Is there inherent, observable randomness in the universe?

[Darryl_P]

Before you tell me that Quantum Mechanics says there is, consider this:

The only way we can know about a particle's position is via our senses, the most appropriate of which is vision. For our eyes to detect something we need photons to transmit information.

In the case of particles on a small scale similar to photons it stands to reason that the ability of photons to transmit reliable information is restricted, just as you could not get a very accurate picture on your TV screen or digital camera if it only used 1 or 2 pixels instead of several million.

It is my understanding that this limitation of photons' ability to transmit information is the key to the uncertainty principle, and therefore what seems like inherent randomness in the universe really isn't. The particle is there, only we can never know for sure, no matter how accurate our measuring devices become. The limitation applies to us and not the universe.

Just as Sklansky is looking for evidence to support the existence of God via his threads on miracles, I am looking for evidence to support atheism ie. that randomness actually exists in the observable universe and not just in our minds.

I currently am a believer in God, but if I see convincing evidence about the above, then I would seriously begin considering atheism. Any help, info., links, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

[DougShrapnel]

Do I get any points if I where to demostrate that the universe itself is arbitrary?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you tell me that Quantum Mechanics says there is, consider this:

The only way we can know about a particle's position is via our senses, the most appropriate of which is vision. For our eyes to detect something we need photons to transmit information.

In the case of particles on a small scale similar to photons it stands to reason that the ability of photons to transmit reliable information is restricted, just as you could not get a very accurate picture on your TV screen or digital camera if it only used 1 or 2 pixels instead of several million.

It is my understanding that this limitation of photons' ability to transmit information is the key to the uncertainty principle, and therefore what seems like inherent randomness in the universe really isn't. The particle is there, only we can never know for sure, no matter how accurate our measuring devices become. The limitation applies to us and not the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

This interpretion of the uncertainty principle is incorrect. Randomness is a fundamental, inherent property of the universe, rather than a practical limitation on measurement devices. Here is a Wilkpedia link which explains exactly that:

Uncertainty Principle

[ QUOTE ]

Just as Sklansky is looking for evidence to support the existence of God via his threads on miracles, I am looking for evidence to support atheism ie. that randomness actually exists in the observable universe and not just in our minds.

I currently am a believer in God, but if I see convincing evidence about the above, then I would seriously begin considering atheism. Any help, info., links, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the link I already provided. To the best of our knowledge, the universe is inherently nondeterministic. Accept it.

Regardless, whether the physical laws are ultimately deterministic or nondeterministic has nothing at all to do with whether "god" exists. Presumably, this "god" could have "designed" the universe to be nondeterministic. (In fact, some theists argue precisely that to rectify the contradiction between on omniscient god and free will.)

I'm an atheist not because of the uncertainty principle, but rather because the concept of "god" is arbitrary and meaningless.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, whether the physical laws are ultimately deterministic or nondeterministic has nothing at all to do with whether "god" exists. Presumably, this "god" could have "designed" the universe to be nondeterministic. (In fact, some theists argue precisely that to rectify the contradiction between on omniscient god and free will.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that inherent randomness would not *prove* the non-existence of God, just as verification of a miracle would not prove God's existence. I didn't mean to claim that, though, only that my own belief system depends heavily on it. My reason for creating this thread is to find out more about determinism vs. randomness and not to try to convince anyone that my belief system is good or correct.

Having said that, I've noticed a lot of atheists rely on the ultimacy of randomness, though, and so if that were weakened, their beliefs could be weakened as well.

[ QUOTE ]
I've noticed a lot of atheists rely on the ultimacy of randomness,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you've seen a lot of theists argue against the ultimacy of randomness. But I have not read any atheist "rely on it", since they are not the ones making any broad-brushed claims (see theists) to need shaky foundations to rely upon.

[Darryl_P]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard an atheist say to a theist "why can't you accept that it's just random?"

These guys think that's the end of the line. Something is random, here's the distribution, so we've explained it, end of story. If that's not ultimacy then I don't know what is.

Anyway, I thought it was agnostics who don't make any bold claims.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I thought it was agnostics who don't make any bold claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

thought wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard an atheist say to a theist "why can't you accept that it's just random?"

These guys think that's the end of the line. Something is random, here's the distribution, so we've explained it, end of story. If that's not ultimacy then I don't know what is.

Anyway, I thought it was agnostics who don't make any bold claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's apparantly random because all science points that way. christian and atheist physicists all agree (except for the view trying to devise a hidden variable theory for example). religion has absolutely nothing to do with it, any more than religion should have had anything to do with the fact or fiction of the earth going round the sun!

[ QUOTE ]
The particle is there, only we can never know for sure, no matter how accurate our measuring devices become. The limitation applies to us and not the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid you don't fully understand the results of the double slit experiment with single particles.

from http://www.space.com/searchforlife/q...y_041111.html:

"So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally weird. But the double slit experiment had another trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or “quantum” of energy) through a single slit at a time, with a sufficiently long interval in between, and eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the one produced when a very intense (many photons) light was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing happened. When one sends a single photon at a time (waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward the screen when both slits are open, rather than two spots eventually building up opposite the two slit openings, what eventually builds up is the interference pattern of alternating bright and dark lines! Hmm… how can this be, if only one photon was sent through the apparatus at a time?

The answer is that each individual photon must – in order to have produced an interference pattern -- have gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for example, that a particle of light is not a particle until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that the particle of light is rather a wave before it is measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That is, the elementary particles making up the trees, people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are apparently just distributions of likelihood until they are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much for the Victorian view of solid matter!"

This uncertainty isn't really a limitation due to our ability to measure precisely, but instead, until measured, the particle is in effect ("physically") everywhere at once (distributed according to its probability function). There has been no neat explanation of how this can be, only quantification of the consequences. To explain this behavior in a manner that humans can understand will (I believe) require a fundamental breaking down of everything we think we "know" about matter and the universe, on a scale that surpasses even relativity in its "weirdness". Bottomline is the universe is far more "strange" than we can fully understand right now -- but we have the tools to quantify and predict its behavior on a probability basis! (This doesn't necessitate "randomness", either, however. It could be deterministic based on causes we cannot observe at this time, like vibrations in another dimension for example.)

[Darryl_P]

I am familiar with the double slit experiment, or at least the key point it makes about a particle having to go through both at once, and it is very interesing indeed, but as you said in your last few lines, I don't see how it proves inherent randomness since there could theoretically be a host of explanations involving knowledge we don't have yet, not all of which involve inherent randomness.

Instead I see humans invoking prob+stats the same way they do for everything else, ie. to give at least partial explanations for something they don't have full explanations for -- which is very good indeed and much better than nothing IMO.