Random Chance, The God of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps...

[Mr Spinkles]

Ahhh. There's that soft pillow of ignorance insisting that "just because" has real explanatory power. It's like saying fractals are random because the points are unpredictable.

The points of fractals (or, more precisely, certain fractals - see Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) are random by definition.

But if the math isn't there as the organizing principle, neither is the fractal.

Something can be random and still have organizing principles. Please read the definition of the word "random" I explained a couple of posts ago. If you have a different definition that's fine....but please either offer your own definition or accept mine so we don't talk past each other.

From chaos, chaos. Not knowing the organizing principle doesn't make it go away.

We do know the organizing principles of fractals....if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to generate them.

Funny thing about the cat-in-the-box is that it was a reductio ad absurdum argument to show the absurdity of quantum superpositions, i.e., chaos as having a causative effect.

Edit: I've read 2 or 3 books about chaos and chaos theory so I'm not being a total moron about this--unless the authors were morons.

....Or unless you read them but did not understand them. You've abused the words "random", "chaos", and "quantum superpositions" to such an extent that I have my doubts. Randomness has nothing to do with chaos, and chaos has nothing to do with quantum superpositions. (But, lest there be any confusion, randomness DOES have to do with quantum stuff.)

Here's a great, brief explanation of the word chaos:

In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain dynamical systems – that is, systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

(emphasis in red added) Chaos theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's also a great definition of the word deterministic: systems are deterministic if their "future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions".

Random can be defined simply as "NOT deterministic". Thus something is random if its future / outcome / result is NOT fully defined by its initial conditions.

It does NOT logically follow from that definition of "random" that random events cannot give rise to large patterns or have guiding mathematical principles behind them.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Random can be defined simply as "NOT deterministic." Thus something is random if its future / outcome / result is NOT fully defined by its initial conditions. It does NOT logically follow from that definition of "random" that random events cannot give rise to large patterns or have guiding mathematical principles behind them.

This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

Yup. That's what I said. Highlighted in red is that soft pillow of ignorance again. If it can't be known with precision, let's call it "random." The appearance gives it the name of something it's not.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yup. That's what I said. Highlighted in red is that soft pillow of ignorance again. The appearance gives it the name of something it's not.

Thanks for the discussion Rolling Stone.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Thanks for the discussion Rolling Stone.

That's why scientists generally make lousy philosophers. Only a scientist would allow themselves to be enslaved by mathematics. Only a scientist would think "just because" has explanatory power. There are a few, however, who wonder if consciousness has something to do with the way events unfold, that maybe, just maybe, consciousness sets up or establishes the initial conditions from which determinism proceeds.

Other scientists, dissatisfied with "just because," and not liking the implication that consciousness has a formative role, used mathematics to postulate multiple universes. The math holds, but at what cost?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

BTW, this is from the AMS (American Mathematical Society):

It is often said that mathematics is about understanding patterns and that these patterns are what makes mathematics beautiful. This article, however, is about how mathematics may be used to create, or at least simulate, randomness, the lack of patterns. Surprisingly, we will see that it is difficult to create random behavior (in fact, the words "create randomness" may sound a little jarring) and to determine when we have successfully done it.

See something there about the "lack of patterns"?

 

[Magic Man]

Think about it: no one ever claims to believe "God of the Gaps". That is put ON them by those trying to poke holes in theism.

I know I'm kind of late, and there is a lot to comment on here, but I wanted to say something here:

Of course no one ever claims to believe in "God of the gaps". That's because the idea is shot down by the very name. It's called "God of the gaps" to disprove it. People do subscribe to the idea, even if they don't call it by that name. The name was invented to describe that line of thinking, which people do believe in.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

One last thing about randomness: radioactive decay is usually considered the prototypical example of a true source of randomness, however it is not completely random as it is influenced by ambient effects, which can be more readily seen in extreme conditions like a neutron star.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

BTW, this is from the AMS (American Mathematical Society):See something there about the "lack of patterns"?

That's not a precise definition, but I will concede that systems which "lack patterns" do indeed lack patterns. Do you concede that non-strictly deterministic systems (what I would call "random" systems) can lead to large-scale patterns?

One last thing about randomness: radioactive decay is usually considered the prototypical example of a true source of randomness, however it is not completely random as it is influenced by ambient effects...

I painstakingly addressed the definitional issue of "random" vs. "completely random" in an earlier post. Are you reading my posts or just talking at them?

I agree with you: replace the words "ambient effects" with "initial conditions" and you have repeated what I have been saying. Radioactive decay is not "completely" random, meaning not all outcomes are equally probable.

BUT it's still "random" insofar as it is not deterministic: two identical nuclei, under identical conditions, will decay at different times (in general). The influence of initial conditions (what you call "ambient effects") is merely to make certain outcomes more or less probable.

What do we call this state of affairs? I call it random (but not completely random). I guess you could also call it deterministic (but not completely deterministic). But that's all semantics. The important thing is not the label we choose to give this state of affairs, but surprising consequences that result from this state of affairs. It's very interesting (and powerful for explaining natural phenomena) that simple laws/rules applied to randomness can give rise to very different behaviors at different scales. I.e. the repeated application of a single, simple rule (or set of rules) can yield behavior that is nearly completely random at the very small scale, nearly completely deterministic at the very large scale, and everything in between. That's a very non-trivial and interesting result, and it helps us understand why an ocean of water molecules has properties that no individual water molecule has. Or why a galaxy of stars has properties that no individual star has. And so on.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

That's not a precise definition, but I will concede that systems which "lack patterns" do indeed lack patterns. Do you concede that non-strictly deterministic systems (what I would call "random" systems) can lead to large-scale patterns?

No. I'll take the AMS's word.

I agree with you: not "completely" random, meaning not all outcomes are equally probable. But still "random" in the sense that two identical nuclei, under identical conditions, will decay at different times (in general). The exact same starting conditions yield different results.

That's assigning the soft pillow to explain something not fully understood

I painstakingly addressed the definitional issue of "random" vs. "completely random" in an earlier post. Are you reading my posts or just talking at them?

"Random" vs. "completely random" is like "pregnant" vs. "a little pregnant." Of course, this doesn't explain any organizing principle.

Edit: The problem you're having with me is the same problem that led scientists to invent "multiple universe" theories. They saw a problem and tried to resolve it by saying, basically, every set of organizing principles (laws of physics) that can happen do happen. (This, at least, is one version.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's not a precise definition, but I will concede that systems which "lack patterns" do indeed lack patterns. Do you concede that non-strictly deterministic systems (what I would call "random" systems) can lead to large-scale patterns?

No. I'll take the AMS's word.

You either don't understand that passage from the AMS, or you don't understand my question. Again, are you reading my posts or just talking at them?

That's assigning the soft pillow to explain something not fully understood

You're misunderstanding me (again). My intent was not to prove / show / argue that this or that real-world system is random (or "lacks patterns" or anything else). My point was simply to use that real-world system as an illustrative example to show that, mathematically and logically, non-deterministic things can yield large-scale patterns (contrary to your assertions).

"Random" vs. "completely random" is like "pregnant" vs. "a little pregnant."

Okay, fine. Forget the semantics. I yield to your preference of words and definitions. Just answer my question:

--IF-- you have a system *such that* some future state is not uniquely specified by some initial state (or, equivalently, *such that* identical copies of it, starting at identical initial states, do not have identical final states)

--THEN-- What do you call it (what's Rolling_Stone's own personal word to characterize this state of affairs?) And can it or can it not exhibit patterns in the large scale (e.g. when you have lots of identical copies of the system)?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It's very interesting (and powerful for explaining natural phenomena) that simple laws/rules applied to randomness can give rise to very different behaviors at different scales.

I decided this had to be addressed. I think it was on a PBS radio station where I heard a philosopher talking about this with the host. A caller wanted to talk about how just a few simple laws/rules could create incredibly complex patterns and behaviors. The philosopher asked something like, "Do the rules create themselves?" There was silence and the caller was simply dismissed. I suppose if the discussion went on in the context of what you said, he would have said something like: "The random is no longer random once law/rules are applied."

But that's just me.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

--IF-- you have a system *such that* some future state is not uniquely specified by some initial state (or, equivalently, *such that* identical copies of it, starting at identical initial states, do not have identical final states)

--THEN-- What do you call it (what's Rolling_Stone's own personal word to characterize this state of affairs?) And can it or can it not exhibit patterns in the large scale (e.g. when you have lots of identical copies of the system)?

I call it: "Something unknown causing something I don't understand."

Edit: I forgot to answer the second part. Of course it could exhibit patterns on a large scale. But I won't use "randomness" as a pillow for my ignorance.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I call it: "Something unknown causing something I don't understand."

Edit: I forgot to answer the second part. Of course it could exhibit patterns on a large scale.

Okay, I'm glad we were finally able to establish that.

But I won't use "randomness" as a pillow for my ignorance.

It's interesting that you keep using that phrase, and saying things like "I find it amusing when people cite science and don't know what they're talking about" (post #25). The reason it's interesting is because you have repeatedly said things that are misleading or just plain wrong. You've freely used words like random, chaos, entanglement and consciousness, observer/observed duality, and quantum superpositions, without much regard for their meaning and with a self-assurance that rivaled or surpassed any physicist who would disagree with you.

I'm not saying I'm an authority on physics. But I've expressly pointed out a few instances where your ignorance shined through, such as when you talked about chaos and quantum theory as if they have a lot to do with each other. If you were wrong about those things, you should own up to it. If not, you should clarify those statements and show why they were correct after all.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Okay, I'm glad we were finally able to establish that.

It's interesting that you keep using that phrase, and saying things like "I find it amusing when people cite science and don't know what they're talking about" (post #25). The reason it's interesting is because you have repeatedly said things that are misleading or just plain wrong. You've freely used words like random, chaos, entanglement and consciousness, observer/observed duality, and quantum superpositions, without much regard for their meaning and with a self-assurance that rivaled or surpassed any physicist who would disagree with you.

I'm not saying I'm an authority on physics. But I've expressly pointed out a few instances where your ignorance shined through, such as when you talked about chaos and quantum theory as if they have a lot to do with each other. If you were wrong about those things, you should own up to it. If not, you should clarify those statements and show why they were correct after all.

I confess that nothing I said is without controversy--and randomness has very much to do with QM. The state of science today is open-ended.

Edit: BTW "the soft pillow of ignorance" comes from Stanley Jaki--a professor in physics and a theologian, and he got it from Pierre Delbert.

 

[Troublemane]

Heres the definition of randomness according to the Holy Wiki:

Randomness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Randomness is there defined as a lack of pattern, lack of predictibility thus following only a probability distibution, like Mr. Sprinkle's example of approximating 5.5 being what you get from a probability distribution, but you would never get 5.5 as an outcome. However, such distributions are derived from the conditions set up initially, so if I decide I want to find the probability of a specific result with two dice (e.g.) I can't use calculations set up for five dice to give me the answer. There is no general formula for probability, in other words. We can only calculate each event based on the variables specific to that event.

But what happens then if we do not have all the variables?--This doesnt stop people from making predictions, such as the infamous calculating of the probability of life arising. It usually goes like this: the chance of life arising from "dead" matter is 1x10^jillionth power, and since this is so unlikely as to be impossible it must be proof that God exists, etc. etc. etc.----the classic God of the Gaps. However, the entire premise is ridiculous since we have never been to other solar systems, never studied planets similar to Earth, so we truly cannot say how likely or unlikely it is for life to arise anywhere in the universe. We already know from experience here on Earth that organic life can survive in the most unlikely of places (like volcanic vents, antarctica, etc.), so how can we really make qualified predictions about the probability of any event occurring (such as the arising of life) when we don't know all the variables?

Answer: we can't. Then again, neither can we use randomness as a crutch to say something uniquely significant happens simply because its bound to happen eventually---the 'Science of the Gaps' argument. Its arguing from ignorance, same as saying "God (or probability) works in mysterious ways".