Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

[value]

There are indications that true randomness is fundamentally impossible. It is directly tied to the concept determinism so it might be capable of proving whether determinism is valid or not. If randomness is fundamentally impossible, it could imply that meaning is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality (a priori).

Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers?
Truly random number" is more of a philosophical viewpoint, as what does it mean to be random is the crux of the philosophical navel gazing (folks aren't even certain if atomic decay is random or follows some pattern we just can't figure out yet).

True randomness implies nondeterminism. If it's deterministic, it can be accurately predicted (this is what determinism means); if it can be predicted, it is not random.

It is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchan ... om-numbers


(2020) When Science and Philosophy meet Randomness, Determinism, and Chaos
What is the theory behind Randomness? Is randomness fundamentally impossible?
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Randomness specialist (mathematician) Nassim Nicholas Taleb: “While in theory randomness is an intrinsic property, in practice, randomness is incomplete information.”

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

Is it even possible to prove that a system is truly random? Since it is by definition incompressible, it requires an infinite amount of information to be considered as a random system. Infinity cannot be counted.

Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Philosopher Voltaire: “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.”

--

Question: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible? If so/not, what does that imply about determinism?

[3017Metaphysician]

There are indications that true randomness is fundamentally impossible. It is directly tied to the concept determinism so it might be capable of proving whether determinism is valid or not. If randomness is fundamentally impossible, it could imply that meaning is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality (a priori).

Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers?
Truly random number" is more of a philosophical viewpoint, as what does it mean to be random is the crux of the philosophical navel gazing (folks aren't even certain if atomic decay is random or follows some pattern we just can't figure out yet).

True randomness implies nondeterminism. If it's deterministic, it can be accurately predicted (this is what determinism means); if it can be predicted, it is not random.

It is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchan ... om-numbers


(2020) When Science and Philosophy meet Randomness, Determinism, and Chaos
What is the theory behind Randomness? Is randomness fundamentally impossible?
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Randomness specialist (mathematician) Nassim Nicholas Taleb: “While in theory randomness is an intrinsic property, in practice, randomness is incomplete information.”

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

Is it even possible to prove that a system is truly random? Since it is by definition incompressible, it requires an infinite amount of information to be considered as a random system. Infinity cannot be counted.

Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Philosopher Voltaire: “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.”

--

Question: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible? If so/not, what does that imply about determinism?

Value!

Folks like Heisenberg, Turing, and Gödel (uncertainty, indeterminism, incompleteness theorem) among other's, uncovered that at the most fundamental level of nature/physics (QM), that randomness occurs. Some argue that as a result, things like free Will, is analogous to such physical phenomena (there exists both free Will/randomness and determinism in the universe). Conversely, complete chaos is generally accepted as NOT being possible. And alternatively, it may be worth discussing the differences between determinism and contingency in the universe.

In the meantime, the growth of Process Philosophy corresponds to that phenomena:

Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. Even though we experience our world and ourselves as continuously changing, Western metaphysics has long been obsessed with describing reality as an assembly of static individuals whose dynamic features are either taken to be mere appearances or ontologically secondary and derivative. For process philosophers the adventure of philosophy begins with a set of problems that traditional metaphysics marginalizes or even sidesteps altogether: what is dynamicity or becoming—if it is the way we experience reality, how should we interpret this metaphysically? Are there several varieties of becoming—for instance...,


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

[GE Morton]

1. An event is random if it is unpredictable.

2. Whether an event is predictable depends upon information available to the observer/predictor.

3. If an event is predictable, it's occurrence will be logically derivable from information available to the observer/predictor. That information will be deemed the cause of the event.

4. An event is "truly random" if it is not predictable given the information available to any observer/predictor. I.e., it will have no known cause.

There is also a vacuous "metaphysical" interpretation of "truly random," i.e., the event has no cause. But that is an unverifiable claim, since confirming it would require that the observer/predictor possess all possible information regarding the universe in which the event occurs, and be able to demonstrate that the event is not logically derivable from any of it (e.g. LaPlace's "demon").

Since no human can possess all possible information about the universe, it is not possible to verify a claim, for any event, that it has no cause (in the "metaphysical" sense). Nor, obviously, is it possible to verify a claim that it does have a cause, if no such cause is derivable from the information actually available.

Now it is entirely possible that some events do indeed have no cause. But we can never make such a claim about any particular event.

[EricPH]

Random mutation, is used to describe how life may have evolved, fom single cell life over billions of years. But how random is random mutation?

The shape of an eye lens might have evolved over 1800 incremental steps. But this almost suggests there are goals to be reached. This seems to channel random mutation in a direction.

[Sy Borg]

But how random is random mutation?

It's chaotic rather than random. There are deterministic causes for any mutations, caused by variances in internal chemistry and the outside environment.

So the mutations are chaotic, but natural selection is not. Certain traits are advantageous in certain environments and circumstances, and these will tend to be selected. The rise of human civilisation and the extent of cultural transmission of knowledge would not be possible in earlier eras of the Earth, due to the early Earth's greater climatic and geological instability and conditions favouring competitor species. human progress stemmed from stability, enforced by our dominance and permitted by unusual climatic and geological stability.

[value]

The idea of probability as a descriptive concept originates from a dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant.

Order from chaos does not involve deterministic probability but a potential for fulfilment of meaning. That meaning must be a priori applicable and cannot be deterministic. It is only in the form of the idea of probability that humans find predictability from an utilitarian perspective (i.e. that predictability is merely useful but not fundamentally true).

While there can be no empirical evidence for a priori meaning, probability from chaos or random chance would not be a correct descriptor for what is observed when 'potential is fulfilled', which is an activity in the face of an unknown future.

From a philosophical perspective applicability of a priori meaning is evident in my opinion.

With regard the idea of pure randomness to be non-deterministic. The idea of pure randomness is simply absurd.

Mathematician Tristan Perich said: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”.

True ∞ infinity - the only type of infinity that in theory can be applicable to reality - cannot be counted. The idea of 'infinite amount' is invalid since it depends on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician which implies that the concept cannot stand on itself, which would be a requisite for applicability in nature. True infinity is beginning-less of nature.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are indications that true randomness is fundamentally impossible. It is directly tied to the concept determinism so it might be capable of proving whether determinism is valid or not. If randomness is fundamentally impossible, it could imply that meaning is applicable to the fundamental nature of reality (a priori).

Why is it impossible to produce truly random numbers?
Truly random number" is more of a philosophical viewpoint, as what does it mean to be random is the crux of the philosophical navel gazing (folks aren't even certain if atomic decay is random or follows some pattern we just can't figure out yet).

True randomness implies nondeterminism. If it's deterministic, it can be accurately predicted (this is what determinism means); if it can be predicted, it is not random.

It is fundamentally impossible to produce truly random numbers on any deterministic device. Von Neumann said it best: “Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.” The best we can hope for are pseudo-random numbers, a stream of numbers that appear as if they were generated randomly.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchan ... om-numbers


(2020) When Science and Philosophy meet Randomness, Determinism, and Chaos
What is the theory behind Randomness? Is randomness fundamentally impossible?
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Randomness specialist (mathematician) Nassim Nicholas Taleb: “While in theory randomness is an intrinsic property, in practice, randomness is incomplete information.”

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

Is it even possible to prove that a system is truly random? Since it is by definition incompressible, it requires an infinite amount of information to be considered as a random system. Infinity cannot be counted.

Source: https://towardsdatascience.com/when-sci ... db825c3114

Philosopher Voltaire: “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.”

--

Question: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible? If so/not, what does that imply about determinism?

Randomness is one of those things whose meaning seems clear and obvious, until we look at it closely. 'Truth' is another example of such a thing. Among those who know more than most about randomness, there is not even a universally-accepted definition of randomness. One definition was advanced in 1966 by Martin-Löf, but there are others too.

I have written random number generators for use on embedded computer systems, so I have a little experience in these matters. The quotes you offer are accurate in this: it is pretty-much impossible to generate genuinely random numbers on any deterministic device. But we should not mistake this to mean that truly random numbers cannot be found or generated, but only that it can't be done using deterministic devices.

Like other matters relating to randomness, the experts are not clear on whether truly random numbers exist in reality. But equally, none are rash enough to say that it is not so. This is the unavoidable conclusion that arises from a complete lack of evidence: that no conclusion can be reached (until or unless new evidence comes to light).

[Pattern-chaser]

1. An event is random if it is unpredictable.

Those who would generate random number sequences would assert that this is a misleadingly-incomplete statement. It is an insufficient definition; there's a lot more to it than that.

[value]

Folks like Heisenberg, Turing, and Gödel (uncertainty, indeterminism, incompleteness theorem) among other's, uncovered that at the most fundamental level of nature/physics (QM), that randomness occurs. Some argue that as a result, things like free Will, is analogous to such physical phenomena (there exists both free Will/randomness and determinism in the universe). Conversely, complete chaos is generally accepted as NOT being possible. And alternatively, it may be worth discussing the differences between determinism and contingency in the universe.

I do not believe that the idea of randomness at the fundamental level of nature is correct. The indicated randomness is probability and not pure randomness. The concept seems to be intended to support the dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant.

Pure randomness would equal 'devoid of meaning'. The idea of complete randomness being applicable to finite physical reality would involve the idea of actual (beginning-less) ∞ Infinity being applicable to finite nature, by which that finite nature would lose it's meaningful characteristic.

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

True ∞ infinity - the only type of infinity that in theory can be applicable to reality - cannot be counted. The idea of 'infinite amount' is invalid since it depends on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician which implies that the concept cannot stand on itself, which would be a requisite for applicability in nature. True infinity is beginning-less of nature.

In the meantime, the growth of Process Philosophy corresponds to that phenomena:

Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. Even though we experience our world and ourselves as continuously changing, Western metaphysics has long been obsessed with describing reality as an assembly of static individuals whose dynamic features are either taken to be mere appearances or ontologically secondary and derivative. For process philosophers the adventure of philosophy begins with a set of problems that traditional metaphysics marginalizes or even sidesteps altogether: what is dynamicity or becoming—if it is the way we experience reality, how should we interpret this metaphysically? Are there several varieties of becoming—for instance...,


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

I am looking into Process Philosophy but it seems that I will have to do more reading. I am following your new topic on Process Philosophy:

The Metaphysics of Process Philosophy/being or becoming
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18116

[Pattern-chaser]

The idea of probability as a descriptive concept originates from a dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant.

The idea of probability surely stems from our empirical observations, that some things often happen, but don't happen in every case?

I don't see the relevance or significance of "a dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant."

Order from chaos does not involve deterministic probability but a potential for fulfilment of meaning. That meaning must be a priori applicable and cannot be deterministic. It is only in the form of the idea of probability that humans find predictability from an utilitarian perspective (i.e. that predictability is merely useful but not fundamentally true).

While there can be no empirical evidence for a priori meaning, probability from chaos or random chance would not be a correct descriptor for what is observed when 'potential is fulfilled', which is an activity in the face of an unknown future.

From a philosophical perspective applicability of a priori meaning is evident in my opinion.

With regard the idea of pure randomness to be non-deterministic. The idea of pure randomness is simply absurd.

Mathematician Tristan Perich said: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”.

True ∞ infinity - the only type of infinity that in theory can be applicable to reality - cannot be counted. The idea of 'infinite amount' is invalid since it depends on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician which implies that the concept cannot stand on itself, which would be a requisite for applicability in nature. True infinity is beginning-less of nature.

The highlighted text says it all. Without empirical evidence, or something equally persuasive, this whole matter reduces to a 'matter of opinion'. And yet you present your opinions as though they are — seemingly must be — correct. I think this is an exaggeration, at the least.

[Pattern-chaser]

This topic is not really a philosophical one. If anything, it's a scientific idea. But it could also be seen as 'anti-science', in the sense that the value of scientific theories is, to some extent, judged by their ability to predict some aspect of the physical universe. And yet a defining characteristic of randomness is that it isn't predictable.

Randomness is a complicated subject, much more so than it first seems. If there is a philosophical aspect to the discussion of randomness, I can't see it.

[3017Metaphysician]

Folks like Heisenberg, Turing, and Gödel (uncertainty, indeterminism, incompleteness theorem) among other's, uncovered that at the most fundamental level of nature/physics (QM), that randomness occurs. Some argue that as a result, things like free Will, is analogous to such physical phenomena (there exists both free Will/randomness and determinism in the universe). Conversely, complete chaos is generally accepted as NOT being possible. And alternatively, it may be worth discussing the differences between determinism and contingency in the universe.

I do not believe that the idea of randomness at the fundamental level of nature is correct. The indicated randomness is probability and not pure randomness. The concept seems to be intended to support the dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant.

Pure randomness would equal 'devoid of meaning'. The idea of complete randomness being applicable to finite physical reality would involve the idea of actual (beginning-less) ∞ Infinity being applicable to finite nature, by which that finite nature would lose it's meaningful characteristic.

Mathematician Tristan Perich: “Real randomness requires an infinite amount of information.”

True ∞ infinity - the only type of infinity that in theory can be applicable to reality - cannot be counted. The idea of 'infinite amount' is invalid since it depends on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician which implies that the concept cannot stand on itself, which would be a requisite for applicability in nature. True infinity is beginning-less of nature.

In the meantime, the growth of Process Philosophy corresponds to that phenomena:

Process philosophy is based on the premise that being is dynamic and that the dynamic nature of being should be the primary focus of any comprehensive philosophical account of reality and our place within it. Even though we experience our world and ourselves as continuously changing, Western metaphysics has long been obsessed with describing reality as an assembly of static individuals whose dynamic features are either taken to be mere appearances or ontologically secondary and derivative. For process philosophers the adventure of philosophy begins with a set of problems that traditional metaphysics marginalizes or even sidesteps altogether: what is dynamicity or becoming—if it is the way we experience reality, how should we interpret this metaphysically? Are there several varieties of becoming—for instance...,


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

I am looking into Process Philosophy but it seems that I will have to do more reading. I am following your new topic on Process Philosophy:

The Metaphysics of Process Philosophy/being or becoming
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18116

Value!

Thanks. I have more thoughts on randomness that I will share in a separate post. In the meantime, I just added some more questions about 'process thought', in that separate thread...let me know what you think over there too... .

[value]

1. An event is random if it is unpredictable.

2. Whether an event is predictable depends upon information available to the observer/predictor.

3. If an event is predictable, it's occurrence will be logically derivable from information available to the observer/predictor. That information will be deemed the cause of the event.

4. An event is "truly random" if it is not predictable given the information available to any observer/predictor. I.e., it will have no known cause.

There is also a vacuous "metaphysical" interpretation of "truly random," i.e., the event has no cause. But that is an unverifiable claim, since confirming it would require that the observer/predictor possess all possible information regarding the universe in which the event occurs, and be able to demonstrate that the event is not logically derivable from any of it (e.g. LaPlace's "demon").

Since no human can possess all possible information about the universe, it is not possible to verify a claim, for any event, that it has no cause (in the "metaphysical" sense). Nor, obviously, is it possible to verify a claim that it does have a cause, if no such cause is derivable from the information actually available.

Now it is entirely possible that some events do indeed have no cause. But we can never make such a claim about any particular event.

I do not believe that the assertion is valid. I would agree with the remark made by @Pattern-chaser.

When it concerns the concept true randomness, it concerns the question whether the concept is valid from a fundamental philosophical perspective. The idea that any event of which the cause is unknown is 'truly random' would not be valid since it cannot be said that no cause is applicable, and besides that, even if no cause can be discovered, that does not imply that the event is truly random, it would simply be an event with no known cause.

The idea is that when meaning is necessarily applicable a priori that useful predictability of an event is always possible, making true randomness fundamentally impossible.

You seem to be attempting to assign the characteristic 'true' to pseudo-randomness (useful randomness) by introducing a presumable (or potentially) pure unpredictable factor.

The plausibility of the idea of a pure unpredictable factor (i.e. events with no cause) does not seem to be evident by the information that you provided.

[GE Morton]

The idea of probability as a descriptive concept originates from a dogmatic belief that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant.

Order from chaos does not involve deterministic probability but a potential for fulfilment of meaning. That meaning must be a priori applicable and cannot be deterministic. It is only in the form of the idea of probability that humans find predictability from an utilitarian perspective (i.e. that predictability is merely useful but not fundamentally true).

What is this "meaning" to which you refer? The term "meaning" refers to the definition of a word, or the referent of a word or other symbol. You seem to be using it to refer to some "transcendental" or cosmic or divine purpose or design, or in some other mystical way. If not, please explain what you understand by it, and set forth your evidence for it.

[GE Morton]

1. An event is random if it is unpredictable.

Those who would generate random number sequences would assert that this is a misleadingly-incomplete statement. It is an insufficient definition; there's a lot more to it than that.

You're confounding the definition of a random number sequence, and the tests for determining whether a sequence is random, with the definition of "random." The definition I gave is the whole meaning of "random." Whether an event (as opposed to a number) is random is solely a function of the information available to the the observer.