God's Random Dice: Order or Disorder or...

[`mud]

One big problem here is the assumption of a `container` of some sort. How does one `contain` anything in a `metaphor` ?

 

[shunyadragon]

My bad...I should have said non-linear when I said irrational. I not only read Gleick's book but I wrote a computer program from the footnote which gave the iterative equation to use that plotted the Mandelbrot set. I would spend hours adjusting the parameters to explore that interesting space!

The great problem with Chaos Theory from a technical point of view is that it "looks" like it can predict behavior but because of highly sensitive initial conditions...it can't. It can, perhaps, help map out phase spaces which "contain" the range of possible behaviors. All this begins to sound more and more like quantum physics only we have a sense of what is outside of the container (phase space) and how a system can escape that container.

I think we are thinking along the same lines here. Just quibbling over details perhaps. At least that is how I am reading your words.

I use the word 'container' here as a metaphor for the "boundedness" of what we observe as chaotic or random. Besides the statistical nature of the behavior, which is also a kind of order, there is the limited range in which the randomness is occurring...another sort of container. The metaphor is useful because when we think we use metaphorical relationships unconsciously. Explicitly calling out the metaphor may help in how we think about these things are realize unconscious assumptions.

Your a more than a little behind the times so too speak. Yes, fractal models can be sensitive to initial conditions, but nonetheless chaos computer modeling is extremely successful in modeling weather predictions models of genetic mutations over time to only name a few.

I do not agree with the use of 'container ' as applying to the natural role here. In reality the outcome of cause and effect outcomes is contained by 'natural law.'

I disagree that randomness applies here when appropriately defined.

 

[`mud]

From what is this container made that contains this randomness.....beyond the Cosmos itself ?

 

[shunyadragon]

From what is this container made that contains this randomness.....beyond the Cosmos itself ?

Natural Laws. Actually the Cosmos is poorly defined and defined differently from different perspectives, but nonetheless the Cosmos also would be constrained by natural law.

 

[sealchan]

The issue is not whether infinities can be counted, but whether they can be defined mathematically and used in math. The answer is yes. We can thank Aristotle for first defining infinities.

Infinities are defined as either actual infinities or potential infinities. Actual infinities are closed or completed sets of infinities, and potential infinities as open ended infinities without end such as a ray starting at a point and extending infinitely without boundary. Both of these infinities are used in math to describe our physical existence.

What you are speaking of here reminds me of graphing equations where some had bounded infinities (the output of the function approaches infinity as the input approaches a particular finite value. I suspect this is the high school algebra-geometrical example of what you are describing here.

I have read that a lot of the work at the most advanced theoretical level in physics is to eliminate the unbounded infinities that arise when using equations in certain contexts. Unbounded infinities are the sort of "bull in the china shop" of mathematical models.

 

[sealchan]

From what is this container made that contains this randomness.....beyond the Cosmos itself ?

From that same stuff as which the contained is made...and that is a mystery to be solved...or not.

 

[sealchan]

One big problem here is the assumption of a `container` of some sort. How does one `contain` anything in a `metaphor` ?

I'm using the "container" metaphor explicitly as it seemed to help me to talk about how one understands the "boundaries" always present when understanding the random.

Modern research suggests that practically all of human thought, its more and more abstract ideas, are contained in the more fundamental and universal experience of the brain in coordination with the human body and the physical universe.

For a nice summary (90 minutes) of this work...

George Lakoff: How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis

 

[shunyadragon]

What you are speaking of here reminds me of graphing equations where some had bounded infinities (the output of the function approaches infinity as the input approaches a particular finite value. I suspect this is the high school algebra-geometrical example of what you are describing here.

Correct.

I have read that a lot of the work at the most advanced theoretical level in physics is to eliminate the unbounded infinities that arise when using equations in certain contexts. Unbounded infinities are the sort of "bull in the china shop" of mathematical models.

I do not agree with this, because I believe the different infinities are used in different situations in physics and cosmology. I know actual infinities are used in modeling certain aspects of Black Holes. I will check more into this and respond.

To add:

I might add that there is at least on view that infinities are not necessary in physics. In this view infinities can be substituted regular numbers and non-infinite sets: Infinity is Not Real. It is often the case that values of infinities cancel out before the final equation is reached, but not always.

I believe that most physicists use various forms of infinities in physics and cosmology as described here: Beyond number - the role of infinity in understanding the universe

 

[David T]

Over many trials a random process can be predictable, such as a pair being the most common made hand in poker when dealing a 5 card hand, or 7 being the most common outcome in Craps. So how does that fit into this overall picture?

So an undefined cosmos is identical to 52 cards....

 

[shunyadragon]

So an undefined cosmos is identical to 52 cards....

The play with a deck of cards is not random, but fractal in the outcomes. The range of outcomes is determined by the rules of the game.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

So an undefined cosmos is identical to 52 cards....

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of analogies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of analogies.

Analogies are ok, but I do not believe that randomness applies in card games nor the outcome of events in the macro world.

. . . though analogies concerning the application of fractal math are everywhere in nature and games particularly where multiple dice are used with large numbers of sides.

 

[nPeace]

I suspect there is a mathematical way to measure this, but I don't know if randomness is measurable. I think that in the Information Sciences there is a sense of information as order and there may be ways in which that is measured.

In my opinion, with mathematics,you are on the right track - along with the use of logic.

 

[`mud]

Questioning the probability of multiple infinities...
Can an infinity end ? Can it start ? Is it parrallel with anything ? Does it move ?
Are these infinities directional, or are they simultaneous to each other ?
And of course, what contains them within their systemic interactions ?
Summation is of course: Infinity doesn't really exist,
but...where's the boundry ?

 

[David T]

I'm using the "container" metaphor explicitly as it seemed to help me to talk about how one understands the "boundaries" always present when understanding the random.

Modern research suggests that practically all of human thought, its more and more abstract ideas, are contained in the more fundamental and universal experience of the brain in coordination with the human body and the physical universe.

For a nice summary (90 minutes) of this work...

George Lakoff: How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis

4
I have read philosophy of the flesh. He is very nonreductive and cautious.

 

[David T]

The play with a deck of cards is not random, but fractal in the outcomes. The range of outcomes is determined by the rules of the game.

Now we are onto something more relevant! I like fractals actually. Penrose tiling is another topic I like. Did you know that until Penrose tiling it was thought that alloys were random? Every. E would have sworn random was fundemental to alloys. Then Roger Penrose developed Penrose tiling with the help of a super nutty math genius who worked for the post office! Further more it was discovered that Penrose tiling has been used in mosque mosaics for like 650 years before Roger Penrose. How about that. Alloy patterns first employed by artists in ceramic tile. Gotta love it.

 

[David T]

Apparently, you don't understand the concept of analogies.

Of course not I am drivi g down a road with random aggregate it gives magical rise to connecting my origination and desti. Action. I can measure test and repeat over and over again random determines predictibility of outcome. Never mind a it art from an clueless artless fantasy view, random predictive makes total sense.

So we aren't actually talking about nature here just intellectualizing fantasy. Not mentally healthy actually!

 

[shunyadragon]

Questioning the probability of multiple infinities...

No problem different infinities are defined differently.

Can an infinity end ?

An actual infinity can be defined as a set with a beginning and an end. An actual infinity that is defined as all the fractions between 0 and 1 would be an actual infinity set bounded by 0 and 1.

A potential infinity would not have an end point by definition.

Can it start ?

A potential infinity can be defined as having a starting point.

Is it parrallel with anything ?

A potential infinity can be parallel to another potential infinity

Does it move ?

An infinity defined as real objects can possibly move.

Are these infinities directional, or are they simultaneous to each other ?

Potential infinities can be directional starting at any point, such as an infinite line defined as a ray without an end point. Yes they can be defined as simultaneous to each other.

And of course, what contains them within their systemic interactions ?

Infinities are contained by their definition. Different infinities are defined differently based on the purpose of the math that uses them

Summation is of course: Infinity doesn't really exist,

This is a simplistic assertion that needs more explanation. Math as well as the use of infinities, and yes like all math that is descriptive of our physical existence the math does not exist, but may or may not describe infinities that do exist.

Example of a real infinity: Start at point P and place an infinite number of playing cards end one end around the world and keep doing it. No matter how many playing cards you put down you can always place one more.

. . . but...where's the boundary ?

Actual infinities indeed do have boundaries in defined closed sets, for example: All the fractions between 0 and 1 would be an actual infinity set bounded by 0 and 1.

Read Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Tucker and get educated.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Random vs predictable
Order vs disorder

These are two binary concepts which are closely related but not identical.

What is the nature of "random"? Is there such a thing? Does perfect randomness exist or is it always bounded by a measurable order? Is randomness always the result of ordered events that are simply not ordered with respect to some measurement of order? Is perfect randomness itself an order of precisely controlled order-avoiding behavior?

These questions impact how we think about how nature and/or God creates form out of...something else, a void. Is the void also like randomness a non-thing? An abstraction of our intellect rather than a detectable feature of our Universe? Is the void simply that realm of being which we, as beings rooted in this Universe, cannot perceive? Does modern physics show us some of the peripheral aspects of the Universe which have their ground both within and without the Universe itself?

I do not believe in the random except that probability is a useful tool for human beings.

 

[David T]

Random vs predictable
Order vs disorder

These are two binary concepts which are closely related but not identical.

What is the nature of "random"? Is there such a thing? Does perfect randomness exist or is it always bounded by a measurable order? Is randomness always the result of ordered events that are simply not ordered with respect to some measurement of order? Is perfect randomness itself an order of precisely controlled order-avoiding behavior?

These questions impact how we think about how nature and/or God creates form out of...something else, a void. Is the void also like randomness a non-thing? An abstraction of our intellect rather than a detectable feature of our Universe? Is the void simply that realm of being which we, as beings rooted in this Universe, cannot perceive? Does modern physics show us some of the peripheral aspects of the Universe which have their ground both within and without the Universe itself?

The question is based on a false premise that allows for two results. The false premise is nature plays fair. It most certainly does not. Nothing fair about nature. In a two headed coin toss random. Has no place but in a two headed coin toss the only thing predictive is nature wins thus determinism predictibility is false. Both are a projection of a tiny region of the brain called the higher functioning onto nature is all.