Can there be randomness?

I’ve been thinking about this for a minute and thought I’d ask for some insight.
It seems like if anything is observed for long enough, that in some way or another a pattern will arise by which over a long enough course of time we could make reasonably probable predictions about what will happen next in our observation. I sort of think that this might even be the case with something like rain, or waves in the ocean if it were practical for those observations and calculations to be done.
A few quesions:
Are things like rain, or waves in the ocean really random? Does it matter if it’s actually random or if it just seems that way? Does it even seem that way at all?
By observing what persists throughout all the things that we consider random, is it possible that we might discover something about the way we categorize and account for the things that we see in the world? Is there something about our ability to postulate these patterns which is inherent in the way that everyone thinks? If that ability exists in everyone then can it be possible to ever have an accurate representation of randomness?

I know these questions may seem a bit scattered. Don’t feel like you have to address them all. I’m just interested to hear what people have to say about these things. THANKS!!!

Both the ocean and rain, which are rough but understandable categorizations, follow very distinctive and predictable patterns - the tide, high and low pressure. I assume by randomness you mean the innumerable ways by which they can be partially observed and interpreted by human minds.

How I think about randomness and order is as follows; when taken as a whole, the universal mass of energy we are part of is pretty strictly organized by necessities. These can be understood to some in terms of mathematics, physics, to others in terms of poetry, art - and to all in terms of music, which mediates between these two categories.

But this order does not appear to be strict when energy is observed in detail as opposed to in general. I think that randomness occurs when a stream of energy is separated from the central mass. When an idividual incast from his society, he can become mad. When a gush of wind is separated by a rock wall from the migration of hot air, it can break down into unpredicatble patterns.

As a whole, the oceans of the world follow perfectly predictable streams. When you observe just one wave, it will appear to consist of innumerable random processes.

It’s a hard subject to talk about. I basically think that randomness is subjected to order, but that a measure of both is necessary to subjective experience. Too much randomness is isolation, too much order is facism.

Nice post. That’s what I’m sort of getting at. Like you say, alot of this sort of thing is difficult to even discuss. I’ve been reading alot of identity theory stuff lately and some functionalism/reductionism stuff and I find it easier to make progress when there is a good discussion. Hopefully we’ll get some more posts soon. Thanks!

isn’t randomness more about the inability for us to see a pattern?

The stuff behind quantum mechanics is random, or, at least it appears to be SO FAR. Yeah… I forgot how to explain it. The story of the photon either going through one slit or the other, and once it is observed it is set in stone, but before it is observed its going through both? I forgot maybe someone can help me out.

I think there is a general sense of randomness in the universe, at least based in my perceptions of it.

I am a geek, yes I know it seems strange but it is true. I play D&D. And from the number of dice rolls I have seen (and suffice to say millions would not be a bad guess) I have seen all sorts of randomness, and even worse patterns emerging that defy probablility. Sometimes you do get a broad spectrum of throws that would match a probability table, and those days suck. But the odd times you can throw some obscenely good dice for a LONG time, but VERY (by very I mean one game, for one person) do you see large clumps of bad dice come up at the same time.

I am not sure if this helps the discussion. All I know is when people ask me if the universe is random I tend to say yes, when they ask if there is some form of luck I more openly say yes. If experience is the key to truth then randomness is true.

Sure, there can be randomness if you define randomness as something like ‘the state of having no discernable pattern.’

There just cannot be free will apparently as ‘free will’ is commonly understood . . . but that’s a horse that’s been beaten to death, hasn’t it?

Meh, beat it again and keep the conversation on a slippery slope of ever-evolving topics!

Probability is tricky. Ask most people to write down their idea of what a randomly-generated sequence of a thousand tosses of an honest coin will look like and the result will be NOTHING like a randomly generated sequence.

The truth is that it is probable that you will get what seems to be a few obscenely long string of ‘heads’ or ‘tails’ at some point in a sequence of a thousand tosses of an honest coin.

If you have a basic understanding of probability and what it means for a result to be produced randomly, then it is fairly easy to detect which strings of symbols have been produced by a human and which by a truly random process.

All strings evolve and splinter into fragments if they last long enough, don’t they? But in fairness to Scot’s interesting question, I’ll not further pursue the free will v determinism question in this thread.

[But there is no good argument to be made that anything like the commonsensical notion of ‘free will’ exists. :wink:]

I think the problem is more on our end. Humans have the incredible ability to create patterns. This makes sense because, quite often, these patterns are indeed true and they give us insight into events that we couldn’t have if we merely relied on the non-patterned data.

However, there is a side-effect to this. We do occasionally create patterns where there are none. Many conspiracy theories rest on just that sort of pattern-observation where, eventually, the pattern becomes self-reinforcing until there is no swaying the individual from it even though it is based on completely separate notions and is ultimately arbitrary and incorrect. You’ll notice the thread amongst conspiracy theorists where they will start out with a fairly reasonable assertion that is actually pretty well documented . . . and then they’ll go off the deep end because their pattern-recognition has lead them to tie this event to some of their other pet theories (because the notion that these elements simply couldn’t be independent of each other!) and before you know it Enron is headed by aliens using weather control devices to keep Sandy May from accepting your advances.

Now, with things like rain, I think that random is the best description. Now, if we take a strongly mechanical view of the universe, of course the rain could be modeled by knowing the many variables like cloud shape, wind, amount of dust in the air, placement of dust in the air, ect. However, due to the sheer volume of these variables and their interdependence on each other any model is bound to break down as soon as it hits reality because we simply lack the information (and computing power) to handle everything. Now, can such complex systems be said to be truly ‘random’ or would it be better to say that they are too difficult to model (and therefore, predict) without that level of very fallible human intuition.

A couple things…

We told that lightning never strikes the same place twice; is it random? I say kinda, because in complete randomness it would EVENTUALLY have to strike somewhere it has already struck. Eventually just hasn’t gotten here yet.

Snow flakes never appear to be in the same shape, Random or or is the fact that it is never the same a pattern.

The numbers PI and e, seem to be completely random.

I don’t know where I was going with any of that, just RANDOM thoughts.

Have you ever herd of “Quantum Randomness?”

I actually have studied probability within number series, not to a great degree but I do understand the concepts.

What I was commenting towards was mere the rate of occurance. The long string of high values has occured on many occasions where as a long string of lower values I can only remember happening once. The nature of my experience is that this should have balanced out given how many dice throws I have had, but as of yet it remains hopelessly one-sided.

And while it is possible my memory seals up the poor throws and only remembers the good one the one incident where the one player recieved a gross majority of poor throws was probably the funniest incident ever. Screwing everything up was more memorable than most of the heroics I have seen characters do.

This just lends that the predicitve powers of probaility within the numbers I have observed for dice throws (supposedly near-random) have not given sway to following random distribution, where concentrations of numbers are balanced out over time. (Or maybe I am due for a really bad game)

Let’s say we assume that it’s a condition of our perception to impose order onto everything that we observe. Then the question becomes:
If true and unconditional randomness does exist, can we ever see it?

Well, it appears to me that you’re talking about determinism. The theory there is this:

If all matter and its velocity in the universe could be accounted for, then the next instant could be theoretically predicted, given enough time and computing power. If we could really know the exact location, speed, and direction of every piece of matter, and the laws governing that matter, we could potentially predict the future. Of course this is an unrealistic goal, but it leaves the question: why wouldn’t it be possible? Assuming this were true, everything that happens is based solely on what happened in the last small bit of time.

I personally have a problem with randomness, because true randomness would mean there’s an EFFECT, but no CAUSE. How can something be caused when there was nothing to cause it?

Well, only if you take into account that the predicting of the next instant would influence that instant. Which would be pretty difficult to incorporate into the calculation. I suppose it could be done theoretically - I have no idea how. Any advanced math students here?

If you accept that assumption, then it follows that randomness could not be observed. That is a definitional situation though, so I’m not sure that gives us mucj.

Can’t there be randomness in order? When I type down 9868, is that not an apparently random set of numbers in an order? Not until the number is repeated does the randomness stop being. Yet, the first set of numbers still appeared at random.

But 9 is 6 upside-down while 8 remains 8 upside-down. So, you’ve already created a pattern with an inverted image.

The human mind can make a pattern out of anything.

Dear scotter:

[b]“Randomness” is the result of incalculable multiplicity.

All “random” events only arise after the interaction of trillions of atoms, each of which have unique personal time and space. Because each one of the trillions of atoms are unique, and they are all interacting/reacting, unfathomably large mathematical sequencies begin, resulting in a course that cannot be predicted by the human mind. Being caught by surprise at this situation, man either blames “luck”, “the gods” or “randomness” for an incalculably complex natural event.[/b]