Occam's Razor VS Randomness

[Royston]

Oh, I don't recall submitting that post yesterday, I'd had a few ciders and reading back on it, I thought I was just stating the obvious, and didn't think I pressed the submit button. Sorry about that, plus I'm not sure my points are correct anyway, except the remark on Faraday...ummm, back on topic

[Doctordick]

Regarding the supposed issue if this thread, “Occam's Razor VS Randomness”, is there no one out there who would first be willing to consider a more basic question before jumping forth to settle such a central question within their world view? Essentially, I am talking about the issue of randomness itself. If you cannot put forth the consequences of “randomness” how can you ever hope to make any uses of Ockham’s razor (the term comes from “William of Ockham” by the way)?

 

Has anyone here even considered what an explanation of the universe would look like if the universe were absolutely and unconditionally random? You could perhaps refuse to consider the issue under the presumption that we could not exist if it were indeed absolutely and unconditionally random; however, that is not a defendable proposition as if absolutely anything could happen, our existence could certainly happen!

 

Is there anyone here who is willing to consider such a “crackpot” idea or is it so far beyond the pale as to be unmentionable?

 

For those who care to think for themselves, I will confess that I have already been banned “FOREVER” from the “Physicsforms.com” for posting “Crackpottery” (that appears to be their interpretation of my logic) to the Is time just an illusion? Thread. See the last page.

 

 

I suspect it occurred because of the exchange between myself and one Anssi who seemed to be taking me seriously (look at the last page of that thread to see the termination circumstances). At any rate, Anssi and I have moved the discussion to Hypography.com where things appear to be progressing reasonably well. If you are interested check “What can we know of reality?” from where we first transferred the discussion.

 

I wouldn’t bother you all except that the discussion is really about what one could logically say about a perfectly random universe.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Mr Skeptic]

I wouldn’t bother you all except that the discussion is really about what one could logically say about a perfectly random universe.

 

And that's my point -- anything that's truly random is something we cannot explain, and accepting something as being truly random seems like giving up. So IMO we cannot ever accept something as truly random, even if we always model it as something effectively random.

 

Re your rant about being banned elsewhere for crackpottery ... thanks for the heads up

[Norman Albers]

Quantum mechanics treats the vacuum as a ground state with an average expectation value of fluctuating fields related to the 1/2 in <n+1/2> as the "energy states of a quantum oscillator". Seems to me they describe what is locally random, but certainly part and parcel of the cosmologic. I am working to show how such a basis, characterized by only the few constants relevant and by geometries, manifests the resonances we call electron, photon, etc. Beyond this level, there is intrinsic in larger and larger collections of such forms, further dynamics and patterns, further forms like nuclei, stars and planets. . . . .<<Important addition: complete theory of the sub-field must include non-locality of entangled states. >>

[Doctordick]

And that's my point -- anything that's truly random is something we cannot explain ...

You are in error! I can give you a very simple explanation of anything you wish: i.e., "That is what the gods desired!" Now I am not being silly there. I am making the point that you are speaking of the value of an explanation, not the existence of an explanation. They are quite different issues.

 

Essentially I hold that "an explanation" is something which provides you with expectations (take that as my definition of an explanation: i.e., it is what I mean when I use the word "explanation"). If the universe is totally random, then your expectation should be "anything can happen" and there exist a number of explanations which yield exactly that result.

 

Now my question was very specific, what would you expect an explanation of the universe to look like if that universe were totally random?

... and accepting something as being truly random seems like giving up. So IMO we cannot ever accept something as truly random, even if we always model it as something effectively random.

So you refuse to even think about the matter?

 

If I gave you a specific explanation (i.e., a specific method which would yield an exact match to everything you had ever experienced) consistent with your known past (no matter what that past was), you would not consider that a valid explanation of a totally random universe? I am ready to do that, in detail, if you are willing to examine each logical step objectively.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[YT2095]

You are in error! I can give you a very simple explanation of anything you wish: i.e., "That is what the gods desired!" Now I am not being silly there. I am making the point that you are speaking of the value of an explanation, not the existence of an explanation. They are quite different issues.

 

Essentially I hold that "an explanation" is something which provides you with expectations (take that as my definition of an explanation: i.e., it is what I mean when I use the word "explanation"). If the universe is totally random, then your expectation should be "anything can happen" and there exist a number of explanations which yield exactly that result.

 

 

I disagree with a large part of that, I contest that you Can have Random within Parameters but it`s still non the less Random.

if we take for example White Noise, generated by the reverbias breakdown voltage of a Zener diode and then heavily amplified, what you`ll hear is purely random noise "White noise".

you`ll never get an Elephant or a all the dishes washed for a month, you will only ever get white noise.

 

now if we can accept this, Then this chat can move on, towards something a Little more Productive

[Doctordick]

I disagree with a large part of that…

Well, then let me know what part you disagree with. It certainly cannot be the second paragraph

Essentially I hold that "an explanation" is something which provides you with expectations (take that as my definition of an explanation: i.e., it is what I mean when I use the word "explanation"). If the universe is totally random, then your expectation should be "anything can happen" and there exist a number of explanations which yield exactly that result.

as all I am doing there is telling you what I mean when I use the word “explanation” you certainly can’t contend that I am lying to you,. So you must be disagreeing with my assertion that a difference exists between the value of an explanation and the existence of an explanation. If you are referring to something else, you need to clarify your intentions. I can not make heads or tails of the rest of your post.

I contest that you Can have Random within Parameters…

To contest, is to disagree with! So you are saying that you cannot have random within parameters: i.e., there is no such thing as a random selection from a defined set? That seems to me to be a position quite at odds with the common understanding of the word “random”. But you then say, “but it`s still non the less Random.” I have utterly no idea as to what you are trying to say.

if we take for example White Noise, generated by the reverbias breakdown voltage of a Zener diode and then heavily amplified, what you`ll hear is purely random noise "White noise".you`ll never get an Elephant or a all the dishes washed for a month, you will only ever get white noise.

The only thing I can grasp from this is that you are simply asserting that reality is not random. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question, “what would an explanation of the universe look like if the universe were absolutely and unconditionally random”.

now if we can accept this, Then this chat can move on, towards something a Little more Productive

I take this comment to be an assertion that the universe is not totally random and that my failure to accept that as a fact is an abomination to science: i.e., you certainly are opposed to thinking about it.

 

And yet you want to continue your pontification about Ockham's Razor VS Randomness. Now Ockham’s Razor has to do with simplicity and if there exists any hypothesis simpler than “it is just random”, I am unaware of it. And yet the entire scientific community utterly refuses to examine the consequences of such a hypothesis.

 

I am just dumfounded by their absolute belief that examination of such a thing cannot possibly be of any value. It is exactly the same as the medieval scholars refusing to consider a thesis omitting God.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[antimatter]

We've already proved things to be unknowable through the Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Inequality.

 

Uncertainty principle?

Like "The more we look, the less we know"?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Basically. If you learn one property of a particle, you cannot learn another with great certainty.

[swansont]

It's even more subtle than that. The uncertainty principle is not actually the problem of measurement of one quantity making another larger — that's separate, the observer effect. It's a limit on how precisely you can determine the values. The two often get commingled.

 

http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2006/11/misconception-of-heisenberg-uncertainty.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

[antimatter]

Thank you "The Man Who Wasn't There"!

[Vexer]

Cap'n Refsmmat, not to mention the more fundamental ‘Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem’.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr Skeptic’s is concerned that any fundamental “randomness” basically undermines Science, and hence, his own world-view. Therefore, it cannot be “true”. Because his world-view is True. Understandable. (I have the same problem, but for different reasons).

 

Mr. Skeptic should take comfort in the inducted knowledge that all of Science has been shown to be Wrong. And he’ll only need to wait a few years for the tide to turn back to his shore. (Which will also be Wrong, as will be shown, some years later).

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr. Skeptic should take comfort in the inducted knowledge that all of Science has been shown to be Wrong.

 

No. Science has almost never been shown to be wrong, though some scientific theories were shown to be incomplete, unnecessary, or inaccurate. The scientific method and proper formulation of theories including error margins and confidence values allows scientists to make true statements even if they are very confused. Observations, after all, aren't wrong, even if what appears to be the best explanation for them are.

 

Consider: the earth may not be flat, but any small enough section of the earth is approximately flat. The sun does go around the earth, from earth's rotating reference frame. Newtonian mechanics is correct, at the speeds and measurement error margins that were available at the time. Statistical analysis of various types have been "wrong", but they have confidence values for that. Etc...

 

Fraud, of course, is wrong, but that is lying, not science.

[YT2095]

and if I may Add to the above post regarding:

Mr. Skeptic should take comfort in the inducted knowledge that all of Science has been shown to be Wrong.

 

the bolded should read "Some Scientists".

 

lose the Sweeping statement, blanket generalisations!

 

yes it was said that Faster than sound travel was impossible and Pauling and his Vitamins idea/advocacy was well wrong too for example, that doesn`t invalidate "Science" just that one scientists claim.

 

see the MASSIVE difference now

[SkepticLance]

Re science being wrong.

 

Occasionally the scientific consensus is proven to be wrong. My two favourite examples are :

1. In medicine - the explanation for ulcers - once believed to be purely acid damage to the lining of the gut, and now known to be bacterial attack.

2. In geology - continental drift was treated with disdain when first mooted - now known to be correct.

 

The number of times individual scientists were wrong is legion, but that is far from saying 'science is wrong'. However, you could argue that if the consensus is wrong, then 'science is wrong.' This approach ends up in a semantics argument.

[TheMathGuy]

I recall a friend telling me that there did exist deterministic formulations of quantum mechanics. Perhaps I should ask him where he saw this. Just because we can't determine it from observations doesn't mean it isn't determined.

[iNow]

How does that play with the HUP?

[swansont]

I recall a friend telling me that there did exist deterministic formulations of quantum mechanics. Perhaps I should ask him where he saw this. Just because we can't determine it from observations doesn't mean it isn't determined.

 

Ask him if they exist and have not been disproven.

[ParanoiA]

I'm no scientist and I don't even play one on TV, hell I didn't even stay at a holiday inn last night, but isn't HUP due to the lack of definitive states, which is a human construct? Is it inaccurate to conclude that for these states to be indefinite or infinite, that we are making a statement about our physiological inability to understand? And not a statement about reality?

 

I don't know, just thought it was interesting and wanted to ask.

[swansont]

I'm no scientist and I don't even play one on TV, hell I didn't even stay at a holiday inn last night, but isn't HUP due to the lack of definitive states, which is a human construct? Is it inaccurate to conclude that for these states to be indefinite or infinite, that we are making a statement about our physiological inability to understand? And not a statement about reality?

 

I don't know, just thought it was interesting and wanted to ask.

 

It's a consequence of the nature of the conjugate variables. The wavefunctions (e.g. for position and momentum) are Fourier transforms of each other. And experiments show this as a real effect. The entities in question really are smeared out in position and/or momentum — it's not an artifact of being limited by instruments.

[Baby Astronaut]

Occasionally the scientific consensus is proven to be wrong. My two favourite examples are :

1. In medicine - the explanation for ulcers - once believed to be purely acid damage to the lining of the gut, and now known to be bacterial attack.

2. In geology - continental drift was treated with disdain when first mooted - now known to be correct.

Adding to that...

 

Scientific measurements are usually never wrong. So even if the universe turned out to be a chaotic/wild show initiated by phantoms lurking in the outskirts, it still doesn't change that our measurements about reality so far were indeed correct. We just didn't (or couldn't) get to information about that other unforeseen part yet.

 

Scientific variables can be wrongly labeled and/or calculated incompletely. For example, at one time mass and energy were treated as different and measured separately....which limited calculations about reality.

[alan2here]

A QM question from a QM noob.

 

How can a things position and speed be impossible to determine at the same time?

 

Mesure (thing A is at 4, 2)

wait...

Mesure (Thing A is now at 5, 4)

 

It's moved 1 in x and 2 in y, so you know it's speed once and it's position twice?

 

Can you mesure QM thing A's speed without knowing where it is? Does this mean one could be anywhere independant of where thing A is and ask it's speed?

 

Can you mesure QM thing A's position twice without being able to proform the calculation about what it's speed is? What if a person manually looked at the display for the position and tried to do the calculation using a pen and paper?

 

Can you only measure QM thing A's position or speed (using another method than measuring its position twice) once then it's lost (definataly determined to be impossible to retrieve or just a subatomic needle in a potentially infinitely large universally sized haystack but really its unlikely to have traveled quite that far lost?) and so mesurements can't be performed on it again?

Edited May 16, 2009 by alan2here