Is the Universe Random? To believe this, we need to give up, or adopt(?) the idea that the universe is in fact, undetermined at nearly every level, including those levels which can be understood. But here is the problem, how is it possible to understand events (on our level) are even knowable, meaning that there is a certain level of determinism even inherent in systems, such as those described as macroscopic? It's almost like we pick and choose which systems we desirably confirm to be unknowable and those which are knowable. It seems that the true uncertainty arises in quantum systems. Quantum systems are free from what we believe to be ''deterministic laws'' which we reflect on a daily basis. Fundamentally-speaking, the world of the small is pretty much free from our true rigid perspective, descriptions themselves of moving kinetic bodies, which are predictable with a certain amount of calculation, or even observational evidence, which indicates that perhaps our knowledge on systems break down at a certain threshold. Such a threshold should not be misunderstood as an absolute fact. Just because we cannot measure evading objects at the microscopic level does not truely mean a randomness occurs. In fact, it can be an indication of where macroscopic understanding of systems breaks down at a much smaller level. Phenomena such as superpositioning (of the physical kind, which I do not believe in), entanglement, p-wave duality, tunnelling and quantum leaps are but a handful of the strange lives of particles at the levels we do not associate an every-day measurement with. Oh what a Random World of Radiation Let us for now, concentrate on one of these examples. The incomprehensible, particle-wave duality unleashes a massive contradiction on our ordinary ordered lives. In comparison, for instance, to the world of micro-matter or \(\mu\)atter as it is called, we find a world which does not seem at all obvious to the relative human being, who may watch and record with some accuracy with measurements based on initial and final phases of the experiment. The important feature to notice here, is what seems obvious to us, and which is not. Is it of mere coincidence that \(\mu\)atter (micro-matter) has all of these strange phenomena like the particle-wave duality, among many, but determinism on our level of understanding breaks down? I don't for one minute believe that the particle-wave duality is in fact responsible for our ''lack of knowledge on the system'', but since it is one estranged occurrance among many which are only exhibited at the \(\mu\)atter level is an indication that regular measurements break down relative to us, or relative to our understandings. In other words, a massive fuzziness is begotten at the level of particles, the world of microsystems. Probabilistically, this does not negate the idea that things are determined - the determinism inherent for instance, in the world of ''ordered matter'' on the scale we are used to, are in fact emergent from the total randomized world we are usually led to believe in. If a world was built on total randomness, it makes no sense to make a world of deterministic facts from it. From here, it is said, that randomness must be a matter of ''What is relatively random to us, may just be a lack of knowledge on the system.''. Along the same lines, it is about understanding what we can make of the world, how we make our initial preperation on the system which we will observe. For instance, a world where matter emits photon energy may indeed appear to us as being a random process. But if you invoke an initial measurement of a strongt coupling on a system which is ripe to radiate away all it's energy, we can paradoxically make the atom totally predictable. This is called the zeno-paradox, and this flies in the face of our understandings - tampering with the system in a series of measurements can make a system predictable. What happens however, if we leave the system long enough to radiate energy? This the whole point. We do not know what happens inbetween. In fact, radiation cannot be used as an absolute fact of randomness. There are too many unknown factors, such as what causes radiation? I've heard of a few hypothesis', such as quark frazzlement, but I have heard of few papers on it, if anything - if such theories are being postulated, then perhaps radiation can be predictable? In fact, if such theories are being predicted, then we must assume as a priori that it is a lack of knowledge on the system, not a lack of knowledge provided by the system, as the system may indeed be very complete in information. What is being suggested here, is that perhaps the world of micro-matter is far to incomplete on its level, and hence, why the incompleteness may arise as something masquarading as a theif in the night, a theif of information and description. There was a few moments when I used to think radiation itself is in fact predictable by the zeno-effect, but in order for this train of thought, one must realize it isn't predicting radiation as of such - in fact, the description of radiation in fact vanishes and no longer can the description of the system be explained in terms of radiating photon energy. As RJBeery explained though, it does place some considerable concern on what defines a random system, if we can alter the state so much that no longer it exhibited a random nature relative to us. In theory, you can indeed predict what number a dice lands on; with the correct adjustment, atleast 90% of the time, you can correctly work out how the dice will land. This is reflected by the fact that the world of ordered macroscopic matter is a level in which things can be predictable. If this melts, and disintegrates at the level of \(\mu\)atter, then there is a certain threshold in which our everyday knowledge will break down, an indication itself that the world below us is fundamental in it's nature of information, inherent also in its information in the sense that system can still rally on without any direct observation from the scientist. Another micromatter phenomenon, other than those mentioned so far, is called the Uncertainty Principle - which should be well-known by now, even by the laymen. It is only a property of matter at the infinitesimal level yet, it plauges for some reason, most physicists understandings of how all workings operate - usually interpretated as a random fact inherent whenever you attempt to rationalize a precise position or trajectory of a particle. Whilst it is a mathematical certainty to find an infinite amount of positions if you attempt to locate a precise trajectory, unfortunately for all random enthusiasts, it does not negate the deterministic nature believed to exist. The reason why in fact lies in the fact that the uncertainty principle is a fact of \(\mui\)atter, which therefore means it is also subject to the same scrutiny which we have so far built on the estranged world of the small. The small world brings us a plethora of incomrehensible facts, which all fall into equally a world that we do not understand with our ordered logic and prevailing facts.
I wrote the following: In other words, a massive fuzziness is begotten at the level of particles, the world of microsystems. Probabilistically, this does not negate the idea that things are determined - the determinism inherent for instance, in the world of ''ordered matter'' on the scale we are used to, are in fact emergent from the total randomized world we are usually led to believe in.
I cannot understand your comment. Quantum Thoery is often said to be a complete probabilistic theory: And hence the strange occurrance that even quantum theory itself is also random. The two are compatible as current understanding goes.
