Has the concept of randomness been proven?

[raphaelh42]

Hi, I ask this because it seems to me that randomness doesn't exist, I don't know what science/scientists think about this, and sorry for not having searched Google before posting

E.g., when you throw dices, I believe 0% of the result is based on randomness, I believe 100% of the result has reasons, such as maybe the way the dices have been thrown, maybe the temperature of the room, the distance to the impact surface, its density...

 

Is there some experiment that proves randomness exists?

Edited December 25, 2024 by raphaelh42

[KJW]

I don't know if it can be considered to be "proven", but quantum mechanical outcomes are intrinsically random.

 

Edited December 25, 2024 by KJW

[swansont]

You haven’t specified what you mean by randomness, but certain phenomena follow statistical patterns that rely on probability. Radioactive decay, for example. 

[geordief]

Could this be a way of looking at it?

At the macro level  two events("events" as physical things that happen -not "events" as points in spacetime)  can be causally connected ,meaning that they are joined by a series  of interceding events .

At  a micro level perhaps(?) this chain of events does not exist,there only being event A and event B to take into consideration.

So what then would factor in to predicting whether event B would reflect or not  a particular  property of event A?

If there is indeed nothing in between the two events   then "randomness" is all that is left(except that ,for reasons I am ignorant of  with apparently statistical probability still applies)

 

[studiot]

Just now, raphaelh42 said:

Hi, I ask this because it seems to me that randomness doesn't exist, I don't know what science/scientists think about this, and sorry for not having searched Google before posting

E.g., when you throw dices, I believe 0% of the result is based on randomness, I believe 100% of the result has reasons, such as maybe the way the dices have been thrown, maybe the temperature of the room, the distance to the impact surface, its density...

 

Is there some experiment that proves randomness exists?

Of course not only does the concept of randomness exist, it is all around you all the time.

However it is useful to get our definitions correct (is English your first language ? ) so here is a small adjustment for yiur vocabulary.

'dices' is what a butcher does as in

Henry the butcher dices and slices the meat.

'dices'  is the third person singular of the verb 'to dice' which means to cut (approximately) into cubes.

The noun (object) you are thinking of is the word die, which has a plural dice. One die two (or more) dice.

 

That said it is necesary to distinguish meanings for the words random, statistics , probability, event and perhaps a few more.

 

So when a process or activity has more than one possible outcome such that the outcomes do not occur in a defined sequence,  that those outcomes are defined as random. Each single outcome is also called an event.

Given this definition you you not need to know anything about probability, statistics and so on, you only need to loo around you to see many outcomes that are random.

So some examples may help.

If I have a bag that I can't see into and put two balls into the bag, identical except one is blue and the other is red. Then I withdraw one ball by feel alone and find it is red.

Withdrawing the first ball is random as there are two possibilities; red or blue.

Withdrawing the second ball is not random, it must be the second colour (blue in this case) so the second withdrawal is deterministic.

Each withdrawal has been considered as a separate outcome or event.

Considering the two withdrawals as part of the same single event of withdrawing both balls from the bage yields a different analysis.

Can you see why ?  This second view held probability theory up for something like 200 years.

 

More widely, suppose I do some target practice with my bow and arrows.

I hang a target on my neighbour's door and shoot a number of arrows into it.

Each arrow hit is a single event.

Once I have made a number of hits I will notice that the arrows do not all hit in exactly the same place, no matter how hard I try.

This is because each arrow flight experiences random influences such as gusts of wind, which blow or do not blow and so on.

So my arrows are truly scattered randomly over the target, as I am not superman.

 

Turbulence in the air is probably the widest random influence we experience.

 

Does this help ?

 

 

[David K.]

From a scientific perspective this is - and please excuse my wording - a more or less useless question. Statistics is a very usefull description of large systems. Even when we assume classical mechanics calculating the precise state of systems like gases with upwards of a million degrees of freedom, is impossible even when - to paraphrase Liffschitz - just considering the global paper supply. Because whe considering large numbers of identical particles the states converge to statistical means.

Now there is the fact that fundamental particles have statistical properties with now underlying structure (as far as we know). There is a case to be made that statistical behaviour is somewhat fundamental to the universe.

[MigL]

On 12/25/2024 at 12:27 PM, studiot said:

Withdrawing the first ball is random as there are two possibilities; red or blue.

Does  the definition of 'random' include lack of knowledge, Studiot ?

For example.
If I give you the number sequence '15926535' you might consider it random, as it has no causal connection to any calculation nor are its members related in any way.
Yet, upon further consideration, we realize it is a calculated number ( pi minus 3.14, to 10 decimal places ), and not random at all. That sequence will result every time we perform the above calculation.
It is only our lack of knowledge that makes it appear random.

Now, I'm not arguing against the concept of 'randomness' as there are obvious physical examples.
Between any two observations/interactions of a quantum process, there are only probability amplitudes as described by the wave function, and no local reality.
Swansont's previously mentioned radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, etc.

Edited Sunday at 01:30 PM by MigL

[studiot]

Just now, MigL said:

Does  the definition of 'random' include lack of knowledge, Studiot ?

For example.
If I give you the number sequence '15926535' you might consider it random, as it has no causal connection to any calculation nor are its members related in any way.
Yet, upon further consideration, we realize it is a calculated number ( pi minus 3.14, to 10 decimal places ), and not random at all. That sequence will result every time we perform the above calculation.
It is only our lack of knowledge that makes it appear random.

Now, I'm not arguing against the concept of 'randomness' as there are obvious physical examples.
Between any two observations/interactions of a quantum process, there are only probability amplitudes as described by the wave function, and no local reality.
Swansont's previously mentioned radioactive decay, quantum fluctuations, etc.

Hello MigL.

Well the original poster doesn't appear to want to discuss his own topic, perhaps because it was posted in a haphazard way last Christmas day.

 

However the question (correctly) referred to "the concept of randomness "  not to the word 'random' which is the etymological root in this case.

Randomness is "the quality or state of being random"  -  Oxford E D.

Now randomness is the noun derived from random, which in turn is both an adverb and an adjective.

As such it is meaningless without a noun or verb to qualify.

Random is derived from the Old French randir = to run via  the Middle English adverb randon which referred particular to riding but also to other activities to rush about in a headlong, haphazard or aimless manner.

 

In modern (including technical) English, when combined with suitable verbs or nouns, this sense is in someway preserved.
But this does not mean that every aspect of the noun or verb suffers the state of randomness.

A good example is 'random stone walling'.

Here a masonry wall is built of unsorted shapes and sizes of stones (as they come)  but the 'at random' , but the overall wall shape and size will be conventional and predictable.

Random numbers are more difficult to get a handle on.
I have pointed out the Kolmogorov definition in a previous thread, a few years ago.
This states that a random number is simply the shortest possible way of writing that number so your 8 character statement is random by that definition as compared to your 34 character 'formula' for it.

This would accord with the standard way of finding numbers from random number tables.

 

Another closely allied term is 'arbitrary'. This term is often used in simple mathematical proofs to indicate that any of a possibly infinite range of values will satisfy the current deterministic calculation.

 

Just now, David K. said:

From a scientific perspective this is - and please excuse my wording - a more or less useless question. Statistics is a very usefull description of large systems. Even when we assume classical mechanics calculating the precise state of systems like gases with upwards of a million degrees of freedom, is impossible even when - to paraphrase Liffschitz - just considering the global paper supply. Because whe considering large numbers of identical particles the states converge to statistical means.

Now there is the fact that fundamental particles have statistical properties with now underlying structure (as far as we know). There is a case to be made that statistical behaviour is somewhat fundamental to the universe.

Random, as already noted, can apply to small systems as well.