A random universe

[geordief]

It appears from my limited acquaintance that ,as far as we can tell events in the universe follow random paths  (can we call them "paths" or are they "appearances?)

 

I am thinking of spontaneous radioactive emissions  where there (again to my limited knowledge) thee is no "interior" pattern to the ordering of events save for the half life laws that seem to be obeyed.

 

What interpretation can one give to this order of things?

 

I understand the Einstein  was famously (and seemingly wrongly) outraged by the notion of pure randomness (not sure if it was in this context) but is it possible to welcome this state of things beyond the requirement to accept it as an apparently "set in stone " feature of things ?

 

Can we (should we) elevate in our estimation  randomness to a level whereby ,as it were if it did not exist we would need to invent it? 

 

Do other fundamental understandings flow from an acceptance of some kind of a randomness principle  or is it a standalone  pillar of the functioning of the mechanisms of the universe?

  

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

It appears from my limited acquaintance that ,as far as we can tell events in the universe follow random paths  (can we call them "paths" or are they "appearances?)

I am thinking of spontaneous radioactive emissions  where there (again to my limited knowledge) thee is no "interior" pattern to the ordering of events save for the half life laws that seem to be obeyed.

 Certain events, then.

The half-life laws are a consequence of the randomness. IOW, there are ways to tell if something is random. Not an "interior" pattern, but a pattern nonetheless.

 

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

What interpretation can one give to this order of things?

That these events are random?

 

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

I understand the Einstein  was famously (and seemingly wrongly) outraged by the notion of pure randomness (not sure if it was in this context) but is it possible to welcome this state of things beyond the requirement to accept it as an apparently "set in stone " feature of things ?

Einstein said God does not roll dice, and Bohr told him to stop telling God what to do.

Having the old guard not embrace a new paradigm is not is new phenomenon.

 

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

Can we (should we) elevate in our estimation  randomness to a level whereby ,as it were if it did not exist we would need to invent it? 

Hypothetical, since it exists.

If it didn't exist, why would we need to invent it? Things would behave differently.

 

 

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Can we (should we) elevate in our estimation  randomness to a level whereby ,as it were if it did not exist we would need to invent it? 

Not sure this is what you are looking for but physical computers are (usually) deterministic machines. Obtaining true randomness can be a challenge and there are cases where randomness is required, for instance in physics simulations or cryptography. So in theoretical computer science your question seems to make sense and in that case some kind of randomness needs to be "invented".

Wikipedia has some information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_generator

And here is an extract from Wolfram, Stephen (2002). A New Kind of Science:

[MigL]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

there are ways to tell if something is random

It is much easier to tell if something is NOT random, than if it IS random.

Take the 29 digit fraction

.0000026535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944

which seems totally random.

Yet, if you add 3.14159 to it, you end up with Pi , to 30 significant digits; not random at all.

So, was the fraction random, or did we lack information ?

Edited January 5, 2021 by MigL

[geordief]

If you record the sequence of radioactive emissions from an atom don't you get a random sequence?

Is it impossible or impractical  to do that because the time intervals are too small to measure?

(hope this makes sense)

Edited January 5, 2021 by geordief

[Sensei]

@geordief

It reminded me this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=radioactive+random+number+generator

Hardware random number generator:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

"In computing, a hardware random number generator (HRNG) or true random number generator (TRNG) is a device that generates random numbers from a physical process, rather than by means of an algorithm. Such devices are often based on microscopic phenomena that generate low-level, statistically random "noise" signals, such as thermal noise, the photoelectric effect, involving a beam splitter, and other quantum phenomena. These stochastic processes are, in theory, completely unpredictable, and the theory's assertions of unpredictability are subject to experimental test. This is in contrast to the paradigm of pseudo-random number generation commonly implemented in computer programs."

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Sensei

[swansont]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

It is much easier to tell if something is NOT random, than if it IS random.

 

Yes, that’s a better way of saying it.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

Because random number creators are in fact mostly Pseudorandom , it appears we have to modulate our definition of sheer "randomness". 

 

As for radioactive emissions , we had better name them Complexity or Chaos rather than Randomness . . . . . .  . ..

[Anand_Haqq]

. Life acts spontaneously and is spontaneity ...

. Life acts meaningfully and is meaningful ...

. Hence the nonexistence of randomness ...

Edited July 11, 2021 by Anand_Haqq

[joigus]

Life is not spontaneous; it responds to accumulative causes.

Meaning derives from life; not the other way around.

Randomness is ubiquitous.