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.
"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.