Scientific approach: Does randomness really exist?
Scientific approach: Does randomness really exist?
Hello steemians, as I did in my previous post on this occasion I would like to give a scientific approach to something that I found very interesting. And is that really deepening issues such as chance or probability always brings good debates.
This is a very interesting topic, because it has many philosophical implications and because it marks the difference between quantum physics and the rest of theories. So let's discuss a bit about whether or not there is randomness itself, and whether everything that happens has a cause or not.
Source
CC BY 2.0
Deterministic theories. The demon of Laplace.
The predominant theory in physics prior to the twentieth century was, without a doubt, the mechanics of Newton. This explained the dynamics of the bodies from the forces that felt and described to perfection (for the time) the gravitational interaction. Basically, this theory tells us that if you know the position and velocity of the particles of a system you can calculate the position and velocity of them at any time in the future or the past. This is what is known as determinism.
This made Pierre-Simon Laplace consider the following dilemma:
If a supernatural being knew the position and velocity of all the particles of the world with total precision, he could know its configuration at any time in the future, or in the past. This indicates that the universe is deterministic in itself and that free will is no more than an illusion. The future is already written, we can not do anything to change it.
This curious supernatural individual is known as the De Laplace demon.
To say only that after Newtonian mechanics there were other great revolutions that did not alter this result. Examples are Maxwell's electromagnetism or Einstein's relativity. Both theories are deterministic and the devil could continue to accurately calculate the future.
Source
Author: Pat Backora
The use of statistics in pre-quantum physics
The question now is obvious, If everything is deterministic, what is chance?
Source
CC0 1.0
It is usually said that dice are a game of chance, that means that if I throw one I will not know the result, only the probabilities of one or the other. This seems to contradict Laplace's demon, right? If the result of the dice is not determined, it means that the demon can't know what is coming out.
Not really.
The example of the dice is a clear case of the use of probability in physics. Actually, the result is determined, it is determined by the size of the die, how it is thrown, gravity, etc. We can not know that data, so the only thing we can say is that, in the long run, all the results will come out the same number of times. Our friend the devil, who knows everything, will be able to predict the outcome without problems, so it is better not to bet against him.
This example is very illustrative of one of the most common uses of probability in science, as a palliative of our ignorance about a possible result. Interestingly, the first scientist who decided to apply this type of technique to a science, which came from analyzing "games of chance", was Pierre-Simon Laplace.
Source
Public Domain Mark 1.0
Studying the movement of the stars Laplace found that different measurements gave different results, and it was not possible to distinguish which was correct. The genius, on the other hand, came from combining the statistics with these results associating each result with a probability.
This is how he was the first to interpret probability as a measure of our ignorance. Thus, statistics evolved and became an essential piece of science, analyzing the possible errors of the experiments. In any case, the determinism remained intact.
So until the twentieth century, everything was clear, the world is deterministic and statistics is a simple trick we use to alleviate our ignorance or our inability to calculate infinitely complex things. However in the twentieth century everything changed, quantum physics was born.
Indeterminism in quantum physics.
Quantum physics gives rise to a new interpretation of probability as intrinsic to the systems themselves. If we take into account the role of coherence in quantum physics, we will see that quantum physics proclaims that the result of some experiments cannot be accurately predicted, only the probabilities.
The question then would be: is not this also proof of our ignorance?
This was how great geniuses of the twentieth century thought, such as Einstein or Schrödinger, and argued that the theory had to be completed in order to determine the results in an exact manner.
Apparently they were wrong.
The summary issue is as follows: Experiments have been made that violate inequalities, the inequalities of Bell, this indicates that either the world is indeterministic in itself or there is information that travels at a speed higher than that of light. As the second leads us to a world of paradoxes and temporary trips we have to stay with the first option, the results of these experiments cannot be predicted.
How does this affect determinism?
Well, in my opinion, it destroys it. The point is that although the quantum world is non-deterministic we move in a larger world, where we have to average the statistics of each specific case and this can give us a certain capacity to predict. However, although that is normal, it is not the case anyway.
Philosophical consequences, the cosmological argument.
A very old argument to try to prove the existence of God is the so-called cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas. This is based on the following reasoning:
- Everything has a cause.
- No cause can be created by itself.
- Everything is caused by something else.
- A chain of cause and effect cannot be infinite.
- There must be a start or first cause.
- The first cause can be defined as God by fulfilling its definition.
Although this argument has already been rebutted, quantum physics gives us a new argument by denying the first axiom. Not everything has a cause.
No doubt we are still far from understanding the origin of the universe. Current theories can only lead us right after the Big Bang, but not to that moment itself. However, what we do know is that a cause is not necessary for one phenomenon or another to occur, not at least at the quantum level.
No doubt in the Big Bang the quantum effects had to be tremendously important, to occur in an infinitely small size. Thus, without being an argument for or against the existence of God, we can affirm that the universe did not have to have a cause.
References.
- https://unreformingtheology.com/2015/01/05/is-chanceprobability-real-not-a-chance-chance-does-not-exist-there-is-no-power-of-probability/
- http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/08/25/does-randomness-really-exist/
- http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/laplaces_demon.html
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610712000272
- https://phys.org/news/2013-02-probability-quantum-physics.html
- Determinism
- Indeterminism
- https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/6799/A-Level/Philosophy-and-Ethics/The-cosmological-argument-for-the-existence-of-God-is-unconvincing-Assess-this-view
If you want to read more scientific articles of good quality, do not waste your time, and visit the hashtag #steemstem.
Disclaimer: All the images used are correctly labeled for reuse.
Being A SteemStem Member
This is an interesing post, but I wish you would have gone into more detail about the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics.
First, I'm happy that you pointed out that the roll of dice are not random, insofar as random means uncaused and indeterminant. Clearly, the roll of the dice is determined by many factors, as you point out. It is only that we can't track these factors that we call it random.
That being said, it's hard for me to see why this same reasoning does not apply to quantum mechanics.
Here's my understanding - and it is admittedly severely limited: it is the act of observation that causes problems in predicting anything in quantum mechanics. By observing, it necessitates a probabilistic outcome.
If that understanding of mine is true, then to me this only speaks of our limited comprehension of the thing, and it does not show that in reality such events lack a cause. We are back to the LaPlace Demon - only this version of the demon happens to be able to know all of the quantum events as well.
Let's put it another way: let's say X (on the quantum level) has an 80% chance of happening, and 20% chance not. Even if those percentages are a statement of fact in the moment, rather than a statement of guesswork by an observer, it does not change the fact that something caused X, or not-X. This event - X - leads to another probabilistic outcome, Y or not-Y, and so on. Each event causing the next probabilistic possibility, which causes the next event, etc. But this chain of probabilities is no less deterministic than the pre-quantum understanding.
It is likely I do not fully understand quantum physics. But I also think it's possible you are confusing a problem of perspective with a statement of objective fact.
I could be wrong here (I probably am) but from my understanding is this...
I think this is at the heart of quantum uncertainty and I think the reasoning goes something like "reality exists only insofar as be observe it... therefore if we cannot observe without certainty, then there is no certainty"
I think the difference between objective fact and simple observation of that fact is an argument that's argued heatedly on the border of theoretical physics and philosophy.
The classic question is "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" and the answer is that no, it does not. Because something which is not observed does not exist. We can go and observe that the tree has fallen after it falls, but we cannot go an observe the sound it makes.
Again this is not my area of expertise and is well beyond my intellectual capacity, it's more of an understanding I've pieced together from books I've read over the years...
I'd love to hear thoughts from someone who knows more?
Thanks for the response! I have to say, if that's really what some scientists are saying - that a thing is not real unless it is observed - they aren't sciencing right. :)
I have a feeling though, that most quantum physicists would never say that. I think this is something that the New Age mystics say when they're trying to come across as sciencey...
This is something I read about in A Brief History of Time, so I think it's pretty legitimate.
Heh, admittedly I didn't finish that book. But I think I could say with certainty that Stephen Hawking believes that reality existed before life - and therefore any organism which can perceive things - existed.
Therefore, that would conflict with:
Here's a more interesting question:
If a tree surrounded by 200,000 people falls in a forest where the air has been vacuumed up out of the atmosphere, does it make a sound?
Yeah, I agree, this is why I don't understand the theory or how it applies outside of quantum uncertainty...
I'm pretty sure sound requires a medium to travel? So unless the air was replaced with something else then I guess not... also it'd be 200,000 bodies :/
Nice article. Had this idea on my head for quite a some time.
If wasn't for quantum physics, we could predict the future ,right?
Using a "SUPER SUPER computer"
Remender that in theory everything it's possible , but I sincerely think that's not possible. A supercomputer, which would do is foresee the possible results on certain reality scenarios and that's not predicting the future.
We could not predict future even if the QM was deterministic. Even if we had only classical physics, you cannot predict (perfectly) future due to non-linearity of our real world.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Ideas-abstractas from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
im enjoy reading this article.Its very imformative and worth to resteem them.I hope u check out my post too.
Your Post Has Been Featured on @Resteemable!
Feature any Steemit post using resteemit.com!
How It Works:
1. Take Any Steemit URL
2. Erase
https://3. Type
reGet Featured Instantly � Featured Posts are voted every 2.4hrs
Join the Curation Team Here | Vote Resteemable for Witness
I really enjoyed your article and your invitation to honest academic discussion. But I must notice that you misunderstood Bell's theorem. People often misunderstand Bell's theorem, even theoretical physicists.
So what Bell's theorem proves? It proves that QM has to be non-local. Assumption of EPR was locality, and Bell is proving that this assumption cannot reproduce results of QM (this will be later shown in Aspect experiment).
There is a very good explanation of Bell's theorem and it is written by physicists who are expert in area of foundations of QM: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bell%27s_theorem
So Bell's theorem does not exclude determinism. As a matter of fact, Bell was a fan of Bohmian QM (quantum theory developed by David Bohm), and the Bohmian mechanics is fully deterministic quantum theory that can fully reproduce results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
So, at the end of the day, determinism (or probabilistic theory) in QM is still a matter of choice (of your favorite interpretation of QM).
From which we can infer that quantum physics DOES NOT gives us a new argument by denying the first axiom, because we cannot say if it is denying first axiom ("Everything has a cause.") of Thomas Aquinas or not (because we are not sure weather is QM probabilistic or not).