We live in a universe where all physical processes are in themselves a cause, and an effect. Like knocking over a line of dominos. From a line of concequences we have arrived upon where we are today, our thought processes are made from signals and chemicals in the brain responding to a stimulus. The stimulus is made from other outside forces which have been set in motion by other actions or thoughts. Does this mean that our world is completeley fated? Assuming that the big bang theory is correct, when the big bang... banged, waves of concequences and effects were set, at that second that would spell out the fate of the rest of the universe. Anything we do now we do because of what has come before it, and therefore whatever happens is the only thing that could have possibley happened. I would like to know any objections to this please. And I would like to know, can anything be random? And from this idea, is it possible for us to have free will?

Tom

In Physics, there is this concept of Entrophy (did i spell/call it right?) which says that the universe has a tendency towards chaos, disorder. so yes, there are completely random things.

like what?

Is anything random?

Lottery numbers? jk

is it possible for us to have free will?

Free will is an illusion.

It seems highly doubtful that there are things random...when you think about it every event has been brought forth by millions of things in conjunction, working together to create even the most insignificant event. So is there anything random? hmmmm it would be very hard to find one.....best i can think of is thought but even that is planned most of the time.

whitewolf-

In Physics, there is this concept of Entrophy (did i spell/call it right?)

Close....Entropy.

Page on Entropy (http://www.svsu.edu/~slaven/Entropy.html)

Quantum physics tells us that many things are truly random. Even if you had all the information (which, by the way, you could never have) it would be impossible to predict what would happen in many situations. Quantum systems are not entirely deterministic.

i have read the website on entropy but I'm still not convinced. the example of the box full of air using the positions of the particles as microstates. Arent the particles there in those exact places through convection in the air among other things? Leading back to the first problem. I might be wrong.

Question: Is free will an illusion because choice has been determined by previous cause? And if so why is this not a contradiction when there is always more than one choice and no way of determining which one is predictable?:bugeye:

Okay I am now confused by my own question!

I trying again:
Does not determinism and volition work hand in hand like a loop?

Possibley lol but I dont know what those mean lol

Acording to a scientist called Heisenburg (spelling?) who is regarded as the founder of Quantum Physics, there is "Uncertainty" at a sub atomic level in the universe. He made a theory for it and everything its called the Heisenburg uncertainty principal. Apparently with some little sub atomic particle he was studying he found that the more data you collect about its exact location the less data you are able to have about its velocity or some such.

Ive got no idea how this is possible, and am half of a mind that he was just doing it wrong and decided to make a theory out of it, but Quantum Physics is still around none the less, so maybe there was something to it. Basicly his theory adds up to the idea that its imposible to predict the future because to do that you would have to have absolute certain data on just about everything, which, thanks to this tricky particle of his, is imposible.

That sounds interesting, but. If the thingamywatchamagigger particles had the exact same forces acting on them in the same circumstances, would they still behave in the same way? I mean, surely they must do what they do for a reason, even if we dont understand what that reason is?

The uncertainty principle does indeed show that you can never have all the information on something. Thus it would be impossible to predict everything that would happen because even if you had a perfect model for how things interact, you would never be able to properly set your initial conditions.

Also, even if you DID have all the information, you would not be able to predict everything because, as I said earlier, many things in our universe are not deterministic. Two particles can start at the same place and have the same forces act on them, but end up in different places when you measure their location. This is very counter-intuitive, but it seems to be the way that the world actually works.

Uncertainty has a greater effect on smaller masses, so by the time you get to something the size of, say, a person, you never notice it.

To Nasor:

Well if this is the case then why does anyone bother questioning volition?

I do not believe in randomness. I always believe an action has a reaction, even if the time period is many days, months, years, or eons. I mean, maybe randomness itself is a type of pattern

To qfrontier:

Isn't that chaos theory? Patterns underlining what is seemingly randomness even if the outcome is unpredictable?

I haven't ever heard of chaos theory. Need to check it out...

cant it be simply said that all particles obey the laws of physics all actions and happening are just demonstrations of newtons laws. all the brains functions are chemical movements, therefore this leads itself to the idea that if you could comprehend entirely where the universe is now, which is not possible but if you could, you could predict the future in every aspect until the end of time, if any end exists, of course its impossible to comprehend but interesting all the same.. can anyone add anything?

Originally posted by patty-rick
cant it be simply said that all particles obey the laws of physics all actions and happening are just demonstrations of newtons laws...if you could comprehend entirely where the universe is now, which is not possible but if you could, you could predict the future in every aspect until the end of time, if any end exists, of course its impossible to comprehend but interesting all the same.. I'll say it again...quantum physics shows that some things are truly random. It wouldn't matter if you had all the information in the world, you still wouldn't be able to predict everything.

I'll say it again...quantum physics shows that some things are truly random. It wouldn't matter if you had all the information in the world, you still wouldn't be able to predict everything.

This randomness in quantum puzzles me too. Is the following analogy wrong?

Imagine you have a causual newton world on the level of ping-pong balls. The balls behave predictably. Now you say that inside these balls random things happen. OK. But does the randomness inside the balls influence the outside-world-of-balls so that it is random too? (presupposing that the random processes within the balls have no influence on the outside behaviour of the balls).

Originally posted by Nasor
I'll say it again...quantum physics shows that some things are truly random. It wouldn't matter if you had all the information in the world, you still wouldn't be able to predict everything. Quantum physics shows that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with arbitrary certainty using our current model. It does not definitively prove that the motion of the particle is random, as that would be certainty of uncertainty, and I cannot imagine an experiment or proof that would give a 100% certain answer about <100% certainty, as far as desctiptive science goes.

Originally posted by LaoTzu
Quantum physics shows that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle with arbitrary certainty using our current model. It does not definitively prove that the motion of the particle is random, as that would be certainty of uncertainty, and I cannot imagine an experiment or proof that would give a 100% certain answer about <100% certainty, as far as desctiptive science goes. The Uncertainty Principle is not caused by a problem with our measuring devices or techniques. We can't know the exact position and momentum of a particle because particles don't have an exact position and momentum.

According to quantum physics the location of any particle is random. A particle's position can only be described as a probability distribution that lists every possibly location of the particle and the probability that it will be in that particular location. While the particle is more likely to be in some locations than others, you can't predict where its exact location will be even if you have all information about it; it's exact location is random.

This randomness does not only apply to a particle's position. It also applies to whether or not the particle will decay, how it will interact with other particles, and many other things. Imagine you have a causual newton world on the level of ping-pong balls. The balls behave predictably. Now you say that inside these balls random things happen. OK. But does the randomness inside the balls influence the outside-world-of-balls so that it is random too? (presupposing that the random processes within the balls have no influence on the outside behaviour of the balls).No, it only looks like the balls behave predictably because the effects of quantum randomness are very small for massive objects. The uncertainly in the position of, say, a ping-pong ball is so small that you would never be able to notice it.

isnt it also possible that there is a pattern at a quantum level that is too complex that we cannot understand. complex codes appear like random figures of probability but as soon as a key is unlocked everything falls into place isnt this possible??? science has been wrong before.

Originally posted by patty-rick
isnt it also possible that there is a pattern at a quantum level that is too complex that we cannot understand. According to quantum physics, no. There is no 'hidden variable' that we have simply not yet discovered. It is truly random. It's very counter-intuitive, but it seems to be the way the world works.

they also use to believe that all matter was made of earth water and fire, they made these conclusions out of the observations they could make.. they were wrong, surely scientists arnt so blind as to shut ideas off due to mere speculation?

Of course it's possible that quantum theory is wrong, but it's probably the best-test theory that has ever existed and it has, as far as I know, never been shown to be wrong. The design of everything from new drugs to the microchips in your computer is based on it, and there is a vast amount of evidence that it's correct. Of course you can disagree with it and ignore the evidence for it because you are disturbed by its implications - people have been doing that with science for quite a long time - but it's doubtful that quantum physics will go away any time soon.

I agree with Patty-Rick. Everything we know is less than certain. And can probably be improved upon. However, the knowledge we possess today suits us and meets our needs. It tells us what we want to know. Such as the earth wind and fire example, that knowledge was fine for ancient times (broad sense of the word knowledge lol)

Originally posted by Nasor
The Uncertainty Principle is not caused by a problem with our measuring devices or techniques. We can't know the exact position and momentum of a particle because particles don't have an exact position and momentum.

According to quantum physics the location of any particle is random. A particle's position can only be described as a probability distribution that lists every possibly location of the particle and the probability that it will be in that particular location. While the particle is more likely to be in some locations than others, you can't predict where its exact location will be even if you have all information about it; it's exact location is random.

This randomness does not only apply to a particle's position. It also applies to whether or not the particle will decay, how it will interact with other particles, and many other things. I think it's somewhat misleading to use the word "random" in this place and then extend it to macrophysics with its conventional meaning.

To the best of my knowledge, the experiments/calculations have shown that it is not possible to know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously with the conventional scientific model of reality. It could also be true that there is no model of reality that allows a particle to have a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time; I am unsure as to whether we have proven this, though.

However, one inconsistency is that uncertainty does not imply randomness. The fact that the phenomenon does not fit our model in no way implies that there are not exclusively deterministic forces at work. There is a difference between not having the proper model to describe Schroedinger's cat and an actual contradiction in the cat's life/death state, if that makes any sense.

Regarding Uncertainty LaoTzu is correct according to my information. Uncertainty does not necessarily mean indeterminism. There are different (respectable) interpretations.

As to how this relates to freewill try 'The Solution to the Problem of Freewill' by John Dupree at

Pietre Abelard, the twelfth century Parisian teacher of logic and theology, asserted that for p to entail q the impossibility of (p and not-q) is not enough. In addition p must also require that q be the case.

If he is right this then it is not possible to prove strict determinism. (This is what it means to me anyway - and I think he is right because his assertion is circular). Thus there will always be speculation about freewill.

Also in favour of freewill is the fact that while a physical and deterministic cause may be necessary for a particular physical effect or action (me hitting a key on the keyboard for instance), we cannot ever know if that cause was fully sufficient to cause that action or effect. There may yet be room for conscious intention in the world.

Originally posted by suthy2
Does this mean that our world is completeley fated?

Tom

Comrade, your speaking of "Scientific Determinism," which, if I'm not mistaken, died out in the early 1900's with the promulgation of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.

This asserts that the location of a given particle may only be observed if that particle's location is slightly altered by the contact of wavelengths.
Therefore, one may only "see" a praticle if one changes its energy and place slightly. If we wish to know its "place" we must change its energy, and if we wish to know its energy we must not attempt to know its place.

This indicates that we, when in the process of observing particles, can only be sure of one of two properties, the energy of the particle or the location of the particle.

We are, then, doomed to ignorance, or "Uncertainty." LOL
We cannot be sure of the outcome of any event on account of this incontrovertible principle.

Originally posted by Canute
If he is right this then it is not possible to prove strict determinism. (This is what it means to me anyway - and I think he is right because his assertion is circular). Thus there will always be speculation about freewill.

Also in favour of freewill is the fact that while a physical and deterministic cause may be necessary for a particular physical effect or action (me hitting a key on the keyboard for instance), we cannot ever know if that cause was fully sufficient to cause that action or effect. There may yet be room for conscious intention in the world. There may be room, but I personally see no mechanism for free will (which is, of course, more than simply indeterminate behavior).

It has been suggested (following experiments by Libet) that freewill consists simply in the ability to choose not to act. I couldn't make an argument for this but it makes a certain sense, given that many believe that the purest form of consciousness is an entirely inactive rest state of experience of being. If I remember right the original LaoTzu would have argued for strict determinism, but I may have misremembered.

Redoubtable - I would not dare attempt to dispute the Uncertainty Principle here, but I think you have not stated it properly. I will just risk saying that uncertainty is not generally considered to be a result of our not being able to observe or predict, it is considered to be a real feature of the world.

Still, even on this view this is not quite the same as saying that all physical events are not physically determined, even if they are in some senses random or uncertain.

Originally posted by LaoTzu
To the best of my knowledge, the experiments/calculations have shown that it is not possible to know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously with the conventional scientific model of reality. It could also be true that there is no model of reality that allows a particle to have a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time; I am unsure as to whether we have proven this, though.

However, one inconsistency is that uncertainty does not imply randomness. The fact that the phenomenon does not fit our model in no way implies that there are not exclusively deterministic forces at work.Uncertainty, randomness and indeterminacy are related, but one does not follow directly from the others. Let me be very clear here; according to modern quantum physics many things are both random and non-deterministic. I don't know why people here are so skeptical of this. If you don't believe me, look in a modern physics textbook. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/047187373X/qid=1053322004/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/002-0463401-4096008?v=glance&s=books

In a way, I feel both freewill and determinism are correct.

If it was possible to know everything with out influencing anything to gain that knowledge, then you would be able to predict anyhting, so in that sense, the universe is very predetermined. The problem is that in order to 'know' everything, you would firstly have to be totally removed from that system, because if you existed in that system, you would influence it by your thoughts (unless your thoughts had no physical inturpertations, ie. brainwaves, nurons etc.).

If you could know and predict things, it would follow that you could predict how any changes made would influence everything, but then you would be interfering with that system.

However, we are not seperate from the system we exist in. So every action we take changes things in a way we could never predict. From that view point, everything is random and open ended.

The problem is inherent in the question. When we speak of determinism and freewill, the question boils down to one point. What is consciousness? Please don't quote dictionaries at me, as I am well aware of what that says. What I mean is is consciousness just an illusion caused by chemical interactions and electricity, or is there something more?

You may have missed Nasor's point here, which suggests that even if we completely know the state of the Universe in one moment we can't completely know it in the next. Whether this view of QM is correct I wouldn't know (not all the experts agree) but it seems to be the concensus.

I know what qm says, i just don't agree, in a sense. I think qm is correct to the point that we are in the system and thus affect it in ways that we can't begin to imagine. When i'm refering to the system i mean the universe/reality as a whole.

The idea was almost a god thing, in that
1. you would have to be seperate from the system.
2. the knowledge couldn't be based on meassuring/observation, because that would mean interaction with the system.

In other words, you would have to be onmiscient about somethign that you couldn't interact with, kind of like a thought in your own head.
(don't ask. I'm tired and i just read all of the paul dixon thread..brain isn't working at its best right now.)

Originally posted by Mephura
I know what qm says, i just don't agree, in a sense. Why don't you agree with it? Are you basing this opinion off of anything, or are you just choosing not to believe it because you don't like it? Is there some experiment that you're aware of that indicates QM might be flawed in some way?

Ok, now that I'm awake, I will try to clarify what i said.

( and do remember that thread is in philosophy)

I origionally said "I don't agree, in a sense", which would also imply that i do agree in a sense.
I agree with Qm as far as it deals with us and any observation we make, because we are part of the system we are measuring.
That being the The key point here.
In some way I guess you could cay that I am camped in the deteriministic camp, because I have a hard time accepting the idea that anything is truely random. Maybe I'm a newtonian throw-back or something. Anyway....
Religion/belief is tied very closely to science/math in my head, with the basic idea being if there is proof (ie, collected data that maches predictions made by a working model of some kind), then I'll accept it. For all the things that science can't 'touch', so to say, I feel free to fill in the blanks with anything that seems consistant to what i already believe.
In this case, I view the randomness in the universe not as a condition that is just arbitrarily there, but as a result of us/other variables influencing the system in ways we either
1.don't understand
2.don't know about

Being as all of science is just a quest for the truth, I feel it is a bit presumptuous of us to think we have reached a final answer just yet. While Qm is a great theory that holds its own, I am positive that eventually, as human knowledge and understanding grow, we will have to either revise it or replace it, as is the case with all theories.
This is not an attack on quatum theory, or any other (except maybe UniKEF). What this is, is an understanding of human limitations. Limitations that there is probably nothing we can do about. If there was some way to know everything, everything, about the universe down to the placement, properties and characteristics of every subatomic particle at once, as well as the forces at play on a subatomic, normal,and cosmological scale, I do believe that everything would be predictable, to something not in the system.

Being as we are in the system, and our observatins influence the things we are observing, as far as we, and anything else in the universe is concerned, certain things are random.
For an overly simple analogy, things are wet when they are in the water. Perhaps if they weren't in the water, they wouldnt be.

Mephura - I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said. (Unless I missed something). I don't know if you're doing it intentionally but I would say that you are talking about consciousness, the observer that always lies outside the system, the entity that Roger Penrose (just like you) argues must lie there outside the system (although he argues from Goedel), and which Max Velmans argues must really be there for reasons of pure logic (viz. ontological monism).

Originally posted by Mephura
The idea was almost a god thing, in that
1. you would have to be seperate from the system.
2. the knowledge couldn't be based on meassuring/observation, because that would mean interaction with the system.
It was very precisely a god thing IMO. Thus -

1. You would not be seperate from the system, you would be the system, the set of all sets.
2. There would be no measuring or observing, both of which entail a dualism of existence. This observer is beyond dualism. This observer can logically solve the Liar's Paradox and escape Goedel's constraints on the level of understanding achievable by way of axiom-based (and thus dualistic) systems of thought.

In other words, you would have to be onmiscient about somethign that you couldn't interact with, kind of like a thought in your own head.[/B]
A whisker away from Buddhism.

[(don't ask. I'm tired and i just read all of the paul dixon thread..brain isn't working at its best right now.) [/B]
You mean it can work better?!

Yes, it does work better, occasionally. :D

Anyway, you are obviously much better read than i am.

Originally posted by Canute
Roger Penrose argues must lie there outside the system (although he argues from Goedel), and which Max Velmans argues must really be there for reasons of pure logic (viz. ontological monism).


Originally posted by Canute
1. You would not be seperate from the system, you would be the system, the set of all sets.
2. There would be no measuring or observing, both of which entail a dualism of existence. This observer is beyond dualism. This observer can logically solve the Liar's Paradox and escape Goedel's constraints on the level of understanding achievable by way of axiom-based (and thus dualistic) systems of thought.


It sounds alot like my overall beliefs, but i was trying to stay as far from that as possible, and stay more on the topic of determinism vs. freewill. Now while personal beliefs would hold some sway over one's oppinion on the subject, I didn't think airing my personal philosophy in entirety was needed.

Originally posted by Canute
A whisker away from Buddhism.

I'll take your word for it.

Anyway, thanks. I guess I'm not totally brain dead.

I was just meant to say that I thought you were on to something important and I agreed. It was late and I may have got carried away.

BTW I'm not sure that it's possible to seperate the question of freewill/determinism from your overall personal philosophy, if by that you mean what you generally think about things.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack you in the least, if that is the way i came off. Also, As far As trying to seperate things , I simply ment state my oppinion with out going into detail about my personal beliefs.
Thanks for the words of encouragment.

if time is a line

-------------------------------------------------->
. . . A . . . . . . . . . . B . . . . . C . . . . .


and at each point something happens to us, then there is nothing random.
if point A is the past, point B is the present and point C is the future, C is already determined. you cannot change it.

.....but if you don't believe in time travel (like me), then everything is random.

Dosnt fate mean to be predestined(please correct if i am wrong)....if that is so then technically everything in cause and effect and not fate....because if somthing is predestined then that would mean that there must be somthing behind that predestined choice choosing the fate......a god mabye.....or is fate a religous word made up to explain the way things came about?( does this make any sense?)

soory it is all jumbled around....i get ideas and the just let go.:D

so much is unknown past present and future.

it is said that "history repeats itself"

we know the past and try to change it
the future is uncertain and is a result of now

things happen beyond control and we are a direct result of random selection.

actions, thoughts, choices, our very nature is random

so yes some things are random.

if you throw a rock at a rattle snake and it lies there and leaves you alone, the next time you throw a rock at it, it bites you. random

someone plows into a wall with their car at super fast speeds walks away without a scratch, another person not so lucky
random

girl or boy likes another girl or boy instead of another
random selection

our genes our randomly selected our traits our falts.

who we are is a reult of past affecting present and consists of our experiences.

Randomness is limited and defined by perception. What may be random to a butterfly could be learned as a pattern to a dog. A dog may perceive a bouncing ball as being random, but to a physics professor with sensitive-enough equipment, that ball follows the rules of physics exactly. And the randomness seen in human behavior or quantum physics could be seen as something predictable to a god. It's all relative. But to believe that anything in this universe is truely random (ie. an effect without specific cause)- I think there is a definite cause for that effect- lack of imagination.

I agree - although 'random' is a tough word to define so it depends. It's easy to confuse it with unpredictability ot indeterminism.

One interesting problem is why the randomness of say, the decay of sub-atomic particles, creates a predictable half-life for a substance.

Schroedinger wrote " The disintegration of a single radioactive atom is observable. But if you are given a single atom, is probable lifetime is much less certain than that of a healthy sparrow... This patent lack of individual determination nevertheless results in the exact exponential law of decay of a large number of atoms of the same kind" He concluded that something is at work beyond physical causation.

Originally posted by Canute
I agree - although 'random' is a tough word to define so it depends. It's easy to confuse it with unpredictability ot indeterminism.Aren't 'random' and 'indeterminate' synonymous? If not, what's the difference?

if every thing was planned it would lead to the conclusion that something or someone planned it. which leads to religion and being a person of science i dont believe in religion... so in theory every thing is free will unless you believe in something greater that plans it

Originally posted by Nasor
Quantum physics tells us that many things are truly random. Even if you had all the information (which, by the way, you could never have) it would be impossible to predict what would happen in many situations. Quantum systems are not entirely deterministic.

Only because it is random, doesn't mean it's not deterministic.

I don't know what the proper definition of random is, there's probably a few. But Anders is right I think. We call the motion of molecules in a gas 'random' but we don't mean 'undetermined'. We often use 'random' instead of 'unpredictable' but clearly they are not the same thing (tomorrow's weather is unpredictable but not random).

The Copenhagen folk suggest its pointless talking about this as far as fundamental particles go. But we can't be quite sure (I believe this is so anyway) whether particles behave indeterminately but not entirely randomly, randomly and indeterminately, determinately but as far as we'll ever know randomly, or some other combination. As their behaviour is not entirely unpredictable the terms 'unpredictable', 'random', and 'indeterminate' can get pretty muddled up by non-specialists (namely me).

Quantum systems may even be completely determined at some strange level, as Schroedinger suggested.

Generally 'random' means that it is impossible to examine past results to determine future results; that is to say, it doesn't follow some sort of pattern. 'Indeterminate' is usually used to refer to something that is not deterministic, meaning that its future state is not determined by its present state. Of course 'indeterminate' has a whole other meaning in the world of mathematics.

All evidence suggests that there is no 'hidden variable' in quantum systems.

'random' means that it is impossible to examine past results to determine future results;

easy to show this wrong...
i give u one number
5
whats the next number its not random tell me if its not random u should be able to examine the past results i.e '5' and tell me the next you cant.

the pattern could go 5 7 9 11 13 or 5 10 15 20 25

it doesnt matter the fact was there is a pattern there even if u cant see it, maybe u dont have enough information yet to determine it .

Originally posted by Nasor
Generally 'random' means that it is impossible to examine past results to determine future results; that is to say, it doesn't follow some sort of pattern. 'Indeterminate' is usually used to refer to something that is not deterministic, meaning that its future state is not determined by its present state. Of course 'indeterminate' has a whole other meaning in the world of mathematics.

All evidence suggests that there is no 'hidden variable' in quantum systems.
That sounds reasonable, but is it really that simple?

If the behaviour of fundamental particles was truly random we wouldn't be here. The fact is that they have attributes, properties that define the limits of their randomness. Their behaviour is therefore only random (if at all) within certain deterministic constraints.

They are generally thought to be very uncomplex entities and thus have few degrees of freedom. If even these small freedoms are limited by their own attributes then this seems a long way from true randomness or indeterminancy.

In fact we make all sorts of successful predictions about the behaviour of fundamental particles, which would be impossible without some sort of order in their behaviour.

Patty-Rick seems to have a point as well, if I read it right.

Not sure about hidden variables. I roughly know the arguments but it doesn't seem quite proved either way yet. Still - I can live without them.

Originally posted by patty-rick
it doesnt matter the fact was there is a pattern there even if u cant see it, maybe u dont have enough information yet to determine it . You misunderstood. If something is random then it is impossible for anyone to predict the next result by examining past results, even if they have all possible information. Of course you might not be able to figure out the next result because you don't have access to all the information (as in your example of guessing which number comes after 5) but that doesn't mean that it isn't random, it merely means that you don't know enough to predict it. If the number that comes after 5 in determined by some formula (such as adding 2 or adding 5) then it isn’t random. This is why computers are unable to generate truly random numbers; you can't get random numbers with a formula.

Since something that is nondeterministic is not locked into any particular future state because of its current state, nondeterministic things are random because even if you knew 'everything' about them you would not be able to predict what would happen next. Even if you have all possible information about a particle, you can't know whether or not it will decay in the next instant; whether or not it decays is random.Originally posted by Canute
If the behaviour of fundamental particles was truly random we wouldn't be here. The fact is that they have attributes, properties that define the limits of their randomness. Their behaviour is therefore only random (if at all) within certain deterministic constraints.

They are generally thought to be very uncomplex entities and thus have few degrees of freedom. If even these small freedoms are limited by their own attributes then this seems a long way from true randomness or indeterminancy.

In fact we make all sorts of successful predictions about the behaviour of fundamental particles, which would be impossible without some sort of order in their behaviour. It's true that in nature not everything is possible – if it were then there wouldn't be any point to trying to study physics. Something can still be random even if it is constrained. You could have a series of random numbers between 1 and 10 that would still be random, even though you know that each new number must be confined to the range between 1 and 10.

Quantum physics is all about expressing things in terms of probabilities rather than discrete numbers.

You misunderstood

no you misunderstood i wasnt out to prove anything but the possibility that you dont know enough to see whether there is a pattern in what u believe to be random

You quoted me and then said 'easy to show this is wrong,' so I assumed you were attempting to refute what I had said. My mistake.

In any case, it's not simply a matter of us seeing a bunch of strange behavior and assuming that it must be random because we can’t find a pattern in it. If the behavior of matter were truly random then it would behave differently than if it were merely following a very complex pattern that we did not understand. Experimental evidence strongly indicates (but does not conclusively prove) that the behavior of matter is random. Look up the Bell Inequality for more information on the subject of experimentally determining whether or not things are random.

Nasor - I think that you're oversimplfying the problem.

PattyRick made the point that we cannot ever be sure an event is random. This seems to be true.

You are right about random numbers between 1 and 10. But this is not true randomness, it is randomness combined with determinancy. "Producing random numbers is impossible" (Penguin Dictionary of Science).

You wrote "Experimental evidence strongly indicates (but does not conclusively prove) that the behavior of matter is random. Look up the Bell Inequality for more information on the subject of experimentally determining whether or not things are random."

I think you'll find that this is not correct, or at least not unless you define 'random' in some obtruse technical way that makes it true. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the behaviour of matter is random.

I suspect that PR and I use the term 'random' in a different way to you.

Originally posted by Canute
You are right about random numbers between 1 and 10. But this is not true randomness, it is randomness combined with determinancy. "Producing random numbers is impossible" (Penguin Dictionary of Science).Yes, you could have a set of truly random numbers between 1 and 10. For that matter, you could have a set of nothing but random ones and zeros. The test for randomness is whether or not the next number is determined by some sort of mechanistic formula, pattern, or whatever you want to call it. You seem to think that random means 'anything is possible,' which is not the generally accepted definition of random. I think you'll find that this is not correct, or at least not unless you define 'random' in some obtruse technical way that makes it true. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the behaviour of matter is random.Like I said, check out information on the Bell Inequality.I suspect that PR and I use the term 'random' in a different way to you. I gave you the mathematically accepted definition of random. What do YOU think random means?

Einstien says that if you were outside our universe that you would see time as it started in a parade of sorts and we are like tiny specs on this timeline moving forward (that leads to a time travel descusion but we wont go there) thus if we are constantly moving foward in time then there is no "now"... sorry i got off topic... any-who if this "timeline" exist then every descision we make is planned for us but we do have the "freewill" to make that choice its just that the outcome is predetermaned...

ask my science teacher she could explain all that stuff

it all depends on who or what you believe :D

Originally posted by Nasor
Yes, you could have a set of truly random numbers between 1 and 10. For that matter, you could have a set of nothing but random ones and zeros. The test for randomness is whether or not the next number is determined by some sort of mechanistic formula, pattern, or whatever you want to call it. You seem to think that random means 'anything is possible,' which is not the generally accepted definition of random.
Ok. But any system of choosing or producing those numbers would be deterministic and non-random. Otherwise it might produce 11. I appreciate what you mean by 'random' here, but it is a limited meaning, shorthand for 'to some degree random'.

In a way it's a matter of veiwpoints. To the observer the numbers would be random (although within non-random contraints) but the system that produced them would not be producing them indeterminately, nor producing them randomly in anything other than a very limited sense.

Like I said, check out information on the Bell Inequality.
I know a little about that, but can't see it's relationship to the this discussion. Please expand a bit.
[I gave you the mathematically accepted definition of random. What do YOU think random means? [/B]
The dictionary gives various definitions, all of which are partial and and beg questions. It's just plain tricky.

What I mean by a random depends on the context. Give me a context and I'll attempt a definition. I can accept yours ("Generally 'random' means that it is impossible to examine past results to determine future results; that is to say, it doesn't follow some sort of pattern.") for many situations but there is a problem when this is applied to the real world, since by this definition randomness is always unprovable. So we cannot assert that the behaviour of any real entity is random. (I'm hurrying so may have mis-thought this, but I don't think so).

Originally posted by Canute
I know a little about that (Bell Inequality), but can't see it's relationship to the this discussion. Please expand a bit.Early on in the development of quantum physics it became apparent that many things were random. The physics world was mostly divided into two camps. One group believed that everything really was random, while the other believed that there were 'hidden variables' that governed all of the seemingly random behavior, and that we were simply unable to discover them. Physicist John Bell came up with a way to test for hidden variables that could show whether or not hidden variables were present, even if it couldn't show what the variables actually were. Although so far no one has been able to come up with a way to execute Bell's test perfectly, many imperfect tests have been performed and they all indicate (although they can't conclusively prove) that there are no hidden variables.

Mmm. I thought that Bell just showed that hidden variables weren't at work in a particular experimental situation - but I'll take your word for it.

Either way don't you think that the fact that we can't prove the absence of hidden variables supports the idea that we cannot prove the existence of genuine randomness, and thus cannot assert it as applying to any event?

It's certainly true that hidden variables have not been definitively disproved, but like I said, there is a good amount of evidence that they don't exist. Although experiments based on the Bell Inequality aren't perfect, they all point in the same direction. I don't really keep up to date on this sort of thing, so it's possible that there are some recent developments with it that I'm not aware of.

what or who is rolling the dice in those little quarks?

i think we all come to the conclusion that you cant prove the existance of random happenings because you never know when an forseen factor may become clear, thus in relation to the topic

is anything random???
some say yes
some say no
but neither can prove either way

conclusion agreed???

I'll go along with that, although I'm not sure we're all agreed on what we mean by 'random'.

i never took the time to read all of the posts....so forgive me if this was already mentioned...but here it is. 99% of life is random...let's say by some random event you end up at a fork in the road...for a brief moment you have a CHOICE to either go left or right...after you make that decision you are back to living your random life...until you get to another "fork in the road" then you get to make another choice....etc.

On occasion, something may be random.

If you have ever stepped quickly into an alley behind a Vietnemese gay bar to catch a couple of tokes and seen a group of unsavory individulas trying to skin a rhinoceros using nothing but a set of dentures, you would not ask if anything is random.

Originally posted by machaon
If you have ever stepped quickly into an alley behind a Vietnemese gay bar to catch a couple of tokes and seen a group of unsavory individulas trying to skin a rhinoceros using nothing but a set of dentures, you would not ask if anything is random.


brilliant...if i could shake your hand i would