 Originally Posted by trigotron
Oh, but randomness means so much more than we usually assume it to mean. True randomness (as far as i know, i could be wrong) does not exist in the universe. The definition of "true randomness" is an event or number (i'm going to use number in my example) that if one were to observe that number to be .124349 at a specific time and that observer was to go back in time to the time when the number was randomized, the number would be different. This has EVERYTHING to do with fate. If there is such a thing in the universe (anywhere in the universe) as true randomness, then there is not necessairily fate, because something in the universe is not known and therefore cannot be predicted by anyone, even one knowing the consequence of the event (this is starting to bridge with the point plane theory i quoted), however if no such thing as true randomness exists in the universe, then there can be no such thing as "the absence of fate" (i am reluctant to say "free will" because that is an entirely different concept, but for the sake of arguement here, the two terms are basically the same). One must realize that everything on earth that we can create (as far as i know) is pseudorandom, which means that for our purposes it is random because we can never travel back in time, but because our pseudorandom number generators rely on a function based on an input of the time of day, which means, return to that time of day and one will get the same output.
I might as well just repost what I wrote previously to answer this. But anway, you're still only just clutching at what I've been trying to tell you all this time.
What you say above IS what I mean when I talk about random. I do understand what you're trying to convey, and it is what I have been talking about this whole time.
To express it in your terms (which were quite a good way of putting it, I think); if we went back in time, and say, collided an electron with exactly the same trajectory into some other mass with exactly the same attributes, the electron would go a different way to what it had done previously.
Quantum mechanics predicts INHERENTLY RANDOM events.
And, like I said, this is what Einstein did not believe. Again, referring to the quote,
'God does not play dice',
The whole issue here is randomness completely entwined with the workings of the universe. What else can he be referring to in that quote? It's not about our inability to predict such events. Einstein is completely fine with ignorance. What he was not fine with was the concept of an impure system in which determinism did not apply.
It’s not the abstract concept of randomness I was talking about; it’s the possibility that perhaps we are mistaking our inability to predict these events with the notion that they are truly random. This is a legitimate possibility, is it not? Simply because we cannot predict such events (now) doesn’t necessarily mean that they are truly random, and surely there is still much to learn about quantum mechanics that could suggest otherwise. The point is that we redefine what we (think) we know everyday, and it’s no different nowadays.
For example, perhaps one day we will discover that, like every other particle we once thought was the smallest, the quantum particle too is made up of even smaller things. And maybe, just maybe the so called “randomness” of quantum particles we see today can be explained because of the nature of the smaller particle that make it up, the one we are currently not aware of. Is that so unreasonable? Because its not impossible, that’s for sure…
Yes, just because I'm trying to explain to you the concept of total randomness in quantum physics, please don't confuse that with me supporting the concept. As I said earlier in this topic;
'Many scientists seem to think that such randomness is ludicrous, however. Einstein always thought there was some kind of underlying mechanism.'
So there you are. I completely agree with what you're saying and have stated so before.
All I'm trying to do is convey that I am talking about total randomness here; I'm not supporting that theory.
You say it’s not random as far as we can tell, but of course it is. The phrase “as far as we can tell” means the same as “as far as we know”, wouldn’t you agree? And “as far as we know” simply refers to the full extent of our knowledge. But, our understanding of the universe, or anything for that matter, is always going to be limited by the full extent of our knowledge, right? I mean, it’s common sense. The full extent of our knowledge is what determines what we do and do not understand. Thus, given the full extent of our knowledge, or in other words “as far as we can tell”, quantum mechanics is random.
Its just that, compared to the universe as a whole, our “full extent of knowledge” is seriously limited…so much so in fact that we are in no position to conclude that anything is truly random (not yet anyway, and possibly never). Sure, we can theorize about true randomness, we can suggest that true randomness exists, and we can even believe in true randomness…but the truth is that we simply do not know enough to say for certain that there is no possible way these random events are just being misinterpreted because of a lack of information. The only exception is if we somehow come to the point of knowing all there is to know, and such phenomena still cannot be explained...in which case randomness may be proven by process of elimination. But until then, assuming that’s even possible, it’s just foolish to not leave room for the unknown because surely there is more we don’t know than there is that we do know. You just never know what answers are lying in the shadows, and simply assuming that there aren't any is not the job of sceince, thats more the job of religion.
Just always keep in mind that sceince is a living, breathing creature. It grows, it changes, and it evolves ad infinitum. Its in a constant state of flux. Don't ever get too comfortable with its current state because todays science is tomorrows buffoonery.
Again, I'm on your side...
Many people think that some day, we'll be looking back, having discovered the 'underlying mechanism', and think that our notions of randomness were stupid.
However, at the current time there are some mathematical arguments that imply inherent randomness, I think. They're way to complex for any of us here, but they do exist. Perhaps they're a mistake. Perhaps they're not.
I think now I've hopefully conveyed the basics of the whole argument here, and that
-I am actually talking about total randomness here, not 'observed randomness' and so forth
-I don't necessarily believe such a phenomenon to be true.
So if I could perhaps rule of a line here and get back to the original debate about determinism, I think I want to restate some lines of thought. 
__________________________________________________
Okay, so everyone here, like Einstein, seems pretty appauled by the notion of randomness.
But, couldn't we argue that that's because we are macroscopic beings?
We live in a reality in which we never observe quantum effects.
Therefore, our logic describes the world around us. The world around us is entirely predictable; therefore, in our logic system, every event is certain if the correct conditions apply.
But, isn't it possible that randomness is in fact not absurd, but logical and natural, and that the only reason we find it to be absurd, is that we are creatures who have never build a 'quantum logic system', because we never see the quantum world?
Just a thought.
|
|
Bookmarks