Chance moves in mysterious ways.

Is randomness the God of Science?I believe randomness is the God of Science in the sense that it is used to account for observable phenomena which science is unable to predict. "Randomness done it" is as rigorous as "God done it".Scientists argue that existence of god is not scientifically verified because there are no repeatable laboratory experiments to support the claim.Scientists also argue that existence of god is not scientifically falsifiable because god is, by definition, not testable. (My assumption here is that scientifically recordable properties do not apply to god, by definition).Therefore existence of god is not a scientific proposition. It is neither verified nor falsifiable.Many scientific theories, including Darwin's theory of evolution, depend on the existence of randomness.Is the existence of randomness verified and falsifiable?I believe the existence of randomness is neither verified nor falsifiable. Furthermore, I do not believe it is verifiable.This thread is intended for the science section.Edited by sinequanon, : My own opinions and target section added as requested by admin.

Thank you, AdminPhat. It did cross my mind that I was taking a small liberty as a newbie, but enthusiasm got the better of me. There will be a decent gap in future before I submit a proposal.

Thank you, PaulK. I do agree with this. Equally, a "god hypothesis", which claims that god caused an experimental result, is also falsifiable. But the existence of god is not. I claim that the existence of randomness is also not falsifiable. Does this mean that science has found no connection or that science has found that there is no connection? I agree that a random element need not mean that all predictability is obliterated. Does this always mean science is saying, "we don't know how it works precisely, yet"/"we know precisely how it works, but we don't have the processing power"?OR is science sometimes postulating that no deterministic model could exists in the particular instance.

I take your point, and I refer specifically to scientific falsification. That is to say, you could, and therefore should, dispense with a god hypothesis by demonstrating a scientific model that predicts the phenomenon in question. I did not want to foreclose, in the title, any debate about the meaning of the word randomness. As you have mentioned, there are cases where a statistical model is preferred to describe complex deterministic phenomena.However, there are other cases in which the phenomenon itself is regarded as non-deterministic, and demands a statistical model. You mention the "connection between selective pressures and the mutations", another that springs to mind is quantum state transitions of a particle.If randomness exists, surely this means the universe cannot be wholly deterministic.To me, this is about the deeper question of a deterministic universe. However, I do not see this as a philosophical issue at all. Surely, given the examples mentioned above and by implication of the consistency of scientific theory, the universe cannot be deterministic. Why would that fact be consigned to the obscurity of philosophy?

Science could also give an indication as to the confidence with which any connection is likely to be found. Science could then propound or conclude, in the normal way and within the normal rigorous constraints, a scientific theory regarding the existence of connection.

In the normal way of repeating the experiment until confidence is established. If the necessity of the "god hypothesis" can be disproved within standard scientific confidence margins, I assume the hypothesis to be successfully refuted. The problem I am having is that the concept of "identifiable" and "identified" seem to be being used interchangeably. I see a similar ambivalence in your use of brackets round "that we can find". I wonder if you could please spell it out. Are we talking of things that no one has found, or things that we have evidence will never be found? How do you interpret the uncertainty principle in quantum particle physics? It is an inherently probabilistic model that cannot have a deterministic equivalent?

(My assumption in post#1 is that god is not governed by any law)Should god choosing to consistently intervene be treated any differently from god being governed by the consistent pattern? I am arguing that consistency of results builds confidence that some law or consistent pattern is governing the experiment. That is the line with which I am more familiar. It would be interesting to hear exactly how this "smearing" affects repeatability of measurement, and what any single physical measurement for a particle, in a bubble chamber say, actually represents.

Yes, I have stated as an assumption that, by God, we mean an entity not governed by any law. Perhaps a believer in God could disagree with this assumption. I would then ask them which laws control God. It would be a very interesting discussion. Yes, I understand we are talking about a refinement of classical behaviour observable at nuclear scales, and which tends to classical behaviour at ordinary scales.The point I am making is that single measurements exist but clearly do not fully describe the observable. The observable is in some way represented by the full set of measurements, which follows a random distribution.The random distribution becomes an intrinsic part of the full measurement. If a mechanism existed whereby you could obtain a repeatable value for a single measurement wouldn't the whole concept fall apart?

Hi, iceage. When something unexplained happens science does not accept the explanation "God done it". This thread is to examine why science accepts the explanation "Randomness done it". Take the very simple quantum physics example of bound states of a particle in a square potential well. Quantum theory predicts a probability distribution for the particle's position in the well, and this is supported by experiment.I perform an experiment and get a value for the particle's position.
I repeat the experiment and get a different value, any value in the range of the well.
There is no way of determining what the next value will be.
Several repeats may reveal a pattern, but there is no model for the order in which the pattern of values arises. So we have an unexplained phenomenon with consequence.What caused the values to be different? God or randomness? Is "randomness" a backdoor by which God can work his magic unscrutinized?

Preference of one form of non-repeatable "magic" over another? Are you suggesting that quantum mechanics is deterministic? Have you found a way of making repeatable single measurements?

You are making a separate point. My point makes the assumption. I am making a valid argument, not necessarily a sound one.In the absence of the assumption, the corollary would be that, if god exists, a scientifically proven law demonstrates that god is consistent with that law. You can then pose the question, "is god consistent with any law?" I'm not completely sure what you are saying here, but I do not think it is what the principles of quantum mechanics are saying. It is not a question of accuracy.

Now you are confusing a specific point with the overall argument.The specific point is a valid argument with a clearly stated premise.The truth of the premise is a separate point about the soundness of the argument.I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think you have a preconceived argument in your head and you are trying to match it to this one. You've misunderstood my understanding and, it would appear, the uncertainty principle.Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Then, for whatever reason, you were pointing out the premise I made in the OP. Do you understand what a premise is? Unfortunately, it's a bit more subtle than that. Even though you are able to state the principle, you still seem to have a classical concept of what is meant by precision.

Fire a single particle through a slit at a sensitive screen. It makes a dot on the screen. In what sense can you repeat that experiment and get the same single result? Best understand the issue before getting sarcastic, eh?

Look again! Is consistency with a law a scientifically recordable property, or not? Wrong. That is your own conclusion based on your classical understanding of an observable. I have not agreed with you.