Does randomness exist in nature?"

[danieldemol]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

 

[Revoltingest]

There can be both patterns and randomness, eg,
emergent properties in gases & fluids.

 

[Kooky]

What does randomness actually mean in the context of this discussion?

Does it have to be an event that's theoretically impossible to predict, or simply one where prediction is practically unfeasable?

 

[blü 2]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

>This link< on the argument between Nils Bohr on the quantum side and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen on the classical side, puts the matter fairly clearly.

Is the spin of the particle indeed undetermined until resolved by an external event, as quantum theory says, or are there unknown rules at work which we'll discover at some point, as Einstein and friends argued?

Bell's theorem (mentioned in the link above, but described in more detail >here<) is generally taken to have resolved the question in favor of the quantumists. However, bubbles of classicist dissent still disturb the surface from time to time.

 

[Valjean]

Is the cat alive, or dead?

 

[Orbit]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

There are random DNA mutations all the time in all living things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

You mention, as an example, radioactive decay. And while we know that radioactive elements have a "half-life" (meaning in a given amount of time, half of the atoms in that element will decay). But in a sample of trillions of such atoms, which ones will decay and which ones won't is impossible to determine. Therefore, if you are watching at the level of individual atoms, I rather think that when the one you are specifically targeting decays will be totally random.

 

[Kooky]

Is the cat alive, or dead?

Fun fact: Schrödinger's Cat was intended as a satire and mockery of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

 

[Bird123]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

I think you are right about the infinite sample because there can always come a point where new knowledge appears. Example: Years and years ago it was thought that weather was random. It seems the more we study weather; the less random it really is. Weather is forecast today. Though they are not always right, the more knowledge we acquire; the better the predictions are.

Have you ever tried to help someone and no matter how hard you tried you could not help them? No one is allow to interfere with another person's lesson. This person must solve the problem themselves. They are learning by living the lesson. The knowledge is acquired along the journey. This, I would say, it is predetermined no one can solve this for them.

OK, I walk out of my house. I can turn right, left, go straight or turn around. This is a random choice.

This next part takes a very wide view. Are you up for it?

When something happens, so many focus on the bad or the hurt of the event. This is really seeing very little. Predetermined: Look how the event changes things. How do all the people involved change?

Goodness shows up even in the worst event yet so much of it goes unnoticed. Example: People have been getting sick since the beginning. It's all bad getting sick, right? Look how medicine has advanced because of all the sickness. How many doors have been opened advancing knowledge? Further, the wonders of medicine is in it's infancy. Baby steps are leading to great wisdom.

Predetermined has purpose. Look for the purpose hiding beyond the surface.

Yes, I walked out of my house. The sample of which way to go was random. I turned right because I was going to the grocery store. With a limited sampling, it first appeared my actions were random. With further sampling, it was clear I had predetermined to buy groceries.

I think you are right on. Without all the knowledge, judgment calls are often wrong. Now, one can label things as beliefs, however one can never know the Real Truth unless continues the sampling as you suggest.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[wellwisher]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

Random is an assumption often used when you do not understand a phenomena in a rational way. In ancient times they called it the whims of the Gods. If they did not understand the nature of disease, death would have been due to the whims of the Gods. Before microscopes were available to see tiny living things, it was thought life could spontaneously appear in water; whims of the gods.

A provocative take on random is connected to entropy. Entropy, which is the basis for the second law, can be understood as a drive toward ever increasing complexity. Entropy is a measurable value and not just a theory.

It was found that entropy was a state variable meaning any given state of matter has a fixed amount of entropy. For example, water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure contains a fixed amount of entropy that is measured the same in all labs; 188.8 Joules/(mole K)

If we look at a glass of liquid water at 25C and 1 atm, under a powerful electron microscope, the activity of all the individual water molecules moving about looks random enough. However, somehow all that molecular randomness, in a fixed volume of water, always adds to a constant amount of entropy. The total is not random.

How is that possible? The analogy would be throwing a million dice in a random way only to find the top sides always add to a constant, no matter how many times you try? The individual dice may follow the laws of odds but all together it is no longer random. It is as though everything is coordinating in terms of the biggest picture, even if the details in the smaller picture appears to walk by the beat of it own whims of the god.

 

[Nakosis]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

Random as in unpredictable?
Sure.

 

[danieldemol]

What does randomness actually mean in the context of this discussion?

Does it have to be an event that's theoretically impossible to predict, or simply one where prediction is practically unfeasable?

Good question, I admit my thoughts are not clear, but I think it means an event that is not actually predetermined such that it could be predicted given sufficient knowledge of pre-existing conditions.

 

[idea]

"highly sensitive to initial conditions" provides the appearance of randomness. It brings chaos, as well as hope - It's the little things that count.

 

[danieldemol]

Random is an assumption often used when you do not understand a phenomena in a rational way.

My question here would be, without complete understanding, is the opposite assumption (that it is all predetermined) justified?
In my opinion.

 

[idea]

My question here would be, without complete understanding, is the opposite assumption (that it is all predetermined) justified?
In my opinion.

another question - does time exist? there is no cause/effect outside of time.

 

[Audie]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

As one butterfly said to another

" You know that hurricane on the other side of
the world? That was me."

 

[Truthseeker]

I admit when the idea for this thread titled, "does randomness exist in nature?"
came up i thought it would be easy just to trawl the internet for a few examples of seemingly random events in nature such as the radioactive decay of certain elements.

Then the question naturally arises, how do we know an event is truly random, or conversely, how do we know an event is truly predetermined?

I did some hasty googling and realised I might be a bit over my head on the second question, so I'm hoping some of our more knowledgeable members will chime in, but what I vaguely gathered is that you would have to have an infinite sample size to determine if something was truly random or predetermined, since even seeming patterns still have a chance of being the outcome of a random event.

Thoughts?

Yes. In quantum mechanics the outcomes are expressed in probabilities. I doubt that God determines those probabilities.

 

[RestlessSoul]

another question - does time exist? there is no cause/effect outside of time.

Time, and space, almost certainly exist, as much as anything in nature exists. But it's true nature remains elusive to us. We experience the passing of time as a linear process, but this may simply be our paradigm, a function of perspective and perception.

In his popular treatise, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking refers to three arrows of time;
The Thermodynamic Arrow, as described in the second law of Thermodynamics, pointing from low to high entropy;
The cosmic arrow, pointing in the direction of the expanding universe, and;
The psychological arrow, pointing from a remembered past to an anticipated future.
Hawking suggests that all three are required, in order for sentient intelligent life to exist, and to percieve it's own existence.

In his book The Order of Time, Carlo Rovelli deconstructs many of our assumptions about the true nature of time, and thereby of causality. Far from cause and effect, like time, proceeding from a to b to c in linear fashion, the complex web of causality is described in terms of multi-dimensional connectivity and influence. Time does not march to the ticking of a clock, but rather dances to the rhythm of a billion intersecting waves and colliding particles, expressed in an infinite number of dimensions.

In a recent paper published in Quantum Journal, Rovelli and fellow physicists Andrea Di Biagio and Pietro Dona, examine the phenomenon of time-symetry in quantum theory, proposing another arrow of time which they call The Arrow of Inference, pointing from data to desiderata (the known to the unknown), and buiding on the concept that the difference between past and future is entirely a function of the perception of the observer.
"The asymmetry of operational formulations does not reflect a fundamental time orientation of physics. Instead, it stems from built in assumptions about the users of the theory."
- Rovelli, Dona, DiBiagio

 

[cladking]

In nature, including all human events, everything is both random and predetermined.

For two atoms to collide they must both have gotten to the same place at the same time and this is caused by random events and random outcomes of events.

Everything is then predetermined by the vector sum total of all such interactions.

A butterfly flaps its wings in China and a hurricane two weeks later becomes predetermined but the butterfly flapping its wings has a far more subtle causation.

In other words once the conditions become sufficiently robust an event becomes inevitable. Whether the results of collisions can be predicted even immediately before the fact or not will probably never really be known. I would guess they have random components caused by the chaotic nature of reality especially on the very small scale or very long time frame.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In nature, including all human events, everything is both random and predetermined.

For two atoms to collide they must both have gotten to the same place at the same time and this is caused by random events and random outcomes of events.

Everything is then predetermined by the vector sum total of all such interactions.

A butterfly flaps its wings in China and a hurricane two weeks later becomes predetermined but the butterfly flapping its wings has a far more subtle causation.

In other words once the conditions become sufficiently robust an event becomes inevitable. Whether the results of collisions can be predicted even immediately before the fact or not will probably never really be known. I would guess they have random components caused by the chaotic nature of reality especially on the very small scale or very long time frame.

When you talk about conditions becoming sufficiently robust to make an outcome inevitable, is this the same as saying that predictions can be made when there is sufficient data available? In which case, isn’t apparent randomness actually an illusion caused by insufficient data? So everything is determined, if only we have sufficient information to understand how?