|
|
|
|
#1
11-05-2005, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How can randomness possibly exist?
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. 
|
|
#2
11-05-2005, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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
|
|
#3
11-05-2005, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#4
11-05-2005, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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..
|
|
#5
11-05-2005, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#6
11-06-2005, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#7
11-06-2005, 02:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
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.
|
|
#8
11-06-2005, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
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.
|
|
#9
11-06-2005, 02:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
