Does true randomness exist?

This relates to my topic as to if actual infinities exist: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=1472737

Anyways, randomness is mentioned a lot in scientific theories (such as the kinetic theory of gases - the motion of gas particles). But does it really exist, or is it that we're assuming the motion of said gas particles is random because it is too difficult/inconvenient/impractical to actually measure all the factors which would affect the motion of said gas particles?

Also, is quantum randomness true randomness? If it is, perhaps Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice."

 

Nothingness creates something. Meaning "something" is an inevitability.

Not random.

If you want to relate randomness to existence and free will I think that free will is something we have yet we can't choose.

 

I think this is oversimplifying it. The fact is, we cannot predict when that something is created from nothingness. We cannot ignore the time factor.

As in, I'm debating that the time it takes for something to appear from nothing is random.

Interesting. When you use the word 'choose', doesn't that imply free will? Or perhaps, do you think our decisions are made solely based on biological processes?

 

agreed. on divine god's point.

 

Time is only relative to what we can experience and measure. Meaning we are ignorant to what actually is.
The only answer I can honestly come up with is "I don't know".

As far as my understanding goes about the human brain it would seem that free will doesn't exist. As I said before we don't have any choice in the matter; You can't choose to have free will.

I don't believe in the conventional thought of time. The future nor the past exist, the only "time" that exists is the present. ( meaning there is no predetermined path )

 

Honestly I'm more interested in tackling the theological aspect of what you've posted rather than the scientific aspect. The Bible portrays God as infinite in intellect, where as man is finite. Einstein in all of his brilliance was subjective to the idea that no matter what he theorized, at the end of the day God had given him the ability to do so. What interests me is why you chose to take Einstein's poetic verse and apply it to a scientific debate in the first place.

 

Okay, but what you said before implies that you believe randomness doesn't exist. You said that something appearing from nothing is to be expected and is inevitable - hence, it is not random. I argued that this is oversimplifying it.

Take the following example - assume I made a program which, for every minute (just to control the time factor for now), generates a random number between 1-100 (assume it is not pseudo-random).

Based on what you said before, this program is not performing anything random, as we know what the outcome will be - a number between 1-100. However, I'd argue that this is oversimplifying things, as it is not the fact that a number is being generated (as we are to predict would happen every minute), but it is the fact that we cannot predict what the generated number itself would be (whether it be 5, 7, 47, 74, and so on).

I don't think you'd argue against the above - your arguments seem to be more directed towards time itself. I will get to that at the end of the post.

Yes, because if you could choose to have free will, then that would imply you already have it, as 'choosing' is generally something associated with free will.

Time is a quantity though. It's included in practical formulas, it can be measured, etc. Sure it may be an abstraction, but so are numbers. Now, if I happened to be an omniscience being, I still wouldn't be able to predict when, for example, something comes out from nothingness. The fact that the time quantity can never be determined by an omniscience being implies that the entire phenomenon is random.

If something coming from nothing was deterministic, we should be able to predict every aspect related to it, and this includes time, because time is related with it. At the present moment, we cannot precisely determine when something comes from nothing. You may argue that we are not omniscience beings, so we could be lacking the information that could lead us to predicting the exact times for something to come from nothing - and for this, I cannot argue against you.

 

Einstein wasn't really talking about God in that quote. He simply meant that the universe is purely deterministic - all the laws are there, and given we have knowledge of everything, we should be able to predict everything that could occur. If randomness were to exist, this cannot be true, as you cannot predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of a random event.

 

I think randomness exists in the sense that nothing happens for a reason that someone or something devised. However, since everything is cause and effect, it is not true randomness since one thing happens as the result of another and not totally on its own accord.

 

I don't view randomness as true as everything is balanced.

 

Remember; gas particles are not the only thing that we consider to be random. There's energy, which is composed of particles smaller than the atoms or molecules in gases.

However, I think that this deserves a less of a scientific approach.

We consider something to be "random" when there is more tha one possible outcome.

If it were not random, dice rolling for example, then it must be destiny. Destiny is when everything is set, isn't it?
Unpredictable and impossible to know unt it actually happens, yea,
Random? No.

Unless destiny exists, I believe that true randomness does, as well.

 

Randomness exists only on a quantum level. Effectively whenever you can attribute a phenomenon to one quantum state or another, both happen but we are only able to see one of them.
As such randomness exists.

Remember Einstein actually wasn't willing to believe in quantum physics for quite a while before he finally accepted it. It's just his stance on the issue and it was wrong.

I suppose I should add that outside of quantum randomness, in the end our decisions are made by chemical signals in our brain, and since physics and chemistry dictate a certain path of movement for the molecules in our bodies, everything must happen a certain way assuming that quantum physics are incorrect, and atomic-level distortions do not occur.

 

I personally be believe nothing is random, we are all at a predisposition to make a certain type of choice, we may have freedom within options, but we do not have the ability to be random.

 

What do you mean by attributing phenomena?

I don't think it was that he was unwilling to "believe" in quantum theory, it as more that he wasn't satisfied with the incomplete picture of reality it presented. Hence, the EPR paradox

Our actions are carried out as a result of the chemicals, but the decisions themselves are ultimately influenced by external stimuli, right?

 

We consider something "random" when there is an outcome in which we cannot predict a certain quality associated to said outcome.

Dice rolling isn't random because it can be calculated what number you'd receive if we were able to obtain all variables (the speed/angle you throw it at, the surface the die hits, the exact free fall acceleration, etc.).

Note that when everything is set, it doesn't imply destiny. Destiny suggests that someone knows of all the outcomes before they have even happened. This suggests that even outcomes in the far future can be known. Determinism, on the other hand, suggests that outcomes within the present tense can theoretically be predicted.

Being unpredictable and impossible to know when a certain outcome happens suggests randomness.

So, you're suggesting that perhaps both can coexist?

Do you believe this is true randomness? Or perhaps we're not knowledgeable enough to understand what exactly is going on at the quantum level?

So, if quantum physics is correct, all our actions are 'random', but give the illusion that they're deterministic. If quantum physics is incorrect, all our actions are purely deterministic. Correct?

Good point. What drives said chemicals to come into action? I think focusing on the chemicals is actually focusing on the effects rather than the cause. For example, I may have a lot of serotonin in my brain (which would cause happiness). Now, the argument here is that serotonin is what causes my happiness. However, what caused my serotonin levels to rise up? External stimuli - or perhaps, even internal thoughts. Roughly, the picture is like this:

External stimuli/internal thoughts => Increased serotonin levels in the brain => Happiness

According to this, what's the true cause of the happiness? Not serotonin - not the chemicals. It's more the external stimuli/internal thoughts.

I believe the chemicals we detect are more of a result/effect of something else - perhaps that something else is biological, but it can also not be biological.

Similar to how a computer functions, we can determine that electricity dictates its actions. But this is oversimplifying it. It is, in fact, the user who is dictating the computer's actions. Electricity is merely the 'delivery' vehicle that effectuates said actions.

 

I was bored to hell and wrote that out of pure boredom. But to answer your questions,

1. Randomness:
Okay, so I didn't write the complete definition. Your point?

2. Dice rolling
Then are you saying that the all the variables are not random? You said that if we know the angle of the dice being thrown, its velocity when it hits the surface, and maybe the air resistance (if it were not negligible), we would be able to calculate which number would be rolled. Then what about the factors that determine these variables?

3. Destiny
I'm not sure where you got your definition of destiny, but it's clearly not from my source.

4. Coexistance of destiny and randomness
My bad, let me reword that.
It's mutually exclusive, the two can not exist at the same time, as they clearly cotradict each other.

 

I just want to make sure we're on the same page as to what randomness is. There's no point in arguing if we cannot agree on the same definition. Your definition was incomplete - I was just hoping you weren't basing your conclusions about the topic title on it.

My point is this - take a video of someone rolling a die. Now, stop the video at the exact point where said person threw the die (before the die has landed on a number). If, when the video was taken, I measured all variables associated with the die (such as the force it was thrown with, the angle it was thrown at, free fall acceleration, air resistance, etc.) then, after a lot of tedious calculations, I would be able to determine what value the die would land on, before resuming the video. Do you see what I'm saying?

Okay, so we need to agree on a definition before we can talk about it.

All I'm saying is that destiny suggests a 'predetermined path'. 'Predetermined' suggests that this path was created for you, and 'path' implies that events in the far future have also been predetermined.

My point with determinism is that we cannot predict the far future without knowing the present/near future. This is because the far future is a direct cause of the present/near future. But with destiny, what will happen has already been 'set', and thus, anything can be predicted. This includes the far future.

This article discusses the differences between determinism and destiny:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/05/destiny-determinism.html

 

It does not. Name anything that can be viewed as random and there is always a scientific explanation that shows otherwise.

 

True quantum randomness? http://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-do-physicists-really-believe-in-true-randomness/

 

Very physic thread. This is my humble response to your status; it's one thing to state the truism that our finite capabilities limit our ability to distinguish complex or subtle causality from randomness. It's quite another to reify that uncertainty into some cosmic principle.