Coldfire, that is correct.
I think that Im ready for the Nobel Prize.
Well, maybe you are, but it ain’t gonna be the Nobel Prize for the Phylosophy of Science 
Tansu:
So I am suppose to believe… When some of the quantum theory doesn’t actually work or isn’t thought up yet, that the rest is right?
Try the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen experiment.
It’s not that it “doesn’t work”, it’s a fundamental property of particles. The basic idea is that some things are fundamentally unknowable.
If you want, I can even derive it for you…yeesh.
If you want another example, take the Pauli Principle: you cannot distinguish between two particles of tha smae type. Electron A and Electron B are exaclty the same to us. Switch them, and you can’t tell. THis isn’t quantum theory screwing up, this is quantum theory being right to all evidence to date.
Myrr21, are you talking about the EPR and Bell’s Inequality Principle? Because I was. That kind of goes against the special theory of relativity. Which kind of disproves
both theories can’t be right at the same time. So take your pick?
destiny… free will… it’s a coin toss, really
Someone mentioned paperclips, earlier. While shaking a box of paperclips would tend to leave them in a mess, it is – just barely, and time consumingly – possible to shake them into a state of order.
Total randomness would be equal to entropy: in other words, the amount of energy needed to bring order to a system would be greater than the amount of energy available.
So, yes, Squink, order is tougher to get than randomness. And getting tougher. It remains possible, for now – for a longer now than you and I will be around to experience. The probability of order, though, decreases constantly. And I’m guessing the rate of decrease is about the same rate as the expansion of the universe. (I boring anyone besides me, yet?)
My point (if I have one) is that the probability of true randomness in the universe would increase in proportion to the rates mentioned above.
All the things that have been mentioned: coin flips and dice and such, are not truly random. They are Chaotic.
AHunter3 was nearly correct in his definition of Chaos. The current definition also includes two purely mathematical concepts: Topological Transitivity and Density of periodic orbits within the Chaotic map. I could not begin to explain these, nor do I really understand them. The important and easily understandable part of Chaos is Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions (SDIC).
SDIC implies unpredictability, what we normally think of as randomness.
However, all of the things we normally think of as random are actually SDIC (and are often also chaotic), but not random. A truly random event actually has no dependence on initial conditions because it is not affected by anything.
The question of randomness vs. determinism is one for Great Debates, but Chaos takes care of most (if not all) natural phenomena that are characterized as random, and fits with either theory.
This discussion is all wanky because nobody has offered a true and working definition of random.
But let’s skip over the basics. I have picked a number between one and ten. Collect all the information in the universe, about me and my predelections.
What’s the number?
On average, you could guess I’d guess 3.66. That’s unfortunate, because even though it’s true, we know it’s wrong. You’ve got to guess a whole number - I just happen to guess 2 and 3 and 5 more often than 9 and 6 and 10. Skews the average, don’t you see.
What knowledge about me, even infinite knowledge about me, would tell you when I would flip and say 23 just to piss you off?
There are at least 2 types of order - self-generating and self-imposed. There are an infinite amounts of randomness.
I write down the number that I’m thinking about.It’s between 0 & 1000. What is it, or how could you figger it out, given my last 200 posts?
I sorry you still have yet to prove any factors that could represent some sort of mass randomness hidden beneath this world. I mean it was already debated, that although we do not have the ability or accurancy to measure and determine a conclusion for an event that seems random, that this is not random just because our short fall as a simple beast, it is merely beyond our efforts.
I believe it is time to state the facts…(although for the most part this should split off into 3 great debates and if need be I will do so but it just makes you go hum…)
[list=A]
[li]**by PerfectDark ***Probably the only randomness is outside our universe, which I believe is probably an infinite void of random energy fluctuations. But try and prove that outside the universe it isn’t? Outside the universe any situation is possible, therefore randomness.*This brings up several points such as is randomness only possible if infinity exists or can you have one without the other. And the arguement that if the universe is infinite, why are our nights not blinds by the light of an infinite amount of stars. Does light slow down or decay so that my family and I may sleep?[/li]
[li]Many others talked about the link between randomness and fate, as opposites or equals. Does randomness exist in our free will or is it only a myth that we have free will? Free will can be explained as a false hope not only through a god or fate, but also with the fact that our will may be controled on a more physical and chemical level. Can one assume from this that even free will will have no part in the creation of randomness.[/li]
[li]*New theories of quantum mechanics that describe features that some post as completely random in their movements. * I am not so erudite when it comes to such depths into quantum physics. But I take new science as dust in the wind(funny that comes from me the Molecular and Cell Biologist to be). So I find the idea (that so many beleive) that on the micro-molecular level everything or even something that has no set pattern or a pattern that changes in reaction to other such elements completely bogging up my head. I don’t completely understand it and it has so much significance. (anyone have a good book for me to play catch up with on this subject other than Hawkings)But this still seems iffy. I see this random acting part and I see a non-random bell curve universe. I know what you will say: order from the chaos. But even then just because it barked does that means it can only be a dog. I guess I just believe it to be to beyond man’s intellect to label anything as random.[/li]
[li]**by Saltire **If the universe were totally deterministic, it would leave a God with nothing to do. He could start the clockwork cosmos off however he wanted, but He would be unable to intervene without breaking the determinism He created. If a God wanted to make a universe in which He could act, it would make more sense to build in some uncertainty. He could then perform miracles by controlling randomness, and still have a Universe that operated true to its design. People mess with clocks all the time. My sister in law used to be married to a clock repairman/maker, he gave me choice words to describe the type of person that doesn’t repect the clock and leave it alone. But also who is to say the clock doesn’t change on a natural pattern as if god is the clock.[/li]
[li]**By Coldfire about Handy’s words ***at some point X, randomness occurs. But it immediately wipes itself out, because from that point X onward, it is constantly there. And when it’s constantly there, it can’t be random. * Exactly my thoughts handy, just in better words by a better and faster man. I was trying to say earlier on a different thread that randomness of the quantum particle theory often seems to natural for it to be random yet it is still so overwhelming none can understand it.[/li]
[li]**by nothamlet ***Someone mentioned paperclips, earlier. While shaking a box of paperclips would tend to leave them in a mess, it is – just barely, and time consumingly – possible to shake them into a state of order. Total randomness would be equal to entropy: in other words, the amount of energy needed to bring order to a system would be greater than the amount of energy available. *I like this but it just is not working for me. I don’t think randomness is equal to entropy, what has drawn you to that conclusion? Most people believe in the “if there is chaos it is the backbone of the order” theory. Help me to understand you.[/li][/list]
All things are possible in infinity and with randomness aren’t they. That is what makes it not make sense to me.
Why are there infinite randomnesses Dr.Pinky
I mean by definition randomness tends to be less able to be classified, so isn’t there only one type of randomness. And yes I think, if randomness to the degree that we are currently discussing with others does not exist, and if we knew every molecule and particle of you and how they act we could find what number you couple pick, given time. Pointless counting we are not discussing the link between the chemical and physical brain with the conscience. As we said free will cannot be complete random without randomness.
“If you don’t think that there can be randomness, than you must believe that
everything is pre-ordained.”
One of Mr. Brilliants’ favorite quotes. “I don’t believe in fate because I’ve never been fated”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DonJuanDeMarco3 *
**
[li]**by nothamlet ***Someone mentioned paperclips, earlier. While shaking a box of paperclips would tend to leave them in a mess, it is – just barely, and time consumingly – possible to shake them into a state of order. Total randomness would be equal to entropy: in other words, the amount of energy needed to bring order to a system would be greater than the amount of energy available. *I like this but it just is not working for me. I don’t think randomness is equal to entropy, what has drawn you to that conclusion? Most people believe in the “if there is chaos it is the backbone of the order” theory. Help me to understand you.[/li][/list]
Okay, here we go.
Entropy is the point at which every particle in the universe has expended its energy.
Because every particle has spent its energy (and I’m not even going to to go into the question of whether or not a particle can exist once its energy is spent because it would just lead to the question: where does energy go? which is really the same question as: where did energy come from?) every particle is equivalent to every other particle.
I would call this state total randomness because in the spending of their energy each particle would have been carried to some unknowable point (q times p is not equal to p times q – if you can’t know both a particle’s position and its momentum, you can’t know where it will end up) and would appear to be the same as every other particle.
Result: a state of sameness, complete sameness, homogenity. There would be no contrast of any kind. And without contrast there is no perception. Without perception there is no knowing. Randomness is not knowing – is it not?
Entropy is not a point. Every system has entropy. It is roughly a measure of disorder. Maximum entropy is the point wher all energy has been converted to heat and the temperature has reached equilibrium. The energy is not “used up”; it is unusable. You can only get heat energy to do work when there exists a temperature difference. At equilibrium, you still have all of the energy, you just can’t use it.
Much of this discussion centers on forces acting on inanimate objects. I can see how, given enough information, it can be predicted where and how the dice will land.
But when it comes to free will and determination, how can any thing “predict” the force of the throw, the position of the fingers, whether or not the thrower of the dice will burp or hold it in. These things cannot be predicted, so the initial conditions can never be knowable.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
Does anybody here play the Power Ball Lottery? Are the winners pre-ordained? … hmmmm
We need to agree on what it means to be random.
So far a big anti randomness argument has been if you know the state of the system and the rules underwhich it operates you can determine its later states. I know the makeup of the dice the tension of the spring under the dice rolling mechanism ect. Therfore I can compute the roll of the dice.
A pro randomness argument has been quantum mechanics tells us that things are random.
My knowledge of quantum mechanics is limited. I do not know where it explicitly say things are random. However, it does include the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle which basically says you cannot know both the momentum and position of a particle to absolute accuracy.
This means that we can not know the state of the system exactally so we cannot determine now what the exact state of the system will be in the future.
How can we tell the difference between a deterministic system where we cannot measure the state of the system to infinite precision and a system with a small amount of randomness which equals which effectivly limits our ability to measure the state of the system.
If we cannot tell the difference between these two things then how can we say they are different.
Hooray for the heat death of the universe!
As any even cursory study of physics will tell you, for a process to occur, the entropy of the universe must increase. So basically, you can shake the paper clips from disorder into order, but somewhere along the line (within you cells maybe? I dunno) there was at least and equal amount of disorder created (yes, I know I’m subbing in “disorder” for energy and they’re not exactly the same thing, but for the purpose at hand).
PerfectDark:
No, you’re supposed to believe the rest is right in abscence of contradictory evidence. What you’re talking about is a thought experiment–useful, sure, but not definative. The actual evidence is rather muddled at the moment. But then again, some of the theories about evolution don’t work, and (most thinking) people believe the rest…
You take what works, until it’s been shown that it doesn’t. If it turns out tomorrow that EPR is in fact correct, that doesn’t invalidate all of quantum physics. Moreover, there have been some interesting thoughts on FTL, non-causality violating communication between these particles. In fact, the recent “make light go faster than light” experiment is of interest on this point…
(though, this is getting a bit OT, and way more thought than I really want to expend at the moment)
I know I’m probably wrong, but from what I know about the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle is that we can never measure both the velocity and position of a particle because by measuring we disrupt it, but this in no way says that those values don’t exist. As stated above, just because something is not measureable does not make determinism incorrect it just makes it a moot point to us.
unless of course I’m wrong, which happens often
If I had total knowledge of you, I’d know when you’d try something stupid like saying 23.