Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,923 Year: 4,180/9,624 Month: 1,051/974 Week: 10/368 Day: 10/11 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Randomness - What is it?
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5865 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 1 of 13 (287881)
02-17-2006 7:22 PM


Since the information addition thread got completely hijacked by arguing over Randomness I figured it was time for a thread dealing with the issue.
I think this piece of the Wikipedia entry is a good start:
Randomness should not be confused with practical unpredictability, which is a related idea in ordinary usage. Some mathematical systems, for example, could be seen as random; however they are actually unpredictable. This is due to sensitive dependence on initial conditions (see chaos theory). Many random phenomena may exhibit organized features at some levels. For example, while the average rate of increase in the human population is quite predictable, in the short term, the actual timing of individual births and deaths cannot be predicted. This small-scale randomness is found in almost all real-world systems. Ohm's law and the kinetic theory of gases are statistically reliable descriptions of the 'sum' (i.e. the net result or integration) of vast numbers of individual micro events, each of which are random, and none of which are individually predictable. (Theoretically the micro-events of gases, for example, could be predicted if the exact position, velocity, atomic composition, angular momentum, and so on of each particle were known.) All we directly perceive is circuit noise and some bulk gas behaviors.
It is important to note that chaotic systems are only unpredictable in practice due to their extreme dependence on initial conditions. Whether or not they are unpredictable in terms of computability theory is a subject of current research. At least in some disciplines computability theory the notion of randomness turns out to be identified with computational unpredictability.
Unpredictability is required in some applications, such as the many uses of random numbers in cryptography. In other applications (e.g. modeling or simulation) statistical randomness is essential, but predictability is also required (for instance, when repeatedly running simulations or acceptance tests, it can be useful to be able to rerun the model with the exact same random input several times).
Sensibly dealing with randomness is a hard problem in modern science, mathematics, psychology and philosophy. Merely defining it adequately, for the purposes of one discipline has proven quite difficult. Distinguishing between apparent randomness and actual randomness has been no easier. In addition, assuring unpredictability, especially against a well-motivated party (in cryptographic parlance, the "adversary"), has been harder still.
Some philosophers have argued that there is no randomness in the universe, only unpredictability. Others find the distinction meaningless (see determinism for more information).
Randomness - Wikipedia
I think as part of the discussion we can discuss evolution and random mutation.
From my perspective it may be possible that mutation is like predicting the weather (but even harder). When forecasting the weather it is impossible to know all the starting conditions, so the probability that the forecast is correct is always less than 1 and more than zero. This makes weather effectivly random, because we can not predict it with 100% accuracy.
It seems that if mutation is effectively random that should be sufficient for the puposes of evolution. (If there were a creator and his actions were indistinguisable from a random outcome we can ignore this creator using occam's razor. Of course it's impossible to prove that anything is random 100%, but mutation seems to be mathetically random).
I'm interested in other thoughts on the subject of randomness.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 5 by mick, posted 02-17-2006 7:50 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 02-18-2006 11:59 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5865 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 4 of 13 (287893)
02-17-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by randman
02-17-2006 7:40 PM


Re: randomness is an illusion
Some philosophers have argued that there is no randomness in the universe
It's certainly possible. What would be required?
1. A grand unifying theory of physics exists and can be understood and applied.
2. It becomes possible to know the exact initial conditions for a situation. (keep in mind this means we learn how to get around the heisenberg uncertainty principle)
Does that sound reasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 8:13 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5865 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 8 of 13 (287926)
02-17-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mick
02-17-2006 7:50 PM


Re: randomness is a statistical property
I'm with you Mick. I understand that mathetical definition of probability quite well.
Think of this situation (and this may be more of a philosophical question than anything). If we could know the exact starting conditions for rolling a die, in theory we might be able to predict the outcome. Of course this is more of a physics question than a math question I think.
Although, now that I think about it... I guess this all gets back to the question of whether or not there is inherent randomness in the universe.
From a practical mathematical perspective that does not seem to matter.
I like the definitions you gave.
Here's a question for biologists: Is there a range of possible mutations that can occur (for example we know the range of possible mutations will be in this set.... at least at a low level).... I'm guessing the answer is no.. butI'll leave it to an expert to weigh in and also google it myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mick, posted 02-17-2006 7:50 PM mick has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5865 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 9 of 13 (287927)
02-17-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
02-17-2006 8:13 PM


Re: randomness is an illusion
Randman,
I am only dealing from the human perspective because that is the only perspective we can experience.
What I was trying to come up with was the conditions that would have to be satisfied in order for humans to predict the outcome to ANY event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 8:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:04 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024