Randomness... or not?

DoomSlice · #1 05-25-2005, 09:36 AM

Is it possible that NOTHING in life is random? Not necessarily influenced by a supreme being, but just a system of cause and effects that determines the course of all existence?

If so, what is the "initial cause"? If there are multiple causes, what caused those causes to happen in the first place?

If not, why? Does randomness really mean there is no cause to it - or does it mean that there can be different responses to the same stimuli? And if you get way down to it, can't you disect stimuli down to a level where you can find differences?

Just something that's been bugging me as I've been doing some economic research.

3N1GM4 · #2 05-25-2005, 12:43 PM

Don't often read or post on this section of the forum, but fancied a change from reading hand posts...

It's a classic problem you are describing, the uncertainty of whether outcomes are predetermined, leading to the musing over whether we truly have free choice or not.

As you begin to describe, there are two options: either everything is pre-determined as a sequence of cause and effect events, over which we have no control, as we are indeed part of them. In this scenario, free choice is eliminated and reduced to a systematic sequence of electrical impulses in our brains goverened by their makeup and environment. However, you are right in wondering as a result what causes the initial conditions of everything that exists, which is a question I certainly cannot answer, but often like to ponder.

The second concept to address this question is that decisions can be made and that all possible outcomes exist in parallel with one another. This takes us into the realm of multiverses and trying to understand the concept of infinity, which is a little tricky to say the least.

Obviously, I don't think you will ever find a definitive answer to the questions you are asking, but the fact that you are asking them is a good thing in my opinion. I hope my response is of some use to you.

Bodhi · #3 05-25-2005, 01:44 PM

Correct. If the univerise is deterministic, then there's no such thing as randomness. In that case, randomness is an heuristic device that we use to understand something that is far too complex and obscure for us to ever understand.

I read a book on chaos theory once and found it unsatisfying in a few places. Small changes in the initial positions of causal events can lead to wildly different outcomes later on, and they're so small that we can't know about them. But that's not really randomness then, is it?

Jordan Olsommer · #4 05-25-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Correct. If the univerise is deterministic, then there's no such thing as randomness. In that case, randomness is an heuristic device that we use to understand something that is far too complex and obscure for us to ever understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indubitably.

[ QUOTE ]
I read a book on chaos theory once and found it unsatisfying in a few places. Small changes in the initial positions of causal events can lead to wildly different outcomes later on, and they're so small that we can't know about them. But that's not really randomness then, is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

What chaos theory describes are scenarios or simulations where the only way to find out what the scenario will look like at step n of the timeline is to go through and compute steps 1, 2, 3...n. There's no shortcut like there is with simple mathematical equations (i.e. with n=2x, you can see that x=100 means n=200 without having to do the math one hundred times; in 'chaotic' problems there's no shorter way to find n when x=100 than to do just that, do the math one hundred times) . So in that way, they're pretty much random. (compare to "these computerized dice are so advanced, nobody will know what number will come up until they're rolled" - nobody will know what n equals when x=100 in the chaos equation until you get there)

As far as the initial small variables being unknowable, that's not necessarily true. You can come up with a computer simulation with completely known variables at the start that's still chaotic - it has to do with how those variables depend on each other in the equation(s) at hand.

Bodhi · #5 05-25-2005, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Jordan Olsommer · #6 05-25-2005, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it has significantly more coherent content than his usual replies, I'll give him that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

PairTheBoard · #7 05-25-2005, 11:06 PM

The common conceptual framework at this stage of scientific development views the Universe as a kind of machine made of of tiny parts which behave "randomly". I think it's inevitable that this "science" metaphor for the Universe will become outmoded as science progresses. We have a lot to learn about self organizing phenomenon. It may turn out that the Universe is more like one living intellegent self organizing Being than it is like a machine.

PairTheBoard

David Sklansky · #8 05-25-2005, 11:27 PM

Quantum physics says that subatomic particles do things truly randomly (eg decay) wwhere we only know the associated probabilities. There is no underlying cause that we just don't know about that makes for these probabilities. Einsteing disagreed. Something called something like Bell's Inequality, I believe almost completely proves that Einstein is wrong.

jason_t · #9 05-26-2005, 01:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Quantum physics says that subatomic particles do things truly randomly (eg decay) wwhere we only know the associated probabilities. There is no underlying cause that we just don't know about that makes for these probabilities. Einsteing disagreed. Something called something like Bell's Inequality, I believe almost completely proves that Einstein is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bell's theory addressed the EPR paradox and the existence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. It's relevance is still being bitterly discussed in the physics world today.

LargeCents · #10 05-25-2005, 11:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does randomness really mean there is no cause to it - or does it mean that there can be different responses to the same stimuli? And if you get way down to it, can't you disect stimuli down to a level where you can find differences?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Randomness" is a mathematical concept, which IMO is impossible for a human brain to truly "understand", similarly for the concept of "infinity", PI, imaginary numbers, etc. "Randomness", like all other mathematics exists inasmuch as it is useful in helping us analyse/dissect/manipulate the material world.

It sounds like you are digging into a deep philosophical hole trying to get a gut understanding of what "randomness" really mean. I guess my answer is that it is no more meaningful than any other mathematical concept apart from its utilitarian value.