Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uknet!comlab.ox.ac.uk!dutton
From: dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <1994Nov4.120419.7601@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
References: <367dn4$ls@euskadi.idbsu.edu>  <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <38qhnm$117@whitbeck.ncl.ac.uk> <1994Oct30.160017.676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> <baverill.4.2EB72A96@dormnet.stu1.uconn.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 94 11:39:34 GMT
Lines: 66

Benjamin Averill (baverill@dormnet.stu1.uconn.edu) wrote:
: In article <1994Oct30.160017.676@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk> dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton) writes:
: >From: dutton@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Adrian P Dutton)
: >Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
: >Date: 30 Oct 94 15:52:49 GMT

: >n4521558 (Rob.Smith@ncl.ac.uk) wrote:
: >: In article <1994Oct13.135253.21576@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
: >stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) says:
: >: >
: >: >In <1994Oct8.025507.11036@cabell.vcu.edu> has2bec@cabell.vcu.edu (Brooke E.
: >Colquhoun) writes:

: >: >I think it's funny that you say RONDOMNESS is a human concept, when I
: >: >would have intuitively stated it as PATTERN is a human concept (pattern
: >: >being the opposite of randomness).
: >: >

: >: If randomness ISN'T s humsn concept, then where is it?

: >Any word or concept you care to mention is obviuosly a human one, since it
: >is human in origin. However,  there may be some metaphysical reallity behind
: >the concept in question.

: >: Can you honestly say that you can find something truly rsndom, or
: >: are 'random' processes governed by very complex non-linear but
: >: deterministic laws?

: >Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics ?!?  Do the words uncertancy 
: >principal ring any bells? Quantum processes are inhearently undeterministic.

: Undeterministic and randomness are not the same thing.  The outcome of 
: something could be impossible to know, yet still be fixed.

I was using the word undeterministic in terms of physics. Deterministic is
used as a word to describe a system that behaves *Exactly* the same way 
given *Exactly* the same initial conditions. It does not depend on whether it
is humanly possible to make any predictions. As an aside note, many posters
have mentioned chaos theory. Chaotic equations *are* deterministic. The problem
is,  it is impossible to know *exactly* the initial conditions, and in a 
chaotic system, very small differences in initial conditions lead to very large
differences in outcome, so chaotic stystems are inhearently unpredictable.
This doesn't mean they are undeterministic.
Quantum mechanics and the like however are undeterministic, because they are
based purely on probabilties. Nuclear decay is a quantum mechanical process,
there exists only a probability that the alpha particle (or whatever) will 
be able to quantum tunnel through the potential barrier and escape from the
nucleus. There are just about no external influences that can change the 
probability of decay, including *very* high magnetic fields (and the like).
Since there is no way to infulence whether or not a particular nucleus will
decay, and the nucleus has no specific 'initial conditions' (uncertaincy
principal et al), the decay is said to be entirely random. The problem 
people have with this is that they have this classical picture of the nucleus
with these billiard ball like protons and neutrons. Particles have no edges
or anything like that, there are only probablitities of 'finding' a particle
in any particular region, when you specifically 'look' for it there. You 
are much better off treating particles like field equations, which you
localise when you look for them.
 

: >: Rob Smith.


: >Adrian.

Adrian.
