What is randomness?
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
Chaos has cropped up a few times in the commentary but chaos has nothing to do with randomness, which simply does not exist. Chaos cops a lot of bad press because of its unfortunate name but chaos is completely causal and deterministic. It is the mechanisms of chaos that bring order and complexity to physical systems.
Regards Leo
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What is randomness?
I don't mind you saying so, but I completely disagree and would assert that your position is totally subjective and arbitrary.Steve3007 wrote:Atreyu:
It's interesting that your understanding of "randomness" seems to be so intimately connected with the concept of "conscious intent". It looks like a very theist understanding, if you don't mind me saying so.
I am not religious in the least. I'm agnostic. Thinking of 'consciousness in nature' or considering 'higher powers' or 'conscious intent' when explaining causation need not be religious in the least. Nor does one need to believe in any holy texts in order to consider that conscious intention probably plays a bigger role in general causation than modern science supposes. I don't view life on earth as being 'micromanaged' by some 'God', nor do I endorse the general idea that you can have some kind of 'personal relationship' with any 'god'. In fact, I find that idea inherently absurd. Nor do I believe in 'gods' communicating to humans through 'special books'.
But I do believe that an inherent order in the Universe suggests unknown Conscious intent in nature. One must either take the view that this apparent order in the Universe has always existed, is a fundamental, inherent part of the Universe, or else one must take the view that at one time this order did not exist, and was either imposed by a Conscious entity or entities, or else that it somehow came into existence solely via the interaction of random mechanical accidental forces.
Either way, to me this suggests that Conscious intent must have been behind the primordial source of everything. If that order always existed, if there is no 'beginning', then that implies that Consciousness was also always existing alongside it. And if it came about from a midst of chaos and non-order, then to me that implies conscious intent, because unlike many modern scientists I don't subscribe to the view that order can arise solely via the interaction of random forces, and indeed find the idea absurd at face value. Order is either imposed by conscious intention or else it always existed as a necessary corollary of the existence of a Conscious entity. Where there is life or consciousness, there will also be order. Without some kind of order and inherent structure neither living organisms nor sentient beings could exist. So an 'eternal order' implies 'eternal life' or 'eternal consciousness'. The one cannot exist without the other.
- Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Re: What is randomness?
"Pi is still assumed to be an irrational number although this remains unproven and may even be unprovable."
Leo, this runs counter to everything I read saying that π is irrational and transcendental. Can I ask you your source and I'll cite mine?
PhilX
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What is randomness?
This is a perfect example of what I was just talking about. I find this proposition to be inherently absurd and false. It is the 'mechanisms' of consciousness that bring order (not necessarily complexity) to physical systems.Obvious Leo wrote: It is the mechanisms of chaos that bring order and complexity to physical systems.
Steve noted that I seemed to focus a lot on 'consciousness' when trying to explain 'randomness'. He is correct, and I do this precisely because IMO this is the key point missing in the conversation, and its absence is the reason why many absurd cosmological models and explanations exist.
The key issue is whether or not the phenomenon under consideration is 'conscious' or 'mechanical'. Did it merely happen, or did something or someone make it happen. i.e. was it 'done', or did it just 'happen'. This cannot be ascertained by direct observation, but the idea here is that things merely 'happening', i.e. mechanical random forces, cannot lead to things 'being done', which implies a conscious agent, an intention, or a plan or decision. 'Doing' implies intention and consciousness. 'Happening' implies just mechanical forces are involved. No plan.
What Leo is basically suggesting is that order can just 'happen' by itself. And this appears to be the modern absurd view which is unfortunately taking hold in modern society. But this is simply not what we observe in the real world. Any order which we see coming into existence where formerly it was not is apparently imposed by us, allegedly conscious entities making decisions. We don't see any new order 'arising from the muck' as it were, somehow arising where formerly it was not present. It either is already present somehow, or it's created by ourselves. Therefore, a much more likely scenario is that an already present order implies previous or existing conscious intent. Order does not come about by rolling the dice. It comes about via plan and intention. The reason for the ludicrous explanation of order arising from non-order without any conscious intent is because the modern 'scientific-type' has such a hostile view of anything which is not within the boundaries of empiricism, i.e. scientists don't like to think outside the boundaries of science, i.e. they don't necessarily like to do philosophy 'on the side' nor necessarily have any skill at it; and also because of the hostile view towards anything that even could be somehow associated with 'religion', even if it need not be in the least.
But the truth is that conscious intent is a far more logical explanation for existing order and structure than a very peculiar interaction of accidental phenomena, and one need not connote this idea with any religious concept or system in the least.
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
Not all irrational numbers are transcendental but I agree that pi is one that is both. However the converse statement that all transcendental numbers are irrational is one that has been satisfactorily proven, as far as I know.
Why does the intent need to be conscious if this next statement holds true?Atreyu wrote: But I do believe that an inherent order in the Universe suggests unknown Conscious intent in nature.
Regards LeoAtreyu wrote: this apparent order in the Universe has always existed, is a fundamental, inherent part of the Universe,
-- Updated June 20th, 2014, 7:15 pm to add the following --
Atreyu. You embarrass yourself. I suggest you get a better handle on chaos theory before presuming to make judgements about it. Human consciousness is a perfect example of a chaotic system.
Regards Leo
-- Updated June 20th, 2014, 7:19 pm to add the following --
This is arrant nonsense. The universe formed itself into complex systems of galaxies and stars from ionised plasma long before humans came along.Atreyu wrote: Any order which we see coming into existence where formerly it was not is apparently imposed by us,
Regards Leo
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What is randomness?
"But I do believe that an inherent order in the Universe suggests unknown Conscious intent in nature."
"Why does the intent need to be conscious if this next statement holds true?"
Because intention implies consciousness. Mechanical forces don't 'intend' anything. How could they? 'Intention' implies a living being which has a 'goal' or 'desire'. Mechanical forces cannot have desires, goals, nor awareness. They have no 'internal motor'. They merely interact with each other. It doesn't matter if that statement is true or not.Atreyu wrote: this apparent order in the Universe has always existed, is a fundamental, inherent part of the Universe,
"Atreyu. You embarrass yourself. I suggest you get a better handle on chaos theory before presuming to make judgements about it. Human consciousness is a perfect example of a chaotic system."
I disagree. I think that supposed human consciousness is a perfect argument against chaos theory, if one understands the basic principle that consciousness cannot somehow 'arise' from mechanicalness, but in fact it is mechanicalness which 'descends' from consciousness. Conscious entities can design factories and machines which will churn out other machines. But factories and machines, particular ones allegedly somehow coming into existence without any previous design or plan, cannot churn out conscious entities.
-- Updated June 20th, 2014, 7:19 pm to add the following --
"This is arrant nonsense. The universe formed itself into complex systems of galaxies and stars from ionised plasma long before humans came along."Atreyu wrote: Any order which we see coming into existence where formerly it was not is apparently imposed by us,
It's right on and your statement didn't actually deal with the point. Any order I see in the world where formerly it was not is always due to the alleged conscious actions of human beings. We never see any order magically 'pop up' somehow where formerly it wasn't present. Just like we don't see life somehow 'popping into existence' where formerly it was not. Life only comes from other life.
All you have done is to repeat the mantra. The universe did not 'form itself' unless it is a Conscious entity. If it's not, then it cannot 'do' anything at all. And observation of the natural world clearly shows us that life does not just happen like a boulder breaks loose and rolls down a hill. It only comes from other life and cannot be created 'from scratch' in the laboratory. And also, just as clearly, we never see consciousness arising from mechanicalness alone, let alone simple life.
The real 'arrant nonsense' is not understanding the general order or levels of phenomena, and not understanding that the 'lower' order cannot cause the 'higher', but that the 'higher' can cause the 'lower'. A conscious entity, like a man, can consciously choose to roll a boulder down a hill, which later will lead to random mechanical action as the boulder just happens, by chance, to hit certain obstacles and not others, and to eventually land at a certain spot and not another. But first a conscious force ('higher') had to occur, and then mechanical phenomenon ('lower') could be the result of it. i.e. A Conscious phenomenon can 'descend' into mechanical phenomenon. But the converse is not true, is absurd, and is only advocated by the modern scientific community because they personally find the idea of conscious origin distasteful, i.e. they let their emotions get the best of them, i.e. they are being subjective about it. A boulder just happening to roll down a hill is not going to 'create' a conscious entity capable of acting in opposition to it.
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
There are so many absurdities in your post that I won't bother responding to all of them but I'll pose a question for you which arises from the above gem. Does human consciousness emerge as a consequence of human brain structure or does human brain structure emerge as a consequence of human consciousness? How does the cart get before the horse?Atreyu wrote:consciousness cannot somehow 'arise' from mechanicalness, but in fact it is mechanicalness which 'descends' from consciousness.
Regards Leo
- Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Re: What is randomness?
"Phil. I may be a bit slow on the uptake this morning but if you're saying that pi is irrational and I'm saying that pi is irrational then what have we got to argue about?"
Hi Leo,
π is already proven/known to be irrational, not assumed as you are saying and that's a very big difference.
I should find a source in a little while which I'll refer you to.
Cheers, PhilX
Edit: There are several sources. Here's one that says straight out that it's proven or known that π is irrational. Furthermore it offers two proofs:
http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/Pi/pi.htm
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
I'd very much appreciate it because my understanding is that the irrationality of pi is still an open question. If it weren't why would they still be calculating it to so many billions of decimal places. That no pattern has yet been found is strong evidence for its irrationality but absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of its absence. Maybe they simply have to keep going until they get to a gazillion. If they ever find such a pattern this would constitute a disproof but to prove the absence of such a pattern all the way up to infinity is going to take some pretty high-powered mathematics.Philosophy Explorer wrote: I should find a source in a little while which I'll refer you to.
Regards Leo
- Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Re: What is randomness?
Hi Leo,Obvious Leo wrote:I'd very much appreciate it because my understanding is that the irrationality of pi is still an open question. If it weren't why would they still be calculating it to so many billions of decimal places. That no pattern has yet been found is strong evidence for its irrationality but absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of its absence. Maybe they simply have to keep going until they get to a gazillion. If they ever find such a pattern this would constitute a disproof but to prove the absence of such a pattern all the way up to infinity is going to take some pretty high-powered mathematics.Philosophy Explorer wrote: I should find a source in a little while which I'll refer you to.
Regards Leo
I posted a link in post #53 giving two proofs. As to why they keep on calculating the decimal expression? For various reasons, maybe the main reason is because it's there like Mt. Everest.
PhilX
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
I'll look into it a bit more and get back to you rather than make a fool of myself by relying on my faulty memory.
Regards Leo
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What is randomness?
I'll just answer 'human awareness' rather than 'human consciousness' to avoid getting sidetracked by a discussion of 'consciousness' versus mere 'awareness'. Human awareness is not a consequence of the brain structure because it comes into existence before the brain is formed. It's a consequence of a male and female having sex and procreating. At conception, a new human awareness is formed, even before any cells are specialized. It is the form and nature of human awareness which is a consequence of the human brain structure, not awareness itself. The awareness existed before the brain did, but it is augmented and developed in conjunction with the development of the brain.Obvious Leo wrote:There are so many absurdities in your post that I won't bother responding to all of them but I'll pose a question for you which arises from the above gem. Does human consciousness emerge as a consequence of human brain structure or does human brain structure emerge as a consequence of human consciousness? How does the cart get before the horse?Atreyu wrote:consciousness cannot somehow 'arise' from mechanicalness, but in fact it is mechanicalness which 'descends' from consciousness.
Regards Leo
The human brain structure did not emerge as a consequence of human awareness or anything having to do with humans. Humans didn't design their own brain structure nor any other component of their own being. The human brain structure emerged as a consequence of a consciousness which is not human. It didn't emerge as a result of incredible sheer luck by accidental mechanical forces interacting with each other. Awareness doesn't come into existence where formerly it didn't exist at all merely by 'dead matter' happening to combine in a certain way. And proof is that science cannot demonstrate this in the laboratory. If awareness can 'pop into existence' where formerly it was not simply by combining 'dead matter' in a certain way, then science would be able to demonstrate this in the laboratory. Machines cannot produce 'raw awareness' by themselves, any more than they can produce life or consciousness by themselves.
There is nothing absurd in my post. It's not absurd to go from Consciousness ---> simpler life ---> dead matter / mechanicalness. What is absurd is going from dead matter / mechanicalness ---> simpler life ---> Consciousness.
To think the 'higher' can come from the 'lower' is what is absurd. Not to think that the 'lower' can come from the 'higher'.
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
You've shot yourself in the foot. Chaos is entirely causal and completely deterministic and it has nothing to do with luck, accidents or random forces. I'll be making no further response to your posts until you acquaint yourself with some basic facts about how complex entities become complex. Creationists make my head spin, even when they disguise themselves. Human consciousness was NOT designed.Atreyu wrote:It didn't emerge as a result of incredible sheer luck by accidental mechanical forces interacting with each other.
Regards Leo
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: What is randomness?
I'm not a creationist, nor religious at all. And you don't know that humans were not designed. You can just repeat it to yourself if you want, over and over. But I have the facts on my side. We don't see abiogenesis in nature, and we don't see consciousness arising from mechanical forces. But we do see living things die (life to non-life) and a conscious entity becoming mechanical (a person slipping into a coma).Obvious Leo wrote:You've shot yourself in the foot. Chaos is entirely causal and completely deterministic and it has nothing to do with luck, accidents or random forces. I'll be making no further response to your posts until you acquaint yourself with some basic facts about how complex entities become complex. Creationists make my head spin, even when they disguise themselves. Human consciousness was NOT designed.Atreyu wrote:It didn't emerge as a result of incredible sheer luck by accidental mechanical forces interacting with each other.
Regards Leo
You can dismiss me if you want, but the facts are on my side. In nature, we see phenomenon going from Conscious to only alive but not conscious, to not alive at all and mechanical. But we don't see things not alive and mechanical becoming alive (life only comes from other life), nor do we see mechanical phenomenon becoming conscious (building a computer does not impart any awareness to any of the material itself). No machine to date has ever came to life nor become conscious.
-
- Posts: 2501
- Joined: April 28th, 2013, 10:03 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Australia
Re: What is randomness?
As I see it you appear to be denying the existence of physical reality itself but if it gives you comfort I wish you joy of it.
Regards Leo
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023