Can a purely random system be created? Is it possible?

Not that I am aware of.

Maybe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The greater the knowledge we have of the universe, the less random the universe appears to be.

When you throw a dice, the result looks random. However, if you can measure the position of the dice in your hand, the power of the movement of your hand and the way the dice spins while gravity pulls it down, then is it still random?

How about the weather? Seems pretty random to me. In earlier times, mankind could rarely predict the weather. Today, we know the weather for the next few days. Sometimes we make mistakes, yes... but that's because we don't know everything that affects the weather. As long as we don't know everything about it, it will appear to be random

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No maybe about it, QQ is quite incorrect here.
The situation need not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Glaucon,
I assume you are referring to this:

"Can a system be constructed that is truly random in nature?"

And yes it is contradictory in a similar way that discussing ex-nhillo creation etc is.

The question is based on the line of enquiry that can be summed up by this poetic use of words:
"...in an ocean of infinite variables and chaos one only needs a single constant and over time the chaos will "painfully" be brought into order..."

And as the universe has always seemingly has a constant [ ie gravity ] then absolute randomness can not exist as to do so the universe or reality around us would be in a state of chaos [ in a big way ]

Imagine a beginning in time when particles were flying in all sorts of chaotic directions, the universe had no form, no shape, a bit like "white noise" and over billions of years with a single constant [gravity] the universe takes shape and form and order, physical rules develop and constancy becomes the normal state with the occassional relapse into anarchy.

If randomness exists as an abolute notion and I fail to see how it can be a partial notion, Absolute Chaos would be the rule in this universe and not the "partial" order that we see. [ idea: universe is evolving towards order from chaos from exnhillo etc etc ]

However we humans love to use words like randomness to help asuage our fear of the unknown or unknowable, we resort to ideas of chance and coincedence as a way of explaining that which we can not and do not need to understand. A convenience so that we can concentrate on stuff more meaningfull in our lives.
"Why did the white ball go into the side pocket after hitting the black?" who cares ...lets have a beer..."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can you suggest another alternative to the two notions : randomness and determinsim. Can the two co-exist in this universe?
I may very well be incorrect, which is of course why I am posing the question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, chance and randomness are the same thing, so it is not helpful to try to differentiate them. The word you're looking for is "unpredictability," not "chance."

 

I would propose that in essense:
Determinism is an intuitive based rational.
Randomess is a paranoia based rational.

but of course we could be lying to ourselves about determinism also because of paranoia...ha

 

Because quantum mechanics implies that the universe is inherently probabilistic, then perhaps such a mechanism can be constructed if it can amplify the many tens of magnitudes necessary for access to quantum fuzz.

 

Indeed I was referring to that.

I think the contradiction goes further however.
What I was getting at was the contradiction between "random" and "constructed".
Random, as you've pointed out, is a tenuous concept at the best of times, but to "construct" is clear. Any construction will necessarily be finite in scope, and certainly rigid in structure, be it physical or conceptual, due to the very nature of artifice.
The only way I see to allow for the possibility you seek would be to somehow design something incompletely [like, for example, mathematics (taking into consideration Goedel)].

The key here is the word "notion", for that's all randomness is.
You've already hinted at the 'solution' to your problem: randomness is nothing but our weak understanding of the application of our system of prediction unto a seemingly imponderable world. This is not to reduce the problem to one of semantics, but to highlight the fact that you seem to be assuming an ontology that necessitates a causation as part of the material world.

An alternative? Perhaps not, but logically there's nothing to drive us to their opposition in mutual exclusivity.
It is entirely possible that the specific parameters of possibility for event X are randomized by pre-existing conditions, while the occurrence of event X itself may thereby be made determined.

 

If I knew all variables in existence, could I correctly predict that tomorrow you will eat strawberry ice cream at 3:00?

 

Strawman; ergo, fallacious.

Assuming complete knowledge of contributory factors would necessitate perfect predictability.

Which brings me to my answer proper: no, you could not. And no, I'm not going to say that this is because it would require you to be both timeless and omniscient.

The problem is that variables cascade:

Even if knowledge alone of all relevant variables were available to you, you couldn't possibly account for two things:

first, the 'creation' of new variables as a result of the outcome of certain events ( the kid it the ATM before me gums up the card slot, so I have to go to another one, causing me to arrive later than 3 pm...)

and second, the outcome of even the relevant events could preclude satisfaction of other events ( I get so far as to spoon some ice cream when I recall a story I read the day before about a dairy recall....).

Variables are simply not enough to ensure predictability; simply knowing that there are 6 different sides to a die does not allow one to successfully predict a die roll. To achieve this, one must also know how satisfaction of variables affect other variables. And this condition can only occur in a closed system.

 

To prove randomness would be to prove that randomness is not random.


So ...

 

fair enough.....
So therefore can one conclude that if randomness is a mere indicator of our own inabiliy, the universe and everything in it past, present and future is totally and absolutely determined.

If we assume for a moment that there was a very beginning to time so long ago then the logic or rational would extend to stating that this very moment was and is and will forever be fully determined when "time" began.
I am not saying that it is necessarilly a determinism that coud possibly be grasped in all it's incredible complexity, but this does not disquaify the reality of determinism. [ just because of infinite complexity ]

Thus it leads to the old notion that "free will" is merely a sense of freedom to choose amongst so many variables and that choice itself is determined by many variables. [suggestive of a reflective will ~ variables vs variables in reflection] The net result being a sense of freewill but not an actuality of free will.

The arguement being posed being that "freewill" [as an absolute notion] can only exist if randomnes exists for the willed person to make choices from.
And as been agreed so far in this thread, randomness has no basis to exist in this universe. So therefore neither does freewill.

Words like Chance, co-incedence, random, luck, etc are merely entertainments for a paranoid mind.

Which is a little ironic don't you think?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You seem to think that "randomness" is a notion - but that "determinism" is not a notion?

 

...with out getting into the inability to "determine ultimate truth" aspect of philosophy, it seems quite obvious to me that determinism is proven every day by the simple to observe "cause and effect " relationships around us.
Now maybe we can consider "cause and effect" as mere notions and of course we are fully entitled to call them what we like, however is not effect determined by cause and cause also can be determined by effect.

Would you dispute this?
And if so how would you dispute this?
Would this not be sufficient to claim that determinism has a higher degree of supportive evidence than randomness which appears to have none what so ever?

 

Cause and effect relationships are simple to observe?!

Now, I have to say that this is one of the boldest statements I have heard in a long time!

If cause and effect relationships are simple to observe, then what on earth have science and philosophy been doing all this time, reviewing and amending their theories over and over again ...

 

There has never been a single fully determined event in the history of the universe, as far as we know.

Meanwhile, our evidence points to the universe following the patterns of probablity theory and other such - which abstract randomness, not determination.

 

I don't think a yes / no question can be fallacious

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Regarding the first scenario, if I did know all variables wouldn't I know about the gummed up card slot and the exact state of your cognitive geometry that would lead you to choosing another ATM?

Regarding the second scenario, wouldn't I know the exact state of your cognitive geometry and know that the memory of the dairy recall would surface right before you took that bite?

I guess this was a miscommunication on my part. When I asked the original question, the statement "knowing all varaibles" included their present values.

 

Irrelevant.

You're assuming everything you need to support your conclusion. It's a strawman.

You could argue that, but again, this would necessitate 2 things: 1), an entirely deterministic universe and 2), your omniscience.

Neither are highly probable.

ibid

And, by necessity, all variables through all time....

 

I'm a practicing "dice setter," which is to say that I arrange the dice into desired orders before throwing them and that I throw them in such a way as to increase the possibility that the dice will remain within the range of my desired outcomes.

I learned how to do it empirically on my home practice table, but I learned to my dismay that every casino craps table is virtually custom-made and will exhibit different characteristics such as bounciness, felt-friction, and many other variables that would have to be deeply understood as a matter of classical physics and mathematics. Furthermore, even if the physics were completely understood, unique tables could not be adapted to without the concomitant physical skill of choosing the spin rate of your dice, the arc and the force and the distance of your throw, and the practiced ability of adjusting your body to the physical barriers of the table, dealers and players (including their stupid chips which they put in your line of throw).

It is not illegal (the only throwing rules are that both dice have to fly through the air and at some point hit the back wall), but for someone who cannot do it, it is effectively a random game. However, does that make the game mathematically and truly random?

Very Respectfully,
Ray Donald Pratt