Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:56 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 5:50 pm2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.
The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.
So what?
I do not think you are taking things seriously.
You comment is incoherent and irrelevant.
I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 7:21 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:50 am Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.
Yes, indeed. So why do you say (in another post) that all events are caused. "True." ???

As you say here, it is uncertain, just something we think might be true. It's your "maybe" that makes your statement correct, in the sense that it communicates our uncertainty: we just don't know.
You nailed it there. We're compelled to assume that all events and entities have causes, because explanation consists in finding causes for effects and we wish to explain everything, but we can't claim to know they all do.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 7:21 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:50 am Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.
Yes, indeed. So why do you say (in another post) that all events are caused. "True." ???

As you say here, it is uncertain, just something we think might be true. It's your "maybe" that makes your statement correct, in the sense that it communicates our uncertainty: we just don't know.
Do you have an irony blindness?
Humans once thought that there was such a thing as "spontaneous generation" - THEY WERE WRONG. Obviously :)
Most people accepting the bleedin' obvious now know that stuff gets caused and just because you do not know such things as flies lay eggs that CAUSE the maggots, and other such causalities. Ignorance is not evidence for an uncaused cause.
There is not uncertainly. Stuff gets caused. We may not know what that is but we probably will in the future.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

value wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 12:10 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:56 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 5:50 pm2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.
The time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.
So what?
I do not think you are taking things seriously.
You comment is incoherent and irrelevant.
I also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sy Borg »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:50 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 10:15 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 9:44 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 7:02 am



Excuse me for butting in, but wasn't the Big Bang a 'causeless event', as far as we know?
Well we do not know, do we.
All we know is that currently observable causalities and effects see to reverse engineer to a single point of origin, But we know nothing about that the bang may have banged into or from.
And never shall we know.
Yes, we cannot know if there was a cause or what it might be. We tend to assume that there was a cause, based on logic, but our logic may not apply to such wildly differing states of matter. There are some hypotheses out there, eg. [oversimplified] The pre-universe universe (so to speak) consisted of instantly-annihilating virtual particles (as can be found in any vacuum), and a virtual particle inflated rather than popping out of existence, as usual.
Such are the limits of scientific induction. Odd that science has been so damned effective to help us manipulate and understand the world.
But let us consider a world where things come into being spontaneously without cause. In part we used to live in such a world. Mice spontaneously generated from rotten cloth. And maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Diseases spontaneously emerged not through causes but simply because of the inbalance of the humours.
Now we know better.
Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.
In my mind, I imagine all these virtual particles being annihilated because of their neighbours, like being unable to stretch your arms in a crowded train. Then, by chance, a zone of slightly less concentration developed, just enough to allow a virtual particle to start to expand, and once the virtual particle started expanding, it absorbed its "puny" peers around them, which absorbed their neighbours, and so on in a cascade. Probably pure fiction, but that's how my ape brain apprehends the situation.

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 4:49 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:50 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 10:15 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 9:44 am

Well we do not know, do we.
All we know is that currently observable causalities and effects see to reverse engineer to a single point of origin, But we know nothing about that the bang may have banged into or from.
And never shall we know.
Yes, we cannot know if there was a cause or what it might be. We tend to assume that there was a cause, based on logic, but our logic may not apply to such wildly differing states of matter. There are some hypotheses out there, eg. [oversimplified] The pre-universe universe (so to speak) consisted of instantly-annihilating virtual particles (as can be found in any vacuum), and a virtual particle inflated rather than popping out of existence, as usual.
Such are the limits of scientific induction. Odd that science has been so damned effective to help us manipulate and understand the world.
But let us consider a world where things come into being spontaneously without cause. In part we used to live in such a world. Mice spontaneously generated from rotten cloth. And maggots spontaneously generated from rotten meat. Diseases spontaneously emerged not through causes but simply because of the inbalance of the humours.
Now we know better.
Since our experience seems to offer no examples of spontaneous generation, at some time in time we have to consider that maybe the world is necessarily bound by cause and effect. Some people are not ready to accept the bleeding obvious I suppose.
In my mind, I imagine all these virtual particles being annihilated because of their neighbours, like being unable to stretch your arms in a crowded train. Then, by chance, a zone of slightly less concentration developed, just enough to allow a virtual particle to start to expand, and once the virtual particle started expanding, it absorbed its "puny" peers around them, which absorbed their neighbours, and so on in a cascade. Probably pure fiction, but that's how my ape brain apprehends the situation.

Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".

"In my Mind"??
Enjoy your imagination.
I do not think you have to know the minutiae, the actual microscopic billiard balls of reality. Atoms and Quarks are only really models, by which we hope to get a better understanding.
Epicurean Swerves and the like have been part of the imagined world for a long time.
When I put the key in the car and it starts I have the deterministic world re-enforced.
When it fails the reason is discoverable. Although a car can get complicated, there is no real mystery; patrol, bad plugs, flat battery.
The whole world is basically the same.
But people are scared apes and when the computer gets "unstable" it only really means that it's doing stuff that no one predicted. That does not invalidate the basic rules of cause and effect; that's just ignorance of the cause; not spontaneous action.

Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 5:50 pm2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.
value wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 12:10 pmThe time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.
value wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 12:10 pmI also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 3:08 pmI have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?
You stated that 'everything' is in time. That would be an empirical notion of time by looking out into the cosmos.

My argument is that there is a different time that fundamentally allows for change: in-the-moment time experience which is applicable in-the-moment on cosmic scale.

Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 4:49 pm Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".
The idea of a Singularity - a mathematical potential infinity - to be applicable in physical reality is absurd.

A Singularity is a purely mathematical 'infinitely' dense point in space-time. LiveScience mentions the following about it:

These singularities don't represent something physical. Rather, when they appear in mathematics, they are telling us that our theories of physics are breaking down, and we need to replace them with a better understanding.
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Infinity cannot be counted so the idea of mathematical infinity to be applicable to reality is absurd. Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity that is dependent on a begin that is introduced by the mathematician (an observer). Without the mathematician a Singularity cannot be conceived of.

Actual infinity would be beginning-less of nature and there mathematics would not apply. And what is beginning-less of nature cannot occupy a 'point' in space-time.

The idea of the cosmos as a physical totality that started in a Big Bang explosion is nonsensical.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 3:06 pm Most people accepting the bleedin' obvious now know that stuff gets caused and just because you do not know such things as flies lay eggs that CAUSE the maggots, and other such causalities. Ignorance is not evidence for an uncaused cause.
True, ignorance is not evidence for anything, but one good way to promote and maintain ignorance is to go around accepting "the bleedin' obvious" without questioning whether it really is as obvious as you think it is...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

value wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:47 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 2nd, 2022, 5:50 pm2) Since everything is "in time", I'm puzzled why you keep mentioning this redundancy. I have no idea why you think anything is "magic" or what relevance any of that has to the discussion.
value wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 12:10 pmThe time in which 'everything' supposedly 'is' (empirical time), is not a ground for the assumption that what is observed, such as causality, is static.
value wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 12:10 pmI also mentioned an alternative sort of time, an in-the-moment time experience that allows change. Why would that change potential not be applicable to causality of the past? What else than a magical belief would justify the idea that a change of causality in the past is impossible?
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 3:08 pmI have no idea what you are trying to say.
Do you?
You stated that 'everything' is in time. That would be an empirical notion of time by looking out into the cosmos.

My argument is that there is a different time that fundamentally allows for change: in-the-moment time experience which is applicable in-the-moment on cosmic scale.
You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.
Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?
This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:12 pm Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.
I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
value
Premium Member
Posts: 748
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Sculptor1 wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:36 am You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.
Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?
This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?
There is a difference in what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos and what is experienced in time in-the-moment.

Do you not see the difference?

The one concerns a retro-perspective. The other an experience that as of today has no scientific explanation.

While causality could appear to be static in what is retro-perspectively perceived in time, causality cannot logically be established to be static in what is experienced in time because it involves an unknown future.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:39 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 6:12 pm Maybe one day when two billiard balls hit each other the result will be different: there might appear as if from no where a bunch of petunias. Maybe a living sperm whale will materialise 10 miles above the earth surface?
"what is this large blue/green ball coming towards me very fast?". it might ask, "will it be friends with me?"

But I doubt it.
I think we all doubt it. But the lesson here, surely, is that both the whale and the petunias are possible? Even though we believe the chance of these things occurring is very small indeed, we also believe that the probability is non-zero: it is possible.
Seriously?
You think it is possible that one day Joe hits the cue ball into the side pocket and instead of winning the game when he leaves the pub the street is covered in whale meat?
Did you really mean to say that?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

value wrote: August 4th, 2022, 9:54 am
Sculptor1 wrote: August 4th, 2022, 7:36 am You are not presenting an argument for a "different time", whatever that is. Nor showing why you think this makes sense, or would make sense to anyone.
It looks like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist or a theory that does no work.
Do you not see the difference between space-time in which 'everything' (a totality) supposedly is and in-the-moment time experience that through non-locality is applicable to the cosmos?
This simply makes no sense. I can keep saying that as long as you like, but WTH are you on about?
There is a difference in what is perceived in time by looking out into the cosmos and what is experienced in time in-the-moment.

Do you not see the difference?

The one concerns a retro-perspective. The other an experience that as of today has no scientific explanation.

While causality could appear to be static in what is retro-perspectively perceived in time, causality cannot logically be established to be static in what is experienced in time because it involves an unknown future.
As "perceived" is equivalent to "experienced", no there is no difference.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sy Borg »

value wrote: August 4th, 2022, 5:57 am
Sy Borg wrote: August 3rd, 2022, 4:49 pm Really, as I say, no one knows how physics works at a certain scale, density and temperature. The physical laws that predict so well at larger scales no longer apply. It goes without saying that this does not mean the objects of ancient mythology can be inserted into "singularities".
The idea of a Singularity - a mathematical potential infinity - to be applicable in physical reality is absurd.
Why do you think I enclosed the word in inverted commas?
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021