Re: [asa] Random and design

*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.*

But still, the fact that you can specify a probability distribution function
implies that there are deeper laws governing the particle's velocity,
momentum, etc. The particle's actions are still bounded by laws; it can't
be just *anywhere* doing just *anything, *even if QM tells us we can't know
exactly where it will fall within the probability function (I think -- or am
I wrong?).

I think when most people hear "random" or "chance" in C/E debates they think
"not governed by any deeper law," whereas here you're using "random" in a
more precise sense of "described by a probability function rather than
specified by a particular equation."

On 11/17/06, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
> *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
> *To:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:18 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> Quoting David Opderbeck <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 with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.