Saturday, September 13, 2008
On random-ness.
Was having a discussion with ck on random-ness during Philo lect coz of some quote from Einstein's "God does not play dice" thingy was flashed in the slides.
I really believed that random-ness occurred because of our lack of understanding and knowledge to handle and deal with the situation. Take random error during experiments for example, they happen because we don't have a complete control of the experimental setup. We don't know whether the flucuating environmental temperature, the vibration of the atoms or some other phenomena is happening that's going to contribute to the end result of the experiment. If we know what's the problem, then we can eliminate these discrepencies and keep the experiment "free of random-ness".
Juz like tossing a coin. Probability will tell you that this is a totally random event and given a large number of trials, the chances for a head or tail will be roughly close to 50% each. However, if I tell you that I'll now remove the random factor in the tossing of the coin. I'll use a machine to flip the coin in the same angle, at the same amount of force, keep in under a constant gravitational force (provided that I can do it) and do the experiment in vacuum, can I safely conclude that I'll always get the same result? Most probably if the above conditions are the only random variables present.
With this, ck posted a very interesting question - So, does that mean that one can then predict the sequences of events into the future?
Logically, it should be a yes. We can really predict the future by considering all the variables affecting the outcome of the immediate future to come up with multiple (an understatement where it should be close to infinite) consequences and then repeat the step again to get more and more branches of the future. However, it'll be so damn complex that I think the most advanced computer will be fried @ before reaching the 10th branch.
Another interesting aspect on the intensive usage of the idea of randomness/probability should Quantum Mechanics. Almost everything about QM is about the probability of this happening, that happening and never really definite, unlike Classical Mechanics (kinematics for instance). I feel that it's just that we haven't really grasp the hidden knowledge in this field yet and that's why, we are unable to be exact.
So is this world really operating on a set of mechanics that's waiting for us to discover or just full of uncertainty where we cannot really pinpoint what's going to happen next without considering the probabilty? Who knows?
11:41 AM