Is anything truly random?

[KIAman]

Our universe seems to follow known laws etc. etc.
I've seen references to a "true random generator" that takes a seed value from atmospheric distortions to produce a very "random" number but is that even really random?

Is anything truly random?

Definition of Random for this topic: Lacking any consistent rules or order or purpose that can lead to any patterns.

Unpredictable doesn't automatically mean random. While random is always unpredictable.

Unpredictable: Incapable of being determined in advance whether by observation, experience or reason.

If something is unobservable, unmeasurable or can't be reasoned doesn't mean it is random (ex. quantum phenomena).

 

[lousydood]

http://random.org/analysis/

edit:
quick summary: It is impossible to prove whether a sequence of numbers is truly random.

meandering thoughts: a "random" string is generally held to be one with Kolmogorov complexity (plus a constant overhead for formality) equal to the length of the string. That means there is no better way to represent a random string than itself. This manifests in data compression: you cannot compress random data successfully. So, one way to obtain an upper bound approximation on Kolmogorov complexity is to compress the data using something good like bzip2. By upper bound I mean, if the string compresses well, then you know it's probably not random (never certain). The longer the string, the higher probability. However, Kolmogorov complexity is known to be uncomputable. It is at \Pi_2 on the arithmetic hierarchy, if I recall correctly. So it is definitely uncomputable to show that the output of a machine always has Kolmogorov complexity equal to length of output.

(actually, I think I answered a different question, oops)

 

[Peter]

Radioactive decay is.

 

[KIAman]

Originally posted by: Peter
Radioactive decay is.

Explanation? I had thought we could accurately measure radioactive decay to the point where we can predict how old something is based on halflife.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Peter
Radioactive decay is.

Explanation? I had thought we could accurately measure radioactive decay to the point where we can predict how old something is based on halflife.

I'm guessing he's referring to the one atom example of radioactive decay where the random event is if that atom is still the same or gone in the next moment.

 

[firewolfsm]

Quantum mechanics?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: KIAman

Originally posted by: Peter
Radioactive decay is.

Explanation? I had thought we could accurately measure radioactive decay to the point where we can predict how old something is based on halflife.

Statistically, yes. But the entire field of quantum mechanics is about drawing up statistical conclusions based on the sum of a whole bunch of random interactions.

For example, quantum mechanics says that there is a possibility that all the atoms of air in your room will spontaneously leap to one corner, killing you. But there are many, many, many more configurations of the air molecules where they are more or less evenly spread. Thus, rooms tend to fill evenly with air. But the position of any one molecule is random. What's more, if we try to get more information about it to determine its behavior, we actually have less information about other aspects...the more accurately you know its speed, the less accurately you know its position and vice versa.

 

[CycloWizard]

As jagec said, it's all about probability. Quantum theory asserts that some processes are truly random. This behavior gives rise to stochastic macroscopic behavior in which the observed behavior is predictable if we know enough about the expected distribution of random events.

 

[CSMR]

"True randomness" is something you should define if you are going to ask questions about it. Up to now I have seen no suggested definition that makes sense.
Probability measures, random variables, and subjective probabilities are parts of physical and economic theories. "True randomness" is not.

 

[KIAman]

Definition added to OP.

 

[firewolfsm]

By your definition, through Quantum mechanics, everything is "truly" random, within a limit. Meaning within some specified boundaries, the atom movement is random.

 

[KIAman]

An atom's movement follow all of the rules of physics. If we know the position and velocity of the atom, we can easily predict its future location. Atoms are relatively macroscopic.

This applies to quantum particles as well but we currently don't have a way to measure position and speed at the same time so it is unpredictable (Heisenburg Uncertainty) but doesn't mean random.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: KIAman
An atom's movement follow all of the rules of physics. If we know the position and velocity of the atom, we can easily predict its future location. Atoms are relatively macroscopic.

This isn't necessarily true. The magnitude of Brownian forces is readily computed, but the direction is not deterministic.

 

[Modelworks]

Everything is caused by something.
If its caused by something else, how can it be random ?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Everything is caused by something.

This is an assumption on your part. What makes an atom decay?

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Everything is caused by something.

This is an assumption on your part. What makes an atom decay?

Just because we don't know why something happens, doesn't mean its random.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Just because we don't know why something happens, doesn't mean its random.

You're right, and I never disagreed with that. But it clearly shows that you made an assumption in stating that everything is caused because, as yet, we do not know whether something causes radioactive decay or if it is truly random.

 

[foges]

i know that the scientific defenition of decay states that the decay of a single atom cannot be predicted, is it however proven to be completely random? ie. is there proof that there is absolutely no link between decay and any other variables ?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: foges
i know that the scientific defenition of decay states that the decay of a single atom cannot be predicted, is it however proven to be completely random? ie. is there proof that there is absolutely no link between decay and any other variables ?

It's not proven either way as far as I know, but we do not yet have any way to predict when a single atom will decay. We can very accurately predict the decay of a whole bunch of atoms, however, by assuming that the decay of each individual atom is truly random.

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Everything is caused by something.

This is an assumption on your part. What makes an atom decay?

Radiation causes radioactive decay.

And if you ask why atoms radiate I'll bitch slap you.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Radiation causes radioactive decay.

And if you ask why atoms radiate I'll bitch slap you.

Radiation causes radiation? Please find your way back to OT as soon as humanly possible, taking your ignorant bitch-slaps with you.

 

[gururu2]

all of the natural processes of the universe are dependent on the existence of variables. though the occurrence of these processes may thus not be thought of as random, since the identification of these variables can lead to a predicted process, the occurrence of the necessary variables at a given time and dose can be random.

eg. you have 100 total marbles of red, blue, and yellow color. you mix the marbles and throw them onto the floor. we know that the marble will fall (gravity) and that they will roll (kinetic energy) and that they will stop eventually (friction, inertia). none of this is random. however, if you do this an infinite amount of times, you will find that the marbles, once stopped, will have created on occasion discernible features ( face, animal, car, etc.). that is random.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Everything is caused by something.

This is an assumption on your part. What makes an atom decay?

Radiation causes radioactive decay.

And if you ask why atoms radiate I'll bitch slap you.

Not true. Decay can also be caused by quantum tunneling, which is asserted as random by quantum theory. Thereby not saying it's proven as random. Maybe God is sitting behind the curtains of the universe pulling strings. But at that point, it becomes a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Nathelion

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Everything is caused by something.

This is an assumption on your part. What makes an atom decay?

Radiation causes radioactive decay.

And if you ask why atoms radiate I'll bitch slap you.

Not true. Decay can also be caused by quantum tunneling, which is asserted as random by quantum theory. Thereby not saying it's proven as random. Maybe God is sitting behind the curtains of the universe pulling strings. But at that point, it becomes a philosophical question rather than a scientific one.

Isn't radiation caused by the instability in the atomic nucleus? Too many neutrons and protons packed together in one small spherical region. Just a possibility.

 

[BadRobot]

If we had a more complete understanding of how everything works I'm certain that we would not consider anything discussed here random.

In response to the original question, I don't believe anything is random. I don't believe in fate predestination either.