Randomness does not exist at the quantum level.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok, I will attempt to prove your statement wrong. Here it goes: The quantity of reality is infinite, so the universe is infinite. I'm anxiously awaiting your "guaranteed" counter-proof. I will also, as you suggested, attempt to prove your "reasoning" wrong. Even if it were true (which I'm not convinced it is) that "the mind is one of the closest systems we know of that is capable of approaching the abstract concept of randomness," all this really proves is that the mind may be capable of producing randomness. It suggests nothing about the world outside of the mind. You should also be aware that just because we're not aware of some fact, it doesn't make that fact any less true

a reply to: Adaluncatif

I was just thinking about half-life the other day. How weird when you consider it on the atomic level... what makes an individual atom suddenly decay?

a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog

For the same reason that avalanches suddenly occur.

a reply to: kayej1188

Heh, let me clarify a little.

Lets say I had a pet Americium 241 atom. Just one atom, I keep in a box all by himself, shielded from danger. There is a 50/50 chance that my pet atom will survive about 400 years, yes? About a 25% chance it will survive about 800 years, etc.... and a non-zero chance it will survive a billion years. I get that.

But, what makes a particular atom decay? I know the whole "God does not play dice" lament from Einstein and statistics and such. Maybe my exposure to Bayesian statistics has muddied things for me.

originally posted by: PrinceRupertsDog
a reply to: kayej1188



Heh, let me clarify a little.



Lets say I had a pet Americium 241 atom. Just one atom, I keep in a box all by himself, shielded from danger. There is a 50/50 chance that my pet atom will survive about 400 years, yes? About a 25% chance it will survive about 800 years, etc.... and a non-zero chance it will survive a billion years. I get that.



But, what makes a particular atom decay? I know the whole "God does not play dice" lament from Einstein and statistics and such. Maybe my exposure to Bayesian statistics has muddied things for me.

Well protons decay into neutrons and vice versa soooo yeah sounds like we may have a problem meaning you have energy which cannot be destroyed only transformed.

Hope that helps.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Er, my question is more "what's rolling the dice" to make a particular atom decay. Another poster basically said that everything on the Plank scale is basically a froth of randomness. So, what's the mechanism between that froth on the plank scale up to the atomic scale that causes a particular atom to decay?

originally posted by: PrinceRupertsDog
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Er, my question is more "what's rolling the dice" to make a particular atom decay. Another poster basically said that everything on the Plank scale is basically a froth of randomness. So, what's the mechanism between that froth on the plank scale up to the atomic scale that causes a particular atom to decay?

Most likely time in my opinion, also there are these things called micro black holes which may do it.

If thats not enough, dark energy and dark matter may play around with matter at the atomic scale causing it to expand and do random wierd stuff.

Theres also the fact that particles behave as waves as well as particles, we learned that from the double slit expiriment.

a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog

That is actually not how half-life works. Let's say you have a radioactive element and it's half-life is 5 years. This means that after 5 years, half of that elements original atoms will have decayed, leaving you with 50% of the original element. After 10 years, 25% will be left. A radioactive nucleus is unstable, and thus can spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited state. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and thus the nucleus emits a photon, electron, or other high-velocity particles with mass such as alpha-particles. One theory for why this occurs is called quantum fluctuation, whereby there is a temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, illustrated by Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

This is a very complex issue.

Randomness is real and not real at the same time.

Why it depends if you are looking for it, or not.

Or as Modern Physics would call it, the observer effect.

There is no way in hell I could even begin on this topic without 4-5 pages to start. This is the stuff GOD THINKS AND DEALS WITH.

a reply to: kayej1188

You didnt attempt to prove my statement wrong. You just made your own statement, with no efforts expressed as to how you reached your conclusion.

First, I will use the term reality, to refer to the potentiality that there exists 'stuff' beyond the system (that would then exist as a part of reality) we refer to as 'the universe'. Its not terribly important, as the quantity of both is finite, or as the term reality, would refer to 'the set of all sets, of substance', the universe being one of those, the quantity of reality is finite.

Can you provide me with one example, hypothetical, theoretical, statement or expression of what it would mean for a 'quantity' to be infinite?

Do you agree with the statement that 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'?

My statement about the mind was made as such, under the impression, of proving my statements about reality (non mind reality) being finite, therefore never truly,absolutely 'random'. The true essence of the term random is impossible, as it relates to the notion of non causality. I offer the mind as being capable of express pseudo non causal simulation (imagination), and thus, a mind like system is the closest thing we know of that can approach the expression of 'true randomness'.

If you say the universe, or an aspect about the universe is random because you are basing it off what an intelligence observes this is very faulty. My grandma is an intelligence and she might claim many things are random. Just because scientists do not posit, theorize, witness, the causal relationships to the most micro events, does not mean there arent any, in fact, logic, rational, and reason would encourage one to embody the very essence of logic, rational, and reason, which is causal relationships of quantity (and quality), and assume that reality cannot be anything other than tautalogical (equaling itself at all times), and is there fore, finite, causal, non random.

originally posted by: PrinceRupertsDog
a reply to: kayej1188

Heh, let me clarify a little.

Lets say I had a pet Americium 241 atom. Just one atom, I keep in a box all by himself, shielded from danger. There is a 50/50 chance that my pet atom will survive about 400 years, yes? About a 25% chance it will survive about 800 years, etc.... and a non-zero chance it will survive a billion years. I get that.

But, what makes a particular atom decay? I know the whole "God does not play dice" lament from Einstein and statistics and such. Maybe my exposure to Bayesian statistics has muddied things for me.

The same thing that makes humans die at different times. When they were born, and how they were effected by their environment.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Sure, I'll give you two examples. First I'll give you a theoretical example of what infinity is and how it can exist. Lets say you take any object, a piece of paper for example, and you continually cut it in half. There will never reach a point where you can no longer theoretically cut it in half. This process can go on forever--there is NOT a finite amount of times a piece of paper can theoretically be cut in half. Now for a more concrete example. There are many physicists who believe that the amount of space in the universe is infinite. That is, there is no point in the universe where you no longer can go further.

I agree that in an isolated system, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It remains a question whether the conservation of energy applies when dealing with the entire universe

Finite does not necessarily imply causality nor does infinity imply randomness. You've failed to connect these two together in a logical manner

Your statement that 'true randomness is impossible' is unsubstantiated by evidence. This is your view based on how you think the world works.

a reply to: kayej1188

Lets say you take any object, a piece of paper for example, and you continually cut it in half. There will never reach a point where you can no longer theoretically cut it in half. This process can go on forever--there is NOT a finite amount of times a piece of paper can theoretically be cut in half

Have you really thought this through?

How thin or thick would Your cutter have to be if you want to cut a sheet of paper a infinite amount of times?

Wouldnt your cutter have to be infnitely thin?

To be able to make a infinitly thin cutter and make a infinite Slice on the paper. How infinite would you have to be?

- What materials would you have to make Your cutter from?

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Uncertainty does not imply randomness.

arxiv.org...

a reply to: PrinceRupertsDog

But, what makes a particular atom decay? ...

We don't know. But we are pretty good at predicting the probability.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Do you agree with the statement that 'energy cannot be created or destroyed'?

If energy cant be created. Can energy be formed/shaped?

a reply to: FutureWithoutFuture4

originally posted by: FutureWithoutFuture4
This is a very complex issue.

Randomness is real and not real at the same time.

Why it depends if you are looking for it, or not.

Or as Modern Physics would call it, the observer effect.

There is no way in hell I could even begin on this topic without 4-5 pages to start. This is the stuff GOD THINKS AND DEALS WITH.

Let me ask you this: Can randomness coexist With order at the same time? At what lever of science would that be?

If energy and matter at the quantom Levels seam random, how can order exist on a larger scale?

What force would create the order? It would have to exist somewhere between randomness and order, like a filter inbetween. And it must be a prity Powerfull force.

originally posted by: kayej1188

Sure, I'll give you two examples. First I'll give you a theoretical example of what infinity is and how it can exist. Lets say you take any object, a piece of paper for example, and you continually cut it in half. There will never reach a point where you can no longer theoretically cut it in half. This process can go on forever--there is NOT a finite amount of times a piece of paper can theoretically be cut in half.

False, the faulty proof of such a concept will only be found to exist in your head, and half assedly at that. There is no such faith, belief, or knowledge in such concepts found in reality, and/or the science books whose sole responsibility is knowing reality. You immediately fail, as a sheet of paper itself is finite (as all things are). Composed of a finite number of molecules. Which are composed of a finite number of atoms. Which are composed of a finite number of atomic particles. Which are composed of a finite number of subatomic particles. Which are thought to not be composed of any parts, but fundamental quanta of their own...of a very finite quantity.

Now for a more concrete example. There are many physicists who believe that the amount of space in the universe is infinite. That is, there is no point in the universe where you no longer can go further.

When you use the term 'space', do you mean only absolutely purely perfect nothing? Or do you mean a medium of 'space particle'? Or do you mean a medium of 'space field'?

There may be 'other universes' surrounding this universe, there may not be. There are no many physicists who believe what you say, this is something a simple minded person makes up in their head; in reality, there is not infinite space between two points, as such a thing like zenos paradox queried about thousands of years ago, most physicists actually believe in the planck length.

If you believe that space is not 'only absolutely purely perfect nothing', but you believe that it is an energetic medium, not purely gravity field, but perhaps all fields, or its own mysterious field, if it is 'a substance at all' (meaning non nothing), its substance will be derived from other substance, as in, the existence of this space field, will not be created out of nothing, made from nothing, and be something.

If you are talking about the nature of nothing space, yes I agree the quantity of nothing may be infinite.

I agree that in an isolated system, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It remains a question whether the conservation of energy applies when dealing with the entire universe

Why does that remain a question? Please write one hypothetical, theoretical, rational, reasonable, and/or logical statement which in eternal time will have anything to do with 'conservation of energy not applying to 'an entire universe'.

Which, as I have stated there are really only two options; The system of stuff we refer to as the universe is all that exists in total reality. Or; there are systems of stuff that exist beyond the universe.

What is one way, in which conservation of energy would not apply when dealing with the entire universe?

And if you fail to consider that I am not failing to consider the entire universe exists always in an ultimate greater reality, space, potentially infinite nothing space (or even if it doesnt) the total energy of the universe still is all existing in reality, even if some or a relative 'a lot' of energy can leak off he edges of the universe into the space surrounding space, this does not count as 'energy being destroyed', and I think we are not so interested in that case anyway, we would be more enamored to hear your single reaching for a single simple general reach of a statement that would maybe start a conversation between us about the nature of energy being created from nothing.

Finite does not necessarily imply causality nor does infinity imply randomness. You've failed to connect these two together in a logical manner

You failing to comprehend what I wrote is not my failing. Finite does imply causality, and even if we pretend it didnt, non causality is impossible anyway (again, give me a single stretched reach of hypothetical statement that can maybe prove that wrong and we can discuss), and then perfectly logically, I followed, that the only thing that could 'approach non causality' was a system which 'fakes it', symbolically. By creating a 'fake reality' thats projections and symbolic representations of reality do not need to interact according to the causal laws of physics (mind/imagination).

I never said infinity implied randomness. I said randomness doesnt exist. I said the possibility for and the existence of infinite quantity doesnt exist. I will state that time is infinite. But I will also state what that means, so when you try to argue only reference what I am about to say. Stuff/energy exists. A finite amount. It cannot be created or destroyed. It can interact and transform. The transformation/propagation of the stuff/energy that exists, is what time is. Because the stuff/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it has always existed and always will, it potentially has the potential to transform forever, therefore it would be safest to say, its 'transformability', or, the time, is infinite.

Your statement that 'true randomness is impossible' is unsubstantiated by evidence. This is your view based on how you think the world works.

First; define randomness. Second; define true randomness. Third; show me one hypothetical and or theoretical statement that it is possible for the concept highlighted in your definitions to exist in reality. I can only argue this point depending on how strictly you are willing to define the term. I am confidant either way, and I will worthily prove this to all after you find your definition/s to reply with. And I do hope you are very thorough and respond to every point I have made in this reply, none are superfluous, they are all for a very good reason, and you failing to properly assess that is not my failing, it will just make me have to copy paste things.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Uncertainty does not imply randomness.

arxiv.org...

That's a great paper and I agree with its implication. I'm on the side of Einstein, not Bohr. Einstein was wrong with locality (experiments prove non-locality of something is true unequivocally) but I think he's right on determinism. Chaos of deterministic systems makes as practically good 'stochastic' as anything else.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

Chime'n in to say I agree with your hypothesis.
SnF