|
|
#61
11-06-2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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. 
|
|
#62
11-06-2005, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#63
11-06-2005, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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/ke...s/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!
|
|
#64
11-06-2005, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#65
11-06-2005, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#66
11-06-2005, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#68
11-06-2005, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
[ 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.
|
|
#69
11-06-2005, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
"someone defined "random" simply as "we don't know".
That was Not Ready. In one of his lucid moments.
|
|
#70
11-06-2005, 10:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How can randomness possibly exist?
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
