Are there truly random events?

[random!@#%]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this so I decided to put it in "Other Sciences". Are there truly completely random evnts? In my opinion all things happen for a reason. There can only be one possible outcome due to the various laws of the universe. Do truly random events actually happen? If there is a better place to put this please tell me.

[swansont]

Quantum mechanics is full of probabilistic events. More than one result is possible if a photon goes through a double-slit — there are a number of different possible places it could hit.

[pioneer]

Another explanation for random are events is that they appear to defy cause and effect (2-D) but can still make logical sense at the level of 3-D. As an analogy, say we have a clear tennis ball. Inside the ball we divide the internal ball with black planes between clear that are all parallel. Each plane is a plane of cause and effect. Next, we bounce the ball and using stop action photography we notice how the various planes have become distorted. If we extrapolate the original planes and compared them to their new distorted black plane, they no longer align in 2-D. The data is outside the original planes of cause and effect. But if we look at the entire ball in 3-D, the affect of the distortion is a logical result of the forces, elasticity and impact. But if we don't know how to explain that in the context of 3-D, but only have 2-D, we see a random event.

 

In 3-D we have cause-effect-cause. The bounce was the cause for the 3-D distortion effect. This distortion effect is the cause for the distortion of the 2-D planes. If we ignore the first cause and effect of 3-D, we get an effect that we define as having a random cause. But if we distort the plane to take into consideration the primary 3-D cause and effect, then the data is still on the 2-D since it now has more 3-D character.

[TonyMcC]

Random series of numbers is a funny thing. There are tests for randomness and you can buy tables of random numbers. However you could produce a series of numbers using something like a die and by chance it could fail a test for randomness! Computers often use some sort of mathematical computation to produce a series of numbers that appear random but strictly speaking are not.

[pioneer]

The definition of random is: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers. This definition is sort of relative, simply because if one can't see the aim, reason or pattern, the order will appear random. For example, if we took a picture of a group of people sitting in stands, all the faces may appear like a random mix of people from all ages and demographics. But if you also knew this picture was taken at a baseball game, now a definite reason and pattern appears which says this group of apparently random people have the same thing in common, which is the love of baseball. At some less obvious level there is order to even these random faces.

 

If a computer uses a formula to generate random numbers, the reason for the random pattern is the formula. But if we only look at the numbers and didn't know this definite aim, reason and pattern, the numbers will appear random lacking any aim or reason. To prove this we can take away the computer and its formula, now the random numbers are gone. One can see the do this many times until one can see the underlying cause and effect for these random numbers. But if we detach the formula from the numbers and look only at the numbers (faces in the crowd) now these appear random without cause or pattern.

 

Depending on how you train you mind and your observational skills will have an impact on random perception. If one assumes random, one will be looking at the data in a way that will lack order, since that is what you are to trained to see. If one assumes order, you will see patterns in the random. For example, when most people play cards at a casino they will see random in the shuffle. But someone who reads cards will see order appear. This ordering of the cards is taboo, since only ransom perception can play, since random allows the house to win over time.

Edited November 27, 2010 by pioneer

[random!@#%]

By random I just mean that it truly could have gone a different way if you hypothetically went back in time. I just asked this question to help my understanding of the whole "other dimensions" thing. In my opinion it doesn't seem to be possible. With all the compiled laws and even the ones we haven't thought of only a set thing should happen, thus events in another dimension would have to be identical. For a different outcome to emerge the beginning would have to be different. I was just wondering if my hypothesis is logical. All of this is pretty much a guess for I do not have a degree in anything really, if I'm wrong I just want to know.

[Mr Skeptic]

As I understand it, quantum mechanics is supposed to have true randomness. I don't really understand why it's necessary and I certainly don't like it. But it seems that's how it is.

[random!@#%]

That's too bad, and I have to agree with you that I don't like it. Oh well.