Indulge me for a minute: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Indulge me for a minute » Indulge me for a minute

Indulge me for a minute
Random thoughts on the impossibilty of randomness

Page: 1 2 3

Indulge me for a minute

intel2000
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 11, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 17

Posted 08/05/08 - 03:43 PM: Subject: Indulge me for a minute	#1
Let's face it. Much of modern science and philosophy is based on the idea/concept of randomness. This concept is used to help prove scientific theories and is used as a counter to "deterministic" in philosophy. But the idea of random is not coherent. It is the same as "squared circle." This is because when we say "squared circle", "squared" is the adjective and circle is noun. In the same way "random" is an adjective or at least used to describe a noun - be it a process, sequence, or whatever. The problem is that when we use the word "random" our idea includes the idea of "unpredictable", or more strongly "without pattern and unpredictable" But think about this. I can predict that in a "random" string of numbers, based on the decimal system, that the next digit will fall between 0-9. This means it is not random. If I define the system, then randomness is gone. It cannot be A,R or T. I say that the idea that you can provide a specific context, then proclaim that within this system randomness can be found, false. Hope someone out there can understand this LOL.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 08/05/08 - 03:56 PM:	#2
I understand it, but I disagree with the base premise. Perhpas you can give a list of sciences and philosophies that are completely based on the idea/concept of randomness.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

mutemaler
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 293

Posted 08/07/08 - 01:30 PM:	#3
intel2000 wrote: Let's face it. Much of modern science and philosophy is based on the idea/concept of randomness. This concept is used to help prove scientific theories and is used as a counter to "deterministic" in philosophy. But the idea of random is not coherent. It is the same as "squared circle." This is because when we say "squared circle", "squared" is the adjective and circle is noun. In the same way "random" is an adjective or at least used to describe a noun - be it a process, sequence, or whatever. The problem is that when we use the word "random" our idea includes the idea of "unpredictable", or more strongly "without pattern and unpredictable" But think about this. I can predict that in a "random" string of numbers, based on the decimal system, that the next digit will fall between 0-9. This means it is not random. If I define the system, then randomness is gone. It cannot be A,R or T. I say that the idea that you can provide a specific context, then proclaim that within this system randomness can be found, false. Hope someone out there can understand this LOL. I have an idea, and for some reason this all got me thinking about that scene in the movie Airplane, where the nun interrupts and speaks Jive with two inner city black dudes. Think in terms of language, language as a thought structure. We are raised speaking determinism. Like a mother tongue. When you say the word random, you are saying it in this language, you are thinking it in terms of it. You run into the two dudes, use the word random, can't follow what they are saying (and visa versa). Now along comes the good old nun, and says: Wait, I speak probablism, here it is in a nutshell, it might make everything a bit more clear. Occurence is spontaneous action within a probability distribution. So you see, there are possible futures, one will occur. When you think prediction, you think causality, you think about constructing a path to a particular occurence (and call any and everything else random as default). When I think prediction, I think spontaneity, I think about the likelihood of possible futures. You seem to want to use the word random for the spontaneity, but that makes no sense in our language. We have the word, but when we say it, we mean a certain type of probability distribution, one where all of the possible futures are equally likely. A random distribution is simply a flat distribution. Like dice, for example. Or, in your number example, if 0-9 are equally likely for the next digit, it is a flat, a random, distribution. *** So, the moral of the story is... to avoid economy class?? mutemaler Edited by mutemaler on 08/07/08 - 02:09 PM

ughaibu
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2006
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 221

Posted 08/10/08 - 08:49 AM:	#4
intel2000 wrote: I can predict that in a "random" string of numbers, based on the decimal system, that the next digit will fall between 0-9. This means it is not random On the face of it, this sounds true by definition, but I don't think it's so clear. Definitions of random numbers appeal to uncomputability and this entails that random numbers can only be selected randomly, further, the probability of a randomly selected number being nameable is zero. It's not clear to me that the claim to be able to express an unnameable number in the decimal system is sound. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 08/13/08 - 05:52 PM. Reason: Apostrophe.

yawningthinker
Rational Fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2008
Location: The Theoretical Cave
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/10/08 - 10:58 AM:	#5
Kelby wrote: Perhpas you can give a list of sciences and philosophies that are completely based on the idea/concept of randomness. Not exactly what you ask for but it touches the topic of Randomness a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waerden%27s_... Very simplified implication might be: There is always some structure in chaos or 'Complete disorder is impossible.'.
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." -- Thomas Huxley

NondumCelebrer
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 12

Posted 08/11/08 - 09:04 AM:	#6
I am curious how you define random. It seems your definition of random could not exist as we could always say that the next X would be an X, in any random series of X's. However, if we accept the definition of random as being unable to determine which X the next X will be in a random series of X's then randomness is perfectly possible. Feel free to replace all X's with numbers/somethings/anythings.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

mutemaler
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 293

Posted 08/12/08 - 01:33 AM:	#7
intel2000 wrote: ..I can predict that in a "random" string of numbers, based on the decimal system, that the next digit will fall between 0-9. This means it is not random... Second attempt. At some point it becomes mere word play within an abstract system, seems to have little to do with the universe itself, and goes a long way to making a perfectly good word meaningless. We can and do use the word random in the sense not-directed, or not-chosen, to draw at random (a card for example). I have no problem with that, but all of the contraints you are talking about affect the distribution, not the spontaneity of the occurrence itself. And all randomness means in this sense is that there are multiple possible futures - and that one will occur. That is all. But that is true of all occurrence, and it would be redundant to call this random, and a waste of a perfectly good word. So I would continue using the word in the common sense, because I like playing games, rolling dice, drawing tiles and cards, but my suggestion I guess is more this: To direct attention towards the probability distribution. Say something about it. Neighboring reality clearly influences the distribution, the likelihood of possible futures. Apply the word random here. And the flat distribution (like rolling a die), comes to mind, seems a very good use of the word. Shift gears a bit, shift systems, stop speaking - and thinking - determinism. And so when I roll the die, draw a card, I see it as simulating spontaneous action within a probability distribution, simulating a universal principle. mutemaler Edited by mutemaler on 08/12/08 - 01:48 AM

starlarvae
a.k.a. Heresiarch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2008
Location: L-5
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 36

Posted 08/15/08 - 01:06 PM:	#8
I think that when most people say “random” what they mean is that the outcome can’t be predicted. But that just begs the question, Why can’t the outcome be predicted? There are only three possibilities, so far as I can determine (which one is implied by the use of "random" in quantum mechanics?): 1) The outcome is not predictable, because, though deterministic and in theory predictable, the process involved includes a causal chain too complicated to figure out. 2) The outcome is not predictable, because it “just happens,” that is, it occurs without being caused. But this is an unscientific notion. If you appeal to uncaused effects, then you are reinventing Aristotle’s unmoved mover. 3) The process is not predictable, because a subjective agent decides the outcome.
www.starlarvae.org "Don't imagine that you can escape faith. Every science, every system of logic, has its axioms. Reason cannot move forward without some assumption upon which to base itself." -- The Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson "Seek simplicity, and distrust it." --A. N. Whitehead

mutemaler
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 293

Posted 08/17/08 - 05:38 AM:	#9
starlarvae wrote: I think that when most people say “random” what they mean is that the outcome can’t be predicted. But that just begs the question, Why can’t the outcome be predicted? There are only three possibilities, so far as I can determine (which one is implied by the use of "random" in quantum mechanics?): 1) The outcome is not predictable, because, though deterministic and in theory predictable, the process involved includes a causal chain too complicated to figure out. 2) The outcome is not predictable, because it “just happens,” that is, it occurs without being caused. But this is an unscientific notion. If you appeal to uncaused effects, then you are reinventing Aristotle’s unmoved mover. 3) The process is not predictable, because a subjective agent decides the outcome. Hallo starlarvae, 1) Occurence is probablistic. Multiple futures possible. The likelihood of possible futures can be predicted. When only one is possible, it will occur. The probable probably occurs, one always occurs. mutemaler

chiloa
Anaglyph

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2003
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 101

Posted 08/17/08 - 05:56 AM:	#10
intel2000 wrote: I can predict that in a "random" string of numbers, based on the decimal system, that the next digit will fall between 0-9. This means it is not random. Why "it is not random"?

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.