Random

Is anything ever truly random:confused

 

Pardon me for saying so but your one word threads are confusing most of the time, or maybe it me :heli LOL

 

Tony, I think everything happens for a reason. We may not always know why, or even understand why, but reguardless, things will happen that we question anyway. Random, sure. Unpredictable, even.. I think it is more fear of the unknown than anything...

(Oh, man, no spell check on this one!rolleyes)

 

Nothing is random. Everything happens because of something else.

For example, why did you post this?

 

its you :-D

 

Sorry :cry i didn't mean to be flippant
confusing, maybe! could be thought provoking though :confused

 

Yup, only have to look at Quantum Mechanics, pure randomness. Also there is the conundrum of marrying Quantum Mechanics and gravity and the microcosm with the macrocosm, etc.

 

Oh my no

 

Hi Halo hope you had a nice Christmas, how about this as a follow up

Would anyone like to try and give examples

 

Yeh ! That question ! :-D

 

Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwa...ical_phenomena_with_quantum-random_properties

See also quantum random events involed in Schrodinger's cat experience. Recall also Einstein wrote: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice.", where the ideas of determinism clashed with those of Quantum Mechanics.

However, I suspect you are looking at a more metaphysical aspects that can be observed in human behaviour.

 

Agreed it was what I was going to say,nothing is definite,predictable,matter doesn't exist in one place its spread over time and space.

If you had a computer with enough power and could measure the speed and position of every particle in the universe could you predict that this morning I would give a one finger salute to my neighbour just for the hell of it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

Translated = No:-D There are just too many variables and too much randomness in the universe.

In terms of humans to me random also means original,a thought or action that wasn't predetermined by a cascade of consequence,free will,this is a massive topic that puzzles scientists to this day and no one has an answer,if anyone does I'd love to hear it.

The two problems are that if we a are fixed onto a flow chart of events then we don't have any free will to drive where we want to,equally if everything is random as stated by quantum mechanics then the particles that make us up as humans especially in our brain we don't have control over.

What makes you think this?

 

Another point that puzzles me is that practically everything in the universe is round,round particles or fields hitting and bouncing off other round particles,they can't bounce off in one place that can be determined because no matter how accurately you measure where they bounced off if you got a better tape measure you could keep measuring more and more accurately for ever.

IMO this means that round stuff shouldn't really be able to bounce of each other or interact but it does,this is another debate called 'How long is a piece of string' which deals with fractals,jokingly scientists say that if you could measure a piece of string EXACTLY or predict exactly how particles are going to interact avoiding all randomness you'd bring the universe to an end,meaning the universe just couldn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

 

Whether or not anything is truly random is a philosophical question as well as a practical physics one.

Like Maxwell pointed out, it was the issue of randomness implicit in quantum mechanics that kept Einstein from accepting the science; “God does not play dice.”

In my view the two questions are not mutually exclusive. After all, if one person points out, say, the seemingly random behavior of sub-atomic particles in some instance, the philosopher can make the case that the apparent random nature of the particles occurs for a specific reason which is part of an overall master plan . . . and therefore isn't really random at all.

Could it be all about perception?

 

Philosophy deals with logical reasons and logical answers for questions,randomness is by definition without logic or reason,there is randomness in the universe this is proven so to come up with a reason for randomness existing without any evidence or to disagree that randomness exists is belief.

Therefore its a theological question and answer.

In my humble opinion.

 

In the formal sense of the term, yes. I used the term in its informal sense, which deals more with the subjective rather then the objective.

Take Nietzsche for example - a philosopher who dealt with the subjective human condition rather then the objective truths of science. He was interested in how people dealt with the perceived "meaninglessness" (or random) nature of life in general.

It's not a far stretch to imagine a subjective philosophical mind countering an objective scientific mind by hypothesizing the apparent randomness of sub-atomic particles to be part of a larger, non-random whole. A theologian could make the same argument, but the philosopher’s stance does not have to be religious in nature.

If that makes any sense at all . . . it's been a long day :-D

 

Makes perfect sense and I agree,the only problem I have is that all answers regarding the universe having meaning require a deity.

If you have some non theological explanations that don't require God I'd enjoy reading them,I'd like to hear how Nietzsche dealt with the meaningless of life,if you are well read on him or have some links.

EDIT I could understand if he has reasoning that deals with the logical and emotional aspects of meaningless 'how to cope' but I don't understand how you can answer the big 'WHY' of the universe without throwing in a sentient intelligence,,, and if he does then its theology.

 

Oh, I have no answers, my friend.

I chose Nietzsche off the top of my head - I had the misfortune of having to do a paper on him long ago - as an example of a philosopher of the subjective bent instead one of the objective definition of the term. There are better examples I could have used.

Nietzsche was a nihilist and existentialist who felt life was a useless, pointless exercise in futility – or, translated into modern terms, “Life’s a bitch and then you die.” LOL He did not believe in a deity of any kind, and in fact espoused against the religious mores of his day . . . not that they were wrong per se, but he felt they should be re-cast in a non-religious vein. He studied what actions individuals took to bring what he considered meaning to their lives. I suppose such study is how he brought meaning to his own life. I actually think he was one odd duck.

I disagree with your position that “ . . . all answers regarding the universe having meaning require a deity.” It’s possible to take a stance that there is no God, and that the universe is being driven by “natural” laws that exist simply because they exist and always have, and that the universe is unwinding and running along it’s “natural” course to a “natural” end . . . and the randomness of it is not random at all, but part of the whole “natural” progression of matter and existence to the inevitable “natural” end of time itself. Or, depending on personal belief, substitute the idea randomness is the "nature" of reality and proof of the futility of it all!

Or, God said, “Let there be light.”

Again, it’s largely a matter of perception.

 

:-o lol, I must be more tired then I thought . . . I went through that entire exposition only to leave out were the "meaningful" aspect came in. To correct:


I disagree with your position that “ . . . all answers regarding the universe having meaning require a deity.” It’s possible to take a stance that there is no God, and that the universe is being driven by “natural” laws that exist simply because they exist and always have, and that the universe is unwinding and running along it’s “natural” course to a “natural” end . . . and the randomness of it is not random at all, but part of the whole “natural” progression of matter and existence to the inevitable “natural” end of time itself. Therefore, since nature abhors imbalance like it does a vacuum, your existence must have a purpose (meaning) or you would not exist. For nature to produce you for no reason would constitute an "unnatural" imbalance.

Or, depending on personal belief, substitute the idea randomness is the "nature" of reality and proof of the futility of it all!

Sorry about that, Rikky - it really has been a long, long day. Almost time to go home now though!

 

That's nothing like me:-D

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showpost.php?p=1432727&postcount=16

But that doesn't provide meaning it just explains function,its pure science,knowing how oxygen combines with carbon in your body to create carbon dioxide gives you an understanding of being burnt alive on a stake but it doesn't make the inevitable walk to the stake any easier.

To make you feel better or give meaning to you being burnt alive you have to to add an intelligent purpose that transcends the mortal realm such as being whisked off to heaven after you've finished smouldering or an intelligent grand plan that makes the spit roast seem like a temporary glitch,a bump in the road.

 

I have no idea what your talking about:-D How does nature abhor imbalance? Example? And how would a creation for no reason cause imbalance? And how does balance give meaning to life?

If your talking in terms of physics its still doesn't makes sense or add meaning because imbalance is intertwined with the big bang and could be the reason for the universe existing in the first place,an accident.

 

LOL

Don't take all this as my view of reality - it isn't, though some aspects are akin. I am simply trying to play devils' advocate by advancing differing scenarios for and against the idea of "randomness." I am very tired and perhaps not making that plain . . . but I do find the discussion interesting.

I personally believe in a supreme being, and believe that nothing is really random and that things do happen for a reason. I believe that somewhere, somehow, in some way, some aspect of “me” will be called upon to answer for things done in my life. By being “devil’s advocate” I’m trying to argue the case for meaningful existence without relying on a supreme being, and not doing a very good job I’m thinking.

How does nature abhor imbalance? Well, if too many tigers exist in a jungle, they will eat too many antelope . . . therefore some of the tigers will die from starvation and fewer tigers will be born, thus allowing more antelope to exist and restoring the balance. Conversely if there are too many antelope in the jungle, they will eat too much of their food supply and some will starve; also their increased numbers allow more tigers to exist, thus reducing their numbers farther . . . till balance is restored. You see this all over in nature. Perhaps I should have said nature strives for balance.

For us (humanity) to exist to no purpose; for us to be the result of a random series of chance events, and yet possess the knowledge we have and our unique ability to even wonder about our place in the universe – and still be just be the result of arbitrary events . . . this lacks any sense of natural balance, in my view. Nature doesn't waste in this way.

As far as the big bang goes – how do you know it was an “accident” in the first place? Maybe that’s the natural progression of the universe. All matter started as a giant black hole, which reached a certain “natural” point when it exploded, sending shreds of matter in all directions. This matter “naturally” in accordance with laws of physics came together to form countless galaxies filled with countless stars and planets, all spreading out and away from each other. Eventually, maybe, this expansion will stop . . . the galaxies will slow, and then begin to contract toward each other – ending in all matter being part of a giant black hole. Then it reaches a certain “natural” point when it explodes . . . (you get the picture). Who knows? This cycle may have occurred a trillion times already, or maybe this is the first time. Even in the supposed absence of God, it doesn’t have to be an “accident” that it occurred in the first place.

 

I like it too thanks for the discussion

Well its hard to be objective when debating a subject if you've already got your conclusion before listening to both sides of the debate,especially if that conclusion relies on belief not evidence and can't be argued against.

I understand what your saying but I think its a bad example,the food chain in is a tiny,tiny sphere of the universe I think its wrong to use it as compass to how the rest of the universe works as the rest of the universe isn't balanced at all,its chaotic,it's random,its deadly.

Again this is belief I can't argue with this,you don't like the answer so you've substituted your own in there all due respect,in science there's a name for this although it slips my mind,if anyone reading know please post its driving me nuts.:-D

I don't 'know' anything and didn't say I did I said could,you've said I could be wrong even though I've based my observations on the evidence in the universe ,then continued to guess how the universe works,I like discussing facts and theories not guesses again all due respect.

I'm a blank canvass with a rough sketch on,the evidence draws an outline of how the universe looks to me,if something doesn't fit I can rub it out and make alterations,I've not filled any of the sketch in with pieces I liked,lines I believe should be there or guesses as to where the lines should go.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

Thank you, also

Again, what I actually believe is a supreme being exists in some context. The rest of what I've thrown out there is gristle for the debate mill. It was an interesting exercise to try and form at least slightly defensible arguments for a meaningful life and a non-random universe without relying on faith in a deity. I didn't do very well, I think . . . but at least it made for some interesting thought.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you said or meant that at all - I was speaking in general terms and not about your statement. In point of fact the "big bang" and the expanding universe are currently accepted astronomical facts. The concept that eventually the universe will stop expanding and then begin to contract is also a known theory, neither proven nor disproved.

There are actually three models of the universe we are living in: Open, Flat, and Closed. If the universe is "open", it will expand forever. If "flat" it will expand also, but after an enormous amount of time the expansion would slow and then finally stop, remaining static. If "closed" (and this is what I believe to be true) the expansion would eventually stop and then begin to collapse in on itself - probably resulting in another "cosmic egg" and big bang.

Einstein didn't like the idea of the big bang. He felt more comfortable with the idea of a "constant state" universe, in which stellar systems and galaxies were born, aged, and died in a steady, ever constant fashion. I can sympathize with him . . . I find that kind of universe more comforting somehow.

If something I wrote offended you that was not my intention at all . . . I was tired and sometimes I fail to make myself clear in that condition.

 

Looks like Spad & Rikky enjoyed that one. Now then what about Reincarnation !!

 

I'll let you know after I'm deaded.

 

Cann't wait that long, :-D what do you think you come back as?

 

Maybe a bacterium with the intellect of a humanoid? Then I could carry on infecting at will and live forever. Would have no further use for my Wii, or my tennis shoes, though. LOL