Does randomness exist?

[Vortigon]

But thief the same was said of the distribution of stars in the sky before we understood cosmic forces.

 

It's easy to see things as some kind of miracle of nature, thats an easy path to take. But by doing so you immediately close your mind to the possiblity of finding the solution to a problem.

 

My personal opinion is that with enough information these seemingly random events can be fully understood.

 

What remains to be seen if we will ever pocess 'enough information' and understanding to do this.

 

Come back to this discussion in a few hundred years, and I am sure much of what we consider random will be fully understood and predictable. Although not everything I'm sure.

 

[thief]

Thief here...

I wasn't thinking miracles, when I wrote my last post.

Random events are essential to everything.

 

Without random events many things will cease.

Evolution.

Creative thinking.

Pleasant surprises.

 

If all things were predictable....you would be so bored!

It is the random give and take...the ebb and flow...that makes this world possible.

Using numbers to predict an outcome is all fine and good.

Such skill is useful when trying to manipulate your surroundings.

But to consider that such effort will ever become complete unto itself?

I think not.

[lucaspa]

The demo was simple.

Choose three points on large paper....and a forth point inside the triangle.

Label the corners one thru six.

Grab some dice...throw one cube away....roll the remaining cube.

 

From the fourth point, measure halfway to the corner chosen by the cube.

Make a point there. Roll again. Measure halfway to that corner from the second point. Continue.

 

As you do so, a pattern will form. Congruent triangles.

 

The reason you get a pattern is that you have introduced non-randomness into the process: "measure halfway to the corner chosen by the cube". Instead of randomly measuring, or measuring distance based on the number on the die (say centimeter corresonding to the number on the die), you non-randomly always measure "halfway to the corner". ALWAYS.

 

So of course a non-random pattern emerges from a non-random process.

 

What we often mean when we say "random" is "unpredictable". Gould was trying to make the point that evolution was a totally unpredictable process. However, Gould ignored that there are some non-random factors involved in evolution. These non-random factors are the constraints of physics and chemistry. Thus, physics determines that there are only a few shapes for a predator who moves in water. There are constraints because the predator has to 1) move fast, 2) be maneuverable and 3) position its mouth to be able to grab prey. Thus we have ichthyosaurs, sharks, and dolphins all with the same basic shape.

 

And yes, there are unpredictable processes/events, particularly at the quantum level. Which particular atom of a radioisotope will decay next is completely unpredictable. In the aggregate, half the atoms will decay in a half-life. So radioactive decay is regular, but unpredictable.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My personal opinion is that with enough information these seemingly random events can be fully understood.

 

What remains to be seen if we will ever pocess 'enough information' and understanding to do this.

 

Quantum mechanics has shown that, for quantum events, its not a matter of information. In terms of indeterminancy of complementary properties -- such as the position and momentum of an electron -- the information doesn't exist. If you know precisely the position of an electron, the momentum can't be known.

 

For the unpredictable events I mentioned at the quantum level -- such as radioactive decay -- it is also not a matter of just don't have "enough information". The information doesn't exist. Physicists have looked extensively for ways to get the information, but it's not there.

 

Come back to this discussion in a few hundred years, and I am sure much of what we consider random will be fully understood and predictable. Although not everything I'm sure.

 

Welcome to just as much faith as you think Thief is showing. Sauce for the goose.

[thief]

Thief here...a critique on the meaning I suppose is fair enough.

 

So...I looked in Webster's and found that random events do not have patterns!

So...your rebuttal to my use of the word 'random' is correct.

 

Then, I look for the word unpredictable.

It refers to things that cannot be foretold.

 

In light of this...the initial post could be rephrased.

I believe the asking was about events that cannot be foretold.

 

"Do unpredictable events exist?"

 

Then I reconsider the demo I described earlier.

I cannot predict where the first three points will be.

I cannot predict where the fourth (starting point) will be.

The roll of the cube, the choice of corner, the pending measure to be made.

[mooeypoo]

Thief here...a critique on the meaning I suppose is fair enough.

 

So...I looked in Webster's and found that random events do not have patterns!

So...your rebuttal to my use of the word 'random' is correct.

 

Then, I look for the word unpredictable.

It refers to things that cannot be foretold.

 

In light of this...the initial post could be rephrased.

I believe the asking was about events that cannot be foretold.

 

"Do unpredictable events exist?"

 

Then I reconsider the demo I described earlier.

I cannot predict where the first three points will be.

I cannot predict where the fourth (starting point) will be.

The roll of the cube, the choice of corner, the pending measure to be made.

You're dealing with semantics.

 

Yesterday I stepped in a puddle of water at the edge of the road. It was deeper than I thought and my sock got completely wet. As a result, I got to the office with a soaked shoe that made terrible one-sided squeeks.

 

Did anyone predict this? Nope. Does that make it an unpredictable event? Sure. Did it exist? Sadly, yes.

 

And yet -- it's semantics. It doesn't mean that if someone actually TRIED to predict this scenario, it would have been impossible.

 

I think you should redefine your statement.

 

~moo

[thief]

Thief here...

So...if the word 'unpredictable' cannot be used to describe events difficult to foretell....

And...if 'random' cannot be used to describe events difficult to foretell...

 

Then...you would say ALL events are predictable?

[Mr Skeptic]

I guess how it goes is, true randomness means impossible to predict, not just very difficult.

[thief]

Thief here...

I didn't see the word 'impossible' used in the Webster's, when noting the difference between random, and predictable.

What reference are you using?