Random theory?

Watch a film called Pi, is quite good, similar idea as to what your getting at, probably won't be useful, but a good watch.
I think things like this are theoretically posible to model, but technically impossible, you would have to be able to track every single existing particle and be able model its movement, afaik.
 
platinum87 said:
its not planned, if you go back in time 50 years, everything would happen exactly as history says (assuming historical records are accurate), this doesnt mean its pre-planned or destined it just means that it is how things happen.

from the point of view of someone born in 2100 everything we do now has already happened, and we cannot change it, because trying to change it, will result in the thing that was suppose to happen, happening.

so basically just because the guy would know whats going to happen doesnt make it predictable via any means
Click to expand...

in respect to say you walk down the street and a box with question marks all over it fall infront of you and super mario pops out, thats random however the person who threw it of the top of the buildin, had already planned it or it was already there and you were destined to walk that road do that thing, regardless of anything you were destined to do that and the effect or descriptive, you would regard as random i mean, hey if super mario poped out infront of me id like JESUS WTF (lol total messed up scenario but it was first of my head) and as for the future looking back well yeah its not really random weird maybe or luck (may be used as descriptives) but random i totaly agree its not the act of it could be described maybe but its not totally .:)
 
As far as I'm concerned the universe is not 100% deterministic. Therefore there are plenty of events that are truly random.

But some stuff which is deterministic can be usefully modelled as being random, like dice throws and drawing cards.

edit: Inquisitor explained it much better^
 
Last edited:
If Random wasn't random it wouldn't be called random. But random is called random and so it must therefore be random.

Makes sense no?
 
On a macro scale then I believe every random event could be predicted if we had sufficient knowledge and sufficient ability to calculate it.

On a quantum level then, assuming our current understanding is correct, I believe that truely random events can happen.
 
cosmogenesis said:
Randomness is no discernable pattern so of course it exists.
Click to expand...

I would argue that this is simply a manifestation of randomness, and that true randomness is something rather more profound, requiring a departure from causality itself.

Incidentally, it's for this reason that quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible with each other: relativity is built on the assumption that every event is causal in nature, while quantum mechanics stipulates that this isn't the case :)
 
Last edited:
Well the way to approach it is to look at the idea of a random variable. Typically we talk about a random variable which can take any value in the domain of some probability density function.

Most people associate "random" events as observations of random variables drawn from a uniform distribution i.e. Pr(X=1) = Pr(X=2) etc.... however in many real world situations we assume a normal distribution (bell cruve). The most common example is peoples hieght. We know that the probability of a person being 0ft is 0 right? so a uniform distribution makes no sense.

There are certain common things that affect randomness. The probability of getting a 2 when you throw a dice, doesn't change each time you throw it, that's mutual exclusivity. The opposite it looking at the probability of a tree falling down each time you hit with an axe. There are all sorts of other things that make certain situations less random, typically complex correlation structures (so for example the occurence of a hurricane might seem random, but it's probably correlated with wind speed or something like that, or average GCSE results for UK schools are strongly correlated with the average income in the different areas).
 
dangerstat said:
Well the way to approach it is to look at the idea of a random variable. Typically we talk about a random variable which can take any value in the domain of some probability density function.

Most people associate "random" events as observations of random variables drawn from a uniform distribution i.e. Pr(X=1) = Pr(X=2) etc.... however in many real world situations we assume a normal distribution (bell cruve). The most common example is peoples hieght. We know that the probability of a person being 0ft is 0 right? so a uniform distribution makes no sense.

There are certain common things that affect randomness. The probability of getting a 2 when you throw a dice, doesn't change each time you throw it, that's mutual exclusivity. The opposite it looking at the probability of a tree falling down each time you hit with an axe. There are all sorts of other things that make certain situations less random, typically complex correlation structures (so for example the occurence of a hurricane might seem random, but it's probably correlated with wind speed or something like that, or average GCSE results for UK schools are strongly correlated with the average income in the different areas).
Click to expand...

This isn't really addressing the more fundamental problem of what randomness actually is, though, and whether it's simply a description of some more complex system that in fact exhibits deterministic behaviour which hasn't yet been understood, or whether it's an intrinsic property of a system (or whether this distinction is actually useful or meaningful in itself).
 
Last edited:
Inquisitor said:
This isn't really addressing the more fundamental problem of what randomness actually is, though, and whether it's simply a description of some more complex system that in fact exhibits deterministic behaviour which hasn't yet been understood, or whether it's an intrinsic property of a system (or whether this distinction is actually meaningful in itself).
Click to expand...

Well its the statistical definition of randomness though. I think the issue that the OP needs to thing about is either true randomness or as you as the appearence of randomness generated by complex but known processes.

It's a bit like tossing a coin, you could model it, if you have the starting point, know the precis point the thumb hits the coin and some averaged statistics about the power the coin is hit with from repeated trails. But even if you do this to predict what side the coin will fall on you will always get some error, that will be random.

At the most fundamental levels of particle physics it appears there is inherent randomness, isn't that the uncertaintly principle. So I guess the only conclusion to arrive at is that nature is random iteself.
 
dangerstat said:
It's a bit like tossing a coin, you could model it, if you have the starting point, know the precis point the thumb hits the coin and some averaged statistics about the power the coin is hit with from repeated trails. But even if you do this to predict what side the coin will fall on you will always get some error, that will be random.
Click to expand...

While you're right that we can never predict the exact outcome of such an experiment with 100% certainty (due to HUP, as you say) it's not strictly true that the error you mention is due to randomness in the true sense of the word (assuming you're not referring to such quantum effects).

The error arises either from an incomplete knowledge of initial conditions or from computational imprecision. The process itself can be treated as entirely deterministic at a macroscopic level; the outcome is only random insofar as microscopic quantum processes affect it (i.e. negligibly so).

I suppose, like you said, it comes down to the distinction between statistical/macroscopic randomness and the sort that refers to acausal events.

dangerstat said:
At the most fundamental levels of particle physics it appears there is inherent randomness, isn't that the uncertaintly principle. So I guess the only conclusion to arrive at is that nature is random iteself.
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at: quantum mechanics stipulates that certain elements of the universe do not obey simple causal determinism, meaning that it is fundamentally impossible to predict exactly when or where certain events will occur; this is what gives rise to true randomness.

Furthermore, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle precludes a complete, exact knowledge of the state of a physical system at any given point in time. This means that initial conditions of the system can never be known with 100% exactitude, hence preventing us from being able to predict the exact state of such a physical system at any point in the future.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom