It has been some years since physics class, so bear with me.

A few of the posts here remind me of something I learned in regards to physics. We have the Law of Conservation of Energy; energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed. When we observe a system, we actually effect the system. It changes from being closed and isolated to having new variables. As hard as we can try to measure the system, we will be throwing new variables into it.

Taking this idea and apply it to randomness and you get a nice window to view the concept through. An algorithm is not random due to us being able to predict the outcome because we know the input variables. Hitting off the below statement:



Flipping a coin is random when you can not account for all the variables. It is not random when you can account for the variables.

When we step back and observer weather something is random or not random, we change the variables each time. In changing them each time we observe them, we can not definitely say if something is truly random or not.

But the observation can be the random event. e.g. double slit experiment. the observation is the particle hitting the screen, which is the random event (we know its going to hit, but dont know where).

True enough. However, NY underlying point is that the concept of randomness is abstract enough to prevent us from setting up a test to prove one way or another. For every situation for randomness we can give one for not.

No, not really.

Read up on the Heisenberg principle. Randomness is real and observed in nature.

This post was edited by khemist on Jun 25 2013 12:00am

or mayb our brain isnt sophisticated enough to comprehend all the factors involved

vouch

He takes Heisenberg to argue but Heisenberg didn't say exactly what he's using to argue with.

No no no no...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

It is a very real and inherent randomness in the universe. It has been tested and proven. Quantum Mechanics describes the atomic universe very well, and it depends on it.Read up on it before trying to refute it.

If you ask, well maybe there is some variable we are not accounting for? Well, it sounds reasonable right? Thats where Bells theorem comes into play, which very simply states:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

If you still dont believe me that there is very real and measured randomness, then go take a course on quantum mechanics.

This post was edited by khemist on Jun 25 2013 06:33pm

very few people understand quantum mechanics. if you pretend you do you don't.

there are many things the brain cannot fathom i.e. variables that we havent considered or know exists, just cause we cant predict it now does not mean we cant in the future.

e/ also, the unpredictability is only at the atomic level, yet everything larger seems to have a pattern. whys that?

This post was edited by Anphrax on Jun 26 2013 06:32pm

I understand enough quantum mechanics to know that randomness is inherent and REQUIRED in the theory.

Again, I point to bells theorem, which basically rules out the possibility of the supposed "hidden variable theory" due to the fact that quantum mechanics is extremely accurate in its predictions. Bell's theorem is extremely deep, and I dont even really understand the proof, but I understand the implications.

So even though macro objects tend to obey very concrete laws (Newton's, anyone?), that doesnt imply that the randomness in the atomic scale isnt real.

This post was edited by khemist on Jun 26 2013 06:35pm

e/ how do you think this randomness of atoms impact on the macro world?

This post was edited by Anphrax on Jun 26 2013 06:42pm