|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BellaMente
USA
147 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 17 2009 : 11:45:31 PM
|
I can't believe I didn't ask this sooner...
Does randomness exist??
Mathematicians are still unable to prove randomness- but the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated (that we know of) and quantum mechanics points to randomness being the ultimate essence of nature... I think that you can give a valid argument that randomness exists because of entropy and QM but then again what if there is a hidden pattern underlaying nature that QM hasn't yet discovered and what if it is so elusive that it doesn't effect entropy change...
So what do you guys think??
|
|
|
machart
USA
342 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2009 : 12:31:10 AM
|
Is it randomness that your next post will be #108?
The most improbable event contains the most information... |
 |
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2009 : 04:43:26 AM
|
For this interesting topic you will need to define "Randomness".
Is randomness something that can not be predicted ?
(Quantum mechanics talks about probablities)
Or is randomness something that happens without reason/cause ?
(is this even possible?)
We talk about a random event when we can not explain why it happened.
This however does not mean that there are no reasons and cause behind it,
it just means we don't understand the reasons and laws behind this event.
|
Edited by - Wolfgang on Nov 19 2009 03:44:41 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2009 : 1:08:49 PM
|
Hi Bellamente and All,
Are you referring to the materialistic worldview, that "everything just happens by chance?"
Then, I would say no, randomness in that sense does not exist.
The best that science and mathematics has to offer, currently, can view things this way (that randomness is the underlying creative power, beneath all the patterns, and/or that events, worlds, people, etc. "happen randomly").
There are two reasons for this view:
1. Current scientific thinking tends to worship at the "altar of the rational" or the "altar of the objective" ... and so, it inherently discounts any evidence (i.e. "all of it") which points rather clearly to non-randomness at all levels of manifestation (from the sub-atomic to the extra-galactic).
2. Current scientific thinking, whether quantum physical or purely mathematical, considers only two levels of reality (matter and energy), which are actually just one level (saying "matter and energy" is much like saying "solid ice and liquid water" .... one "thing", two states); they're missing the underlying substratum of it all: consciousness.
Some "radical"(i.e. willing to think outside the "altar of the rational" box) quantum physicists are beginning to acknowledge this reality.
Many people can only conceive of randomness or "hands on" management; only existential anarchy, or a micro-managing deity of limited mind's design.
Reality is much more the spontaneous emanation of living patterns ... but patterns, nonetheless .... the best analogy I know, is the ocean:
One whole, living thing ... still and silent in some aspects, breath-taking activity and power in others, tranquil beauty in yet other aspects ... yet one living thing, moving and being according to patterns, consciousness and intelligence ... "wholeness and the implicate order", as physicist David Bohm called it.
I may have some more comments as we go, but the links above should make for some interesting reading, per your question.
Here are a couple of other links, as well:
Dr. Ervin Laszlo: Consciousness in the Cosmos
Also, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Dr. Roger Penrose (world-renowned mathematician) have authored a theory of Quantum Consciousness.
Here is a link to the Quantum Consciousness web site, along with a recent interview, where Dr. Penrose offers his opinion on current scientific thinking, related to randomness and understanding the Universe.
Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
quote:
Originally posted by BellaMente
I can't believe I didn't ask this sooner...
Does randomness exist??
Mathematicians are still unable to prove randomness- but the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated (that we know of) and quantum mechanics points to randomness being the ultimate essence of nature... I think that you can give a valid argument that randomness exists because of entropy and QM but then again what if there is a hidden pattern underlaying nature that QM hasn't yet discovered and what if it is so elusive that it doesn't effect entropy change...
So what do you guys think??
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Nov 18 2009 7:04:56 PM |
|
|
|
YogaIsLife
641 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2009 : 1:33:58 PM
|
I am also not sure what you mean by randomness but I guess this is related to coincidences and synchronycities: do they have meaning or not? I guess the answer to this question expresses the view we have of the world. And probably most people in this forum will tend to believe there is meaning or a purpose behind everything, expressed in more "obvious" terms during coincidences.
The other day something funny happened: I put two slices of bread in the toaster and a glass of milk heating in the microwave for breakfast. Our microwave is one where you have to manually rotate a dial to an approximate time, not set up an exact time digitally. I turned the dial but then realised it was too much, stopped the microwave and turned again for a bit less.
At a "given point in time" both the toasts popped up and the microwave bell rang announcing it had finished. At the very same time!
Now, what are the odds of this happening? Of course you can calculate it (actually, can you?), but they will be very very small anyway. And notice that if I hadn't stopped the microwave and set another time (manually, purely by chance) that event probably would have not happened.
So I guess what you do with this kind of experiences determines a lot of things in your life. You can see it as a "miracle" or a "simple coicidence". Most of the time we don't really know what to do with this kinds of events really! What would you do/think/understand if such coincidence happened to you? Time to eat?  |
|
|
|
BellaMente
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2009 : 6:47:07 PM
|
Wolfgang- Danke fur seine Antwortet! (Translation for others- "thank you for the reply") I guess you can say both, I meant randomness in general. I was thinking more along the lines of patterns, which I guess leans more towards predictability but at the same time I could care less about whether we can PREDICT a pattern or an outcome. For example, the irrational number pi, the digits are accepted to be random, but what if they aren't random, what if there is just a deeper, more complex order that we can't see? And like brownian motion in a gas, the particles supposedly move in random patterns, but what if there is a hidden synchronization there? I don't care whether we can predict it or not we might be unable to see such a complex distribution pattern but does it exist? There are obviously limitations of knowledge here in this realm (e.g. Heisenbergs Uncertainy Principle, Alan Turning's Halting Problem) so we might never be able to predict such patterns but could it exist in higher dimensions, maybe on different levels of consciousness?
Kirtanmann- there you are I have been missing your posts lately! It is funny you mention Bohm- he is my favorite physicist, the guy that inspired me to actually begin my studies. Without Bohm, I wouldn't be asking this question.. I have had the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order for a while now, but have never had the time to read it through!! Thanks for the links I will check them out...
YogaisLife- thank you also for your reply! I wasn't thinking about synchronicities, but that is definitely evidence that randomness might not be so random (if you believe in synchronocity of course)..
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang
Germany
470 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 04:09:05 AM
|
Hi BellaMente,
your example with the number PI is a bit odd: because it can be predicted
what the next digit will be, it is based on mathematic calculation and
therefore not random - but I think I know what you wanted to point at.
And, as with brownian motion in gas, if ALL conditions of all particles
and all outer conditions are known, then theoretically it would be possible
to calculate and predict the movements of the gas, science is
doing this already: it's called weather forecast
The BIG BANG theory basically describes a huge explosion. Now if that is
all that happened (a huge explosion) then it is really impossible that
out of such a chaos life could develop. Let's just drop a bomb and hope
that something creative develops out of it (if it doesn't then lets
just drop a bigger bomb) 
So, to answer your question: quote:
... so we might never be able to predict such patterns but could it exist in higher dimensions, maybe on different levels of consciousness?
Yes I am sure of this, there must be a higher guiding force,
because I don't have another explanation |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 08:13:27 AM
|
Wolfgang,
I agree. The theory that we came from completely accidental circumstances has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through!
They say life could have accidently come about from primordial ooze give a billion years. Same theory as monkeys with typewriters could have accidently written the bible.
A couple glaring problems with those theories I have never seen addressed are:
1) if it takes a billion years for the first life form to accidentally develop, where does its consciousness come from? If consciousness automatically develops with life, then scientists should be able to easily create it in a lab.
2) If all life developed from a single genetic accident, then how did competing life and synergistic relationships develop? Why would one life form replicate itself and then fight against itself, when every life form has self preservation built in?
Promoters of the theory admit the universe isn't old enough for that accident to have happened repeatedly. Many life forms depend on the existence of another to stay alive. That requires consciousness and two very different life forms.
3) Life FORCE is not taken into account. Let's say a single cell organism could have accidently formed in the primordial ooze, with all the parts and chemicals to make it operate. What makes it come alive? That's a bigger accident than even forming to begin with!
Having said that, that fact that intelligence is necessary for the development of life, doesn't mean we have any understanding whatsoever of what that guiding force is.
So no, i don't think anything is random. It only appears to be when we can't keep track of all the forces affecting something at once. The laws of physics work, that's why we can build things. The falling of a leaf lands where it does because of forces that could be completely accounted for.
the fact that we can't follow all those forces at once allows us to appreciate beauty rather than being totally logical. We know we can let go and not have to control things. |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 12:14:57 PM
|
Of course we are talking about the material universe in which laws apply. For radomness read 'symmetry' and for order read 'grouping'. Grouping order is division and seperation whilst symmetry moves towards balance and unity. This is where zero becomes the big number, the number containing all known numbers in perfect balance and the numbers that are less than zero (-1,1-2,2 etc) become groupings. When you finally and completely mix everything in perfect symmetry then it seems like nothing exists because there are no groupings, however everything exists in perfect unity.
As above so below. What happens on the material level also exists in the energetic and spiritual levels.
I replace probability with possibility.
A good read is 'everything forever' by Gevin Giorban. It makes sense in a way that seems simple.
This is a good way to see the flaws in the laws of dynamics. |
|
|
|
BellaMente
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 2:28:34 PM
|
I didn't mean predicting the digits of pi or the movements of gas, I meant predicting as in finding a hidden complex underlying PATTERN of the digits of pi or the PATTERN of the movements of the gas particles, or of any other "random" distribution or sequence. I was wondering if you all think it is possible that randomness (e.g. random distributions) are not so random after all, rather contain a deeper pattern that the human eye nor a computer can find.
|
|
|
|
BellaMente
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 2:46:13 PM
|
And I agree with you guys about the Big Bang theory. It is my personal opinion that God or whatever you want to call it "stirred upon the waters" e.g. "stirred in the infinite silence and eternal Now" and either (1) "spoke" or "thought" or "moved" the universe into existence with the vibration resulting in the big bang or (2) God "spoke" or "thought" or "moved" the world into existence with the universe already 'existing' in his/her mind, so the "big bang" appeared to happen, but in all actuality it did not.
I believe in evolution, but not that we all came from bacteria or whatever they say. I mean seriously, one of the first principles - one of the first basic assumptions of biology that you learn in a basic biology class is "LIFE DOES NOT COME FROM NON-LIFE" so how the H can the first life in the universe come from a primordial soup of particles??
|
|
|
|
cosmic
USA
821 Posts |
Posted - Nov 19 2009 : 10:56:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Etherfish
The theory that we came from completely accidental circumstances has holes in it big enough to drive a bus through!
You have some good points, Ether.
For me, the simple fact that human beings are both conscious and intelligent adds more holes to the "random accident" theory.
For example, how can something conscious and intelligent (human beings) emerge from something that is unconscious and unintelligent (the universe)?
Maybe it's possible. But I'm more inclined to believe that there is a conscious intelligence in the universe, and it would likely be a higher intelligence than anything that emerges from it.
I think it would have to be. Can a monkey build a spaceship?
With Love
cosmic |
|
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2009 : 1:32:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by BellaMente
I didn't mean predicting the digits of pi or the movements of gas, I meant predicting as in finding a hidden complex underlying PATTERN of the digits of pi or the PATTERN of the movements of the gas particles, or of any other "random" distribution or sequence. I was wondering if you all think it is possible that randomness (e.g. random distributions) are not so random after all, rather contain a deeper pattern that the human eye nor a computer can find.
Have you seen the film 'A beautiful mind' ?
|
|
|
|
BellaMente
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2009 : 2:55:35 PM
|
Yes, I've seen that a while ago. Have you seen the movie Pi by Darren Afronsky? That's one of my favorite movies- it excites me every time I see it!
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
What do you think?
