Re: [asa] Random and design

Despite the limitations on our
predictive knowledge imposed by quantum indeterminancy and the error
amplification from chaos theory, every event is still assumed to have natural
causal links according to scientific thought & investigation (M.N). So
"randomness" then is no more than our perspective from ignorance.

(My highlighting.) This is not what quantum mechanics teaches. QM assigns probability distribution functions (e.g., Gaussians) to physical phenomena. A distribution of events for a given kind of phenomenon after a large number of measurements will look like the applicable distribution function. Randomness means that the location of a particular event on its distribution function is unpredictable, and unpredictable in this case means there is no physical cause. QM predicts only probabilities and claims that more detailed predictions are not possible.

So why does a particular particle do what it does? We can assume God knows, but we can't know. Particles act as if they have minds of their own. Many experiments support this.

In hard science, in the environment I was in, random always meant the inability to predict the location of a particular event on its distribution function. On this list random means lots of different things, so there's a need to define the word here before using it.

Don

----- Original Message -----
  From: mrb22667@kansas.net<mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>
  To: David Opderbeck<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design

  Quoting David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com<mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>>:

  ..
> Maybe another way to frame this is as an epistemic issue: is something
> "random" merely because it *appears* random to us? Do we allow that there
> might be causes that are beyond our capability to perceive that, if known,
> would demonstrate seemingly random events to in fact be caused? Or, stated
> theologically, isn't the operation of providence often a mystery to us?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "if a random systems shows no evidence of
> being guided naturally." I understand, in a very basic way, the notion of
> quantum indeterminacy. I guess I would distinguish between "guided" and
> "determined." At the quantum level, things aren't "determined," but they
> are "guided" by deep fundamental laws. A wide variety of things can happen
> at the quantum level, but not just *anything* can happen.
>
  ..

  I share in the skepticism (if I understand your comments correctly) regarding
  the term "randomness" and the casual way in which we throw it around in science
  and math as if it had no philosophical implication. The quotation marks ought
  to be a permanent part of that word IMO. Despite the limitations on our
  predictive knowledge imposed by quantum indeterminancy and the error
  amplification from chaos theory, every event is still assumed to have natural
  causal links according to scientific thought & investigation (M.N). So
  "randomness" then is no more than our perspective from ignorance. Just as we
  easily recognize the pseudorandom status of the determined output from a random
  number generator, so also the status of natural events as "random" begins to
  unravel as our knowledge of the causal effects increases -- or so goes the
  scientific credo. For the scientifically minded to depart from this item of
  faith would be truly bizarre, would it not? And if there is no such thing as
  true randomness, how could anything ever be distinguished as unguided? (or
  guided?) The whole question becomes a meaningless semantic except as an
  article of faith.

  --merv
   

  To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
  "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 17 11:08:56 2006