Universe is not deterministic.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post. Unfortunately, it is impossible to deal with a complex subject in 50 words or less.

This post contains a statement of my belief that the universe is based on the mathematics of probability, rather than being deterministic. It includes my reasons for this belief. It also refers to a recent post by Gen-X on another thread. That thread seems to have some format mess up.

First, I would like to state that I hate to see arguments like "Way in the past, the experts believed some ridiculous idea, therefore we should discredit any comments by modern experts and expect future developments to make them look silly." This is a damned copout, not a valid argument. Another one is "I used to believe X, now I believe Y, making Y correct & X wrong." I do not give a damn what you believed when you were young and stupid: It is not relevant to your current beliefs. I want evidence, citations, or valid arguments (all three are always desirable, but any one is acceptable).


Gen-X: First, you have been quibbling over various definitions of random, when the original issue really concerned determinism. Second, you have to be incredibly naive to consider dictionary definitions for a word like random in a serious discussion. I have no doubt that you are (at worst) a good programmer, and are probably a VB Guru. In others respects, you seem immature.

The dictionary definition issue is not really important. I have discussed it at the end of this post, just in case somebody is interested in why I tend to dismiss or ignore dictionary definitions when dealing with complex subject matter.

The original discussion was concerned with the question of the universe being deterministic, with some quibbling over the difference between determinist and predetermined. It did not directly relate to some disagreement over the meaning of random. There was also some meaningless (perhaps silly) quibbling over statistical implying or not implying random.

Let me state my position clearly, trying to avoid using the term "random," and then back it up with some reasonable arguments. I intend to state it in a manner which is independent of a previously posted argument about the possibility of predicting dice throws.

Before dealing with the following lengthy discussion, remember that a million or so years of evolution in the classical world of our direct perceptions has made it almost impossible to think correctly about the quantum world on which our classical world rests. For example, extremely accurate clocks have been made using radioactive decay as the driving mechanism (I believe there was a time when such clocks were more accurate than any other type of clock). The mechanism was designed using probability mathematics. If you knew about such clocks, but did not know how they functioned, you would never guess (and perhaps not believe) that they were based on a process conforming to probability mathematics. You would surely expect the mathematics behind the mechanism to be associated with some process thought to be deterministic. Similarly, there are many classical world processes based on quantum world probability mathematics, when a reasonable person would expect such processes to be based on the mathematics associated with some deterministic process.

I do not believe that the universe is deterministic. By that, I mean that if we could magically start all over again with conditions exactly as they were as of 1 January 1900, the last 100 years of the second millennium would not be an exact repetition of our actual history. Our "other present" would be measurably different than our "current now." The reason for this belief is discussed below. I agree that there is no magical way to turn the clock back, and there is no experiment we can perform to absolutely prove my belief (please do not quibble over these issues, work with the discussion below). I consider my belief to be reasonable due to the following.

I believe that the classical world of our senses is fundamentally dependent on the quantum world. For now, let us ignore any consideration of how the quantum world behaves. I believe that classical world effects are the result of quantum world causes. Classical world chemistry and mechanics of materials are based primarily on molecules & interactions at the molecular level. The molecular effects are based on atoms & interactions at the atomic level. The atomic level effects are based on forces and interactions among electrons, protons, neutrons, & possibly other particles. I am sure you get the picture. Except for gravitational interactions, all classical world effects are the results of quantum level causes. If you disagree with the last statement, you have no concept of modern physics, and it is impossible for us to communicate on subjects related to physics and the way the universe operates. Please do not quibble over some particular classical world process which you think is independent of quantum world causes. Also, I agree that I have not specifically mentioned photons, electromagnetic forces, heat energy, and various other pertinent parts of the puzzle. My basic claim here is that the classical world perceivable by our senses is based on a quantum world which we cannot directly perceive with our senses.

Now, it seems obvious to me that the classical world is deterministic if and only if the quantum world is deterministic. Once again, if you do not believe this, we cannot communicate. If you are with me so far, we are down to the nitty gritty issue: Is the quantum world deterministic (id est: predictable, repeatable)?

There are some convincing arguments based on the implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I am not sure I understand those arguments well enough to present them, but perhaps I will study up a bit and put them into another post.

Radioactive decay, polarization phenomena, and certain other quantum processes are considered to be not deterministic. Consider radioactive decay which is the easiest one to describe.

Have you ever wondered why the experts state the half life of radioactive substances but never talk about the whole life? Before taking a few physics courses, I wondered about this. The reason is that the half life of several kilograms can be specified very accurately, but the "whole life" cannot be specified (I do not think there is such a term in this context). Why is this so? It is because the half life is the amount of time within which there is a fifty-fifty chance (probability of ½) that half the atoms will have decayed. If the half life is 5 minutes and you start with 8.192E24 atoms (perhaps a kilogram or so), in five minutes you expect to have 4.096E24 atoms. In 10 minutes you expect to have 2.048E24 atoms. In fifteen minutes, 1.024E24 atoms. Now consider starting with one atom. In five minutes there is a 50-50 chance that it will not decay. In 10 minutes a 75-25 chance that it will not have decayed. In 15 minutes, there is a 875-125 chance that it will not have decayed. Id est: The "whole life" cannot be specified very accurately.

What do the above "statistics" suggest to you? They make me think of the following "thought experiment" (a favorite concept due to Einstein). Imagine flipping 8.192E24 coins and throwing away all the ones that landed heads, expecting to have 4.096E24 coins left. Then flipping the remaining coins and again throwing away all that landed heads, expecting to have 2.048E24 left. When dealing with such a huge number of coins (or atoms), the expectations match the probabilities to an astonishing degree of accuracy, unlike the results you would expect if flipping only 20 coins (you would not be surprised to get 12 heads out of 20 tosses, or 60% heads).

Now imagine having an identifying mark or number on each coin, running the thought experiment twice, and recording which coins were discarded. Would you expect both experiments to result in exactly the same coins being discarded? I certainly would not expect the same coins to be discarded in both experiments.

Now, all our known experimental data relating to radioactive decay is isomorphic to the statistics (or mathematics) of coin tossing. This is analogous to saying that all known observations of gravitational interactions conform to (are isomorphic to) the behavior described by certain differential equations. A very basic method off science and mathematics is to first show that there is an isomorphic relationship between all the known data relating to a process and the behavior described by some mathematical discipline. Once such a relationship is established, it is considered reasonable to believe that any unknown behavior of the physical process is also isomorphic to the mathematical discipline. On this basis, it is reasonable to believe that radioactive decay is a non-repeatable process, just as our coin tossing thought experiments are believed to be non-repeatable.

We do not know what causes an atom to decay (at least I never heard of an explanation, have you?). Suppose that next week some genius performs an experiment which indicates that radioactive decay is the result of a down quark "hiccupping" in the nucleus of the atom. Wow, now we know what causes it! Does this knowledge mean that we should no longer apply probability mathematics to the process? Of course we will still apply the same mathematics to calculate how many atoms are expected to decay in some time interval. We merely have learned that the probability mathematics is applicable to a lower quantum level than previously supposed. Should we expect any future knowledge to make us stop applying the mathematics of probability to this process? We should not. If probability mathematics is expected to always be the basis for our working with these processes, why should we believe them to be some how different from other processes using the same mathematics? Id est: Why should we believe them to be based on some deterministic mechanism in the absence of any evidence of such a mechanism?

Now, consider the dictionary definition issue. Unlike other people, I will try to avoid unsupported statements, and include some citations.

A dictionary is fine for spelling and words relating to simple concepts. It is also good when you forget which of two words is which: EG: I have looked up mitosis & meiosis many times because I often forget which is which.

Even for a some simple words (EG: Panda), a dictionary can be misleading. A (lesser) panda is a raccoon-like animal, while a giant panda is considered a bear: See 10th Edition of Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, which defines "panda" (should be "lesser panda") with a cross reference to giant panda (pictures of both appear under panda). I once had a dictionary in which the definition of lesser panda & giant panda are under the general term, panda. In the latter dictionary, it was not clear that the lesser panda is raccoon-like and not related to the bear-like giant panda. A coworker, (who was an amateur zoologist) explained that I was in error and mentioned that he had encountered misleading zoological definitions in various dictionaries.

If a dictionary can mislead you about a simple concept like "panda," it is silly to expect it to give you the full story about more complex concepts. To the best of my knowledge, no serious student of a field of knowledge works with dictionary definitions. A dictionary publisher cannot provide all the data required to understand concepts required to do serious work in a complex area of human knowledge.

Forget the dictionary for words like random, bridge squeeze, communism, moderate, deterministic, differential equation, differential calculus, et cetera. At most, use it as a starting point to give you a vague idea. You must read at least a few chapters of a pertinent book if you expect to understand complex concepts.

For example, my 10th edition of Merriam's has a one sentence definition of (bridge) "squeeze," which not tell you much about the meaning of the term, if you have never played bridge. I have a book by Clyde Love (a bridge expert) which devotes almost an entire page to defining the term "squeeze." To fully understand the definition, you would have to have some familiarity with the game and read at least a chapter or two of the book. The dictionary definition provides only a little help to a serious bridge player, and conveys no useful information to some one who does not play bridge.

Another example of dictionary definitions: I have a book on logic which provides the following example. Suppose you look up "fret," a term in heraldry.
Fret: Two bendlets in saltire interlaced with a mascle.
Bendlet: A diminutive of the bend, one half its length.
Bend: A diagonal band extending from the dexter chief to the sinister base.
in saltire: In the manner of a saltire.
Saltire: An ordinary made of a bend dexter and a bend sinister crossing.
Mascle: A lozenge voided.

I still do not know what a fret is, because I do no have any background knowledge relating to the design of Coats of Arms. At least I would not be mislead into thinking I knew the meaning of fret (as was the case with the definition of panda).

I could cite other examples. The point is that, except for simple concepts, a dictionary conveys minimal knowledge, can sometimes be useless or misleading, and its definitions are generally not considered sufficient by experts in any complex field of human knowledge. Background knowledge far beyond that available in a dictionary is required to understand terms in zoology, geology, physics, mathematics, economics, psychology, et cetera.

Your lack of pertinent background knowledge caused you to construct a sentence containing the following phrase from the dictionary definition.

Quote:

---

"The universe has an equal chance of each member in a specific group to occur" rather than ...

---

Does the above phrase seem to convey any meaning? It certainly does not mean anything to me.

Guv

I will attempt to handle this in a different manner. I will also use your specific terminology of words so that I communicate with what you consider to be their definition to avoid any misunderstandings.

Quote:

---

Now, it seems obvious to me that the classical world is deterministic if and only if the quantum world is deterministic

---

I do not disagree with this statement. I do however want to point out that while :

A iif B <> B iff A

Hence to prove the quantum world is random would not in fact prove the classifical world is also the same.

Quote:

---

the expectations match the probabilities to an astonishing degree of accuracy

---

I disagree. If you actually did perform this experiment you would find that the results WOULD be displaced to one side. The reason for this is usually acredited to the coin not being evenly weighted.

In order to get the results that you are stating here you would need a coin specifically designed to be distributed evenly in its makeup, be flipped by a mechanical device and having exactly 1/2 of your throws starting with the coin facing up and the other 1/2 of your throws starting down.

Can you not see then that you are stacking the deck in your favour by reducing the factors that influence the outcome?

What if the coins were only "let go" and not flipped? The statistics would indicate a 75% chance of landing on the face opposite to the one started.

Does not this suggest that the experiments done are only taking into consideration those factors which they KNOW to directly influence the results. The fact they are unaware of certain factors does not make them inneffective, and to most scientists a result inconsistent with previous tests leads them to look deeper into the problem to see what they are "missing".

Relating this back to radio-active decay, it can be determined "exactly" what amount of energy is required to instigate the release of radioactivity (Alpha waves?) and thus cause the atom to cease to exist (I believe its quarks are seperated and simply cease to exist). It is only when you place this atom within a structure of another 100 billion of them and then place THAT within an uncontrolled environment that is being bombarded by billions of other paritcles (which you are unable to determine) that this exact determination of decay starts to break down.

Quote:

---

Once such a relationship is established, it is considered reasonable to believe that any unknown behavior of the physical process is also isomorphic to the mathematical discipline

---

I would agree with this. As a result it would discount the relationship between the tossing of a coin and the radioactive decay of a substance.

Why?

Because the coin itself is not being struck by a hundred thousand other coins during its journey from source to destination. Has anyone done experiments to determine the results of tossing 1 billion coins while they were being bombarded by a billion other forces on a classical level?

Perhaps then THIS experiment needs to be done before they can claim any relationship.

Quote:

---

We do not know what causes an atom to decay (at least I never heard of an explanation, have you?).

---

I thought it was common knowledge? All atoms attempt to reside within a balanced state that consumes the least amount of energy. For an atom such as Carbon this is C12. Carbon dating is done by measuring the radioactive decay of C13 atoms (I think) and the decay of the atom occurs as a result of it seeking to return to a state of C12.

The dating occurs by measing the number of C13 atoms (which exist within living organisms) in comparison to the number of C12 atoms (C13 is not supported in an organism that has died) and the specific transition between C13 to C12 provides the estimate of how old it is.

Quote:

---

Wow, now we know what causes it! Does this knowledge mean that we should no longer apply probability mathematics to the process?

---

No but it does mean part of this process is now "determined" and as such lends itself MORE towards predeterminism than the other word you don't like to use ;)

Quote:

---

Should we expect any future knowledge to make us stop applying the mathematics of probability to this process? We should not.

---

And why not?
If we discover the exact combination of factors of this "hiccup" and how they occur we could apply a deterministic equation that would correctly calculate the exact rate of decay. Granted the process would be highly involved and very complicated... but simply because it is complicated does not mean it cannot be done.

Quote:

---

Why should we believe them to be based on some deterministic mechanism in the absence of any evidence of such a mechanism?

---

But you said that a mechanism WAS in fact discovered. So the discovery of this "hiccup" would be evidence of the mechanism that causes this process to behave in the way it does. As a result further research may provide the equations that determine this value and from there this process is no longer placed with Statistical analysis (which is only used for those things we do not know everything about) to other areas.


I accept your evidence given about dictionaries and definitions.

That does however lead to a very interesting question.

If we are not able to come to a common understanding of terms that are used, how then can we communicate on the same subject unless :

1. We agree initially what those terms mean
2. I use YOUR definition of the terms to speak to you
3. You use MY definition of the terms to speak with me


Perhaps then it would be more fitting to start all conversations with a definition of what WE consider certain terms to mean... thus allowing people to temper our words with what we understand meanings to be and use them intelligently to provide counter-arguments.

Now I hope that you respond in the same manner that I chose to respond to you.. (I'm patting myself on the back for not saying a bad word).

It is in the spirit of that peacefulness that I shall do my best not to get involved in this thread........ but I will say only one thing (honest... well in this post anyway):

The reason given for radioactive decay is not an explanation why a given radioactive isotope might decay in one space of time instead of another. More precisely, it is a reason for decay on the whole, but it is not a reason for decay at a specific time. *Shuts up*

Gen-X, you are doing more nonsensical quibbling, and making statements that suggest a very short attention span and/or other problems in following logical discussions.

I realize that my arguments cannot be given the status of mathematical proofs. Your replies indicate that you either require the equivalent of a mathematical proof or that you do not want to or cannot follow the arguments.

HarryW's post indicates that he understands better than you do.

On the quibbling issue. For my thought experiment, I am sorry that I did not specify the use of a cubical die with "H" (for head) on three faces & "T" (for tail) on the other three. I suppose I should have also specified that the die be tossed under the rules & conditions found in Las Vegas casinos.

Did you read your own last post to this thread? Did you think about every statement you made?

Do you realize that the probabilty math provides calculates decay rates which match the measured results as closely as we can measure the rates? Do you have any concept of the accuracy of clocks based on radioactive decay? Any extra knowledge we could possibly gain must result in calculating the same decay rate as that being calculated now with current probability math.

When I mentioned the effect of discovering a Quark "hiccup" as the cause of decay, you apparently did not realize that the knowledge would not change the probabilistic behavior of the process. It would merely indicate that the statistical behavior occurs at a different quantum level.

I have decided that I regret being an atheist. If I were a believer, I could hope that you would end up in Heaven and have god tell you that the universe is not deterministic. I would enjoy seeing you choose to go to hell rather than believe him.

Your faith in a determistic universe is unshakable.

Quote:

---

Hence to prove the quantum world is random would not in fact prove the classifical world is also the same

---

Forget complexity (chaos) theory. Ignore the fact that the classical world we experience consists of effects resulting from quantum world causes. Even if we prove that the quantum world is not deterministic, Gen-X will maintain his belief in a deterministic classical world. Nothing can shake that faith.

Thought that I would stick my nose in on this one...
First point..
You state, rrefering to atomic clocks(and by inference
to radioactive nuculi):

" that they were based on a process conforming to probability mathematics "

and so they do. This in itself proves nothing in relation to the possible deterministic nature of radioactive decay...just because a process can be predicted acuratly using probability mathematics does not mean is was not determined (by which I mean in the same circumstances, the same thing will happen again, and thus for any given situation, the outcome is determined). In fact, the half life problem can easily be used as an argument by the deterministics, as the half life of an atomic nuculi dosn't change(under conditons available for study on earth at this moment), effectivly meaning that the conditons are effectivley very similar for every study sampled, and this results in near identical results.
Ignoring this for now(as I belive it is affected by conditions, just not ones reasearched), iI will expand on the point I made earlier, that is just because something can be predicted acuratly using probability mathematics, it in NO WAY proves that is is not determined. Under the same circumstances, it could well perform exactly the same.(I do not say would, though I belive it likley, I am not 100% certain about the deterministic nature of the universe) This means that arguing about wether a process follows the laws of probability or not is meaningless in context with
this argument. Your coin thought experiment is also
meaningless, as even if you did throw that many coins in the twice, witha a specific mark on them, determinism does not state that they all have to come down the same way the secound time, as the conditions are not exactly the same! And I belive it is entirily possible that if an exact copy of the universe was made on the 1st of January 1900, it would run parallel, and have the same events(exaclty) as did ours.
But is also possible that it would not. There is a theory of the universe, (of which, I am sure, you have all heard) that state for every possible action/event, there exists a universe in which that action/event occured. This would mean that the universe is not deterministic, as there is a chance of the universe, that this specific you inhabits, acting in any way possible (including rather odd quantum tunneling events, like your entire arm suddenly disappering ang reappering in Fiji). This theory of the universe offers many explainations for phenomena, such as the interferenc of a single photon of a light fired at two slits. (If you are not familiar with this experiment, then it goes as such: A sinngle photon of light is fired at a card containing two slits. It is expected that the photon will pass through one of the two slits, however, the photon apears to pass through both, and causes an interference pattern with itself on the other side!) The explanation that this model offers is that the photon, in an alternate univers, passed through the
other slit, and a certaind degree of 'universal interfernce' occured, and gave rise to the classic interferenc pattern.
Anyway, in conclusion, in order to prove(in so much as anytihng can be proved) the universe deterministic or not, better arguments than any I have read need to be put forward. I look foward with interest to see any replies.

Guv

I have to say that I am terribly and sincerely disappointed. :(

When you wrote that post I was very much respectful of the time you put into it and your intention to keep it peaceful and in the interest of betterment of knowledge.

I replied to it with genuine and honest questions that I had thought of and was hoping that the good nature of the post would continue as a result and that for once we might actually get somewhere.

Alas you chose to deem my most as "quibbling" and just have a go at me and use the same tired old flaming.

That you deemed my reply with so little respect simply because it posed a different view with what *I* considered valid points is reason enough to cease posting in this thread.


I have to wonder why then you posted it in the first place... To honestly and genuinely open debate on the topic or to just make your statement and then ignore ANY response that doesn't agree as being a "quibble". :(

Gen-X, perhaps I missed the point of your comments about coin tossing.

Let us analyze what I thought I was saying in my original post and the reason I accused you of quibbling. Excuse me for not referring to other issues relating to your reply (This post is long enough as is).

I gave some hypothetical sample data relating to the decay of 8.192E24 atoms of an element with a half-life of 5 minutes. I thought it was obvious that the data matched the mathematics of a large number of "independent trials" events with a probability of one half for each individual event. For your information, the term "independent trials" refers to "games" like dice tossing, and "dependent trials" relates to "games" like Blackjack. Id est: "Independent trials" is defined as situations for which past history is assumed to have no effect (like dice tossing). "Dependent trials" indicates that history matters (For example: If 3 aces have already been drawn, the probability of drawing another ace is less than it was before drawing any cards).

Then I compared the radioactive data to data resulting from hypothetical coin tossing, just in case some people did not recognize the nature of the decay data. I was trying to indicate the probabilistic nature of the data from radioactive decay. Id est: I was pointing out that radioactive decay data is identical (to four significant digits) to the mathematical description of the same number of events (from another process) with a probability of one half. I chose coin tossing as an example of an event with a probability of one half (50-50 chance or even money in gambling lingo). I thought that hypothetical data which had the same numeric values would make the probabilistic nature of the decay data very obvious. By the way, for the huge number of atoms (& coin tosses) used, the data would certainly be exactly as predicted by mathematical probability theory to four significant digits.

Your reply explained why a coin toss might not be (or was not) a probabilistic event with a probability of one half. Or perhaps you were trying to explain that it required careful manipulation to make it such an event. At any rate you posted quite a few words about coin tossing.

I considered several possibilities when I analyzed the implications of your posted reply (My analysis was more intuitive that implied by the following).

1) Perhaps you have hardly any knowledge of the mathematics of probability. In this case, you should not be posting on any subject relating to probability or random processes. It would explain a failure to recognize the probabilistic nature of the radioactive decay data. It would also explain why you do not know that coin tossing is often used in probability literature (rightly or wrongly) as an example of an event with a probability of one half.
2)Perhaps you scan serious discussions the way many people scan light fiction. In this case, you should not reply to posts at all.
3)If 1 & 2 above do not apply, perhaps you do not have the intelligence to see the analogy between coin tossing and radioactive decay data. In this case, I wonder how you found the VB Forum and manage to make posts which relate at all to the subject being discussed.
4)Perhaps you are quibbling because you have faith (not evidence or logic) behind your belief in a deterministic universe, and want to seize on anything to refute my arguments.

I assumed you have some knowledge of probability mathematics. I assumed you read serious posts carefully. I assumed you have at least average intelligence (this is really the only assumption in which I have some confidence). In fact, if asked for an opinion, I would guess that you are well above average.

Based on the above, I said that I thought you were quibbling. What is your explanation for all the posted words about coin tossing?

What does "deterministic" mean?

Keep it simple because I can't spell "interlekchual"

Michael, deterministic implies concepts like predictable, repeatable, conforming to mathematical methods allowing exact calculations. For example: The roots of a polynomial are determined by the coefficients. Some might quibble about polynomials with roots which are not rational numbers (especially if the order is greater than 5). Processes for which there are exact equations are considered to be deterministic. Once again, some will quibble over processes defined by differential equations which can only be solved numerically.

I made a post describing reasons why the dictionary definition of some terms cannot be used in serious discussions of complex subject matter.. In addition to a dictionary definition, you need to read articles about a subject and see a word being used in several contexts. Deterministic is probably a case in point

In the 19th century, some physicists (and other types) believed that the universe was deterministic. They meant that the laws of physics (in principle, not practice) could be used to calculate the precise future of the universe, if provided with enough computing power and a knowledge of the precise position and precise momentum of every particle in the universe. They also thought the reverse computations (to know the past in detail) were possible in principle. I do not think that any "mainstream physicist" thought that all the laws of physics were known exactly. I think that they were saying that if (or when) all the laws of the universe became known, the universe would be (in principle) deterministic, (Id est: Predictable in detail).

Modern physicists do not believe in a deterministic universe. They believe that the quantum world obeys statistical (or probabilistic) laws, resulting in the classical world of our senses being non-deterministic. I think (but am not sure) they believe that gravitational interactions are deterministic for systems isolated from quantum world effects. However, in some sense, nobody believes that gravitational systems are deterministic, because infinitely precise initial conditions and arithmetic with infinitely long numbers would be required to avoid problems due to complexity (chaos) theory.

I hope the above gives you an idea.

Thanks for the explanation.

25 years ago when I was a brand new mathematics graduate, I tended to see the world in mathematical terms, so according to your definition I suppose I was a "determinist" (have I got the terminology right?)

However, with the passing of time and the acquisition of experience of life, I began to see things not as black and white as most younger people do, but with more and more shades of grey.

Using some sort of intuition, I would have thought that the universe was deterministic, but we can only apply the laws of physics as observed on earth. Modern astronomical methods may have extended this knowledge but there are still a lot of unknowns out there in the universe (this is obviously an assumption/opinion and not a proven fact) so I must agree with those who do not believe in a deterministic universe.

Phew!!! I don't usually get involved in heavy philosophical discussions - I must go and have a lie down now.

Guv

Thank you for your analysis. I now understand why you consider me to be quibbling.

Your immediate predispotition and "judgement" of my abilities indicates your monumental flaw.

The fact that all of your "possibilities" didn't even think to consider :

1) That perhaps I saw a fatal flaw in the correction of coin tossing to radio-active decay and pointed it out because that was the basis for your entire argument.

2) That I know more about mathematics than you do and not less and thus you did not see the error in what you were writing.

3) That my view was just as valid and "factual" as yours was and that this is highly debatable either way with both of us having equal justification for our views.


I am not saying any of these are the case... just that they are "possiblities". Your narrow mindedness in immediately assuming you MUST be right and therefor the only logical answer is that I am wrong in some way only proves it.

If you are willing to open your eyes and come to this with an objective point of view (as opposed to the subjective point of view you are using) then perhaps we can discuss this properly.

If however you wish to stick to your extremely narrow-minded, short-sighted and "predetermined" view that automatically says "I am right... so where did he go wrong" you can find a biologically impossible palce to do a biologically impossible thing with this discussion.

If you detect a certain hostility from this post then you would be correct... I thought this was to be a serious and fair discussion... obviously the only reason you posted it was simply to FORCE your point out and then put your fingers in your ears regardless of the validity of the reply.

It was YOUR post that stated that if something is statistically similar then it can be assumed to follow similar lines... I merely pointed out that there is absolutely no correlation between coin tossing and radio-active decay as a result of several factors that make them vary.... But obviously I am too dumb and need a calculator to not see things with such perspicacity as you do.

:mad:

Gen-X,

Quote:

---

If you are willing to open your eyes and come to this with an objective point of view (as opposed to the subjective point of view you are using) then perhaps we can discuss this properly.

---

The above is am example of one of many well known invalid arguments. "If you were objective, then ..." or "If you had an open mind, then...". All statements similar to these are a subtle way of saying "If you were as intelligent as I am, then you would agree with me." Such statements have no place in a logical argument. At best they should be considered no argument at all. At worst, they should be considered to be insulting, which might be your intent. There are books on logic which list this argument along with various others as examples of illogical arguments. Perhaps you do not know enough about logic to avoid using illogical arguments.

Quote:

---

It was YOUR post that stated that if something is statistically similar then it can be assumed to follow similar lines... I merely pointed out that there is absolutely no correlation between coin tossing and radio-active decay as a result of several factors that make them vary.... But obviously I am too dumb and need a calculator to not see things with such perspicacity as you do.

---

You said it, not me: ... I (Gen-X) am too dumb ...". Forget about coin tossing. Do you or do you not recognize the radioactive decay data as being probabilistic? If you do not, then you know hardly anything about either probability or statistics.

I prefer to use logical arguments rather than citing expert opinion. You seem to be unable to understand logical arguments. Perhaps you can, but choose to ignore them in favor of quibbling and the use of arguments based on various unsupported statements (For example: Your claim that dice throws are deterministic. Do you know the accuracy required to "calculate" dice throws? Can you really know that quantum phenomena have no effect on dice rolls? If so, we are back to arguing at the quantum level.).

I used "radioactive decay" as search criteria to locate the following two sites. I specified the use of the full phrase, not "radioactive and decay" not "radioactive or decay." I mention this in case, I did not get the URL's right.

The second quote is somewhat pertinent to other threads which discuss random numbers.

From http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy...00000000000000

Quote:

---

The decay of (a particular state of) a nucleus is determined by one number, the decay constant X. (We will see how this relates to a lifetime). The study of nuclear transition mechanisms leads to an understanding of the decay constant. In this section we will examine the consequences of this random process.
Experience has shown that decay is a random process. The probability of a nucleus decaying in a time interval dt is Xdt. The probability is thus independent of time, it is independent of the age of a particular nucleus and is the same for all nuclei in the same state (i.e. decay is a Poisson process). As a result of this, we cannot predict when a particular nucleus will decay, we can only make predictions about ensembles.

---

From http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Quote:

---

People working with computers often sloppily talk about their system's "random number
generator" and the "random numbers" it produces. But numbers calculated by a computer
through a deterministic process, cannot, by definition, be random. Given knowledge of the
algorithm used to create the numbers and its internal state, you can predict all the numbers
returned by subsequent calls to the algorithm, whereas with genuinely random numbers,
knowledge of one number or an arbitrarily long sequence of numbers is of no use whatsoever in
predicting the next number to be generated.

Computer-generated "random" numbers are more properly referred to as pseudorandom
numbers, and pseudorandom sequences of such numbers. A variety of clever algorithms have
been developed which generate sequences of numbers which pass every statistical test used to
distinguish random sequences from those containing some pattern or internal order. A test
program is available at this site which applies such tests to sequences of bytes and reports how
random they appear to be, and if you run this program on data generated by a high-quality
pseudorandom sequence generator, you'll find it generates data that are indistinguishable from a
sequence of bytes chosen at random. Indistinguishable, but not genuinely random.

HotBits is an Internet resource that brings genuine random numbers, generated by a process
fundamentally governed by the inherent uncertainty in the quantum mechanical laws of nature, directly to your computer in a variety of forms. HotBits are generated by timing successive pairs of radioactive decays detected by a Geiger-Müller tube interfaced to a computer.

---

I "bolded" some phrases in the above. I also changed a graphic to "X". Otherwise the above are true quotes. The above two citations indicate that expert opinion views radioactive decay as a random or statistical process. Consider the above phrase: "... the inherent uncertainty in the quantum mechanical laws of nature, ...". If the quantum world is uncertain (Id est: Statistical or probabilistic), there is no way that the classical world of our senses can be deterministic. Our world is based on Quantum World processes.

I expect your reaction to this to be an old attitude. "People used to be convinced that the world was flat. They were jerks! So are the experts who disagree with me today" The experts of today will be proven wrong by the experts of tomorrow, implying that I, Gen-X, will be proven right by the experts of the future. If you think that is a valid argument, I am claiming that I will be proven right by experts who live a hundred or so years after your imagined experts.

Using the errors of the past to prove or disprove a current concept is another invalid argument.

You should realize that for the last 300-400 hundred years, mainstream science has always been correct if you consider the experimental technology available at the time of their theories. NASA still uses Newtonian equations for orbital calculations because they are so accurate that they cannot be distinguished from relativistic calculations. Did relativity theory prove that Newton was wrong? In a sense it did. But not if you consider only the data available to Newton. Did relativity prove Newton's methods to be unusable? Of course not: NASA uses Newtonian equations. More importantly: Did relativity theory change the nature of the data that Newtonian theory used?

As accurately as it can be measured today, radioactive decay data corresponds to statistical data. We are very close to the limits of how accurately such data can be measured. It ridiculous to imagine that a future improvement in measuring methods will change the basic nature of the data. No matter what is discovered in the future, the data associated with radioactive decay will always be statistical in nature, conforming to probability mathematics. If future physicists develop a deeper understanding of what is happening, they will merely have discovered a statistical process at a lower quantum level that results in the statistical nature of the data at the atomic nucleus level. It will still be statistical-like data, not deterministic-like data. Right now, some leading edge physicists are trying to develop a quantum gravity theory. I would sooner bet on a future theory with non-deterministic gravity than bet on a future theory with deterministic quantum processes.

You have a religious-like faith in a deterministic process. I have a little understanding of what motivates religious faith: Fear of our certain death. It is comforting to believe in a continuing existence in the "hereafter." What fear drives your faith in determinism?

Guv

Lets get something straight before I even bother with the rest of the post.

Quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are willing to open your eyes and come to this with an objective point of view (as opposed to the subjective point of view you are using) then perhaps we can discuss this properly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is am example of one of many well known invalid arguments. "If you were objective, then ..." or "If you had an open mind, then...".

---

Incorrect.

I did not say nor even infer that this was the case. I stated your lack of objectiveness and narrow mindedness as a result of the only possible outcomes you listed as being ones in which YOU assume superior intelligence.

I merely pointed out that as you did not even consider for the slightest moment that you could be wrong that you were not willing to open your eyes.

No reference to "If you don't agree with me you are wrong"

Please READ what I write... instead of applying an old and outdated judgement of what you "think" I am doing.

Perhaps if you at least come to this understand I can continue... If however you cannot even understand this simple mistake then it means we are unable to communicate because no matter WHAT I say you will always ignore it and draw your own conclusions.

Gen-X, I will try to keep it very simple. No suggestions that you are quibbling and no comments about your arguments. Asking a few simple questions can hardly be considered narrow minded or subjective.

Do you consider radioactive decay data to display the appearance of statistical or probabilistic data, rather than data associated with a deterministic process?

One of the citations I gave specified the statistical distribution (Poisson) associated with it.

You have dodged the above issue time and time again, leading me to accuse you of quibbling, acting on faith, being ignorant of probability and/or statistical mathematics.

Can you answer the above simple question? If your answer is no, can you suggest a deterministic process associated with the data? If no deterministic process can be suggested, can you suggest a reason why you think the data does not appear to be statistical or probabilistic?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

I asked you to at least acknowledge your mistake in my previous post... Instead you ignored it and just asked yours again.


I cannot make it any simpler... Unless you validate (or prove justifyable otherwise) what I said in my previous post I wont continue to say a word...

Without that basis there is no use talking.

I do hope you consider it a good idea to first establish a foundation before jumping into anything????

Gen-X, I apologize for any insulting remarks I might have made.

I absolutely deny being narrow minded and not objective. I consider that accusation by you to be insulting. I stated as much in a more subdued manner in a previous post.

I do not apologize for accusing you of quibbling and dodging critical issues.

Quote:

---

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

---

Do you expect me to go back over thousands of words in dozens of posts to find the questions you want answered? That request looks like a copout.

If you clearly state two simple questions, I will do my best to answer them. There is, however, an implied contract here. Note that I asked one simple question which could be answered yes or no in my last post. The no answer suggested that you answer two other, related, questions.

If I answer two simple questions, will you answer the following from my previous post?

Quote:

---

Do you consider radioactive decay data to display the appearance of statistical or probabilistic data, rather than data associated with a deterministic process?

One of the citations I gave specified the statistical distribution (Poisson) associated with it.

You have dodged the above issue time and time again, leading me to accuse you of quibbling, acting on faith, being ignorant of probability and/or statistical mathematics.

Can you answer the above simple question? If your answer is no, can you suggest a deterministic process associated with the data? If no deterministic process can be suggested, can you suggest a reason why you think the data does not appear to be statistical or probabilistic?

---

Guv

I did not ask you to go over thousands of posts... Just 1

stop being so damn paranoid!!!

I refer to the post I made that expressly states exactly what I meant.

Quote:

---

Lets get something straight before I even bother with the rest of the post.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are willing to open your eyes and come to this with an objective point of view (as opposed to the subjective point of view you are using) then perhaps we can discuss this properly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above is am example of one of many well known invalid arguments. "If you were objective, then ..." or "If you had an open mind, then...".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Incorrect.

I did not say nor even infer that this was the case. I stated your lack of objectiveness and narrow mindedness as a result of the only possible outcomes you listed as being ones in which YOU assume superior intelligence.

I merely pointed out that as you did not even consider for the slightest moment that you could be wrong that you were not willing to open your eyes.

No reference to "If you don't agree with me you are wrong"

Please READ what I write... instead of applying an old and outdated judgement of what you "think" I am doing.

Perhaps if you at least come to this understand I can continue... If however you cannot even understand this simple mistake then it means we are unable to communicate because no matter WHAT I say you will always ignore it and draw your own conclusions.

---

Just in case you are unable to actually find questions in there (I admit they are by inference.. but surely someone with your intelligence could work them out), I will spell them out.


1. Do you agree that you left out certain possible outcomes when determining WHY I answered the way I did?

(By this I mean your only possiblities listed me being wrong in ALL cases)

2. In limiting the possibilities to only those putting you in a good light is that not what would be considered subjective and narrow minded?


Lets hope I get an answer to these so I can actually progress to giving you your answers.. I have been dying to answer you for ages but you seem to take everything I say and explode it a thousand times out of proportion... To me that is an indication of extreme subjectiveness.

Gen-x, This is blackmail, but I will give in to it because i am curious about your replay to my technical question.

Sorry about being paranoid, but I tend to interpret what I read in a standard fashion. If I do not see a question, I do not believe one has been asked. You made some accusations which I did not interpret as questions. I am not a mind reader. I assumed that you had some technical questions which you felt I had not answered. Hence the reference to not wanting to review a large number of posts.

Oddly enough, I responded to your accusations (Id est: I answered your implied questions) in a previous post, but you obviously did not like the responses (Id est: answers).

In the interest of getting a reply to my basic question, I will give you the answers you want.

The dinosaur pleads guilty as charged and answers "yes" to the following Gen-X questions.

Quote:

---

1. Do you agree that you left out certain possible outcomes when determining WHY I answered the way I did?

(By this I mean your only possiblities listed me being wrong in ALL cases)

2. In limiting the possibilities to only those putting you in a good light is that not what would be considered subjective and narrow minded?

---

Now, we have an implied contract. You have agreed to answer the following.

Quote:

---

Do you consider radioactive decay data to display the appearance of statistical or probabilistic data, rather than data associated with a deterministic process?

One of the citations I gave specified the statistical distribution (Poisson) associated with it.

You have dodged the above issue time and time again, leading me to accuse you of quibbling, acting on faith, being ignorant of probability and/or statistical mathematics.

Can you answer the above simple question? If your answer is no, can you suggest a deterministic process associated with the data? If no deterministic process can be suggested, can you suggest a reason why you think the data does not appear to be statistical or probabilistic?

---

Guv
Excellent instruction on the proper use of the dictionary. I could not get that point across to Gen-X. I also respect your "signature stance" on consensus; again, another instruction about dictionary usage.

There is a distinction which bothers me.
By Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and your belief of 1 January 1900 and a 100 year run:
You seem to be saying that given Run1; a particle of precisely known position and a particular momentum (that we cannot know according to Heisenberg) and letting it run for a time; if that particle was reset to the same position and just happened to have the same momentum as in Run1, but this is now Run2, the paths travelled would not be the same.

When you say something like "exact universe reset", I assume that you mean just happened to have the exact properties of the first run (although we couldn't know it be Heisenberg). I cannot see where this different influence arises from (given no "outside intervention--which I assume you take as a given due to your belief in no God).
Surely you don't mean a "reset" where something that was unknown to us before, still is unknown and this "initial condition" is probabilistically different for a second run (to begin with). To me, that IS NOT an "EXACT" reset.

Given this distinction, do you maintain that the universe is not deterministic (required to be the same {on any level} after an exact reset and the same 100 year run)?

VirtuallyVB, the rerun of the universe I referred to in a post somewhere was strictly a thought experiment. I think I even used the word "magically" to suggest that there was no way it could really happen. By the way, I do not believe in magic.

I think I might have imagined a reset to 1 January 1990 in one post and 1 January 1900 in another.

I have no real justification for my belief in a rerun of the universe being different the second time. I merely think it is more reasonable than the contrary belief, and it has to be one way or the other. My point of view is based on the following tenuous line of reasoning.

All the evidence seems to indicate that statistical laws rather than deterministic laws govern the quantum world. The experts in this area even use terms like "capricious" behavior of electrons and other particles. Radioactive decay is the process I refer to most often because it is the process best known to non experts (I include myself in this group), and obviously produces statistical data.

Since the classical world of our senses is based on quantum world phenomena, it too must be probabilistic in its behavior. The appearance of deterministic behavior is due to the huge number of quantum events causing a classical world event. Clocks based on radioactive decay are incredibly accurate. However, using the same principles with fewer atoms of radioactive material would not result in an accurate clock. This is one example of a probabilistic cause resulting in behavior which is predictable within the limits of how accurately we can make measurements. Except for gravitational phenomena, the experts seem to believe that all processes in the world of our senses are non deterministic, due to being based on random quantum world phenomena. I think there might be some reservations about gravitational phenomena (I have seen speculations about theories of quantum gravity).

I think the above is fairly solid, and almost certainly makes it reasonable to deny predictability, even in principle.

The weak part of my thought process is the leap to a belief that the universe would not repeat its previous history if it were "magically" reset to the exact initial conditions in effect say 10, 20 or 100 years ago. This belief is based on the following, into which I am sure lots of holes could be punched.

For various practical reasons, a universe based on precise deterministic laws would not be predictable, even though it would seem to be repeatable given the same initial conditions. It just seems to me that given statistical (Id est: probabilistic) laws, the situation should somehow be "worse" than merely unpredictable. Ergo, neither predictable nor repeatable.

Computational problems make prediction of a deterministic universe impossible, even if we knew all the initial conditions. This is a practical problem. In principle, we could imagine having the initial conditions with the required precision, and we could imagine having the ability to use millions of digits of precision. In practice, it would take too long to collect the data, we cannot make accurate enough measurements, and the computations would just not be possible on any conceivable computer system.

The obtaining of the initial conditions is not possible in principle, due to the limitations of relativity theory.

The above is the situation for a universe controlled by deterministic laws. Predictable neither in principle nor in practice. Reasonable to assume repeatability in the sense of our thought experiment in which the universe is "magically" reset. Would a universe controlled by statistical laws still be repeatable? Does it not seem reasonable to assume deterministic laws are required for repeatability?

Given a universe controlled by statistical laws, I think we can neither prove nor disprove repeatability. However, it must be one or the other. Place your bet. I bet that it is not repeatable. If the laws were deterministic, I would bet on repeatability (perhaps not provable, but certainly very reasonable).

This is my final thought experiment. Suppose I became convinced that god existed (not likely for an atheist) and was about to announce the truth on this issue. Suppose further, that my salvation depended on my guessing the correct answer. I would bet against repeatability.

Would this God know the end from the beginning?

You touched on the subtlety that bothers me. Is the definition of deterministic "knowing" the final state or "having" the final state? That alone can say that the universe is not deterministic (if you say that you must know the state). But I am interested in "having" the final state. That's why I said, "just happened to be the same state" for a reset. Again, I cannot see how, if nothing is different from the total initial conditions of run 1 from that of run 2, there would not be the same final state.

It's been a while, but aren't there really two types of probability? Consider a closed bag with two colored marbles, one white, the other black.

What is the probability that I will pick the white marble? We say 50%. This is what I call a closed-type probability. Now replace the marble. If I repeat this process n times, what percentage of times do I pick the white marble? This seems to be what I would call an open-type probability that merely approaches 50% as n approaches infinity. This open-type probability seems to be why you reason that the universe is non-deterministic. If a system is truly closed, then it seems more reasonable that it is deterministic.

Please correct me on my definitions of closed and opened probabilities.

Guv

Thank you.

I think one of the things this highlights is that the medium we are using is very prone to not getting the points we intended across... I have noticed more often than not we talk about the same things but argue each other is wrong ;)

Now I will honor my contract in responding.

Quote:

---

Do you consider radioactive decay data to display the appearance of statistical or probabilistic data, rather than data associated with a deterministic process?

---

Yes radioactive decay is probabilistic I have always said I agreed with that.

But so is everything else. Even deterministic processes can be expressed as probabilistic (ie 100%) so using it as a unique attribute of "randomness" seems inconsequential.

What I fail to understand is how something that is probabilistic AUTOMATICALLY becomes random. While I do agree it is "random" if you use the definition of the word "I don't know what causes it yet"... but certainly NOT random in the use of the definition "It will NEVER be known"

Many things were considered probabilistic until all of their "inputs" were determined and at the end of those studies they became "deterministic".

My entire point to you has been that a failure to see a pattern does not mean one does NOT exist... probabilistic in its simplicity means you are yet to find what CAUSES it to behave the way it does... NOT that a cause is impossible to exist.

Quote:

---

You have dodged the above issue time and time again, leading me to accuse you of quibbling, acting on faith, being ignorant of probability and/or statistical mathematics.

---

Actually I didn't dodge it. If you read what I wrote you will see I agreed and that I questioned probability being automatically assumed random... you just didn't bother reading it ;)

Quote:

---

Can you answer the above simple question? If your answer is no, can you suggest a deterministic process associated with the data? If no deterministic process can be suggested, can you suggest a reason why you think the data does not appear to be statistical or probabilistic?

---

Now that you understand my problem is not, nor has ever been with the probabilistic nature but the actual inferance of what probabilistic means.. do you have some more questions for me?


Oh and to answer another question you had... Yes I DO believe a die throw is influences by Quantum processes... I also believe that if we could calculate ALL of those processes we would be able to precicely determine the outcome of a Die.

Let me ask you this then... If I dropped said dice from a height of 2mm onto an absorbative surface with the number 6 on the top, is my probability for achieving a result of 6 1/6? or 6/6?

If as you say this is a probabilistic process and by default automatically random... then what has CHANGED it into a deterministic process?


On your point of determinism coming as a result of billions of random processes I find that ridiculous... Random x Random = MORE Random... Not ORDER.

"Random" comes as a result of enough determinism being applied to the point where we can no longer comprehend what goes into the outcome... the purpose is lost and so to us it appears "random".

VVB

You hit on one of my points to Guv. Replaying the universe means some outside influence that didn't exist before suddenly happens... or the "randomness" force acts differently... You won't get an answer out of him on that.

About the dictionary though... Please write a letter to Webster, Brittanica and all other major dictionaries and tell the entire WORLD they are wrong in their definitions. While I agree that definitions can vary, when someone actually states the definition THEY are using it is polite either to :

1. Agree to disagree and cease using the word as it only causes confusion

2. You use their definition when talking to THEM

3. Ask them to use YOUR definition when talking to you

4. Come to some agreement on what the definition is you will jointly share.

I would have thought that made sense... Guess I am just a fool for thinking it makes things easier... I am sure talking at cross purposes with different definitions saying each other is wrong based on those different definitions is DEFINATELY the way to communicate properly.

VirtuallyVB, first, atheists do not have opinions relating to what god thinks or knows. I am sorry I included the last paragraph in my previous post. I thought it would convey a mood or an attitude.

I do not understand your distinction between "open" & "closed" probabilities. Are you saying that the "closed" type situation is a one time, unrepeatable process? Like if you had 50 white balls and 50 black balls, you could pull 100 balls out of the bag, and that would be the end of the process? Would your "open" process involve replacing each ball before drawing again? This would allow you to keep it up indefinitely. If this is your concept, then both situations are considered to be probabilistic processes. Of course in one case (the 100th ball) the probability is know to be one, or a certainty. I personally have never heard the terms "open" & "closed" used in this context. Of course, I paint with "colors," while my British friends use "colours."

For pulling balls out of a bag, the usual terms are "sampling with replacement" ( "independent Trials" events) and "sampling without replacement" ("dependent trials"). Dice tosses are independent trials events (history does not change odds), while Blackjack involves dependent trials events. Blackjack causes a lot of quibbling. Once the cards have been shuffled, the game could be considered deterministic and predictable. When viewed from the laws of physics, you can inspect the deck and know what is going to happen. If conforming to casino rules, your strategy must view it as a probabilistic dependent trials game.

Following are some remarks about deterministic systems, giving some idea of what is meant by deterministic or predictable.

Newton's differential equations can be integrated for "2-Body" problems, resulting in exact equations ("analytic functions") describing circular, elliptical, & parabolic (maybe hyperbolic also) orbits for two objects influenced by their mutual gravitational attraction (and under no other influences). You can use the exact equations to calculate where each object will be at any given time (future or past). Everyone agrees that this is a deterministic, predictable system (or process). In principle, you can restart such a system with exactly the same initial conditions and expect it to be repeatable. The initial conditions seem well defined and obtainable in principle. In practice, there is some limitation on how accurately all the required values can be measured.

When there are 3 or more objects, exact equations cannot be obtained (except for some special cases). However, the differential equations can be solved "numerically." The initial conditions consist of the position, velocity, & mass of each object. Given these, the positions, velocities, and masses can be calculated at the end of a short time interval, resulting in what can be treated as initial conditions for another calculation. You can keep this up, calculating positions and velocities for a long time into the future (or the past). Note, however, that there is some inherent inaccuracy in the calculations. If you use one second time intervals, you will get more accurate results than using one day intervals, but it will require 86,400 times as many computations. In principle, you cannot obtain exact results. In practice, you can get results so accurate that you cannot measure the difference between the calculated results and the actual behavior of the system. This last statement is an exaggeration. It is only true if you do not want to calculate "too far" into the past or future. The meaning of "too far" depends on the characteristics of the system.

Some claim that gravitational systems more complex than 2-Body systems are not deterministic. Personally, I think that is being too picky. In principle, the differential equations define a deterministic (or predictable) system. It is in practice that difficulties arise.

Some claim that rolling dice under casino conditions is a deterministic, predictable process, others say no. Superficially, it seems like you could collect the necessary data and decide on the necessary equations or algorithms. If you think deeply about the problem, you start having doubts. I personally lean away from determinism on this one, but am not sure. An argument could be made for quantum world processes affecting dice rolls. A dice roll in which one die almost balances on a corner, might roll one way or the other depending on quantum level events. Interactions between the dice and the cushiony table seem difficult to calculate, and might be affected by quantum events.

Now start thinking about cooking food with the boiling water in a pressure cooker, the biochemistry of a living creature, the interactions of all the living creatures on the planet. If the experts tell me that quantum world processes are involved here, I believe them. These processes
just do not seem deterministic (or predictable to me).

Quote:

---

When there are 3 or more objects, exact equations cannot be obtained (except for some special cases). However, the differential equations can be solved "numerically."

---

So what would a system with 123,345,123,764,456,345,827,213,747,235 deterministic Objects be?

Random? Probabilist?

Surely even you cannot deny that if you have enough factors the outcome "appears" to not be deterministic but still falls within a given set of outcomes (statistical).

So you're a schizo too H??

:D

Well if you are so absolutely God-damn sure about that Harry then be my guest in "enlightening" me.

It I cannot see the nose in front of my face it should be incredibly easy to show me EXACTLY what I cannot see.

Somehow I get the impression your ability to simply slur someone and your ability to BACK IT UP with facts are worlds apart.

I await your consise explaination

Basically, you seem to totally forget everything that has been discussed in other threads. Everything you say in this thread has been brought up before, it's old news. What's with your crappy dice example? Because you drop it so it's a 6 that means there are no random events? What are you, like 5? Wake up, think about it.

On top of that, you keep going on about random + random = more random. What on earth gives you this idea? I have tried explining this to you in other threads but you just don't listen at all. I'm not going to go over it all again because you'll just make an arse of yourself. Read the other threads if you want an explanation. It'll probably be the first time you read them.

Ok... let me try that then.

Basically, you seem to totally forget everything that has been discussed in other threads. Everything you say in this thread has been brought up before, it's old news. What's with your crappy radioactivity example? Because you cant work out what the pattern is means it is a random event? What are you, like 5? Wake up, think about it.

On top of that, you keep going on about random + random = deterministic. What on earth gives you this idea? I have tried explining this to you in other threads but you just don't listen at all. I'm not going to go over it all again because you'll just make an arse of yourself. Read the other threads if you want an explanation. It'll probably be the first time you read them.


There... So does that mean I am right and you are wrong simply because I made pathetic statements that lead no where, make wonderful accusations with no proof and then point to everywhere else and say basically nothing?

No?

Oh Why not? Why is it you are allowed to be so pathetic but if I try it I am being a 5 year old?

Mmmm... Very interesting. Harry says something so that MUST be true... but I say something and automatically its old news, flawed (despite nobody actually being able to truely say why just point to other areas that talk about other things) and I can't read.

Hasn't it occured to you yet that both sides constantly say the other side hasn't read something? BOTH sides accuse the other of missing things and overlooking them? Missing questions? Missing Answers?

Doesn't that ring a bell in that thick little dim-witted head of yours????

Of course Not... because your not interested in TRUTH or anything even removely balanced... You are just on a witch hunt and because your sensitive little nature has been *****ed you would even call me an idiot if I told you the sun would probably rise tomorrow.

Obviously we have a problem communicating Harry... you piss me off and I piss you off... I tried leaving you alone but you just kept at it... Obivously you cant take a hint.

I even tried asking you how we could resolve the problems we seem to keep running into... but all you seem to want to do is have a go and I STUPIDLY retalliate.

If you don't like what I say Harry, good for you... but at least be fair about it and state WHY... not just a blithering pile of **** about "old news" when everyone else keeps repeating "old news" and gets away with it.

You would have ot be the most self-serving, single-minded, one-sided, unfair and unbalanced person I have ever come across.

GET A LIFE!!!!!

(Now over to Holier-than-thou, High-and-Mighty, He-Who-Knows-All Mr Harry "Number 7" Always-right)

I already established that I couldn't convince you of it based on the examples already given, and you certainly couldn't convince me based on what you'd said. However you seem to think that somehow, if you say it enough times, it will be true.

'Yes dear' is hardly what I'd call leaving me alone, however short the sentence is it is childish and inflammatory. You couldn't answer so you resorted to idiocy.

On your surprisingly complete analysis of me as a person: oh I see, yes now I come to think of it I am completely self-serving, single-minded, one-sided, unfair and unbalanced. Of course. I see it now. Why has nobody I have met in real life ever pointed this out to me? Why does nobody else see it? Of course, it must be true because you say so. I find it strange how you are so adamant that people cannot make a judgement about a person based on this forum, yet you are so quick to reel off a complete psychoanalysis of me.

As a side note: well done you managed to completely avoid the point again. Congratulations.

You just don't get it do you!!!!

I just said we all seem to think the other doesn't get it and misses the whole point...

Your completely incorrigable.

And you will say the same about me

So rabbit on Harry... its your redeeming quality ;)

I think everybody on this post should count slowly to ten and take a chill pill, and possibly consider calming down before posting again. And before anyone says "I am calm, I am just responding", why don't you just not respond in like? I really don't think all the insults are necessary!

Another flame war
nothing accomplished
old news
more old news
and more wasted time.
What's the whole idea folks`?

BTW, if anyone wants to know, universe is random
a) if you don't think an objective universe exist
b) if you are stupid
c) you don't know anything at all but thinks you know a lot

Whats your definition of Random?????

I think "Unknown Parameter" would be great, or why not
"Something you don't know"

And then if you defin universe as
a) Everything
then we get
Universe=Known parameters + Unknown parameters
b) Everything that we know (known universe)
Univese=Known parameters

so for a, randomness exists and b, does not exist.

So what we do here is define two universes,
1. known universe
2. total univese

Now what the QM believers do not see is that
1+RND=2
That means universe will never be deterministic since if you know something more then that will be known
Also that means that universe is deterministic in that aspect you repeat the whole thing from big bang, the "reset" stuff you were discussing.

Kedaman, I think I understand the point you are making (am not really sure). Given your definition of random, your post (as I interpret it) makes sense. I disagree with your definition of random. You, like Gen-X and others, seem to define "random" as "unknown" or "not known yet" or "something you do not know" or "without apparent pattern." I have tended to not directly answer Gen-X on his definition. (He tends to believe most of his concepts on faith and is a moving target, if you know what I mean). Your posts here and elsewhere suggest to me that you are more knowledgeable and/or at least less naive than Gen-X, so I feel I feel that I should discuss the definition of random.

I imagine there is a dictionary somewhere which has "unknown" or something along these lines as one definition of random. This is analogous to your saying "I enjoy sex with my main squeeze" and I (a bridge player) replying "You have sex with a card playing strategy? Far out!! How do you do that?"

Elsewhere in this post, there is a discussion dealing with the use of simple dictionary definitions when dealing with complex subject matter. That post claims (rightly, I believe) that a knowledge of certain terms requires seeing the term used in various contexts after having been given a definition more lengthy than that available in a dictionary. In some cases the occurrences in context impart the knowledge without a definition (For example: Formal axiomatic logic avoids definition of certain terms in the axioms).

The best definition I know for "random sequence" is "set of numbers associated with a random process," which obviously requires a definition of random process. I do not think there is a good definition for "random number" (singular). Elsewhere in this thread are some pertinent quotes from sites (URL's are specified) which have authoritative articles about quantum physics. Radioactive decay is referred to as a random process. One of the quotes is from a site which supplies random numbers generated from measurements associated with radioactive decay. This latter quote discusses the "pseudo random numbers" generated by computers.

There is a defenition in another post, I forget which, of a random seqence being a sequence not able to be represented by any equation smaller then the actual sequence (I belive that one of the people posting in here posted it!)
The argument the person who posted used against this definition was that a large power of a large prime could be mistaken for a random sequence, but this is not the case, as it is one number, not a sequence of numbers.
This is in contradiction with the random processes theory, as often extreme order arrises from random(numbers got from random processes) inputs. This can be seen in certain fractal pattern genertaing programs, which work by using random numbers.(again, please don't complain that they are pseudo random, it's not relevant to the argument!)
A deck of cards shuffled by someone could end up in a very orderded pattern, and in fact a perfect 'ripple shuffle'(were the deck is divided into two and 'rippled' into each other) actually causes an increase in order!(It was in New Scientist, or Sciintifc American, I forget which)
S, is random the opposite of order, or the resilt of random processes? Or, if the universe is found to be deterministic (After initial conditions set, everything is determined), and random processes becomes a redundant term, then ddoes it mean that random dosn't exist? (as would be the case if the the random processes was accepted, as these would be predictable, if all inital conditions and rules of operation were known). So determinists must, if they belive that random numbers exist, can not justify the random processes defintion, and must use another, so any argument about this topic is bound to cause confusion, due to a necassary difference in terminology!
If, therefore, everyone just avoids talking about random, then we'll be alright...
Well, I'm off to some random bar....D'OH!

What is your defintion of a "random process"?

Elimination of randomness, that's what makes "random" operations to cause order

Code:

---

Sub main()
    c=99999
    For b = 0 To c-1
        a = a + Rnd
    Next b
    Debug.Print a / c
End Sub

---

This for instance returns about 0.5 each time. But as lim C-> Infinty, it will be more and more exact. Therefore "the more random factors are involved, the more random the result get's" is wrong. It's actually eliminating the randomness in such a process.

Guv
So random as "unknown" isn't good enough? Maybe it's because a QM believer like you don't think there is anything "unknown" ? That everything is known and has a probability? Ok, i don't think you would agree with me now so therefore:

I think you agree there are such philosophical issues like this one that makes the dictionary irrelevant especially when we try to find an answer that is written in the dictionary. "Random, what actually is random?" not "what makes something random?" or "look random?". Because almost every time we refer to randomness, we refer to "unknown". Now the actual definition where something that can be called random is when the randomness isn't pseudo-random, that is, when you can find out what makes it look random. Maybe it could be called absolute randomness.

The problem with that is that we don't know if radioactive decay really is absolutely random. We don't even know if it exist at all since both absolute random and unknown looks both exactly the same. Only when you find out what was unknown you can decide that it's not absolute random. Here i think you can agree with me?

Gen-X, you are hopeless. It is a waste of time arguing with you. Recently, you posted the following.

Quote:

---

Yes radioactive decay is probabilistic I have always said I agreed with that. But so is everything else. Even deterministic processes can be expressed as probabilistic (ie 100%) so using it as a unique attribute of "randomness" seems inconsequential.

---

I never saw a post in which you accepted the fact that radioactive decay was a probabilistic process. I read fairly carefully. If you can find a post in which you said that, I will not consider your above statement to be a deliberate lie. What happened? Perhaps you finally realized that you could no longer get away with quibbling. You wasted a lot of my time on this issue, when we could have discussed other issues in more detail after agreeing on this one.

The rest of the above quote is silly.

Quote:

---

Many things were considered probabilistic until all of their "inputs" were determined and at the end of those studies they became "deterministic".

---

Another unsupported statement! Please name a few such "things" that were once considered probabilistic and are now considered deterministic. Who made these studies? I remember that historically the reverse has generally been true. Mainstream physics used to consider the universe to be deterministic and now view it to be governed by statistical laws. I do not believe that you could name any such "things" when you wrote that statement. I wonder if you can come up with any now that I have challenged you on it.

A while back you said that you could find 100 experts to refute an expert I quoted. When challenged, you came up with some silly reason for your statement because you could not find one citation, let alone 100.

You have a habit of making unsupported statements, using illogical statements, and quibbling.

You are either immature or lacking the intellectual resources to deal with threads like this. Why don't you spend more time attacking the religious believers? That seem to be one of your hobbies. Another thought: Find a post that gives you an excuse to brag about being a martial arts expert. That's another topic you like.

Dealing with you is a waste of time.

All: There seem to be questions about and/or requests for a definition of random, random numbers, random processes, et cetera. I have been trying to come up with a post to address this issue, but am not satisfied with my first attempt. I will spend some more time on it, and try to post later..

Kedaman, I do not think that I or anyone else believes that there are no unknowns. I think there are some issues that are not only unknown but unknowable. If the Big Bang Theory is correct, it would seem to have wiped out all knowledge/evidence of what was happening before the bang. I suspect that attempts to understand consciousness are likely to get tangled up in recursive thought processes which are impossible to untangle. Nobody seems to know why the velocity of light is not faster or slower than it is. Ditto for a lot of other constants of physics. In electromagnetic phenomena, why do opposites attract and likes repel instead of vice versa? Good thing for us that it works that way, but I do not like the anthropomorphic explanation. Why the uncertainty principle? Why the Pauli exclusion principle?

At any rate, "unknown cause" might be a property associated with random processes, but "unknown" just seems too general for use as a definition of random. It does not seem to convey any sense of the concept to me without a lot of other words and discussion.

Harbringer: Let us clean up a few nits, ignoring main issues of this thread. First, did you see my post asking about your name? What is a harbringer? Where is Vole? I think there is a harbinger, but harbringer does not seem right.

You have some misunderstanding about Chaos or Complexity Theory, which is not pertinent to a discussion of random processes, but why not clear it up?

Fractal patterns are generated using simple deterministic functions, and they mimic random processes. They do not use random numbers. For example, the Mandelbrot Set is the basis of some of the most well known fractal patterns. It uses the formula "Z*Z + C", where Z & C are imaginary numbers (They can also be thought of as map coordinates). C is a constant for a given pattern. The current result of each simple computation is used as the next value of Z. Most "chaotic" systems involve feedback: The output from some process can be used as the next input to the same process.

The second nit: I disagreed with a definition for "random Sequence," which was an attempt to create a definition independent of probabilistic mathematics and without reference to random processes. First note that there is no such thing as a "random number" (singular), there are only "random sequences."

In a previous post, I mentioned the definition as an example of the complexity of the subject. If it were simple, no one would have ever considered that definition. In that post, the issue was not described well.

The essence of the definition was "An extremely lengthy sequence is random if ‘print digits' is the shortest algorithm which defines the sequence." Some fairly bright people argued pro and con about this definition. The deciding argument against the idea was as follows. If you take a 500 digit prime number and raise it to (for example) the 200th power, you will get a huge number of digits. If you then chop the digits into 5-digit groups, the resulting sequence is likely to appear random and be accepted as such. When (if) somebody discovers how the digits were generated, it will be realized that the sequence does not fit the definition of random. The people who argued about this were basically philosopher types, not mathematician or physicist types. I thought the entire idea was silly and unusable. Random sequences are the result of processes thought to be random or are required to simulate random processes. It is silly to try for a definition independent of random processes and/or the associated probabilistic mathematics.

Guv

Quote:

---

Gen-X, you are hopeless. It is a waste of time arguing with you.

---

So in otherwords you are too chicken to actually define a "random process"?

Quote:

---

If you can find a post in which you said that, I will not consider your above statement to be a deliberate lie

---

*sigh* This tired old game? If you can find a post that said I did disbelieve in things being statistical please show me. What you aren't going to waste several hours pouring over thousands of reply to make your point? Well welcome to the club.

Quote:

---

What happened? Perhaps you finally realized that you could no longer get away with quibbling

---

I never realised how arrogant and pompous you are until now. I decided writing too many syllables in a post was too much for you so I decided to reduce it to a few simple things. Obviously even a 1-liner reply is too much for you.

Quote:

---

The rest of the above quote is silly.

---

Why is it silly? Because you want it to be? Is not everything simply a determination and categorization? If I toss a coin I say it has a statistical probability of 50% being heads and 50% being tails. If I drop it from a minimal height with heads facing up then I say "Its deterministic and will always be heads".

Has it suddenly changed? What did I do to suddenly remove it from the realms of statistics???? The answer is NOTHING.. I simply reduced the number of factors which highlighted its determinism.

That you cannot see this is the silly part. That you simply refuse time and time again to state what your definition of terms are shows you are afraid of them being wrong.

I actually did a search on the internet for "random process" and couldn't find a SINGLE definition of it anywhere. What does that tell you? My definition of random comes from multiple sources who ALL say roughly the same thing and yours comes from somewhere in your head that you refuse to explain.

Quote:

---

Another unsupported statement! Please name a few such "things" that were once considered probabilistic and are now considered deterministic

---

The determination of atomic weight. They applied statistical analysis on it to calculate the weights of other elements based on the number of protons. They did this because for some reason certain elements didn't match "exactly" what their calculations were. I believe that if you look at the maths used at the time you will find all the answers you want.

Then they discovered the neutron and it became deterministic.

But no doubt you will just say "that old argument again" as if the simple fact that it rings true time and time again means it is inadmissible as evidence in your eyes. Thats how you work isn't it... Simply call it "old news" or say I am repeating it and it becomes untrue on the spot.

You once said that you applied logic and it was that application of logic that gave it its validity. Now I apply logic to something and I am making unfounded statements. A piece of works you are my friend... an amazing piece of work

Quote:

---

A while back you said that you could find 100 experts to refute an expert I quoted

---

You truely have a problem with reading. I said "And I am sure there are 100 experts who would say otherwise". Where did you get that I could find them? I simply said they must exist. I admit it was a rash statement but then I didn't realise I was talking with someone who likes to leave his statements unfounded but DEMANDS everyone else validates theirs.

Quote:

---

You have a habit of making unsupported statements, using illogical statements, and quibbling.

---

"Elsewhere in this post, there is a discussion dealing with the use of simple dictionary definitions when dealing with complex subject matter. "

Support this statement. I want a biblogaphy to support it.

"atheists do not have opinions relating to what god thinks or knows"

Support this statement also. Where are your sources on this? Or was it an unfounded statement?

"Superficially, it seems like you could collect the necessary data and decide on the necessary equations or algorithms. If you think deeply about the problem, you start having doubts"

Back this one up. You start having doubts? Is this a probability of 100% for everyone who does this? Or is this another unfounded statement of yours based on the same principles that everyone else uses to make theirs.

I think this proves that you do the same as everyone else... we make statements based on what we consider logical and a natural trend... yet you validate your own statements and call everyone elses unsupported. When you make one that doesn't have some PhD article following it you claim its obvious...

Quote:

---

You are either immature or lacking the intellectual resources to deal with threads like this

---

Well then Mr Amazing. How about educating this poor and intellectually stupid soul and enlighten him to what the definition of a "random process" is and what the attributes a process must have to be considered a random process.

Here is your chance to bring a neanderthal into the 21st century...

Somehow I don't think you have neither the intellectual capacity nor the balls to even attempt it.

I made a simple question and got a "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" and answer...

Care to ask who is being immature now?

Guv,
Your post about my name, and my reply is in another area of chit chat, I can't rmember which, I will go look later.
Firts on fractals. You are wrong about this. On the open university, I saw them demonstatre that a fractal can be generated by random processe. The method was to have asquare, with a point out side it, at any point (a random point if you like) and mov it to within th squar, and then mov it random distances within the square, and drawing a line betwwen the points each time it moved. This lead to a fractal patteren contaning traingles. I assume that the open university would not delibratly misinform me, so if they are mistaken, then you can take it up with them.
As for th erandom number, it would be possible to say that a random number, as I said befor, is one made by a random process (which I have yet to define! Maybe I'll work it ot later.) Anyway, if a random sequence can be made by a random process, so can a random number (singular), allowing a random number, not sequence (if there are such tings as random proccses, if not then no, there are no random numbers!)
As for the other argument, it is silly. Inth e question you defineid an algorithim for that sequenc that is far shorter than the 'print digits'!! I f you hadn't, you would have had to write the whole dam thing out, rather than give a precise method with instructons for creating it, in a shortert way then writting the whole lot out! To make even shorter,
PrimeNumber to power of 200, split into 5 digit groups, leave remander in own group.
Nowhere in that definiton does it say the algorithim must be in mathimatical terms, and I have mearly used the most convienint language to express it! Anyway, my disscussion of random was to do with the idea of lack of order being an idae of random. If there was little oredr in the 5 digit blocks, they could well be random! YOu say, ah, they are not, look how I created them, but I can say, if I define random as a lack of order, the method of creation is irrelevent in a definiton of random. If I define it as a result of a random process, the of course they would not be random (again, assuming that random processes exist!)
You missed the main thread of my idea there, Guv, which was to do with the lack of order being a definition of random.
Anyway, the point of this forum was to discuss determinism, not randomness, so I will do that for a while.
As I said before, weher a process is probablistic or not, gives no proof either way of the determinisitic nature of the universe. Deterministic, or predictable if all rules and initial conditions are know, given enough time and computional power (brainds, computers, whatever). If an event defies predction, like 'Will it come down heads or tails?' or 'When will this specific atom decay' can either be unpredicitable either beacuse the conditions are not known (The power, spin of the coin, the position and momentum of atoms in ths air) or the rules governing the process are not known (Radioactive decay). You cannot prove it either way just by argument. Let me say that again. YOU CAN NOT PROVE IT EITHER WAY BY ARGUMENT!!! The deterministic/probalisticviewpoints do not allow for thier proof with the evidence presented, the definitoin of random being irelevant to the converstion, thoug I myself got sidetracked. Anyway, I'll leave that post there, just telling Guv that the name question is at the Strange Dice forum, check it out there.

I would think that there is very little that you can prove about one model in opposition to another purely by argument. The whole idea of physics is to provide a mathematical model for the real world, and in general we use the one that seems to describe the world around us most accurately. It's not really a case of whether you can prove it's true or not, just whether it's the closest model you've got.

I hope that makes sense to someone.

It does make sense, and I know that, but the argument here isn't 'Which provides a better model of the world', but 'which is right?'
Anyway, they both, with the evidence available provide equally good models, so a determination on this basis is impossible. Popper would have therefore said, if one cannot be disproved, it is not a godd hypothesis, With determinism, you cannot disprove it, as you can always say 'There are rules/factors you don't know about', and with probability, you can't disprove it, as saying something has a probability is not a straight disporvable concept. So, neither are good, useful hyptothisis, according to Popper!

Outside of this forum is a world of activities which often interferes with the critically important issues being decided here. I apologize for allowing a faulty sense of priorities to cause me to ignore this thread for about a week.

Before going into detail, let me state my basic belief about the way the universe functions.

Quote:

---

In previous posts, I claimed that restarting the universe (not really possible) would result in some (or many) events being different the second time around. This statement cannot be backed up by any logical argument. It is the way I believe a probabilistic universe would behave if restarted. What I think can be backed up by logical arguments is the statement that the universe is not deterministic. In principle, accurate predictions cannot be made.

---

Various posters have requested a definition of random. Let me try to come up with a definition, and then further discuss the issue of the universe not being deterministic. As mentioned elsewhere, this and various other concepts cannot be understood via a dictionary-like definition. Some pertinent background is required.

I am sorry that I ever used the word random in this thread, because the issue being discussed could be dealt with using terms like probability (or probabilistic) and deterministic. Since it was used and has become an issue, a discussion of what is meant by random seems necessary.

Random suggests unpredictability, lack of pattern, unknown causes, et cetera. These terms are often used in definitions of random, but should be considered characteristics of random processes, not defining terms. It is analogous to considering the word nitrogen. At room temperature, it is a colorless, odorless gas. You could not define it precisely using terms like colorless, odorless, and gaseous. A given isotope of it can readily be defined unambiguously by its atomic number and atomic weight, but the other words are merely associated with properties of nitrogen. Unfortunately there is no definition of random which is as simple as defining elements by the particles in their nuclei,

Random is a term from the mathematical discipline which deals with statistics and probability. To understand its meaning, some background knowledge of probability is required. First, probabilities are almost always expressed as values between zero (no chance) and one (certainty). An exhaustive set of probabilities always add up to one. For example, when throwing dice, there are eleven possible totals (2 through 12, inclusive). If you correctly calculated the eleven probabilities and added them up, the sum would be one.

Now starting with fairly simple assumptions, mathematicians have come up with formulae or algorithms for computing various probabilities. For example: If P+Q =1, P is the probability of a win, and Q is the probability of a loss, then it has been proven that expanding (P+Q)^n provides the probabilities of 0, 1, 2, 3 wins in n plays. For six plays, the expansion would be

Code:

---

P^6 + 6*P^5*Q + 15*P^4*Q^2 + 20*P^3*Q^3 + 15*P^2*Q^4 + 6*P*Q^5 + Q^6

---

I f you want to know the probability of 4 wins and 2 losses, evaluate: 15*P^4*Q^2. The above is called a binomial probability distribution. I think that the Normal (or Bell-shaped) curve is the limit of the binomial distribution when n approaches infinity.

There is a multinomial distribution analogous to the above when there are more than 2 possibilities. Eg: Expand (P+Q+R)^n for a situation with three possibilities. There are Poisson probabilities applicable to situations for which an average is known. Eg: If you expect something to happen 5 times in an hour, Poisson probabilities will calculate the probability of its occurring 0, 1, 2, 3. . . times in a particular hour (at least I think this is a Poisson situation). The formulae for Poisson probabilities is P = e^-a*a^k/k!, where a is the average number of occurrences, e is 2.71828..., and P is the probability of k occurrences.

When developing formulae or algorithms for dealing with probabilistic situations, a mathematician always starts with assumptions stating that no deterministic mechanism is involved. For example, when considering the roll of a single die, it is assumed that the probability of rolling each number is the same, namely 1/6 (Id est: It is assumed that nothing is creating a bias favoring one number over another). A random process is defined as a process to which the above type of mathematics is applicable. "Random" in this context relates to the assumptions about lack of bias or lack of a deterministic mechanism. A mathematicians might say that such and so is a random process with binomial probabilities.

Note that the above is a discussion of mathematical concepts, not laws of physics. The mathematicians are saying that if a given process is probabilistic (or random), the given probability formula is applicable. They are not making claims about the world of physics. They are not claiming that such processes exist outside the world of mathematics.

Now, moving to the world of physics. When physicists discover that data and predictions for a given process are modeled by deterministic equations (or formulae), they believe it is a deterministic process. When data and predictions about a process are modeled by probabilistic (or statistical) formulae, they believe it is a probabilistic (or random) process.

Do physicists know how gravity works? Do they know what "causes" gravity? Not really. Do they know why gravity is attractive instead of repulsive? No they do not. In fact, they are now considering experiments to determine if antimatter attracts or repels ordinary matter. A hollow sphere exerts no gravitational force on objects inside it. An intelligent species which evolved inside a hollow planet (far removed from any other planets or stars) would not be able to deduce the existence of a gravitational force. In the absence of the data, physicists would not know that gravity existed. Will physicists ever know why there is gravity and understand the basic causes underlying it? No they will not. What they do know is that Newton's differential equations fit the observational data as accurately as can be determined experimentally for most circumstances. They also know that Einstein's equations fit the data better in certain situations. I know that physicists used to claim that gravity is deterministic. I think they still do, although I am not sure about the implications of the search for a theory of "quantum gravity."

Do physicists really understand quantum processes? No they do not. They do not understand these processes any better or worse than they understand gravity. They do claim that quantum behavior is contrary to our intuitive concepts of how the universe functions. They are more aware of their lack of "real understanding." They say that this is because our intuition is based on classical world experiences/perceptions which have no counterpart in the quantum world.

Why do physicists refer to some processes (Eg: Gravity) as deterministic and refer to others (Eg: radioactive decay) as random? They use those terms because of the mathematics which seem to model the processes and/or predict numerical results. Is the nature of the mathematics proof that the processes are deterministic or random? I do not think so. Will we ever have proof one way or the other? I doubt it. Absolute proof is something mathematicians manage to do. At least they claim to, and their claims are generally believed. Physicists are stuck with theories which model the data very well and provide the ability to make predictions and build things like lasers.

Now, when faced with a process which is accurately modeled by probabilistic mathematics, should you believe that is it deterministic or should you believe that it is probabilistic (Id est, random)? I think it is more reasonable to assume that it is probabilistic. Will the data associated with radioactive decay always match a (Poisson, I think) probability distribution? Yes it will. It matches as accurately as current technology is capable of measuring the data, and it is ridiculous to believe that more accurate future measurements will show that it does not match such a distribution. No matter what we learn in the future, the data associated with radioactive decay (and other quantum world phenomena) will still look like probabilistic (or random) data.

Guv

I want to start by saying I sincerely hope you do not see what I am about to say as quibbling or nit-picking in any way... but I feel there are some fundamental assumptions that have been made which cannot be validated.

Please... I truely hope you look at this rationally and logically and consider them as valid because that is the nature in which they are going to be presented. If you believe I am in error then please by all means provide serious and logical reasons as to where I am in error so that I may learn from those mistakes.

Quote:

---

When developing formulae or algorithms for dealing with probabilistic situations, a mathematician always starts with assumptions stating that no deterministic mechanism is involved.

---

This is a pretty big assumption. How can the fact that they cannot "determine" a deterministic mechanism mean there is NOT a deterministic mechanism? Simply the lack of finding anything does not mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

For example, when considering the roll of a single die, it is assumed that the probability of rolling each number is the same, namely 1/6

---

That is another very large assumption. Are you actually talking about 2 dice here or are you talking about some modified flat and non-faced cubical objects under SPECIFIC conditions?

If we are talking about "normal" dice being rolled in a "normal" situation then you would be very much in error if you assumed the probability of rolling each number was 1/6. I could state for you at least 3 if not more factors that would influence the outcome towards one number or the other.

Quote:

---

Note that the above is a discussion of mathematical concepts, not laws of physics. The mathematicians are saying that if a given process is probabilistic (or random), the given probability formula is applicable

---

This is the bit I am failing to understand. Yes I agree it is probabilistic... but I don't see where it is then automatically considered "random".

Perhaps it is my definition of random that is therefor in error... but you did state yourself that "Random suggests unpredictability, lack of pattern, unknown causes, et cetera".

Taking the example of the dice you could predict EXACTLY what you believe the outcome would be (a bell distribution of results between 2 and 12 with the majority of results totalling 7), and that it "appears" to lack a pattern does not actually mean it DOES lack a pattern.

You also say "unknown causes". That indicates that causes exist but that they are not currently known. Why then is it at its very CORE random even though you as much as suggest that a "cause" could at some stage be found.



If you can explain these to me I would appreciate them, despite whether you think they are folly or come from an ignorant person... the proof in my ignorance will be in the absolute ease with which you can explain why these are so ;)

Gen-X, I do not know how to answer you without being insulting, but I will try. Let me analyze some of my last post and your corresponding replies. For the time being (perhaps forever), I will ignore a previous post you made.

I posted the following.

Quote:

---

When developing formulae or algorithms for dealing with probabilistic situations, a mathematician always starts with assumptions stating that no deterministic mechanism is involved.

---

Your comment was the following.

Quote:

---

This is a pretty big assumption. How can the fact that they cannot "determine" a deterministic mechanism mean there is NOT a deterministic mechanism? Simply the lack of finding anything does not mean it doesn't exist.

---

Do you understand the meaning of "assumption" when used by a mathematician? It means that he intends to proceed on the basis of the statement being true. It does not mean that he believes the statement to be true. In some cases, he intends to arrive at a contradiction and thus prove that the assumption cannot be true. In other cases, he merely wants to determine the logical consequences of the assumption.

Now, I hope you know what "assumption" implies. In dealing with a probabilistic situation, what do you think should be assumed? Perhaps they should assume that differential equations are applicable and try to determine which differential equations. Perhaps they should assume that gremlins or lawyers are in charge of the probabilistic situation. If you were going to try to formalize a probabilistic situation, what assumptions would you use as a starting point? Perhaps you would assume nothing. If you make no assumptions, how do you start your analysis?

On to your next comment. I made the following statement relating to how a mathematician might start his analysis of dice throwing.

Quote:

---

For example, when considering the roll of a single die, it is assumed that the probability of rolling each number is the same, namely 1/6 (Id est: It is assumed that nothing is creating a bias favoring one number over another).

---

Now, your first comment on the above was the following.

Quote:

---

That is another very large assumption. Are you actually talking about 2 dice here or are you talking about some modified flat and non-faced cubical objects under SPECIFIC conditions?

---

This is alleged to be a serious discussion of a issue which is not simple, and requires that you read carefully. Note that I said a single die . How much plainer do I have to be? No, I was not talking about two dice! Did you really read what I said? Your reply suggests that you scanned it while really thinking about what you were going to post.

Next, in talking about dice, do I have to draw a picture? Have you ever been to a casino and seen dice? What are you trying to ask when you say "some modified flat and non-faced cubical objects"? I am talking about a mathematician's idealized concept of casino dice. What else could I possibly be talking about?

Your next comment on the above was the following.

Quote:

---

If we are talking about "normal" dice being rolled in a "normal" situation then you would be very much in error if you assumed the probability of rolling each number was 1/6. I could state for you at least 3 if not more factors that would influence the outcome towards one number or the other.

---

Perhaps I should repeat my above discussion of what "assumption" implies, but if you did not understand, why don't you just reread it? Now, if you were a mathematician attempting to formalize the mathematics of dice tossing, what assumption would you use as a starting point? Perhaps, it would make sense to assume that the probability of each number was the reciprocal of the number? Do you like that better than 1/6? Perhaps a mathematicians should assume that the house has control over the dice and decides in advance what number should come up. Then you call in a psychiatrist and ask him to make some assumptions for you. Do you really understand the difference between a mathematician and a physicist? Perhaps, a mathematician should decide that dice throwing is totally capricious and not subject to mathematical analysis.

Your remarks suggest to me that you have never read a book about probability. They also suggest that you do not know the meaning of words like "assumption" in the context of the development of a mathematical analysis.

I do not know how to communicate with somebody like you. On several occasions I have decided not to try. It seems like such a waste of time. Then I say: "What the hell, I am retired and have time on my hands, why not waste some of it?"

Harbringer, sorry about that. You are correct, a random process can be used to create fractal images. At least it can be used to create images which are suggestive of fractals generated by deterministic processes.

I thought you were trying to say that fractals in general were created by random processes. One of the important concepts in chaos & complexity theory is the fact that extremely complex patterns can be produced by simple deterministic algorithms. Furthermore, it is interesting that the long term outcome of these simple deterministic algorithms cannot be predicted without actually doing the work. I hope you are not missing these points of interest.

Recently, I did notice your answer to the name question on another thread.

HarryW & Harbringer, you are both correct in saying that the issue of deterministic or random universe cannot be proven in the sense of proving a mathematical theorem.

In physics, one only hopes to develop formulae and/or algorithms which model the experimental data and provide worthwhile predictions. When such algorithms are discovered, it seems impossible not to speculate on the metaphysics implied. Physicists do not "understand" any of these processes. "Understanding" is a metaphysical concept, as are statements relating to a deterministic or probabilistic universe.

When a process (Eg: gravity) is modeled by deterministic equations, it seems appropriate to consider it a deterministic process. When a process (Eg: Radioactive decay and other quantum phenomena) is modeled by probabilistic (statistical) mathematics, it seems similarly appropriate to consider it a probabilistic (not deterministic) process. These, of course, are metaphysical statements about the processes. They are not provable statements.

It should be noted that it does not seem reasonable to believe that future developments will change the nature of the quantum data. If radioactive decay data matches Poisson distributions to a high degree of accuracy, no future knowledge will change the nature of those measurements. Any future developments can only be expected to result in knowing that the probabilistic model is applicable to a lower quantum level.

At any rate, it seems far more worthwhile to interact with you fellows than with another poster who shall remain nameless here.

Did you notice a recent post in this thread in which I attempted to define random and make a few more remarks on this subject?

Guv,
When you were talking about a mathematician rolling a dice, and state that ihe assumes that is it probalistic in nature, a reasanble assumption, you would think, and he also assumes there is an equal chance of roling each number (1/6). I would disagree, and say that for each throw, taken by itself, there is only ONE POSSIBLE OUTCOME..that is to say that for this specific throw, with the air mocelues exactly were they are, and with everything (quantum states, EVERYTHING) as it is, there is only possible outcome, ie IT IS DETERMINISTIC.
This means if the same condititions were repeated (which could be impossible, as it is possible that time is a factor, so even if all physical factors are the same, the time will be different, and there could be other non resetable faetures...and antimatter and matter aprticle could have coliieded, ane the removal of these two particles, and the replacement of them by energy is enough in my opinion to constitute a difference) the same outcome would DEFINATlY OCCUR.
The probablistic nature of results can be explained, I believe, by this.
If there are an equal number of universal states(By which I mean the EXACT state that the univese is in) that cause each number to be rolled, then there will be an equal cahnce of rolling each number. However, this can be modified slightly. If we take the universe an instant before the dice is rolled, at that universl state, then, if it is deterministic(as I am assuming for this argument), the next universal state must follow on fom this one, and will be the same, no matter how many times this happens. This leads to the predictability of dice rolls.(I will get on to the impracticalities later!)
(So, on a side point, it would be possible to assign the universal state for any given time, though if time runs backward, this breaks down...the laws of physics actually run different if time runs backwards, so if time was run backwards for 10 year, and then run foward again, the outcome would be different, as the universal state achived by the 10 years reversal would be different to the universal state of 10 years ago, so given Guv's inital point, it would actually run differently, BUT in a prdictable, deterministic fashion!)
There could be a situation were there is an inequal ammount of univerasl states that cause 'probabilistic' events to occur..I will use a coin, ratherthan a dice, for simplicity (For my own poor brains sake, if no-one elses!)
Lets say that for this coin, there are twice as many unoversal states that support heads than tails. (please excuse the abbrivated grammar, it gets rather long) For this coin, looking in a probalisticmanner, it will come up with heads twice as often as tails. There will be a vali physical explanation (Say the coin is extremly weighte, and has a curved head side, so it rolls off frquently, for example). This physical explanation supports the deterministic version of events! In a probablistic explanation, if they ignore physical features (unlikley!!), they ill have no way of expalining the difference in odds betwwen heads and tails. If they accept the physical explanation, THEY MUST ACCEPT THAT THE PHYSICAL NATURE DETERMINES THE EVENT! (Of course, they could claim that the phyical nature only EFFECTS the event, and that some other process(v. Mysteriuos in function!)still randomizes the event. If this is the case, then if there is only a small change in the coin form perfect(say a microscopic difference in texture on one side, the rest of both sides being perfectly alike), then this will have no difference to the odds, because if the randomizing function can overcome strong physical disparities, then a minute one will be over powered, and even if the trials are continued to infinity, there will be no odds difference between the two side.)
I believe this shows how probablistic maths can be used to describe determinist events (I hope it does!), and I will now go on to talk about impracticalities.
Guv, you (sorry to bring it up, but neccasry!)you mention unpredictabilty. I know that I have stated that the univers is prdictable, but now I will contradict myself!(You also mention pattern, but I don't think anyone belives the universe has no pattern, and unknown causes can always be discovered later!)
The univers is (in my opinion) predictable in nature, but unpredictable in practice. It is easy to see why. If the quantum state of every particle affects events, then to predict events(with 100% accuracy!) you need to know these states. In fact, you need to know everything. You need to know the exact laws that gvern all interactions, you need to know the exact relative positions(posibly even absolute postions..)of every particle, and the state that they ar in (direction, speed ect), and quantum entaglements, ect. After you know all this (Which i believe would be impossible to store, as the univers already stores all this data..by the position, momenum ect of the actual particles in question, using the particle to store this data would change the data to be recorded, and it is clear that there is enouhg room to store all this info once(as it already does), it is not clear that it can store it twice, once in a form easily accesible by us!)
Okay, lets say you do stoe this data in a usable form, then you have to compute this, to gain predictions. The universe is clearly able to commpute this (In real time!), but we need to commpute the change of universal states FASTER than the univers does, AND with less particles than the universe uses (We can only ever use as many, and if we do that, there is nothing left to predict!) This is clearly impossible. (I think it is, if anyone thinks idea of a way to do these things, I will be suprised.)
So, within this univers, it is mposible to predict the outcome of the universe.(100% accuracy agian.) THis means that the universe is unpreditable in practice, which some people may take to mean as random, and fair enough, but I belive that as it is deterministic, though unpredictable, it should not be considered to run on random proccesses.
However, if, as some physicist belive, there is more than one universe, then maybe it would be possible to harness a few of these to make calcualtions!(For moral reasons, perhaps we should select ones unihabited by any for ofm life ;) ) This is a distinct, but in my opinion very unlikly possibilty,(D'OH! Shouldn't use that word in here!), but it does allow theoretical basis for predictablity back into the equation, thus removing the arguments that as it is compltly unpredictable, it may as well be random from our point of view!
Phew!!! I think I got all I wanted to say down there! Anyway, thats the universe as I see it, so tell me what you think!

I'm not sure about this, but I was under the impression that when things like dice and coins are mentioned here, in relation to probabilities, the idea that each result has a particular probability is assumed. What I mean is that these are just idealised probabilistic experiments, they are just representations of a probabilistic event. Trying to apply these experiments to a real world situation and then saying they wouldn't be perfect as they are assumed to be in theory seems a little silly to me. The idea of the probability needs an experiment to apply it to so that it can be easily described and likened to a real world situation (but not analysed in too stringent a way); the experiment is not proposed first and then the probability found for it in these theoretical situations, the probability is defined and then a suitable experiment thought of for it.

I agree that if the universe is deterministic in nature then we still cannot predict any aspect of the future. My reasoning for this was slightly different (but similar) but that is beside the point.

Well, you folks who believe that the universe is deterministic in principle, but not predictable in practice have some very intelligent people on your side, including Einstein. The computational difficulties are not the only problems with predictability. Both the uncertainty principle and the velocity of light limitation on collection of data make it impossible in principle (as well as practice) to collect all the data.

Without presenting any further arguments against determinism in principle, I have collected some quotes from various sites. They might be interesting. In particular, notice the "Many Worlds Idea." of Hugh Everett, and the "It ain't there" concept of Eugene Wigner. Compared to these guys, the mainstream concepts do not seem weird at all. These two have real credentials and are not considered to be quacks or charlatans. Personally, I have my doubts about their sanity.

Note that Einstein's deterministic view seems to be considered "less fashionable" rather than incorrect, so I am not claiming that every expert backs my point of view. What they do seem to agree with is the idea that the classical world is deterministic only if the quantum world is.

I have bolded some sentences. Otherwise, these are exact quotes.

Most physicists see quantum weirdness as something we have to accept in spite of ourselves, because of the overwhelming empirical evidence in its favor. Richard Feynman argued that we must simply admit that Nature makes no sense - knuckle under and accept the evidence, no matter how weird it seems

Computer-generated "random" numbers are more properly referred to as pseudorandom numbers, and pseudorandom sequences of such numbers. A variety of clever algorithms have been developed which generate sequences of numbers which pass every statistical test used to distinguish random sequences from those containing some pattern or internal order.

HotBits is an Internet resource that brings genuine random numbers, generated by a process fundamentally governed by the inherent uncertainty in the quantum mechanical laws of nature, directly to your computer in a variety of forms. HotBits are generated by timing successive pairs of radioactive decays detected by a Geiger-Müller tube interfaced to a computer.

The first problem lies in the apparent indeterminacy of Quantum phenomena. In the macroscopic world, if an experimental system is set up repeatedly in exactly the same state it yields the same results each time; indeed in simple cases these results can be calculated in advance. If we know the state of the system for values of t < t0, then in theory we have sufficient information to determine the state at values of t > t0. This is not true for experiments involving atomic sized structures, where identically prepared experiments can yield differing results. We have discovered however, that although the past history of such a system does not allow us to make exact predictions, it does furnish enough information to make statistical predictions of future states, as described by the rules of Quantum Mechanics. This has seemed to many people, including Einstein, an unsatisfactory state of affairs, suggesting that our understanding of quantum processes is fundamentally flawed.

But why do we expect the quantum world to permit exact predictions, why do we expect it to be deterministic? If indeed it were, then the macroscopic world would necessarily be deterministic also. But the converse argument is false. Because of the large number of quantum events contributing to one macroscopic event, the statistical quantum laws account for the determinism of the world of familiar experience just as readily as if they were strictly causal, and should cause us no surprise. It is merely our familiarity with the determinism of everyday life that leads us to expect the fundamental laws of nature to display the same property.

At one extreme we have the view advocated by Einstein, that quantum behavior is really deterministic, controlled by some system of "hidden variables" which we have not yet discovered. If only we knew how these operate we would find the quantum world as predictable as the world of everyday experience. This viewpoint is now less fashionable than in the past, for it fails to address some of the most pressing difficulties. In particular we still require an element of non-locality to explain the EPR experiments, and the fundamental question of the collapse of the wave function is still unanswered.

At the other extreme stand the followers of Eugene Wigner, who maintain that events do not really occur, the waveform does not collapse, until the results of an observation enter a conscious mind. It is possible that a consistent set of beliefs can be based on this interpretation, but at considerable cost. We must believe that nothing really happens in those parts of the universe where no conscious observers exist, and that there was no activity at all during the billions of years before they first emerged. To many people this view is far too anthropocentric.

Somewhere in between stand the followers of Neils Bohr, forming what we call the Copenhagen school. They do not discuss the reality of properties which are unobservable, claiming that we cannot know whether what we say is true, and that it does not matter anyway. The state vector, or waveform as we have called it, represents only the knowledge an observer has of a system, and this, they claim, solves the problem of its collapse, for it must change whenever our knowledge changes as the result of an observation.

Much more radical is the "many worlds" view put forward by Hugh Everett in 1956. Whenever a quantum system has a choice, then the universe splits into two, one displaying the first choice and one the second. A copy of every living creature is created in each universe, and both copies go on to lead independent lives, but without any possibility of communication between them. I cannot comment on the plausibility of this proposal without betraying my astonishment that intelligent scientists can subscribe to such an idea. Have they never heard of Ockham? Do they not understand the principle of argument by reductio ad absurdum? Ockham must turn in his grave at the prospect of an infinity of universes. And no-one should ever again use the reductio argument, now that this conclusion has been judged insufficiently absurd to disprove its premises.