Is there true randomness in the universe?
In: 80
Yes and no.There is a perception of true randomness becasue “random” to Humans actually equates to “I dont see the pattern”.There is also NOT true randomness because everything occuring in the universe is effectively an ongoing reaction to an initial event and those reactions follow rules.It is because the overall reaction howver is so vast, so complex, and not comprehensible to us as a whole that it is considered random, just as a random number generator is not “truly” making a random number but simply utilizing patterns in complex additional patterns to produce an impression randomness.
If there was true randomness, it would have been whatever happened at the beginning of the universe.
Yes and no.There is a perception of true randomness becasue “random” to Humans actually equates to “I dont see the pattern”.There is also NOT true randomness because everything occuring in the universe is effectively an ongoing reaction to an initial event and those reactions follow rules.It is because the overall reaction howver is so vast, so complex, and not comprehensible to us as a whole that it is considered random, just as a random number generator is not “truly” making a random number but simply utilizing patterns in complex additional patterns to produce an impression randomness.
If there was true randomness, it would have been whatever happened at the beginning of the universe.
Yes and no.There is a perception of true randomness becasue “random” to Humans actually equates to “I dont see the pattern”.There is also NOT true randomness because everything occuring in the universe is effectively an ongoing reaction to an initial event and those reactions follow rules.It is because the overall reaction howver is so vast, so complex, and not comprehensible to us as a whole that it is considered random, just as a random number generator is not “truly” making a random number but simply utilizing patterns in complex additional patterns to produce an impression randomness.
If there was true randomness, it would have been whatever happened at the beginning of the universe.
We don’t know.
Let’s first think define true random. True random would be given an input we could in no way figure out the output no matter how much information we have. This would be the opposite of pseudo-random where we could figure out the output given enough information. What computers do is pseudo-random. Whenever a random number is generated, it’s based on a key and if you knew the key, you could figure out what “random” value would be produced.
Currently, we don’t know the key. Maybe the universe has one and maybe it doesn’t.
We don’t know.
Let’s first think define true random. True random would be given an input we could in no way figure out the output no matter how much information we have. This would be the opposite of pseudo-random where we could figure out the output given enough information. What computers do is pseudo-random. Whenever a random number is generated, it’s based on a key and if you knew the key, you could figure out what “random” value would be produced.
Currently, we don’t know the key. Maybe the universe has one and maybe it doesn’t.
We don’t know.
Let’s first think define true random. True random would be given an input we could in no way figure out the output no matter how much information we have. This would be the opposite of pseudo-random where we could figure out the output given enough information. What computers do is pseudo-random. Whenever a random number is generated, it’s based on a key and if you knew the key, you could figure out what “random” value would be produced.
Currently, we don’t know the key. Maybe the universe has one and maybe it doesn’t.
I thought radioactive decay is generally considered random.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/radioactive-decay
I thought radioactive decay is generally considered random.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/radioactive-decay
“Randomness” is used to mean multiple different things. The answer somewhat depends on which meaning you’re using. Whenever asking “does true X exist?”, it’s useful to be very precise in what we mean by X.
All of the following are qualified, of course, by “as far as we know”.
The answer is generally “yes” but the degree of confidence depends on which meaning you’re talking about.
First meaning: “externally unpredictable” – that there exists a series of measurements one could take, and never be able to perfectly predict the next measurement in the series. Yes, quantum behavior exhibits true unpredictability. This actually means that true unpredictability is extremely *common* – we are surrounded by and made up of quantum particles. Of course, “on average” the unpredictability evens out. So here, the answer is just “yes, there is true randomness.”
Second meaning: “does not follow an internal predetermined, fixed pattern”. This is the idea that the pattern can’t be externally found, but still exists in some “internal state”. This is also known as determinism – and in quantum mechanics, as “hidden variable” theories. The “strongest” form of determinism, “superdeterminism”, can never be ruled out – this is the idea that literally everything in the universe is perfectly determined ahead of time, that there’s no such thing as choice, and that any apparent “choice” is all just part of the predetermination. This is, however, not a very useful model; just as “what if I’m a brain in a tank and all my knowledge of physics is fake” is not a very useful model. In terms of useful models, deterministic theories currently have some evidence against them and no significant evidence for them, so the answer is *probably* (but not *certainly*) “yes, there is true randomness.”
“Randomness” is used to mean multiple different things. The answer somewhat depends on which meaning you’re using. Whenever asking “does true X exist?”, it’s useful to be very precise in what we mean by X.
All of the following are qualified, of course, by “as far as we know”.
The answer is generally “yes” but the degree of confidence depends on which meaning you’re talking about.
First meaning: “externally unpredictable” – that there exists a series of measurements one could take, and never be able to perfectly predict the next measurement in the series. Yes, quantum behavior exhibits true unpredictability. This actually means that true unpredictability is extremely *common* – we are surrounded by and made up of quantum particles. Of course, “on average” the unpredictability evens out. So here, the answer is just “yes, there is true randomness.”
Second meaning: “does not follow an internal predetermined, fixed pattern”. This is the idea that the pattern can’t be externally found, but still exists in some “internal state”. This is also known as determinism – and in quantum mechanics, as “hidden variable” theories. The “strongest” form of determinism, “superdeterminism”, can never be ruled out – this is the idea that literally everything in the universe is perfectly determined ahead of time, that there’s no such thing as choice, and that any apparent “choice” is all just part of the predetermination. This is, however, not a very useful model; just as “what if I’m a brain in a tank and all my knowledge of physics is fake” is not a very useful model. In terms of useful models, deterministic theories currently have some evidence against them and no significant evidence for them, so the answer is *probably* (but not *certainly*) “yes, there is true randomness.”
Latest Answers