Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 google result: ''Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.'' Question: 1. Is randomness a total lack of pattern or predictability in events? (following 1): 2. Is it still randomness if it's not devoid of pattern or predictability? (following 2)3 Is the eveness of randomness a form of pattern or predicatibility or is not not randomness to begin with? I had another question not following 1, but I forgot about it. Proposed answer (a definition of randomness): truth=reality Randomness is the absolute abscence of predicitability in an event. Given truth/reality, if there is no absolute predictability in an event, the event is random (has randomness). Randomness is a component that when isolated is the absolute absence of predictability for each result. Randomness must be isolated from it's deterministic components: limitations to the pool of possible results.
A4E Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 Randomness does not exist. It is just a word we have created and use for describing something we do not understand how came to be.
WasatchMan Posted September 26, 2015 Posted September 26, 2015 Randomness does not exist, I will agree with A4E, but that is because all concepts don't exist. Randomness is a very useful concept which explains something that lacks a pattern of predicable events. Only a determinist would try to argue that no event is random.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 26, 2015 Author Posted September 26, 2015 Randomness does not exist, I will agree with A4E, but that is because all concepts don't exist. Randomness is a very useful concept which explains something that lacks a pattern of predicable events. Only a determinist would try to argue that no event is random. determinists have the empirical high-ground. Souls have more empirical evidence than non-determinism. I hope there will be some direct replies to my questionings and my answer.
bugzysegal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Randomness does not exist, I will agree with A4E, but that is because all concepts don't exist. Randomness is a very useful concept which explains something that lacks a pattern of predicable events. Only a determinist would try to argue that no event is random. Harris incorporates randomness into his determinist theory. Not arguing he's right or the subject at all, but that argument is out there. It's a quick video/read if you'd like I can PM it to you or if you want the quick and dirty I can excerpt just that portion of the argument and PM it. (It's quite clever) More to the general question though, I've seen people (physicists) argue that not even quantum mechanics is random due to the fact that we can determine probabilities of quantum events in aggregate, despite not being able to predict individual events. Also I've seen a great many people make the opposite argument with the same premises essentially. I think it's a framing issue and largely conceptual as those before me said.
WasatchMan Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Harris incorporates randomness into his determinist theory. Not arguing he's right or the subject at all, but that argument is out there. It's a quick video/read if you'd like I can PM it to you or if you want the quick and dirty I can excerpt just that portion of the argument and PM it. (It's quite clever) More to the general question though, I've seen people (physicists) argue that not even quantum mechanics is random due to the fact that we can determine probabilities of quantum events in aggregate, despite not being able to predict individual events. Also I've seen a great many people make the opposite argument with the same premises essentially. I think it's a framing issue and largely conceptual as those before me said. Please do PM Harris's take on radomness. I follow the guy and like most of what he has got to say. I do disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches but I always do take what he has to say seriously. As far as the claim "that not even quantum mechanics is random due to the fact we can determine probabilities of quantum events in aggregate, despite not being able to predict individual events" - I would just say that this statement is pro-randomness. Events happen on an individual basis and even if an aggregate probability can be determined - any individual result is random with higher and lesser probabilities assigned to each outcome.
bugzysegal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Please do PM Harris's take on radomness. I follow the guy and like most of what he has got to say. I do disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches but I always do take what he has to say seriously. As far as the claim "that not even quantum mechanics is random due to the fact we can determine probabilities of quantum events in aggregate, despite not being able to predict individual events" - I would just say that this statement is pro-randomness. Events happen on an individual basis and even if an aggregate probability can be determined - any individual result is random with higher and lesser probabilities assigned to each outcome. I would agree....but those scientists would point to the fact that we can calculate these probabilities with great precision. This precision allows us to view a pattern like behavior of QM, despite individual instances being wholly unpredictable. So I'd imagine they would say that despite the fact that no knowledge of the set of initial conditions will allow you to make a prediction, you can make an accurate prediction of the outcome. Is axiomatic behavior itself random...or does it not make sense to apply random or deterministic to these axioms?
WasatchMan Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I would agree....but those scientists would point to the fact that we can calculate these probabilities with great precision. This precision allows us to view a pattern like behavior of QM, despite individual instances being wholly unpredictable. So I'd imagine they would say that despite the fact that no knowledge of the set of initial conditions will allow you to make a prediction, you can make an accurate prediction of the outcome. Is axiomatic behavior itself random...or does it not make sense to apply random or deterministic to these axioms? So what if they can calculate probabilities of series of events with great precision? Individual events are still random regardless of how well they can anticipate the distribution of a series. The importance of the distinction between individual and a series is pretty important when contemplating randomness as a concept.
bugzysegal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 So what if they can calculate probabilities of series of events with great precision? Individual events are still random regardless of how well they can anticipate the distribution of a series. The importance of the distinction between individual and a series is pretty important when contemplating randomness as a concept. I agree for the most part. Actually I think the very last sentence in my reply is the most difficult to counter. "Is axiomatic behavior itself random...or does it not make sense to apply random or deterministic to these axioms?" The idea of taking quantum events as being axiomatic, would take away from the appropriateness of applying words like "random" "deterministic" "logical" or "irrational." They simply are.
Will Torbald Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Randomness is the absolute abscence of predicitability in events. Do you have an example of absolute abscence of predictability in the real world? No quantum woo woo either.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I make a compatibilist determinist argument against randomness in book ,which I look forward to eventually finishing and sharing. I make what I think is a more logical and philosophical argument that cleanly shows why randomness, as I define in the book, isn't possible, but that there is still unpredictability to reality and reasons why we'll never get rid of it. The 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics I think basically comes down to the depth of reality, not any breakdown in determinism. I haven't read Harris' book or view and am not inclined to before I release mine, but will be curious to read it later perhaps if he makes interesting points that I may have missed.
bugzysegal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I make a compatibilist determinist argument against randomness in book ,which I look forward to eventually finishing and sharing. I make what I think is a more logical and philosophical argument that cleanly shows why randomness, as I define in the book, isn't possible, but that there is still unpredictability to reality and reasons why we'll never get rid of it. The 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics I think basically comes down to the depth of reality, not any breakdown in determinism. I haven't read Harris' book or view and am not inclined to before I release mine, but will be curious to read it later perhaps if he makes interesting points that I may have missed. What if your book is redundant? Books are supposed to contain novel ideas. Not to be a dick, but if you're writing a book, especially on philosophy, you should make sure you're not repeating old work. You can do that with a ton of research and use of databases go a long way. Your best bet is to do a lot of that, then consult a person who's field that is to make sure your ideas (right or wrong) aren't hashed out in long settled or ancient debates.
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted September 27, 2015 Author Posted September 27, 2015 Do you have an example of absolute abscence of predictability in the real world? No quantum woo woo either. I might, but I do not have full knowledge to guarantee it. So far there's the quantum woohoo. It's for each singular event. I edited the post to reduce confusion. If no outcome is guaranteed by reality => random
bugzysegal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I might, but I do not have full knowledge to guarantee it. So far there's the quantum woohoo. It's for each singular event. I edited the post to reduce confusion. If no outcome is guaranteed by reality => random Yeah I feel like quantum physics is a valid example, mostly because the randomness he's talking about is widely recognized as such by the scientific community. Its not like you are pulling a Deepak Chopra and extrapolating consciousness or some b.s., but just the randomness bit.
Will Torbald Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 I might, but I do not have full knowledge to guarantee it. So far there's the quantum woohoo. It's for each singular event. I edited the post to reduce confusion. If no outcome is guaranteed by reality => random You're asking for omniscience, which isn't practical for any purposes of life. Quantum woo woo is not absolutely unpredictable since there are strict probabilities for every outcome, but two electrons colliding will never become a flan dessert.
bugzysegal Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 You're asking for omniscience, which isn't practical for any purposes of life. Quantum woo woo is not absolutely unpredictable since there are strict probabilities for every outcome, but two electrons colliding will never become a flan dessert. I'm like on the opposite side of this debate in another forum lol (trying to defend it anyway) You admit singular quantum events are truly random though correct? I think that would satisfy the question. It's nice to think that events out of sight will not affect life, but then there's things like the heat death of the universe and fusion reactions ceasing in the sun ending life in the solar system. Who knows what consequences the randomness of quantum events could have....really though who knows? If their are any physicists....now would be the time. We should get a resident physicist to moderate this whole section.
bill harris Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 google result: ''Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination.'' Question: 1. Is randomness a total lack of pattern or predictability in events? (following 1): 2. Is it still randomness if it's not devoid of pattern or predictability? (following 2)3 Is the eveness of randomness a form of pattern or predicatibility or is not not randomness to begin with? I had another question not following 1, but I forgot about it. Proposed answer (a definition of randomness): truth=reality Randomness is the absolute abscence of predicitability in an event. Given truth/reality, if there is no absolute predictability in an event, the event is random (has randomness). Randomness is a component that when isolated is the absolute absence of predictability for each result. Randomness must be isolated from it's deterministic components: limitations to the pool of possible results. In math, randomness mean a measured variance from either a mean, median, mode, or predicted outcome. This can be calculated by three fundamental distributions: Gauss (bell curve) , Cauchy ('heartbeat'), and Levi ('flight of the albatross'). In science, the word designates an observation that's unaccounted for in terms of a viable explanation. For example, one of ten photons will escape water, the other nine being absorbed. As to which of the ten is unpredictable--therefore 'random'. 1
bugzysegal Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 In math, randomness mean a measured variance from either a mean, median, mode, or predicted outcome. This can be calculated by three fundamental distributions: Gauss (bell curve) , Cauchy ('heartbeat'), and Levi ('flight of the albatross'). In science, the word designates an observation that's unaccounted for in terms of a viable explanation. For example, one of ten photons will escape water, the other nine being absorbed. As to which of the ten is unpredictable--therefore 'random'. Excellent! Debate settled.
thebeardslastcall Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 What if your book is redundant? Books are supposed to contain novel ideas. Not to be a dick, but if you're writing a book, especially on philosophy, you should make sure you're not repeating old work. You can do that with a ton of research and use of databases go a long way. Your best bet is to do a lot of that, then consult a person who's field that is to make sure your ideas (right or wrong) aren't hashed out in long settled or ancient debates. That's a fair concern given what I said. I haven't avoided info on the topic in the way I make it sound. I think I'm presenting novel info and info in a novel way. The second part is what I wish at times to avoid corrupting by specifically avoiding certain things during certain periods of writing so I can make sure I maintain my unique way of presenting ideas without drifting too close to current writings and ending up repeating their stuff instead of my own ideas and perspectives.
bugzysegal Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 That's a fair concern given what I said. I haven't avoided info on the topic in the way I make it sound. I think I'm presenting novel info and info in a novel way. The second part is what I wish at times to avoid corrupting by specifically avoiding certain things during certain periods of writing so I can make sure I maintain my unique way of presenting ideas without drifting too close to current writings and ending up repeating their stuff instead of my own ideas and perspectives. Right so I'm not saying, "don't write unless you read others work." What I am saying is once you finish your bit of writing and then do your due diligence.
Recommended Posts