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
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: July 21st, 2022, 2:58 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 21st, 2022, 12:05 pm The decay of an atom of a radioactive material? That the decay takes place has a cause, I think, and if I were a nuclear physicist, I expect I could tell you what it is. But it is my understanding that the time at which the decay takes place might be truly random?
I think not.
If it were truly random then you'd have to throw out Radio Carbon dating, and all the other dating methods that rely on decay. I am given to understand that you can set your watch by this process.
How would it be random?
Different questions. Whether and when a particular atom of radium decays is random. What fraction of the atoms in a sample will decay in a certain time period is not.
:lol:
Totally predictably random?? :lol:
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 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 21st, 2022, 12:05 pm The decay of an atom of a radioactive material? That the decay takes place has a cause, I think, and if I were a nuclear physicist, I expect I could tell you what it is. But it is my understanding that the time at which the decay takes place might be truly random?
Sculptor1 wrote: July 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm I think not.
If it were truly random then you'd have to throw out Radio Carbon dating, and all the other dating methods that rely on decay. I am given to understand that you can set your watch by this process.
How would it be random?
Wikipedia wrote:In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 10:36 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 21st, 2022, 12:05 pm The decay of an atom of a radioactive material? That the decay takes place has a cause, I think, and if I were a nuclear physicist, I expect I could tell you what it is. But it is my understanding that the time at which the decay takes place might be truly random?
Sculptor1 wrote: July 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm I think not.
If it were truly random then you'd have to throw out Radio Carbon dating, and all the other dating methods that rely on decay. I am given to understand that you can set your watch by this process.
How would it be random?
Wikipedia wrote:In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.
Sculptor can't seem to grasp the difference between those.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 10:36 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 21st, 2022, 12:05 pm The decay of an atom of a radioactive material? That the decay takes place has a cause, I think, and if I were a nuclear physicist, I expect I could tell you what it is. But it is my understanding that the time at which the decay takes place might be truly random?
Sculptor1 wrote: July 21st, 2022, 2:34 pm I think not.
If it were truly random then you'd have to throw out Radio Carbon dating, and all the other dating methods that rely on decay. I am given to understand that you can set your watch by this process.
How would it be random?
Wikipedia wrote:In common usage, randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.
Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable.

This is not a statement which supports "true randomness" whatever that is supposed to be. It is a statement which verifies that such events are bounded by the laws of cause and effect.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 11:27 am
This is not a statement which supports "true randomness" whatever that is supposed to be. It is a statement which verifies that such events are bounded by the laws of cause and effect.
Er, no. A probability distribution says or implies nothing about cause and effect.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 11:41 am
Sculptor1 wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 11:27 am
This is not a statement which supports "true randomness" whatever that is supposed to be. It is a statement which verifies that such events are bounded by the laws of cause and effect.
Er, no. A probability distribution says or implies nothing about cause and effect.
That is ridiculous.
It is utterly deterministic that a six sided dice will average an equal number of 1,2,3,4,5 & 6. And the more you throw it the more likely that equality comes out.
Each time a dice is thrown the vector, velocity, trajectory and other factors completely predetermined the side upon which it falls. Just because those things are hard to measure does not mean they are random. It means they are necessary.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 8:57 am
GE Morton wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 11:41 am Er, no. A probability distribution says or implies nothing about cause and effect.
That is ridiculous.
It is utterly deterministic that a six sided dice will average an equal number of 1,2,3,4,5 & 6. And the more you throw it the more likely that equality comes out.
"Random" doesn't mean "without cause." It only means, "unpredictable." If the result of a given throw is unpredictable it is random, regardless of how predictable a distribution of multiple throws may be.
Each time a dice is thrown the vector, velocity, trajectory and other factors completely predetermined the side upon which it falls. Just because those things are hard to measure does not mean they are random. It means they are necessary.
I agree. There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused." But since we are not omniscient, and lack perfect and complete knowledge of all processes and phenomena underway or present in the universe, we can never claim that any given event is uncaused. Nor can we rule out that possibility.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 12:07 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 8:57 am
GE Morton wrote: July 22nd, 2022, 11:41 am Er, no. A probability distribution says or implies nothing about cause and effect.
That is ridiculous.
It is utterly deterministic that a six sided dice will average an equal number of 1,2,3,4,5 & 6. And the more you throw it the more likely that equality comes out.
"Random" doesn't mean "without cause." It only means, "unpredictable." If the result of a given throw is unpredictable it is random, regardless of how predictable a distribution of multiple throws may be.
What do you think is meant by "True Random" which is what we are actually talking about on this thread?
The point is that there is no such thing as random in that sense.
Each time a dice is thrown the vector, velocity, trajectory and other factors completely predetermined the side upon which it falls. Just because those things are hard to measure does not mean they are random. It means they are necessary.
I agree. There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused." But since we are not omniscient, and lack perfect and complete knowledge of all processes and phenomena underway or present in the universe, we can never claim that any given event is uncaused. Nor can we rule out that possibility.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:00 pm
What do you think is meant by "True Random" which is what we are actually talking about on this thread?
The point is that there is no such thing as random in that sense.
We've talked about both, "random," and "truly random." And we're not entitled to say there is no such thing, or that there is, for the reason given.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
value wrote: July 17th, 2022, 5:52 amWhat precedes Being on a fundamental level lays beyond it from within the subjective perspective of Being. This is simple logic.
Well, no, there is no "logic" to that claim. Indeed, it involves a misunderstanding of the verb, "to be." "Being" is not itself an existent --- the word is a verb, not a noun, the gerund form of "to be," which applies to anything which exists.
Being is a term that is used to describe the quality of existing from within a subjective perspective. The concept Being seeks meaningful relevance 'within' existence.

GE Morton wrote: July 17th, 2022, 11:01 amThere is no "fundamental level of being." So your claim that "something precedes it, or "lays beyond it," makes no sense. There is nothing there for anything to precede or be "beyond," or to have a "subjective perspective." Stars exist, cows exist, trees exist, people exist, rocks exist, etc. "Being" does not. That notion is a mystical malapropism, a bit of nonsense conjured by confused philosophers. It is a vacuous term (as you're using it).
For my argument, the term Being could be replaced with 'subjective perspective'.

Simple logic makes it evident at first glance that a subjective perspective requires an a priori potential for a begin. Therefore, a subjective perspective requires a fundamental explanation (a concept that precedes it).

What precedes a subjective perspective fundamentally is the only possible ground for significance within that subjective perspective. Therefore the origin of a subjective perspective lays beyond it from within that perspective.

A subjective perspective has only its beginning-less origin as possible ground for significance.

The question what lays 'beyond space' would fundamentally be equal to asking what 'precedes space'.

Being is not a vacuous term. The term Being seeks meaningful relevance 'within' (experience) and that within is the origin of existence and true ∞ Infinite (beginning-less) of nature which means that it seeks a meaning that is different than empirical knowledge.

GE Morton wrote: July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
It involves a meaning 'beyond' space and time (i.e. that 'precedes' it from a fundamental philosophical perspective).
Well, that is circular. Whatever may be "beyond space and time," is is not meaning. That term refers to the denotative referent or a word or symbol. And postulating such a thing is hardly a product of a "fundamental philosophical perspective." It is a product of some mystic's undisciplined imagination.
A word or symbol doesn't stand on it's own as separate from an observer. Meaning involves subjective experience and that subjective experience requires an a priori explanation. The concept meaning involves more than a descriptor.

When I consider the term meaning as such, it involves an underbelly feeling like love. What is the origin of love when the concept true randomness is fundamentally impossible?

GE Morton wrote: July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
When meaning is a priori applicable to any value in the cosmos, one could say that meaning is in the air. Every particle in the cosmos exists by a potential for fulfilment of meaning which is empirically described as probability.
There are no "values" in "the cosmos," except to the extent there are people in the cosmos who value things. "Value" is a measure of the importance of some thing to some person, some valuer. It exists nowhere except in human minds. And, again, you're misusing the term "meaning." "Meaning" is not something which can be "fulfilled." "Potential for a fulfillment of meaning" is gibberish. And probabilities are mathematical ratios of the frequency of an event to the total number of trials. It has nothing to do with "meanings," or values, or any metaphysical fantasies.
Applicability of Value in the cosmos is evident by the simple notion that the slightest departure from the idea of pure randomness implies fundamental meaning which is value.

The following article indicates that the Universe is fine-tuned with value.

Is the Universe a conscious mind?
Cosmopsychism might seem crazy, but it provides a robust explanatory model for how the Universe became fine-tuned with values. It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

GE Morton wrote: July 17th, 2022, 11:01 am
Meaning would be fundamental - a priori - to everything in the cosmos, even thoughts.
Well, first, denoting that presumed "fundamental" substance with the term "meaning" is a misuse of that word. But after you give it some less misleading name, what is your evidence for this primordial substance (or force or causative agent)? If it is a theoretical construct, what phenomena does it explain or predict? Is this "meaning" some sort of euphemism for "God's intention," or something like that?
The origin of a pattern (pattern = the essence of empiricality) is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern. That implies that the origin of a pattern is 'pure meaning' (good that cannot be valued).

Alternative terms for the indicated meaning are 'good per se' or truth.

The indicated meaning would be of a different nature than empirical meaning such as words and symbols. It involves a meaning that is a priori applicable and that lays at the root of conscious experience.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 12:07 pm I agree. There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused." But since we are not omniscient, and lack perfect and complete knowledge of all processes and phenomena underway or present in the universe, we can never claim that any given event is uncaused. Nor can we rule out that possibility.
How would the idea of proving an uncaused event be plausible? Wouldn't implausibility of that idea imply that true randomness is fundamentally impossible?

The idea of the requirement of an 'uncaused nature' implies the idea of an aspect that cannot be comprehended empirically, so how could it be the basis for scientific proof? Or alternatively, if that aspect isn't empirical of nature, how can it provide the basis for true randomness since the idea of randomness implies values (e.g. numbers) to be randomized?
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:18 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:00 pm
What do you think is meant by "True Random" which is what we are actually talking about on this thread?
The point is that there is no such thing as random in that sense.
We've talked about both, "random," and "truly random." And we're not entitled to say there is no such thing, or that there is, for the reason given.
I know you must be embarrassed to perform your definitional retreat, but we all know that the thread is about.
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 24th, 2022, 2:57 am
GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:18 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:00 pm
What do you think is meant by "True Random" which is what we are actually talking about on this thread?
The point is that there is no such thing as random in that sense.
We've talked about both, "random," and "truly random." And we're not entitled to say there is no such thing, or that there is, for the reason given.
I know you must be embarrassed to perform your definitional retreat, but we all know that the thread is about.
GE Morton argues that True Random is 'uncaused'.
GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 12:07 pm There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused."
Philosopher Voltaire has the same argument: “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.

In my opinion this perspective merely seeks to introduce a pure unpredictable factor to assign the characteristic 'true' to pseudo-randomness.

True randomness is not merely a reference to pure unpredictability.

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

The idea of pure unpredictability is absurd in my opinion since predictability cannot be pure or true.

Value in the cosmos requires a priori meaning to be possible and that means that true predictability (determinism) is impossible.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by Sculptor1 »

value wrote: July 24th, 2022, 6:07 am
Sculptor1 wrote: July 24th, 2022, 2:57 am
GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:18 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 1:00 pm
What do you think is meant by "True Random" which is what we are actually talking about on this thread?
The point is that there is no such thing as random in that sense.
We've talked about both, "random," and "truly random." And we're not entitled to say there is no such thing, or that there is, for the reason given.
I know you must be embarrassed to perform your definitional retreat, but we all know that the thread is about.
@GE Morton argues that True Random is 'uncaused'.
GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 12:07 pm There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused."
Philosopher Voltaire has the same argument: “What we call randomness is and can only be the unknown cause of a known effect.

In my opinion this perspective merely seeks to introduce a pure unpredictable factor to assign the characteristic 'true' to pseudo-randomness.

True randomness is not merely a reference to pure unpredictability.

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

The idea of pure unpredictability is absurd in my opinion since predictability cannot be pure or true.

Value in the cosmos requires a priori meaning to be possible and that means that true predictability (determinism) is impossible.
No.
Now you are confusing two things.
The ability to predict with the argument around caused or uncaused.
The fact that events are deterministic does not depend on predictability.
Just because the causes are occult is not an argument that the world is not deterministic.
On the other hand for an event to be without cause would have to mean not that the causes are occult, but that they are no present.
Value in the cosmos requites a priori meaning to be possible, HOW?
Why would that mean true predictability is impossible, and why are you conflating "true predictably" with determinism?
The gravitic passage of the moon is determined by the masses of the earth moon and sun and any other body within the reach that could affect the motion. This system is easy and reliably predictable. Observations assert the a priori truths of the relationships between gravity and mass, and the deterministic system that governs the universe.

Have you any reason for saying that this is not universal? On what basis?
value
Premium Member
Posts: 749
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Is true randomness fundamentally impossible?

Post by value »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 16th, 2022, 8:30 am Of course infinity cannot be counted. Infinity is still controversial even amongst mathematicians. But there can be, and is, a value to infinity, a value that is bigger than all other (finite) values. To go further than this requires a better mathematician than me to explain it, so I'll stop here.
GE Morton wrote: July 16th, 2022, 7:23 pm You're too focused on the problems and mechanics of generating random numbers here, PC, and not paying attention to the concept of randomness, and its relation to determinism.
How would the idea that true randomness is "uncaused" i.e. a 'true' characteristic of pseudo-randomness by introducing a presumable 'pure unpredictable factor' be related to determinism?
GE Morton wrote: July 23rd, 2022, 12:07 pm There is also the notion (mentioned by others in this thread) of "true" randomness, which does indeed mean "uncaused."
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