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 going to do next by knowing all the variables to a huge equation and plugging them in? God 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.

[Bugmaster]

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

Yes. For example, radioactive decay is a truly random process. This means that not even an omniscient deity could predict the decay of individual atoms, since the exact timings of particle emissions cannot be known, in principle, by anyone.

That's just one example, though. There's also white noise in electronic circuits, heating in lava lamps, localized weather, etc.

[McCulloch]

Yes. For example, radioactive decay is a truly random process. This means that not even an omniscient deity could predict the decay of individual atoms, since the exact timings of particle emissions cannot be known, in principle, by anyone.

That's just one example, though. There's also white noise in electronic circuits, heating in lava lamps, localized weather, etc.

Why couldn't a ficticious omniscient deity accurately predict the decay of an individual atom?

[Bugmaster]

Why couldn't a ficticious omniscient deity accurately predict the decay of an individual atom?

Because the exact timing of this decay is unknowable, period. Asking the deity to predict it is similar to asking it to create a rock so big that the deity itself cannot lift it.

[McCulloch]

Why couldn't a ficticious omniscient deity accurately predict the decay of an individual atom?

Because the exact timing of this decay is unknowable, period. Asking the deity to predict it is similar to asking it to create a rock so big that the deity itself cannot lift it.

OK maybe I'm thick. Would the universe come to an end if some sort of supernatural being existed and, not being bound by the universe's rules, was able to accurately predict every decay of every individual atom? You answered by simply restating the assertion, it is unknowable. I know that I am not a physics major and that my grasp of some of the implications of relativity is sometimes rather weak and quantum physics often gets me confused. But how is it that we know that something is unknowable?

[Bugmaster]

Would the universe come to an end if some sort of supernatural being existed and, not being bound by the universe's rules, was able to accurately predict every decay of every individual atom?

Well, again, this is like asking, "would the Universe end if God made a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it ?" I can't really answer this question, because it is illogical.

I know that I am not a physics major and that my grasp of some of the implications of relativity is sometimes rather weak and quantum physics often gets me confused. But how is it that we know that something is unknowable?

I'm not a physics major, either, but, IIRC, randomness in radioactive decay boils down back to the Uncertainty Principle. The quantum particles inside the atom "move about" randomly. Since radioactive decay occurs only when these particles are in a particular configuration, it follows that the precise moment of radioactive decay is random, and, thus, unpredictable in principle. As the article says:

Illustrative of this is an experiment in which a particle is prepared in a definite state and two successive measurements are performed on the particle. The first one measures the particle's position and the second immediately after measures its momentum. Each time the experiment is performed, some value x is obtained for position and some value p is obtained for momentum. Depending upon the precision of the instrument taking the measurements, each successive measurement of the positions and momenta respectively should be nearly identical, but in practice they will exhibit some deviation owing to constraints of measurement using a real world instrument that is not infinitely precise. However, Heisenberg showed that, even in theory with a hypothetical infinitely precise instrument, no measurement could be made to arbitrary accuracy of both the position and the momentum of a physical object.

Inicidentally, this nuclear randomness is the reason chemists talk about "electron shells", not electron orbits. If we think of the electron as a particle, then the "electron shell" is just a probability distribution of where this particle could be at any given time. As it turns out, at any given time, the electron of a hydrogen atom could be pretty much anywhere within a certain fixed distance from the nucleus; hence, its electron shell is a spherial surface.

Of course, all of the above applies only if our current understanding of physics is correct. It is entirely possible that we missed something, and that quantum particles behave in an entirely deterministic fashion (or maybe they don't exist at all). However, currently, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Uncertainty Principle being true.

[McCulloch]

But what is meant by unknown or unknowable or or uncertainty or random. One could postulate that random means something caused by a factor outside of the known universe, God.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I am unconvinced that any natural phenomena can be considered truely random.

First, let us settle our semantics. In this case, I assume that the definition of random must mean the following:

"Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically"

Correct?


In nature, all phenomena are the effect of certain environmental factors. The conglomeration of these factors, occurring in a certain order, at a certain point in time, always renders the same result. Every effect has a cause. The cause that rendered the aformentioned effect had a cause of its own. And so on.

In this regard, our universe is strictly deterministic, and all phenomena are interconnected, as 997GT3 suggested.


How is it that something such as radioactive decay does not conform to this standard? How can the atomic particles in a radioactive substance move about without any outside factor setting them in motion? How can the individual particles move into a certain configuration without anything to cause them to behave as such? Don't all effects need causes?

The very article you cited presents a number of factors contributing to the movement of these particles:

The neutrons and protons that constitute nuclei, as well as other particles that may approach them, are governed by several interactions. The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is also significant. Of lesser importance is the weak nuclear force. The gravitational force has no influence on nuclear processes.

The interplay of these forces is very complex.

Does this complex interaction of forces have nothing to do with the supposedly 'random' movements of subatomic particles within the radioactive substance?

Just because we are not smart enough to plug in all the factors and determine the point in time when the particles will fall into a lower energy arrangement does not that someone with a bit more knowledge of the process (say, an omniscient God) could not accurately predict a conclusion.

[QED]

First, let us settle our semantics. In this case, I assume that the definition of random must mean the following:

"Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically"

Correct?

Isn't it more relevant to say "without cause"?

In nature, all phenomena are the effect of certain environmental factors.

There's a paper I'm trying to locate online titled Einstein and Bell: Strengthening the case for microphysical randomness. At the moment the evidence is strongly leaning towards there being irreducibly random events happening in our universe so ask most Physicists today and they will agree that randomness does indeed exist. Roger Penrose wrote a very good chapter about this in the Emperor's New Mind.

In this regard, our universe is strictly deterministic, and all phenomena are interconnected, as 997GT3 suggested.

In which case the entire performance of all events past present and future were precisely scripted from the very first moments of the universe. Is that what theologians believe?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

First, let us settle our semantics. In this case, I assume that the definition of random must mean the following:

"Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically"

Correct?

Isn't it more relevant to say "without cause"?

Is that not the meaning of the definition I cited?

There's a paper I'm trying to locate online titled Einstein and Bell: Strengthening the case for microphysical randomness. At the moment the evidence is strongly leaning towards there being irreducibly random events happening in our universe so ask most Physicists today and they will agree that randomness does indeed exist. Roger Penrose wrote a very good chapter about this in the Emperor's New Mind.

Indeed, I should like to see this evidence.

Wouldn't the existence of truely "random" events (in the sense that is being applied in this thread) violate Newton's Third Law? Wouldn't they completely trump the concept of causation (the very basis of human knowledge)?

In which case the entire performance of all events past present and future were precisely scripted from the very first moments of the universe. Is that what theologians believe?

It is what I believe (minus the god factor).

In my worldview, the basic properties of nature are perfect and ordered; hence, a being with enough knowledge of their mechanism could effectively predict any given future event. The existance of a random phenomena would violate this principle.

Once again, I should like to know just what is meant by "random", and how it presumably manifests itself in the physical universe.