Does Randomness Exist?

[997GT3]

Even random, or pseudo-random rather, numbers generated by computers are calculated by an equation. Is there a such thing as randomness?

Aren't all things connected?

Wouldn't it be possible for an event on the other side of the world some 20 years ago and everything else (how we were raised; our past; our genes; our immunities; our environment; even the little molecules invisible to the naked eye; etc.) to affect our next actions and the way we see the world?

Does God know what we're doing next by knowing all the variables to a huge equation and plugging them in? He even knows when we'll pray.

Is Free Will truly Free Will?

Free will is essential to Christianity in that we have to choose to accept Jesus Christ. Is it really "choosing"? Are some people pre-destined to accept Him on Earth and some later?

Please discuss.

[997GT3]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

As personal background, I will note that I am a Christian, but not a Biblical inerrantist. I view the Bible as divine revelation, but also as the product of human hands, and so not without error.

Right. I would have to say I'm not a Biblical inerrantist either, even though I did declare that I believe the Bible is flawless. What I meant by flawless was that the Bible is true to its purpose. Other than that, yes I've seen many minor flaws, such as what is seen between the verses 1 Chronicles 19:18 and 2 Samuel 10:18. Notice one says 700, the other says 7000, both having the same purpose.

I like this discussion. Let's carry on.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

997GT3, this thread discusses this very topic. Perhaps you will find it of interest/use.

[997GT3]

997GT3, this thread discusses this very topic. Perhaps you will find it of interest/use.

I'd like to stick specifically to this topic of randomness. That thread seems too broad for my interests. Thanks though.

[Goat]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

[997GT3]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is one rudimentary basis of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

[Goat]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is the rudimentary concept of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

While that is true, the concencus of the scientists that study QM is that it is probablistic, not deterministic.

They know more about QM than I do. I am sure they know more about it than you do. Can you prove them wrong?

[997GT3]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is the rudimentary concept of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

While that is true, the concencus of the scientists that study QM is that it is probablistic, not deterministic.

They know more about QM than I do. I am sure they know more about it than you do. Can you prove them wrong?

I just learned that Einstein had the same idea as I, but Wikipedia states that the question is "still not quite settled":

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean that the question is still not quite settled.

Nonetheless, I know goat is certain that this world is probabilistic, but I'd like to hear other opinions. How big is this forum?

[Goat]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is the rudimentary concept of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

While that is true, the concencus of the scientists that study QM is that it is probablistic, not deterministic.

They know more about QM than I do. I am sure they know more about it than you do. Can you prove them wrong?

I just learned that Einstein had the same idea as I, but Wikipedia states that the question is "still not quite settled":

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean that the question is still not quite settled.

Nonetheless, I know goat is certain that this world is probabilistic, but I'd like to hear other opinions. How big is this forum?

Yes, Einstien did not like the concept of 'Spooky interaction at a distance'. He and two others came up with a 'thought experiment' for quantum mechanics to try to invalidate it.

Einstien was one of the three participents in creating the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought experiment to try to discredit it.

When the technology was available to actually do the experiment, it was found that it conformed to the QM expectations of the experiement, rather than Einstien's expectation it would be falsified. By this time, Einstien had already passed away.

So, Einstein came up with an experierment to attempt to falsify QM, and in the process, help reinforence it's validity.

Bell's Therom shows that QM is not based on hidden variables.

[997GT3]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is the rudimentary concept of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

While that is true, the concencus of the scientists that study QM is that it is probablistic, not deterministic.

They know more about QM than I do. I am sure they know more about it than you do. Can you prove them wrong?

I just learned that Einstein had the same idea as I, but Wikipedia states that the question is "still not quite settled":

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean that the question is still not quite settled.

Nonetheless, I know goat is certain that this world is probabilistic, but I'd like to hear other opinions. How big is this forum?

Yes, Einstien did not like the concept of 'Spooky interaction at a distance'. He and two others came up with a 'thought experiment' for quantum mechanics to try to invalidate it.

Einstien was one of the three participents in creating the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought experiment to try to discredit it.

When the technology was available to actually do the experiment, it was found that it conformed to the QM expectations of the experiement, rather than Einstien's expectation it would be falsified. By this time, Einstien had already passed away.

So, Einstein came up with an experierment to attempt to falsify QM, and in the process, help reinforence it's validity.

Bell's Therom shows that QM is not based on hidden variables.

What about the loopholes that was just quoted? Are you saying that we should just ignore them?

[Goat]

As mathematically defined yes. Whether this is realized in our universe is a separate question, but I would think the answer is yes there as well. For example, radio-active decay is a random process. We can identify the probability that any particular atom will decay, but we can not determine when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next.

Mathematically defined yes only because mathematicians exclude other less significant variables to contain their calculations within a system. It is also true in economics, in which "negligible" variables are excluded. Radio-active decay is defined as random right now because we haven't found a solution to it yet. I remember reading about the string theory about several years ago, and that definitely made me realize this, whether or not that theory is true: New discoveries reveal new variables. We just haven't found the variables to know "when a particular atom will decay, or which one will be next."

According to those people who deal with QM, radioactive decay is spontaneous and probability based , not deterministic.

I would have to say from what I have read, you're mistaken.

You do realize that QM is probability based b/c we can't see every step that's going on with atoms, and everything else (possibly other factors that we haven't discovered) that might be affecting their actions, right? We all know that in classical physics, we can actually do experiments and OBSERVE mostly every detail that's going on, say between all the balls in constant motion on a non-frictional pool table lacking pockets. But let's assume that all humans are too slow (by a lot, say 1x10^999999999 times slower) to observe this phenomenon, so we wouldn't be able to see which balls the 8 ball collides with. Scientists would use probability to pinpoint the most probable position of a ball, right? That is the rudimentary concept of QM.

If we knew all the variables to eliminate probability, we would know exactly where one particle would be at a time. That is what I am getting at: God knows where that particle will be at the 213443rd nanosecond tomorrow, because he knows all the variables and how to use them to figure it all out.

Do you guys agree?

While that is true, the concencus of the scientists that study QM is that it is probablistic, not deterministic.

They know more about QM than I do. I am sure they know more about it than you do. Can you prove them wrong?

I just learned that Einstein had the same idea as I, but Wikipedia states that the question is "still not quite settled":

Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement. He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local hidden variable theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world cannot be described in terms of such hidden variables. "Loopholes" in the experiments, however, mean that the question is still not quite settled.

Nonetheless, I know goat is certain that this world is probabilistic, but I'd like to hear other opinions. How big is this forum?

Yes, Einstien did not like the concept of 'Spooky interaction at a distance'. He and two others came up with a 'thought experiment' for quantum mechanics to try to invalidate it.

Einstien was one of the three participents in creating the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) thought experiment to try to discredit it.

When the technology was available to actually do the experiment, it was found that it conformed to the QM expectations of the experiement, rather than Einstien's expectation it would be falsified. By this time, Einstien had already passed away.

So, Einstein came up with an experierment to attempt to falsify QM, and in the process, help reinforence it's validity.

Bell's Therom shows that QM is not based on hidden variables.

What about the loopholes that was just quoted? Are you saying that we should just ignore them?

The more modern consensus is that there are not 'hidden variables'. I don't understand it, I haven't got a masters in physics.

I believe that the theory that talks about it being probabilistic rather than deterministic the "copenhagen interpretation".