

Who wrote the universe program?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws


[/ QUOTE ]

Who wrote the universe program?

[/ QUOTE ]
What created the thing that wrote the Universe Program? (Can we please not have a discussion about God thrown into the mix?)

What Quantam Theory says is that there is no perfect knowledge (as far as we know). It is impossible to tell the location and momentum of the object at the same time, no matter how accurate your measuring tools are.

Of course, if you could see in more than 4 dimensions, or find a hidden variable that we don't know of, randomness ceases to exist, but for now, the best physics believes that it does.

[ZeeJustin]

Any given particle has both a location and a velocity. As the uncertainty principle states, we cannot measure these precisely, but the particle still has a location and velocity whether or not humans can map them.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Any given particle has both a location and a velocity. As the uncertainty principle states, we cannot measure these precisely, but the particle still has a location and velocity whether or not humans can map them.

[/ QUOTE ]I make it to easy when I bring up a correct counter arguement to my own arguement. But lets examine light. Keep in mind that we always know the exact speed of light. What do you think that that does to the location of the light? Well it turns out the light while moving, is travelling thru all possible paths at the same time. When we stop it to look at it, it randomly decoheres(sp) to a precise location. So at least the case with light is that it doesn't have an exact location while it's moving. It's not that we just can't measure it, it truely behaves as if it is in all possible locations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Any given particle has both a location and a velocity. As the uncertainty principle states, we cannot measure these precisely, but the particle still has a location and velocity whether or not humans can map them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This almost certainly isn't right, The particle does not take these values until the measurement is made, until then its a probability distribution.

All this is still only about whether the universe appears to behave in random way and nothing to do with whether true
randomness exists.

Also infinite knowledge has nothing to do with it unless you're talking about some god-like infinite knowledge of the future.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
All this is still only about whether the universe appears to behave in random way and nothing to do with whether true randomness exists.

[/ QUOTE ] What would get to the point about whether true randomness exists or not?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All this is still only about whether the universe appears to behave in random way and nothing to do with whether true randomness exists.

[/ QUOTE ] What would get to the point about whether true randomness exists or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
as I said before its a metaphysical question so nothing will get to the point /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you produce any model of the universe that is random then you can remodel it in a deterministic fashion and vice-verca.

Science can show that things behave in a random way and cannot be determined, but leaps beyond that are not science.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"Who wrote the universe program?"

A god far different than the one you believe in. Not one who merely "speaks" things into existence. Or who punishes you based on your beliefs about a nice Jewish boy who charlatans later on wrote fraudelant stories about.

[BeerMoney]

I thought the position of an electron was truly random?

I did see someone saying that if you could control for everything in an experiment, it wouldn't be random..

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Any given particle has both a location and a velocity. As the uncertainty principle states, we cannot measure these precisely, but the particle still has a location and velocity whether or not humans can map them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fundamentally incorrect. If this were correct double-slit interference, for example, would not exist. It does.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
When I think of the universe, I think of the laws of science, and randomness doesn't seem possible to me. Some people may use the double slit experiment to prove randomness exists, but that is simply something we cannot determine, and is not necessarily something that cannot be determined with more knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

As it stands right now, it is a scientific, experimentally verified fact that theories that can explain away the randomness (so-called hidden variable theories) must be non-local, meaning they allow for superluminal influences between remote locations. As a result, most schemes you can come up with to try and explain how if we just knew a little more everything would be deterministic fail. For this reason, I think a lot of scientists think the randomness is here to stay. (You might try Googling "Is the moon there when nobody looks?" by David Mermin to read a little bit on this topic.)

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I do not believe in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a pretty depressing worldview. If you don't believe in free will, how do you justify making large sums of money and not spreading it out among all the poor, helpless robots who are doomed to lead shitty existences because they are pre-determined to be jobless? It certainly doesn't seem like their fault, in this instance.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
When I think of the universe, I think of the laws of science, and randomness doesn't seem possible to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how scientific investigation works. You pose a hypothesis and then it is tested by experiment.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people may use the double slit experiment to prove randomness exists, but that is simply something we cannot determine, and is not necessarily something that cannot be determined with more knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum theory is perhaps the most sucessful theory to date to explain observed phenomena at the small scale. all expeiments to date supprt it, none have disproved. As counterintuitive as it may seem all the evidence to date points ti inherent randomness of certain events at the quantum level


[ QUOTE ]
I think of the universe the same way I think of a computer program. The universe has a set of laws (or algorithms) that determine how the matter that the universe is made up of moves about. Just like an algorithm, someone can look at the "script" of the universe and predict what will happen next.

[/ QUOTE ]
As did scientists until experiments showed classical physics (as you express it) could not explain certain observed phenomena showing this view is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is impossible for computers to do anything random.

[/ QUOTE ]
To keep to the poker theme, some sites use quantum random number generators so the hands are in the truist sense, random.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]Sure, they can look at a super accurate clock, or use a huge set of predetermined numbers, but that is simply using outside sources to create the illusion of randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right these give the illusion of randomness but the prior example is truly random.



[/ QUOTE ]It doesn't make sense to me that the universe has any tool to possibly create randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

What should make sense is what is observable. Sense or not all experiments show the deterministic view is false.

[ QUOTE ]
If you fully understand all the laws of the universe, and can map every particle that exists in the universe, then you must also be able to predict what will happen to each one of those particles. I can't think of how this could not be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

quantum mechanics is one, if not the, intellectual achievent to date to explain the points you touch on. It seems you have a genuine interest in the answers to your questions and I would really suggest you look at some introductions to quantum mechanics. EG
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/quantum.html

Google throws up lots of sites..that was one that looked interesting and aimed at the "layman" and seemed reasonable read on a quick look.



[ QUOTE ]
This is why I do not believe in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

i only wanted to answer the physics points!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like a pretty depressing worldview. If you don't believe in free will, how do you justify making large sums of money and not spreading it out among all the poor, helpless robots who are doomed to lead shitty existences because they are pre-determined to be jobless? It certainly doesn't seem like their fault, in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, because he's predetermined not to give it to them, of course.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

If I've misinterpreted your claim, I apologize ZJ,
Daniel Dennett has an interesting book "Freedom Evolves" that discusses human freewill in a universe with determination in it. Worth a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started reading this recently. Thus far I've been relatively unimpressed with his argument; it seems to me that he's taking a pretty operationalist view of avoidance. In other words, that game of Life automata can avoid disruptive gliders or the like is supposed to be evidence of how avoidance can rise from determinism. But this seems like a bit of a strawman, so far; it's not like there was any choice involved. I think I need to keep reading.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Why, because he's predetermined not to give it to them, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally.

A bit more about free will: I sometimes wonder if it is significant that even in a completely deterministic world, the future is still inherently unknowable by humans. To expand on what I mean by this, predicting the future perfectly is going to require perfect knowledge of the state of the universe. There are several barriers to this:

1) Knowing the state of the universe requires measurements. Measurements have imprecision. Slight variation in initial conditions -> huge difference in the resulting world a little bit later.

2) More cosmologically, suppose I shake a fistful of electrons around at the sun. Nobody on Earth gets to know about this for 8 minutes. So my predictions for what happens 8 minutes in the future must be lacking some information. What if we knew the state of the sun perfectly? Well, I already stated that's impossible, but if you don't believe that, humans are always going to have spread their influence over a limited volume of the universe, and you can just pick some point that has been as yet unmolested and make this argument again.

So, the question is, is it philosophically important that even in a world that is deterministic, humans can't ever figure it out? I suspect it might be.

[hmkpoker]

I guess I can't argue with that.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Any given particle has both a location and a velocity. As the uncertainty principle states, we cannot measure these precisely, but the particle still has a location and velocity whether or not humans can map them.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZJ, I'm not any kind of an expert in any of this, but according to some of books I have read, normal "probabilistic" interpretations of QM imply that the statement "any given particle has both a location and a velocity" (simultaneously) is not true. It is not just a matter of not being able to know or measure those parameters, but an absolutely essential characteristic of things. Of course this might be extremely confusing and non-intuitive (at least as for our "classical physics intuition"), but it's possible to "get used to it", IMO.

With regard to your OP: randomness is a word, in the language we use. This word is very useful in some aspects, and this doesn't necessarily have to do with the question of "is there a thing in _reality_ that this word points at?", since it's a very tricky word (BTW, there are certainly people who will say the same things about the words "god", "free-will", "evil", "time", and many others). In other words, until you come up with a definitive definition of the word "randomness", this discussion will be a philosophic/metaphysical/linguistic one. (For instance, you can say that there could be a god that for him "any given particle does have both a location and a velocity", and therefore, from his perspective, there's no meaning to "Free-will". Well, OK, but then we are not discussing science any more.)

BTW, In a book I've read (unfortunately I don't remember where), someone defined "random" simply as "we don't know". If you use this definition, this could bring an interesting (philosophical) twist to your original question.

[David Sklansky]

"someone defined "random" simply as "we don't know".

That was Not Ready. In one of his lucid moments.

[ZeeJustin]

I'm talking randomness in the most extreme definition. Basically I'm saying that we have to assign probablities for things like atom decay simply because we don't have enough knowledge to know the outcome.

The randomness I am talking about only exists if such predictions are literally impossible even with complete knowledge of the system.

If this randomness does not exist, then the entire history of the universe has already been determined.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If this randomness does not exist, then the entire history of the universe has already been determined.


[/ QUOTE ]

Atheists call it fatalism. Christians call it God's providence.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
"someone defined "random" simply as "we don't know".

That was Not Ready. In one of his lucid moments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% positive I haven't read it here, although I'm not surprised that someone on this board stumbled across this definition too (or thought about it independently, of course).

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The randomness I am talking about only exists if such predictions are literally impossible even with complete knowledge of the system.

If this randomness does not exist, then the entire history of the universe has already been determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of my point was that even if you accept or insist on some deterministic model, still - until you don't know that _exact_ situation from which to start your "calculation" of the predetermined future (and of course, all the laws that govern that "calculation"), you are stuck in a land where you "don't know", and therefore, have to accept the existence of randomness in _your world_, which is all that matters. Even speaking about the _possibility_ of a predetermined universe is admitting the fact you don't know whether it is so or not, i.e, you already have some randomness in your system.

In other words, there's no way for you to show or prove whether there is free-will or not, when your/our only possible _actual_ perspetive is of a human-being (it might be different if you are some kind of a completely different entity, but that's another story). You can only point out how free-will might be inconsistent with other assumptions in some specific set of arguments with regard to reality.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking randomness in the most extreme definition. Basically I'm saying that we have to assign probablities for things like atom decay simply because we don't have enough knowledge to know the outcome.

The randomness I am talking about only exists if such predictions are literally impossible even with complete knowledge of the system.

If this randomness does not exist, then the entire history of the universe has already been determined.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is if someone had all the knowledge of the universe he could accurately predict every event at every instance of time. However, that would require an outside observer, outside of the universe. Once inside, his own thought process would effect the events and disrupt the predictions. Therefore, some degree of randomness will always exist and thus so will free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Once inside, his own thought process would effect the events and disrupt the predictions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if his thought process is determined by natural causes. You are assuming what you're trying to prove.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once inside, his own thought process would effect the events and disrupt the predictions.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not if his thought process is determined by natural causes. You are assuming what you're trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thought process is determined by natural (chemical and electrical) causes and that is why it would effect the outcome. I don't think that you could include your own thought process in any calculation involving total knowledge (this is getting a little weird). That is why you would need someone outside of the universe (god if you will). But that is why I say if there is a god there is no free will - everything would be pre-determined and predictable as Zee stated.

[AAAA]

it will give you hawking's ideas about time and multiple universes and reality. will that answer your question? it is not an easy read, however.

perhaps a better book for you to read would be "Chaos" by a guy named Glick, i believe.

the whole idea of "predetermined" goes out the window when you think there is room for every possibility and our free will chooses the one we believe we deserve.

randomness however, is so different from what you are talking about. uncertainty says we can predict groups, but not the individual. we can say that in 100 attempts we will expect this many occurrences, but each attempt is unique, so you can't possibly guarantee a prediction of the outcome of anything that hasn't happened. In fact, you can't even predict the outcome of something that has happened, if you believe that all possibilities are still possible.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But that is why I say if there is a god there is no free will - everything would be pre-determined and predictable as Zee stated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Predetermination by God doesn't exclude human free will.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]

Basically I'm just saying that the fact that we will never be able to gather infinite knowledge as people does not matter. The fact that the solution is out there is what matters, even if we will never have the complete solution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only will we (i.e. humanity) never have a complete solution. No advanced alien race or super-powerful being will ever have a complete solution, either.

Basically, the idea is that any language is countably infinite (a language is simply a set of finite strings). That is, you can map each string in the language to some natural number. But, the power set of languages is uncountably infinite. This implies that there are some languages that cannot be described in a finite manner.

So, there are only countably many "solutions" (or algorithms) but uncountably many "problems." Therefore, there are uncountably many things that cannot possibly be described.

I suck at explaining this, but try googling the words "countable," "uncountable," "cantor," "diagonalization" and perhaps "continuum hypothesis" for better explanations.

[tonysoldier]

Your post is fascinating because it shows the absolute dominance of scientific epistemology. That is, the only knowledge taken as valuable is that which is "scientific". Scientific here refers ostensibly to a sort of objectivity or unity of results, a repeatability, or something along those lines. Nobody really knows what makes some knowledge scientific, some borderline, and some not scientific. The logical positivist model, which seems to be what you are adopting is generally considered outdated (by me at least) by the philosophical work of Kuhn, Wittgenstein and even Derrida. The biggest question for a scientific epistemology is that of language and the sign. How is it that these objective and eternal truths, totally determined are communicated? With language. And what guarantees language (or a "meaningless" calculus) as perfectly referential to the objective reality that it is attempting to describe? Absolutely nothing. The material, social nature of the sign in its linguistic importance creates a gap for any form of linguistic knowledge. So the scientific epistemology is troubled and shouldn't necessarily be considered the only model. Once we move beyond it, that is, accept its limitations is quite easy to see how there might be probability. The heart of the matter is your tacit assumption that "reality," that to which truth corresponds is accurately and/or completely described by something unproblematically labelled science. Science is a linguistic and social phenomenon, and perhaps it is nothing more or less.

One thing that might be revelant is the scientific explanation of the forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak-nuclear. There really isn't any ... could there ever be? And if not, which is what I would contend (even if these were described, they would lead eventually to something unexplainable) we recognize a limit to scientific knowledge where we do not recongize an analogous limit to reality. We need either to accept a fundamental ignorance or find another way of knowing.

[garion888]

First of all, electromagnetism is 99% understood by physicists. Second of all, i'm having a little trouble

You are proposing that there is a disconnect between the mathematical model of physics and "reality". Everyone who is trained in physics understands this disconnect. They are also trained to ignore it. As long as a theory is able to predict experimental results accurately, the theory may as well be taken as reality. When "the unexplainable" comes along, this disconnect obviously rears its head(ie, we predicted something that didn't happen, or we are unable to predict something that does happen). Then the theory is modified to incorporate an explanation.

It is valuable to note the point that there IS a disconnect between a scientific theory and reality. However, it is also important to note that this disconnect has very little impact on the any applications of the theory as long as the theory is able to predict experimental results accurately.

[tonysoldier]

The OP tacitly assumes that ALL real knowledge is governed in accepting the determinacy of science (I don't know much about quantum stuff). The gaps or disconnects, the insuffiencies of science in certain questions clears the way for an indeterminate answer to these questions. There may be a value to Godel's incompleteness theorem ... the paradoxes where either zero or two mutually exclusive answers present themselves may represent places of indeterminacy and maybe of pure chance.

What you said about people being trained to ignore certain disconnects is very interesting. What if instead we were to focus on them, what would the effect be on popular conceptions of truth and knowledge?

[garion888]

I think the focusing has happened already. When someone/group doubts a scientific theory due to their focus on its incompleteness, they tend to toss the baby with the bathwater. They may think if its not right all the time its never right.

Or take the case when someone who is unfamiliar with the formalism of science/mathmatics draws an incorrect conclusion about a theory and they happen to have a strong voice in the community. In this case, the community becomes aware of the "defect" before anyone who totally understands the theory is able to call the bullshit.

Then events happen where a cute remark by a scientist gets taken out of context and the public hears a lot about it. The case at Brookhaven where someone made a joke about their experiment and its ability to collapse the entire universe.

Lay people already focus on the disconnect between scientific theory and reality. Sometimes its sinister but most times I think that they end just not investigating far enough into a particular theory.

[atrifix]

What kind of information would you need from the double-slit experiment? It seems that we have all the relevant information; all reasonable confounding influences have been removed. Physicists have used electrons, which tend to behave like "normal" particles, rather than photons, and have even been able to do this experiment with a single electron thanks to modern technology. Yet they still cannot predict where the electron will end up. The most reasonable thing to take from the experiment is that there is inherent randomness. Perhaps some other theory will come along that explains it more precisely, but with our current knowledge, it seems unlikely. Computers cannot create randomness, but that may simply be a result of our limited technology.

Another question--if there is inherent randomness, how is that "free will"? Would you consider your actions to be "free" if they were just probabilities?

[poincaraux]

do you have a reasonable math/physics background? i don't have time to read the whole thread here, but if you do have such a background, read up on Bell's inequalities. Wikipedia has an ok article. Someone .. I think maybe RB Griffiths .. wrote a fantastic paper on this .. i think it was in the early '90s or late '80s. Seriously, look this up.