Hello,
I was just wondering if random exists within physics.
If not, if there's only one way something can happen depending on how it happens, and future events are determined by present and past events.. then surely the future can't be controlled.. it could only happen that one way.
Is choice an illusion?

Is choice an illusion?

If we have no choice, we're "living" our lives just to entertain someone who has created us to entertain them, and has decided for us what will happen to us. It is a matter of how you think of it. You might try to prove that you really have a choice by saying: I'll close my eyes now... I'll keep them closed for 2 seconds, then I'll open them. It would be your free choice of doing that. But someone might argue that it wasn't truly your choice, but that it was "written in stone" that you will close your eyes, keep them shut for 2 seconds and then open them. But as soon as they say that, try pointing a gun at their head and ask them if it's written that you'll kill them or not. They'll tell you it all depends on you. So they'll soon prove you DO have a choice.

Lets say that events D + E happen as a result of event C, and C happens as a result of events A + B.
If A + B didn't happen in that exact way, C wouldn't have happened as it did.
A small change like this would then go on to cause a larger change, as everything relating to the event change after it wouldn't happen as it would have done before.

If psysics isn't random, then that can't happen.. every event from the birth of everything only has one way that it can occur. So nothing about the futre is random either, it will all happen the only way it can (assuming no outside inffluences such as a god intefere). We are no exception to physics, we follow all the rules, so all the molecules, energies in our bodies are reacting/moving the only way that physics allows, so although it may feel like choice exists, it is merely the events that occurred before the event that cause thought to happen in a certain way, the only way it can.

Everything you said is true IF we suppose that previous events determine future events. And if previous events determine future, then it's equal as saying: "Future is already written for us."

You also didn't state that "for each event B, there must be an event A that is causing it". If you don't state that, then it means that there exists an event B that will happen and will not be caused by any previous event A. That means that there actually are random events. On the other hand, if you state that, then you stated "future is already written". Then you have nothing to prove. You just stated there is only one future, and then try to prove it. You cannot do that. You have to prove that all events B are caused by some events A. If you prove that, then you proved there is only 1 future for all of us, prewritten, and you will actually prove choice is only an illusion.

If you pick any one point in time, the entire future depends on that moment, and also any point in time of the past. What happens there sets off what will happen, even what every human shal do according to how they llready and how they will react to there environment, every thought ever event everything is going to happen a certain way no matter what. This means we can not change the futer. But we do creat it. And the thing with the gun, it depends on the past, if they had or didn't have a gun for example, or the though patterns that lead them to decide to use the gun in such a way-it does not depend on the one holdnig the gun, but what happened to make them hold it

Classical Newtonian mechanics assumes no randomness- everything is controlled by simple equations of motion, and that's the end of the story. However, in modern physics we have a key concept called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that you can never truly measure both an object's position and momentum with total accuracy. Hence it's impossible to predict with total accuracy how one particle will affect another. This effect is most pronounced for objects at the atomic level, but the effect on the real world is profound. The way that molecules in a gas interact, for example, can only be modeled as random.

Think about this experiment that shows how randomness is present in every day life - suppose you line up 10 billiard balls, with each ball separated 1 meter from the next. Using a cue ball, is it possible to hit the first ball into the second, so that the second hits the third, the third hits the fourth, and so on for all ten balls? It sounds simple enough - just a very good combination shot. But if you do the math you'll see that any error in the way two balls collide is magnified by about a factor of 30 when the next ball is hit. So for ten balls any initial error is magnified by 30^10, which is about 6 x 10^15. Stated another way, the initial hit would have to be accurate to better than 5x10^-15 cm. To achieve this level of accuracy the balls would need to be smoother than atomic structure allows. At this level the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle sets in. So it's impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the 10 bals - the result is random. Now think just how much more incredibly complicated the universe is compared to just 10 billiard balls, and you can see that randomness is indeed fundamental to how things behave.

random is just a concept...
think about programming... the function random is not so "random" ;)... in fact it acts randomly as it is programed to act; yes we can say there is random as long as we cannot predict or know the result, but in fact if we could know that there will be random no more...
As a matter an A point can determine a B point to act like "that" because the A point was programmed to act like that... so the right question is there is something or nothing? And if there is something... why and how did it appeared? And of course there might not be any need to justify the existence of something as long as it does not exist or it is not defined...

The notion of randomness violates the scientific method, and in reality, it does not occur anywhere in the known universe.

The scientific method requires, among other things, that any experiment proving a hypothesis must be repeatable.

Nobody has ever managed to present a repeatable experiment that supports the notion of randomness existing anywhere. Nobody has ever produced or observed any phenomenon of any type, anywhere, that has been objectively confirmed to be "random."

Actually, the whole idea of "randomness" is nothing but an unscientific, irrational superstition.

Young's famous double-slit experiment shows randomness.
This experiment can be easily reproduced with some basic equipment.

Thank you for posting your personal beliefs in this regard.

Care to offer some evidence for your beliefs, or should everyone just accept them without any evidence?

Do you even have any evidence for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness?"

If you fail to provide any evidence here for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness" supposedly existing (in some mysterious, unnamed place, at some mysterious, unnamed time), then the logical conclusion is that you just made up those personal beliefs of yours.

Made-up beliefs without any evidence, such as yours in regards to so-called "randomness," above, are supremely unscientific.

CONCLUSION: So-called "randomness" is an unsupported, unscientific, irrational, superstitious personal belief with absolutely no connection to real science and absolutely no evidence for its supposed existence available anywhere on God's green earth. No evidence has ever been presented for it anywhere.

In addition to the fact that no evidence for so-called "randomness" has ever been presented here (or anywhere else, for that matter), I've decided to include a fact from Wikipedia, from the article on "Hidden Variable Theory," which thoroughly shoots down even the possibility of someday posting any evidence of so-called "randomness" from Young's "double-slit" experiment, as it irrefutably proves that the experiment itself does not even involve anything random at all! Here's the quote, for your viewing pleasure:

"When you perform a double-slit experiment (see wave-particle duality), they go through one slit rather than the other. However, their choice of slit is not random but is governed by the guiding wave, resulting in the wave pattern that is observed."

In other words, the experiment utilizes waves of radiation and two slits through which the waves will pass, resulting in a particular pattern. There is absolutely nothing "random" about any wave -- all waves behave according to precisely predictable patterns, and so not only does this experiment fail to prove the existence of so-called "randomness," it actually fails to even so much as involve anything resembling so-called "randomness," at any level whatsoever.

It's interesting to note that it is also impossible to construct a slit, or even two slits, "randomly." All slits also have predictable, ordered lengths, widths, and depths, and all are positioned in their respective media at precise angles, all of which is carefully and thoughtfully planned and designed by the scientist in charge of the experiment, with nothing supposedly "random" about them at all. Therefore, all of the aspects of this entire experiment are ordered, carefully planned, and precisely designed. There is not as much as a single aspect of so-called "randomness" involved in any portion of this experiment, whatsoever.

Mere personal ignorance of the particular results of any experiment before they occur is also not proof that the results could be somehow classified as "random." It may prove that the human mind is unable to predict them accurately, but mere inability to predict is not evidence of so-called "randomness:"

A man without a train schedule will also be unable to predict the trains, but this by no means proves that the trains could somehow be "random." The trains are certainly on an orderly and predictable schedule, whether one single ignorant individual without a train schedule is capable of predicting them or not. Similarly, the fact that an ignorant individual lacks the intellectual capacity to predict precisely where the orderly and regular waves will pass through the orderly and regular slits by no means proves that the results are in any way "random." All it proves is that such an individual is ignorant of the results before they manifest, just as the man without a train schedule is ignorant.

In addition, if a man went to the train depot, day after day, without a schedule, his personal ignorance would initially cause the schedules to appear "random" to him, but after a careful study, if he possessed intelligence, he would realize over time that the patterns of the trains are quite regular. This is called repetition of the experiment (you know from SCIENTIFIC METHOD), and it would disprove any so-called "randomness" of the train schedules.

With regards to a similar repetition of the double-slit experiment, one of two things could occur over time:

1. a pattern would become apparent, or,

2. no pattern would become apparent.

In the first case, randomness would not only not be proven, it would be disproven.

Even in the second case, it would still not prove that the results could somehow be "random." Just as in the first run of the experiment, no matter how many times a particular individual showed himself to be ignorant of the results before they occurred, no matter how many days, weeks, years, or even decades that particular individual failed to predict the results, this would still not amount to evidence of so-called "randomness." It would only be evidence that the results are unpredictable to that man, which is an altogether different concept from so-called "randomness." No matter how many people: ten, a thousand, or ten-million, showed themselves unable to predict the results, all this would prove is that the results are unpredictable to that particular ignorant party (remember the train schedule example), and would not even speak to the subject of so-called "randomness" -- neither positively nor negatively.

Actually, all subsequent repetitions of this experiment would not involve any "random" aspect any more than the first, so even an infinite set of repetitions would not only fail to provide evidence in favor of the supposed existence of so-called "randomness," but they would actually say absolutely nothing about so-called "randomness" at all!

The final nail in the coffin is that, if the numerous experiments performed did somehow end up showing the same results, or even similar results, rather than proving the supposed existence of so-called "randomness," such a repeated similar result would be clear evidence of order, and clear evidence of the nonexistence of so-called "randomness!"

According to scientific method, however, failure of a particular experiment to provide similar results as a result of repetition is proof of failure of the experiment itself, and so clearly, there is no valid repeatable experiment anywhere, from any time, that has ever been able to provide any type of evidence for so-called "randomness."

CONCLUSION:

Since an experiment that does not even involve a particular idea cannot possibly "prove" such an idea, and the "double-slit" experiment has absolutely nothing at all to do with any so-called "random" event or result, on any level, the results of the experiment say absolutely nothing on the entire subject of so-called "randomness," what to speak of providing as much as a scintilla of "evidence" for its supposed existence. The personal belief in so-called "randomness" remains an unsupported, unscientific, irrational, superstitious notion, nothing more.

[QUOTE=Purushadasa;2207798]If you fail to provide any evidence here for your strange personal beliefs about "randomness" supposedly existing (in some mysterious, unnamed place, at some mysterious, unnamed time), then the logical conclusion is that you just made up those personal beliefs of yours.


Hi Purushadasa,



Interesting how two people ( Young and myself) can both suffer from exactly the same delusion.

You say that Young's experiment is only a product of my mind yet you provide a quote from the experiment from the Wikipedia site. No doubt the site would also provide a place and a time that the experiment was carried out.


Either there was a historical character called Young who performed an experiment or there wasn't.

Could you please refresh my memory about my beliefs regarding randomness. I cannot remember putting forward any personal beliefs in this area.

I said Young's experiment shows randomness, I didn't say that I support that conclusion. In fact I don't

Many Thanks

Tut

[QUOTE=TUT317;2208556]Actually, you have failed to provide any evidence that Young suffers from your odd delusion, so it's really just you.

I never said that Young's experiment was a product of your mind. Perhaps you imagined that at the same time that you imagined so-called "randomness" to exist. Apparently, you personally believe Young's experiment to be a product of your own mind since you are the one who independently inserted the idea that it's a product of your own mind into this conversation. I never said it -- you did.

All of the statements that you made about so-called "randomness" are your own personal beliefs, and are completely unsupported by any evidence. If you had actually done any research or received any type of valid education in this area, then you would know that. Why don't you go read a book or look up the facts -- you will find it to be an enlightening experience, better than your present state of ignorance. Go do the research, you'll find out. Do you even know how to do research, or do you just make up and blab it out, as you have been doing here with your made-up personal beliefs about so-called "randomness?"

You are incorrect in your personal belief that Young's experiment shows so-called "randomness" -- that is merely your own personal belief, for which you have failed to offer even a single shred of evidence. There is no reason for anyone to adopt your bizarre, unscientific, irrational personal belief that so-called "randomness" somehow exists. In reality, it does not, and nobody has ever produced any scientific evidence for it anywhere.

What are you talking about?

I already said that I don't accept Young's conclusion. I don't think there is randomness. I think that quantum entanglement does away with randomness.

I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding.

You guys really opened up a can of worms. Debates like these have been ongoing for more than a thousand years.

Here's my logical thought on the matter...

There are two roads this can go down:

1.) Theological

We find here several problems. God (Omni-potent, scient), knowing all things is thus able to predict all things, and having created all things, created our actions in which we choose. Even if you say that God only set things in motion, and you still acknowledge his omniscience then you accept that he created the precise arrangement of the universe to occur in the way in which he intended. The idea of free choice is smashed here: Knowing what's going to happen, means you cannot change it, or controlling what is to happen, resulting the same.

This does not mean that choice is altogether abolished, but rather free choice. We, in this universe, are bound by time; this means that all we do is causal, from event to event. We still have the ability to do one thing or another, however the author of the outcome is in the hands of God.

2.) Physical

All things if measured precisely enough will be 100% predictable. Everything in our universe can be attributed to cause and event. Life in this sense is a giant equation that may be able to secure predictability. Like this, there is no randomness, but just the result of a very complex action to another. Two things here may comfort us. In this result, we are still able to choose, just with a weighted outcome. As long as we don't know, we will never be on the winning side, but rather where ever we need to be.

Secondly, there is no perfect way of predicting what is to come. No matter how precise we are able to measure the equation, we will always be at a disadvantage. Like pi, there will always be more to refine.

InfoJunkie4Life: your "Physical" decription starts with an assumption that if things could be measured precisley enough then everything is 100% predictable. This is a very mechanistic view, and ignores the fact that it is impossible to measure things precisely enough. Heisenberg tells us that there is a fundamengtal limit to how precisely something can be measured - this limit exists not because our instruments aren't good enough for higher precision, but rather is a fundamental aspect of nature. Consequently there is always uncertainty in the outcome of physical processes. Or, to misquote Einstein: God does play dice with the universe.

My friend, you have failed to provide any evidence for your personal belief that God "created" all things. You have also failed to provide any type of evidence that God somehow "created" our actions.

In reality, actions are not "created," they are performed, and God does not perform our actions, we do. Nor does He "create" our actions. Your thinly-veiled attempt at blaming God for our actions has missed the mark by a very, very wide margin, sadly.

Man does indeed have free choice, although man's free choice is different from God's free choice in that, while God's free choice is unlimited, man's free choice is limited.

There is no contradiction of any type between God's omniscience and man's free will. You obviously believe that there is, but you have presented no evidence to support your personal belief in that regard.

The meaning of your phrase, "the author of the outcome is in the hands of God" is unclear due to your poor grammar -- the subject of the phrase is the word "author." The word "author" is modified by the phrase "of the outcome." In order to understand your belief in this regard, I would need to have your poor grammar clarified. Specifically, who do you believe to be"the author of the outcome?" You failed to specify your specific belief in that regard.

With regards to your second block of beliefs, I have to say that, yes, for God, everything is 100% predictable, but man's potency for prediction is limited, so no, not everything is predictable for man -- there are many, many, many things that no man will ever be able to predict.

Life is certainly not an equation. An equation is a mathematical construct, and has no life within it at all.

Life is a state of being, and it boils down to consciousness: If an entity possesses consciousness, then it possesses life. If it does not possess consciousness, then it does not possess life. Consciousness is not dependent on the body, but is dependent on the soul, and the soul is the only living element within the body, just as sensation is never dependent on a glove, although a hand may still convey sensation even though covered by a glove. A glove may appear similar to a hand, but when the glove is removed from the hand, it has no independent ability for sensation.

Similarly, when the soul leaves the body, there is no independent consciousness in the body -- only the soul possesses consciousness, and so truly only the soul possesses life.

You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no randomness in existence.

:)

There is always uncertainty for man, but there is never any uncertainty for God. This is one of the many differences between God's consciousness and man's consciousness -- God's is unlimited, but man's is limited.