Random universe: fallacy?

A small question/theory/thought: If the universe appeared randomly, then it is of common thought that something randomly occured in existence before that, no? So how can reality be random anyway? If reality simply happened, then how can that simply be called "random" anyway?

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

A small question/theory/thought: If the universe appeared randomly, then it is of common thought that something randomly occured in existence before that, no?

Actually, no. Nothing need have happened before the universe existed, random or otherwise.

So how can reality be random anyway? If reality simply happened, then how can that simply be called "random" anyway?

...By just "being" it would seem. Unless you propose that the universe is entirely ordered...?

Originally Posted by Sabbo

...By just "being" it would seem. Unless you propose that the universe is entirely ordered...?

It's a hard question, And I honestly have no answer. If a God(proposed order theory) were to exist before the universe, then dosen't a God need a universe to exist in?

Entropy and black holes are two of millions of examples that the universe is a breeding ground of chaos and disorder, or that if there is a "universal order", it is a twisted and self-destructive one that has no consideration of sentience within it. It is as orderly as someone who will without warning start cutting themselves, and who will eventually bleed out.

Even though some people might say that it's possible to predict the outcome of every chemical reaction and thus everything is somewhat predetermined, according to quantum physics atoms can behave entirely randomly and so even if we think we can predict all outcomes of any given reaction, there is room for an entirely crazy random happenstance.

Originally Posted by Phazon goron

It's a hard question, And I honestly have no answer. If a God(proposed order theory) were to exist before the universe, then dosen't a God need a universe to exist in?

Gragh. "God" is a proper noun, not what you're talking about, which should be "god".


Assuming omnipotence, no. But then there's also the question of does God or any god exist in the first place?

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Entropy and black holes are two of millions of examples that the universe is a breeding ground of chaos and disorder, or that if there is a "universal order", it is a twisted and self-destructive one that has no consideration of sentience within it. It is as orderly as someone who will without warning start cutting themselves, and who will eventually bleed out.

black holes keep things in order, there is one holding our galaxy together right now. The universe is a deadly and cool place, there are nebula clouds out there made of alcohol! Thing are kept in order because of gravity, we wouldn't exists with out it and we would if the gravity suddenly turned off, no that it could or would.

what are we talking about again, I feel like I left the topic

Originally Posted by candc32

black holes keep things in order, there is one holding our galaxy together right now.

I'm not sure about the validity of the claim that it's a blackhole that's holding our galaxy together, but even if that is true, it's certainly not a demonstration of keeping the universe in order - if the only thing that's keeping our galaxy together is something within which the laws of mathematics break down and something that is also leading to the eventual heat-death of the universe, then I restate my point - the universe is as stable and orderly as an emo kid who will inevitably succeed at his suicide attempts.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

the universe is as stable and orderly as an emo kid who will inevitably succeed at his suicide attempts.

that is an awesome statement.

Gravity is an orderly thing, just having that around makes the universe an orderly place, there is a reason Haley's Comet comes every 75-76 years, gravity is order.

Originally Posted by candc32

that is an awesome statement.

Gravity is an orderly thing, just having that around makes the universe an orderly place, there is a reason Haley's Comet comes every 75-76 years, gravity is order.

I'm not just talking about gravity, I'm talking specifically about black holes. Since when something goes into a black hole it doesn't come out, they are contributing to the eventual heat-death of the universe.

Originally Posted by candc32

black holes keep things in order, there is one holding our galaxy together right now. The universe is a deadly and cool place, there are nebula clouds out there made of alcohol!

Fukk, why couldn't that be in our solar system.

=/

I would totally be an astronaut then. xD


@ the OP

sounds like you are talking about seemingly random and non-causal processes, liek matter spawning out of thin air or some other such thing.

Random is just a word that humans use when they fail to identify a perceivable pattern and/or cause in a series of events.

Considering we are talking about the beginning of the universe, and of something that happened before that--a logical contradiction I would think--which is by definition unperceivable then random is really the only one of many words we have for it right now.

It also sounds like you might be hinting at strict determinism?
liek, everything is a giant and predictable chain of events that lead to some sort of beginning point in time or what not. Am I right?

This is a current topic in other threads right now. Like the big bang one.

God does not place dice with the universe.

Randomocity is a myth. The concept doesn't even seem possible- how exactly does a random event occur. It doesn't, I suppose is the key, for if it did occur then it would not be truly random, would it? Anything which occurs has a cause, or theory. (Whether or not that cause is observable chronologically.)

As cause can not always be placed on a linear chronology (as with the big bang, which sets the concept of chronology.) Circular logic, in a sense, is not always invalid- and it is really the essence of a mathematical proof- to circle around, from one statement, to another by causing the first statement to appear equivalent to the second.

In this way, we can visualize the big bang as an equation:

Big Bang = The Universe as it is today

The Big Bang caused the Universe as it is today.

And as expressions of equivalence is transitive we can also visualize the statement in this way:

The Universe as it is today = Big Bang

The Universe as it is today is the result of the Big Bang.

Thus, by observing the Universe as it is today, we can observe that the Big Bang occurred, and this is how physicists figured out that the Big Bang occurred.

Now, this is ignoring chronology, however, if we wish to include chronology we can state that:

If, and only if, the Big Bang occurred, then the Universe is as it is today.

'If, and only if,' implies equivalence, and thus, is also transitive. Therefore this can be flipped to state that:


If, and only if, the Universe is as it is today, then the Big Bang occurred.

And this makes sense, no? Assuming that the theory is correct, would be possible to have the entire Universe in the exact same form as it is today if the Big Bang never occurred, or occurred differently? Of course not. Any shift at all effects the overall state of the Universe.

Now, one may ask about what occurred before the Big Bang, however, remember that the Big Bang is the cause of chronology, thus, the Big Bang can not exist as something who's cause exists chronologically before itself. Trying to go back to before the Big Bang is like attempting the rewind past the beginning of a tape.

Despite this, we can state that the Big Bang occurred because, as stated earlier, the Universe exists as it does.

As this shows that the Big Bang is deterministic, and the entire Universe is the result of the Big Bang then the entirety of the Universe is deterministic.

Therefore, everything is deterministic.

And yet, there has to be at least something before the big band, even if it was nothing.

Originally Posted by Phazon

If the universe appeared randomly, then it is of common thought that something randomly occurred in existence before that, no? So how can reality be random anyway? If reality simply happened, then how can that simply be called "random" anyway?

An action is random (in the mathematical sense) if it is one only one of at least two mutually exclusive "possible" occurrences, as determined through subjunctive logic at the working level, and comes to pass. Rolling a (standard six sided) die and coming up three is random - as there were five other mutually exclusive possibles - and rolling a die and not coming up seven is not random, as their was no other logical result: this is intuitive.

Problems arise in the cases of rolling a die and actually coming up seven or not rolling a die at all and coming up three: this complete lack of order (complete lack of sense) should not be seen as a random process - it certainly doesn't fit the mathematical definition - and yet the word seems to be applied to these cases as often as any other.

Hypotheticals concerning the origin of the universe are spread across all three categories: some insist it was an inevitable event, some see it as predicated but not predetermined, and some maintain that it was completely unprecedented.

Originally Posted by Zero

Even though some people might say that it's possible to predict the outcome of every chemical reaction and thus everything is somewhat predetermined, according to quantum physics atoms can behave entirely randomly and so even if we think we can predict all outcomes of any given reaction, there is room for an entirely crazy random happenstance.

A good example of the communication breakdown that results from fuzzy applications of the word: like a dice roll, QM is random in the mathematical sense: more than one outcome is logically conceivable, but logic still reigns supreme. There is no dice-coming-up-seven-style "crazy happenstance" in quantum theory.

Originally Posted by 8-bit

Randomocity is a myth. The concept doesn't even seem possible- how exactly does a random event occur. It doesn't, I suppose is the key, for if it did occur then it would not be truly random, would it? Anything which occurs has a cause, or theory.

I recently gave an example of experimental results which show that the results of various quantum mechanical processes cannot be explained by local hidden variables: that is, results that don't have a deterministic cause unless that cause breaks many of the known laws of the universe.

This is not because the universe ceases to obey rules, but because the rules are not one-one. If, logically, there are two possible results for an action than we label the observed result a random process.

Originally Posted by Dark Wyrm

And yet, there has to be at least something before the big band, even if it was nothing.

...nothing is not something. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But still. There is no requirement for there to have been anything before the big bang. (Including time, so saying "before" is quite pointless anyway.)

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

I recently gave an example of experimental results which show that the results of various quantum mechanical processes cannot be explained by local hidden variables: that is, results that don't have a deterministic cause unless that cause breaks many of the known laws of the universe.

This is not because the universe ceases to obey rules, but because the rules are not one-one. If, logically, there are two possible results for an action than we label the observed result a random process.

I'm not a physicist, so feel free to correct me wherever I may fail, however, as I understand it, the 'randomness' quality you're referring to is the ability for the universe to operate in such a way that, on a very small level, an occurrence may result in two different possible outcomes simultaneously. Question, though:

Does this mean that both events occur when only one should have, or that either event is equally likely to occur, and there is no current perceived method of distinguishing which event will occur?

In either case, it seems as if, yes, the rules which we interpret to govern the Universe are incorrect. Isn't this the purpose of the UFT? Just because they appear random right now doesn't mean they are.

I was expecting a comment about quantum theory, hence my opening Einstein quote, though I wasn't expecting a comment from an actual physicist, which, if you've never been in such a position, is incredibly intimidating. (Was it that you're a physicist, or a mathematician? I forget.)

Originally Posted by 8bit

Does this mean that both events occur when only one should have, or that either event is equally likely to occur, and there is no current perceived method of distinguishing which event will occur?

It means that (a) one (and only one*) event occurs when there's absolutely no reason for concluding that the other should not have and (b) even given perfect information and perfect calculating methods we will never make the distinction before the event occurs. Again, unless actions are being propagated faster than the speed of light, we have perfect information in many cases already, which is why we draw these conclusions. Einstein was either wrong about relativity (with all its modern experimental backing) or he was wrong about God's gambling habits.

I wasn't expecting a comment from an actual physicist, which, if you've never been in such a position, is incredibly intimidating

Heh, I'm well acquainted. In fact, any time I make broad generalization or omissions in my posts (such as at the * above, where accounting for decoherence and the Many Worlds family of interpretations I'm only correct in a very, very technical sense, or even just in the way I'm using the terms "event" and "information") I worry that some phantom physics guru will jump up and skewer me... insecurity blows.

And I'm in a something of a |scientist> + |mathematician> state... been waiting for that wave function collapse three years now.

Originally Posted by mmmmm_PIE

It means that (a) one (and only one*) event occurs when there's absolutely no reason for concluding that the other should not have and (b) even given perfect information and perfect calculating methods we will never make the distinction before the event occurs. Again, unless actions are being propagated faster than the speed of light, we have perfect information in many cases already, which is why we draw these conclusions. Einstein was either wrong about relativity (with all its modern experimental backing) or he was wrong about God's gambling habits.

Though the sentiment is that he was wrong about relativity, or at least, that his concept was incomplete. Even Einstein himself seems to admit this. While I've seen many interpret that quote as a complete dismissal for the emerging physics fields, as they competed with his work, and pointed out its flaws, it can't really be interpreted this way as he actively worked to find a UFT himself, and did so to his death.

Heh, I'm well acquainted. In fact, any time I make broad generalization or omissions in my posts (such as at the * above, where accounting for decoherence and the Many Worlds family of interpretations I'm only correct in a very, very technical sense, or even just in the way I'm using the terms "event" and "information") I worry that some phantom physics guru will jump up and skewer me... insecurity blows.

And because of hypotheses such as the many worlds interpretation and others which attempt to make sense of what we perceive now as a Universe sized craps table it seems strange that one would claim that determinism is completely defeated by modern quantum theory. It doesn't make sense to me, logically, that there are unpredictabilities in the natural world. Rather, it seems far more pragmatic, and less self-serving, to assume that our current understanding of the natural world is flawed because it's formed by humans, which are by no means all knowing.

And I'm in a something of a |scientist> + |mathematician> state... been waiting for that wave function collapse three years now.

I'm glad I had to look that up on Wikipedia.
and I still don't understand it.

Originally Posted by 8bit

And because of hypotheses such as the many worlds interpretation and others which attempt to make sense of what we perceive now as a Universe sized craps table it seems strange that one would claim that determinism is completely defeated by modern quantum theory. It doesn't make sense to me, logically, that there are unpredictabilities in the natural world. Rather, it seems far more pragmatic, and less self-serving, to assume that our current understanding of the natural world is flawed because it's formed by humans, which are by no means all knowing.

But if humans were all knowing there would be no unpredictables.
An obvious statement, I know: but think about it.

If there is no cap to our perceptive skills (either directly or indirectly) and assuming that we have more than enough computational man power to utilize those perceptive skills, then theoretically there is no limet to what we can know.

However with the former I really don't think that is the case, at least it's certainly not the case now.

So when science has hit a wall as in the examples you both have thrown out there, the label "random" becomes "seemingly random", thus recognizing that last point you just made, 8bit.

Whether the "unpredictables" are actually random or are strictly causal and deterministic in nature we will never be able to know (I would think).

but so long as unpredictables remain, there remains all the more evidence of free-will being real (that is if it's even appropriate to apply scientific hypotheses in such a manner).
If we knew everything then we wouldn't really have a real choice in the matter would we? If we knew all possible outcomes, we'd simply pick the best one, shouldn't we? and how can you claim a choice in the matter when you already know what action you will perform?

Originally Posted by Devia Erasmus

but so long as unpredictables remain, there remains all the more evidence of free-will being real (that is if it's even appropriate to apply scientific hypotheses in such a manner).

I suppose, in the same way that not being able to disprove the existence of a Giant Spaghetti Monster is evidence of its existence. In other word, 'no'.

Originally Posted by 8bit

I suppose, in the same way that not being able to disprove the existence of a Giant Spaghetti Monster is evidence of its existence. In other word, 'no'.

oops. my bad.

*evidence for at least the illusion of free will*

logically more coherent, albeit much more subjective and irrelevant.