Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

#6976 In eternity, randomness is just order not yet fully seen

What lies beneath it is a lack of predictability.

Then we’re mostly agreeing, only using different labels for the same boundary

Actually, for any random event, the before the fact randomness (unpredictability) is confirmed by the after the fact empirical statistics (from multiple such events).

For example, consider a laser beam shone through a narrow slit and then detected on a screen at a distance.

Heisenburg's uncertainty principle says that because the location of the photon is known to a certain (relatively high) accuracy in one direction (the width of the slit) its momentum in this direction is quite uncertain. The frequency of the photon determines its momentum, so the lower this is the greater the uncertainty. This absolute randomness implies two things - firstly that no-one can predict where a photon in the beam will hit the screen - the probability distribution can be calculation. Secondly, this can be confirmed by observing the actual distribution of detections on the screen. While all of these detections are precise, my point is that this does NOT provide order to the random distribution. It merely tells you what set of random locations photons reached.

Quantifying that experiment, if a photon has wavelength lambda and the uncertainty in its location in one direction (width of slit) is sigma_d, then Heisenberg says the uncertainty in momentum is given by:

sigma_p >= h_bar / (2 * sigma_d)

Since its total momentum is h_bar / lambda, this means the uncertainty in its angle (essentially the ratio of the momentum in two directions) is:

sigma_theta >= (h_bar / (2 * sigma_d) )/((h_bar /lamda ) = lambda / (2 * sigma_d)

So it's the ratio of the wavelength to the width of the slit that determines the width of the distribution.

You’re describing statistical predictability, I was referring to philosophical determinism. They’re often conflated

I am talking about predictability in the real world, the domain of science, which uses maths for modelling and describing knowledge.

Understood, so we’re working within scientific predictability, not philosophical randomness.

Philosophy is a loosely grouped set of ways of thinking about things. When they become precise, they generally become something else (such as science or maths).
It's particularly worth emphasising that philosophy deals with all sorts of subjective questions, but other parts of what is called philosophy deal with objective questions. These are not in any real sense parts of the same subject (it's just that in the old days it was all called philosophy).

This that were or are considered within philosophy don't have a special status because of that, and if something dealt with by a more substantial discipline is also addressed by philosophers, that doesn't give their thoughts special status.

Indeed science used to be called "natural philosophy". What was once considered part of philosophy grew up and became more substantial.

They're not entirely separate.
But 'randomness' could have multple meanings. Or does. Or has broad meaning.
Philosophy encompasses the sciences and other things too.
But most people tend to consciously assign philosophy a 'box' of its own.
Arguably - everyone has a philosophy operating at whatever time.
However much it changes with time.
Even an absence of philosophy can be argued to be a philosophy.

#6988 I see your point you’re approaching it from the perspective of scientific modelling and measurable predictability, whereas I was leaning more toward the philosophical interpretation of randomness itself.

#6989 That’s probably the most balanced way to frame it. especially the idea that philosophy and science are not fully isolated systems, but overlapping ways of interpreting reality.

our little brains are forced into philosophies. otherwise we dont really grow. and our P's are horizontal. but can they be vertical too ? maybe-maybe not. not sure. some ppl think scientific knowledge is a eraser for P knowledge. but ukw ? ...the more ppl learn about S ? ...the more ppl discover & get P. or they should...unless theyre blocking it out. which makes them dum.

and by def ? ...theres no such thing azza true free thinker. so a/o who thinks they are ? ...is dum.

I think you’re mixing a few ideas here. Scientific knowledge and philosophical thinking don’t really erase each other, they often work at different levels. Also, I’m not sure “true free thinkers don’t exist” is something we can state as a fact; it depends on how we define free thinking.

Sometimes - or often - they do erase each other. To whatever extent or duration.
It depends on context and who is involved.
Both philosophy and science are constantly in operation anyway.
However one might regard either.
Science is in operation here - just by it being possible to get on the internet and the internet existing.
And philosophy also in action here - by the decision of reading and participating on that same internet.

Hmm you’re saying science and philosophy are not separate domains but continuously interact depending on context.

But I’m not sure they “erase” each other. It seems more like they operate at different levels rather than replacing one another.

Most scientists don't really delve into philosophy at all, beyond what normal thinking by normal people does!

many scientists do engage with philosophical ideas, especially when dealing with foundational questions, but it’s true that most of their day-to-day work is focused on empirical and mathematical modeling rather than formal philosophy.

Most scientists don't really delve into philosophy at all, beyond what normal thinking by normal people does!

and thats EXACTLY why i said "eraser" ...cuzza him.

there’s a category error here.

Scientists not engaging in philosophy at a formal level doesn’t imply philosophy is being “erased.” It simply means the domains are specialized differently. Empirical work doesn’t replace conceptual analysis; they operate in different layers of the same reality.

Calling it an “eraser” seems more like a metaphor than an accurate description of the relationship.

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with. Max Planck