How can randomness possibly exist?

[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 , 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 , it sounds like this is a pretty accurate science with no randomness.

Edit: Ok, I'm confused. Radioactive Decay 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