Randomness

[sealchan]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

Randomness is an order observed by a knower which appears to have little or no relationship with another order (or even a sense of order in general) also observed by that knower.

When it comes to intelligent design and randomness...

I've listened to Daniel Dennett make his case that the most profoundly adaptive systems are generally made by "creators" who are "dumb". He mentions the notion of the builder of a boat who shapes it a certain way because of the tradition of how boats are made. The idea is that the "ocean shapes the boat and the builder simply copies those boats which come back". This process is slow but once it is optimized it is highly effective. The process of creating copies can be dumb, but the product is "intelligent". In this same way is that which is formed by evolution formed. The evolutionary process uses a very dumb method for producing things but allows reality to select which things will persist and preferentially copies those.

This is in contrast to someone, a designer, who plans something then executes it. This is the "smart" approach. Invariably and perhaps ironically there is, in this approach, always a need to provide support for that creation once it is released as it will run afoul of various realities not considered by the designer. Perhaps God's creation of man and his implementation of a recall (global flood) evidences this. Still not a very good release if you want to recall it in entirety and start over...should have done more QA there God. ;-)

Perhaps the best process is the one that weds the "dumb" and the "smart" through a series of evaluations which result in re-creations. That way both the intelligence of the designer and the results that "come back" are integrated. The designer has to be open to error and "big" enough to recognize a mistake and to undertake the challenge of correcting it.

This is the area between smart and dumb where people come in...we have learned how to do things over centuries and those ways which were persistent remain today. Some of those things which immediately impact our survival like creating hunting weapons or knowing which plants are edible and how to get the most out of them, may have taken centuries to learn but once learned were maintained through a strong tradition of craftsmanship and knowledge. But now we are learning more and more about the nature of our reality and we can, to some extent, make better designs. Still the work in which we live is complex and unpredictable. So our designs don't always work and they need further thought. But look how rapidly technology is progressing...we are in the midst of a sort of Cambrian explosion of innovation.

And there you have a theological application of the software design, testing, release and support process.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

I'm not too popular in these threads, but I think that tools like probability and time are just used by humans to cope with reality. Probability will always be unproven as a scientific theory. But it's obviously very useful.

 

[Skwim]

I disagree with your characterization of quantum randomness. As far as we can tell, it is truly random by your usage: there is literally no way to predict quantum results given previous events. It doesn't appear to be simply a matter of ignorance, as shown by things like the violation of Bell's inequalities.

"As far as we can tell" and an inability to "predict" speak only to our ability to determine the nature of the event, and not to its actual nature, which is what is under question: did it have a cause or not. Bell's inequalities says in part that in the case of quantum events; some are absolutely random; however, this has been challenged by theories of superdeterminism, all of which is why I hedge my conclusion and say "TRUE, Uncaused Randomness does not appear to exist; however, I'm not ready to rule it out entirely."

.




.

 

[1robin]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

I don't believe randomness or chance even exist. You sure can't point to them or put them in a box.I believe only hard determinism and freewill exists. That is the world view that best accounts for the reality we see all around us.

 

[Skwim]

Well, the distinction I make between chaotic and random is that randomness *cannot* be predicted, even in theory, while chaos could be given enough information. Turbulence is chaotic. Quantum events appear to be random.

If that's the definition you choose to use: randomness is dependent on being unpredictable, fine. To me it isn't very meaningful, and open to misappropriation, but Okay.

.

 

[Polymath257]

If that's the definition you choose to use: randomness is dependent on being unpredictable, fine. To me it isn't very meaningful, and open to misappropriation, but Okay.

.

I'm open to other possible definitions.

 

[Skwim]

I don't believe randomness or chance even exist. You sure can't point to them or put them in a box.I believe only hard determinism and freewill exists. That is the world view that best accounts for the reality we see all around us.

Ah, . . . hard determinism rules out free will.

.

 

[Segev Moran]

The concept of randomness comes up pretty frequently in our discussions. In particular, I have seen frequent complaints concerning the development of order out of 'randomness'. This shows up in discussion of evolution (mutations being random), quantum mechanics (quantum events being random), and cosmology (matter interacting randomly).

Often, randomness is conflated with 'accidental' and contrasted with 'intelligently produced'.

I'd like a discussion/debate about the meaning of randomness, its role in our beliefs, the contrast with causality, the issue of 'accident', and the role of 'intelligence' as opposed to 'randomness'.

If you'll think about it and break a random thing into the smallest possible events, you'll quickly realize that there is no real randomness.

Look at each of the following:

Pick a random number in your head: Nothing really random about it:
Nothing random here. the number you chose came out of a complex calculation made inside your brain controlled by billions of neurons that are "programmed" to output this number out of all possibilities.

A random car crash
Nothing random here, the car crash occurred because A led to B which led to C which led to D and so on. the series of events eventually led to a car crash.

A random number from a cube
Not really random. if you'll throw the cube in the exact same way (speed, angle, force, environmental condition, direction and so on), the cube will land on the exact same number.
As the number of variables can be by the thousands, it seems random, yet nothing was really random about it.

A random appearance of a particle
We call it random because we yet to understand how this happens. this doesn't mean its random.

A random position of an electron
We can calculate the probability of an electron position around the nucleolus, yet it is not random. we just lack the ability to calculate it (yet).
If it was really random, our entire reality and existence was random, making it unstable.

A random shape of a snow flake
Same idea, given the exact same conditions where the flask was formed... the shape will be the same.

I can't really see how randomness fits into any belief.
even scientifically, randomness is an illusion.. which means that everything... reacts to rules we just can't yet understand.

the question of intelligence is a whole other subject.
when one claims for intelligent design, what does it mean? it means that everything (as we are already aware today scientifically) is bound to rules (or forces).
We are aware, for example, to four forces that govern the entire world of physics when we address the "non-quantum" world.
The quantum realm is governed by more rules we have yet been able to understand.
But in the end of it... everything we know of in our universe is governed by forces.

The theistic POV claims these forces are not accidental, that another force, much greater then those we know, have set the bounds and behavior of those forces.
The atheistic POV claims those forces were self instructed and that they are random or only a consequence of an unknown.

so eventually, the biggest question is, is there a maker to these forces that could have "programmed" those forces or are they a "self programmed" forces.
I used to think the later was true... today i know better

 

[shunyadragon]

Random is probably the most misused word in the English language. True randomness likely does not exist, because of the assumptions of the definition of random, and the fact that is mainly a layman's term. Fractal relationships described by chaos theory describes most variable cause and effect outcome relationships where there are many variables like weather prediction, genetic mutation patterns.

In radiation decay and Quantum Mechanics it is the individual events that are not predictable, and the processes themselves follow predictive pattern. Randomness is just a poor term to describe the relationship of cause and effect outcomes in these cases.

More to follow . . .

I wanted to add that many layman and a few on this forum misuse the fact that in processes like radiation decay, or genetic mutation that because the individual events are not predictable the cause and effect process that determine the outcome are somehow unknown and randomness rules, but this is not the case.

 

[1robin]

Ah, . . . hard determinism rules out free will.

.

That is like saying "Ah, oil rules out water". Determinism and freewill just have non-overlapping fields of magisterium. Hard determinism has no effect on agent causation. What I meant is that hard determinism alone explains many things but freewill explains all that hard determinism doesn't (which is quite a lot actually). By hard determinism I just meant for a single event determinism alone explains all the causal details. It does not mean that determinism explains everything. I should have just left the word "hard" out of my statement to make it more simplistic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, . . . hard determinism rules out free will.

.

It depends on what you call 'Hard Determinism.' Determinism in and of itself does not rule out Free Will. Natural Determinism clearly dominates at the foundation of our physical existence, and that does not propose some kind of fixed mechanistic predicable world. Chaos theory prevents that. Free Will in and of itself most likely does not exist. One the human level it is more likely that a degree of compatabilism is the explanation of the degree of the potential of Free Will.

 

[1robin]

It depends on what you call 'Hard Determinism.' Determinism in and of itself does not rule out Free Will. Natural Determinism clearly dominates at the foundation of our physical existence, and that does not propose some kind of fixed mechanistic predicable world. Chaos theory prevents that. Free Will in and of itself most likely does not exist. One the human level it is more likely that a degree of compatabilism is the explanation of the degree of the potential of Free Will.

I disagree. I think we are surrounded by trillions of examples of free will (intentionality) at all times. There is a huge percentage of the set of all events that determinism (non intentionalism) just doesn't explain.

 

[Polymath257]

A random appearance of a particle
We call it random because we yet to understand how this happens. this doesn't mean its random.

A random position of an electron
We can calculate the probability of an electron position around the nucleolus, yet it is not random. we just lack the ability to calculate it (yet).
If it was really random, our entire reality and existence was random, making it unstable.

I'm going to agree that your other examples are NOT of randomness, but at most of chaos.

These, however, are in a different category. We have actual reasons to believe that quantum events are *random*: that there are NOT 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes. So, it isn't just the inability to calculate something that is, in principle, possible to calculate. From what we understand, it is impossible *in principle* to calculate these.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not too popular in these threads, but I think that tools like probability and time are just used by humans to cope with reality. Probability will always be unproven as a scientific theory. But it's obviously very useful.

Probability is not a scientific theory, and in science it is used more as a statistics tool to design controlled experiments.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree. I think we are surrounded by trillions of examples of free will (intentionality) at all times. There is a huge percentage of the set of all events that determinism (non internationalism) just doesn't explain.

Disagree if you like, but pretty much all examples you come up with would fall within predictable outcomes within a range of possible outcomes. I do believe in a form of Dennett's compatabilism where a degree of potential free will exists. Maybe what you call intentionalism, but nonetheless that largely takes place within a range of possible predetermined choices and outcomes..

 

[atanu]

Quantum events appear to be random.

Is radioactive decay a quantum effect? If yes, then is the half life prediction not non random?

 

[1robin]

Disagree if you like, but pretty much all examples you come up with would fall within predictable outcomes within a range of possible outcomes. I do believe in a form of Dennett's compatabilism where a degree of potential free will exists. Maybe what you call intentionalism, but nonetheless that largely takes place within a range of possible predetermined choices and outcomes..

I don't think that is what compatibalism means, though I used to because it's real meaning is so stupid (and I hope your not referring to Daniel Dennett). I believe compatibalism means that even though there is no such thing as freewill (their position not mine) that things like punishment for crimes (accountability) are compatible with it.

However were getting the cart before the horse, lets see if freewill exists or not first. Every day in virtually every life there are thousands of examples of freewill. Every time my mind intends to do something, I usually have the capacity to make that desire become actualized. What I mean is this. If a thought pops in my head that I want to make a sandwich and if only determinism is true I stand similar chances of doing anything but making a sandwich. If the only causes are atoms in motion then my next act might as well be to jump in the kitchen sink, kick the dog, build a unicycle, or see how many marbles I can fit in my mouth. Atoms in motion don't care if I get a sandwich to eat but my freewill does. So for every desire out there that is responded to by a fulfillment of that desire it must be an act of freewill, not unintentional atoms bouncing off one another. First off forget whether you agree or not do you at least understand my argument because if you do then you are constantly surrounded by trillions of actions which freewill (agent causation) is by far the best explanation. You can't possibly think that your ability to respond to me on topic and in appropriate time is the result of blind forces that began trillions of years ago which are so obliging as to let us have a conversation even though nature has no desires or intentions at all.

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Y-Origins.com - Science and the Origin of Life

Apparently intent is even blindingly obvious in pure sterile science.

 

[Salvador]

Our genetic code has all the hallmarks of a non-random information carrier signal


" Genomic DNA is already used on Earth to store non-biological information. Though smaller in capacity, but stronger in noise immunity is the genetic code. The code is a flexible mapping between codons and amino acids, and this flexibility allows modifying the code artificially. But once fixed, the code might stay unchanged over cosmological timescales; in fact, it is the most durable construct known. Therefore it represents an exceptionally reliable storage for an intelligent signature, if that conforms to biological and thermodynamic requirements. As the actual scenario for the origin of terrestrial life is far from being settled, the proposal that it might have been seeded intentionally cannot be ruled out. A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information." \

The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code
Author links open overlay panelVladimir I.shCherbakaMaxim A.Makukovb
Redirecting

 

[Skwim]

It depends on what you call 'Hard Determinism.' Determinism in and of itself does not rule out Free Will. Natural Determinism clearly dominates at the foundation of our physical existence, and that does not propose some kind of fixed mechanistic predicable world. Chaos theory prevents that. Free Will in and of itself most likely does not exist. One the human level it is more likely that a degree of compatabilism is the explanation of the degree of the potential of Free Will.

Please note that 1robin's subject is HARD determinism, and note the definitions given below.

1robin
"I don't believe randomness or chance even exist. You sure can't point to them or put them in a box.I believe only hard determinism and freewill exists. That is the world view that best accounts for the reality we see all around us."​

That is like saying "Ah, oil rules out water". Determinism and freewill just have non-overlapping fields of magisterium. Hard determinism has no effect on agent causation. What I meant is that hard determinism alone explains many things but freewill explains all that hard determinism doesn't (which is quite a lot actually). By hard determinism I just meant for a single event determinism alone explains all the causal details. It does not mean that determinism explains everything. I should have just left the word "hard" out of my statement to make it more simplistic.

Yup. You evidently misappropriated the term because . . .

"Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist."
Source: Wikipedia​

And

"The standard definition of hard determinism states that no event or action takes place with the individual's choice, and it is completely determined.
The belief is that the future is determined by past actions, and every action has a cause."
source
​

What you may be thinking of is compatibilism

"Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism."​

Now there are different forms of compatibilism, but the one you seem to have in mind is classical compatibilism

"According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom of the sort pertinent to moral evaluation is nothing more than an agent's ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way.

Free will, then, is the unencumbered ability of an agent to do what she wants. And it is plausible to conclude that the truth of determinism does not entail that agents lack free will since it does not entail that no agents ever do what they wish to do unencumbered."
source
​

But all this has taken the discussion away from Polymath257's OP subject, randomness, so this will be my last remark here regarding both determinism and free will.

.

​

 

[1robin]

Please note that 1robin's subject is HARD determinism, and note the definitions given below.

"I don't believe randomness or chance even exist. You sure can't point to them or put them in a box.I believe only hard determinism and freewill exists. That is the world view that best accounts for the reality we see all around us."​

Yup. You evidently misappropriated the term because . . .

"Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist."
Source: Wikipedia​

And

"The standard definition of hard determinism states that no event or action takes place with the individual's choice, and it is completely determined.
The belief is that the future is determined by past actions, and every action has a cause."
source
​

What you may be thinking of is Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.​

Now there are different forms of compatibilism, but the one you seem to have in mind is classical compatibilism

According to one strand within classical compatibilism, freedom of the sort pertinent to moral evaluation is nothing more than an agent's ability to do what she wishes in the absence of impediments that would otherwise stand in her way.

Free will, then, is the unencumbered ability of an agent to do what she wants. And it is plausible to conclude that the truth of determinism does not entail that agents lack free will since it does not entail that no agents ever do what they wish to do unencumbered.
source
​

But all this has taken the discussion away from Polymath257's OP subject, randomness, so this will be my last remark regarding both determinism and free will.

.

​

Good grief. I said I should have left the term "hard" out of my statement to avoid just this type of confusion and needless semantics. Well needless or not you let the semantics fly. I am fine removing the term hard from my statement as I stated before. I don't know what else you want done. I believe some things are governed by determinism and some by free will. Do you even disagree? Have you even considered my actual argument or have you been circling the semantic drain pipe the whole time?

Reminder: my original point was that true randomness and chance do not exist, that things are governed by determinism and freewill.