Why nature seems so deterministic?

[Linker]

It seems that fundamental physical laws like energy and mometum conservation hold for every time. Even biological phenomena (that are basing on a couple of physical processes like ion transport, etc.) are present every time. It seems that an organism is preprogrammed by its DNA and circulating hormones. (The environment can affect also the organism because the organism is an open system.)

What are the reasons that laws of nature doesn't change (every process in the universe is reproducable)?

 

[Endy0816]

What you observe ties into your own ability to exist.

[swansont]

Some of the basic physics determinism stems from symmetries that appear to exist in nature. Conservation of momentum is equivalent to translational symmetry — the laws don't vary with position. Conservation of energy stems from time translation symmetry, and angular momentum from rotational symmetry.

 

The structure of the universe appears to be the same everywhere. Why this is so is, AFAICT, unanswered and possibly unanswerable. We observe that it is so.

[barfbag]

@ OP,

 

What are the reasons that laws of nature doesn't change

 

 

They wouldn't be laws if they could be changed.

 

I am wondering if perhaps randomness does not work well in nature. Is there anything random in nature? This is more of a rephrasing of the question in the Opening post.

 

I cannot think of randomness in nature except maybe in behavioral studies.

[ajb]

Is there anything random in nature?

Brownian motion and radioactive decay are random processes, for example.

[swansont]

But even the result of random behavior can be predicted, if you look at a larger scale. The individual events are random, but the overall behavior follows a pattern, so even then you can find a deterministic rule.

[Bill Angel]

But even the result of random behavior can be predicted, if you look at a larger scale. The individual events are random, but the overall behavior follows a pattern, so even then you can find a deterministic rule.

 

That observation also applies to biological systems. Consider the swarming behavior of a school of fish:

So with a population sample of several thousand individual fish, there would seem to be deterministic rules that govern the behavior of the fish swarm, while the movements of just one fish would appear to be more random. Could the same be said about people? That the behavior of a large number of people, considered as a group, is deterministic in character like a swarm of fish?

[swansont]

Could the same be said about people? That the behavior of a large number of people, considered as a group, is deterministic in character like a swarm of fish?

 

Probably. There is a saying that has some truth to it: you can't tell what an individual will do, but you can tell what an average individual will do with pretty good precision.

[Linker]

 

Probably. There is a saying that has some truth to it: you can't tell what an individual will do, but you can tell what an average individual will do with pretty good precision.

 

Does the average behavior of a population doesn't change over time?

Edited July 15, 2014 by Linker

[swansont]

 

Does the average behavior of a population doesn't change over time?

 

 

It would, if for no other reason than the demographics changing. But the underlying science would be the same.

[barfbag]

I found this paper,

Abstract

Mathematical probability theory and ensuing fields of statistics, stochastic methods, and operational research have freed scientists from the restraint of deterministic methods and related concepts of strict causality in the analysis of natural phenomena. Recent recognition of randomness and apparent randomness in fluvial processes, geomorphic evolution, hydrology, landmass distribution, geographical shapes, seismic phenomena, stratification, and lithology, together with known randomness in such basic processes as radioactive decay, organic evolution, and galactic evolution suggest strongly that randomness is inherent in the natural process. Furthermore, varying degrees of randomness are indicated by the evidence in the geologic phenomena.

Recognition that randomness is more common than formerly was admitted possible, and recognition that randomness may be a profound concept of nature, demand that geologists examine closely the extent and character of randomness in natural phenomena in an effort to ascertain if the randomness is inherent or simply apparent.

 

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/81/1/95.abstract

 

However I agree with the last post that most of these on the list are not random.... But I did not read that paper.

[ajb]

But even the result of random behavior can be predicted, if you look at a larger scale. The individual events are random, but the overall behavior follows a pattern, so even then you can find a deterministic rule.

Absolutely right. For example we cannot predict what individual atom will decay next in some radioactive material nor can we say when a given atom will decay. However, we still have the deterministic law that governs the activity of the bulk material.