Is anything truly random?

[covert seal]

Is anything truly random, or does the illusion of randomness arise from our limited understanding and inability to perceive the intricate interconnectedness of the universe, as well as from the interplay between free will, the purpose of life, and our inherent limitations in comprehending the complex tapestry of existence? In other words, do we perceive randomness because we cannot discern the underlying patterns and causes that govern the seemingly unpredictable events around us, or is randomness merely a consequence of our constrained perspective within the vast and interconnected fabric of reality?

[lean summit]

Quantum physics is looking at this question pretty closely because it seems much of it truly is random, though of course there are detractors. Now if randomness on the micro level actually has any effects on macro-outcomes, idk.

[weak nebula]

In a truly black&white sense, no, nothing is random, it's instead an incredible butterfly effect tracing back to the conception of the universe.

For all practical purposes however, much of what is happening today, billions of years later, is essentially random, due to entropy.

We haven't observed the randomness of quantum particles influence things at the macro scale so far as far as I know, so we have no reason to believe that they can.

[hybrid trench]

Randomness causes entropy, not vice versa.

And I would say that conducting the double slit experiment is an example of macro level effects of a quantum event.

[weary estuary]

Randomness causes entropy, not vice versa.
Interesting take but i don't see how that would work

[strong berry]

I'm not good at statistics but something seems very odd to me. When I look at my RISK profile, the dice rolls are ALWAYS evened out. Is this true for everyone? I could see this being the case if I always played balanced blitz. But I play random dice. too. What are the odds? Is there a secret algorithm???

[main vigil]

The odds of the dice rolls balancing out are even when the dice rolls are random. When you roll two dice in combination, you have introduced the inequality of randomness. 7 is the most common number rolled with 2 dice because there are 6 possible combinations out of 36, the highest probability. When you roll only One die, you will have an even chance for any of the 6 sides to fall. I also play warhammer 40k, in which you can roll dozens of dice at once. In this case, the dice rolls are all independent outcomes, not a summed result. So the even properties of dice will re-emerge. But if you added 100 dice rolls together, repeatedly, you would have an average sum of 350. The property of 7 Carries over easily, we just take the extreme min and max and average. The least you can get is 100. The most you can get is 600. 350 is what you will be orbiting around.

[main vigil]

Note that this is assuming 6-sided dice.

[tardy lotus]

Dices aren’t random bro, any infinitely smart being can predict how it will bounce from your hand

You just have to think a lot

[main vigil]

I don’t think dice are impossible to predetermine, but the weather is, to an extent. Even if you know what the preexisting conditions are, weather is quite all-encompassing and the smallest deviations can magnify into enormous changes. Weather isn’t random though. So in one hand we can have Random outcomes that are predeterministic, and on the other we can have non-random outcomes with no predeterminable conditions. I think that there could be a way through which we combine these qualities and get a truly random, unpredictable sequence of something. I’m not creative enough to think of any though!

[hybrid trench]

Entropy increasing is not a logical necessity. There is nothing that stops a glass of mixed coffee and milk from separating into two distinct liquids besides the sheer improbability of that event. Thus the randomness of the brownian motion of the molecules of milk and coffee is what causes entropy to increase in that glass.

[true dock]

I have my theory about that, that I call "Pattern Theory"

Our pure nature is to create pattern, so, everything in our perception is just everything can be ordered in a pattern.

even the perception of the sound "noise", for example, it's only the ordered part of that noise, while we are completely "blind" to any "random" part of it.

I think this is also the reason why we define things like "dark matter", things that have consequences in our realm, but that are not in our field of perception.

So my idea is that: yes there is something of truly random, but we absolutely not a minimal perception of it, and most of it doesn't even interfere in our "realm" or "dimension".

I should also point out that things like "random dice" it's not what I am talking about, as the roll of dice it self it's part of an ordered sequence of events, molecules acting together, atoms interacting etc. It's only us giving the random attribute to the fact that those dice rolling are outputting a different number every time.
If you could in an hypothetical world make the same identical roll 2 times in the same circumstances, you would get 2 times a same identical result, this is not possible in a real world because as soon as you roll the dice a lot of things changed around you, forces, pressure, position of the planet etc. and a roll of dice is something too sensible and influenced too much by this lot of things.

Put for example one of the most random osservable thing we know: Lava Lamps, knowing the starting point the temperature and calculating the variation of these, you could predict the precise movement, it's only a calculation far to be considered doable at the moment.
In a pure random event, you can't predict what's going to happen, not because it's too difficult to calculate, but because there is no consequences to the cause.

[autumn pulsar]

I know that @vagrant mortar was Truly Random for a while, but beyond that, I'm not convinced.

The observations in quantum mechanics seem random to us, but it depends on the interpretation whether it's actually deemed to be random or not.

[analog plank]

Quantum mechanics says the answer to the OPs question is no.
As to the how, scientists are still figuring it out.

[weary estuary]

Really depends on how you interpret the statment of ''random''. I could claim that based on the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics does say everything on a quantum level is random, as there is an inherent uncertainty to the way energy is distributetd in the various quanta.

[autumn pulsar]

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, yes. But there's also deterministic alternatives.

(Also, iirc the uncertainty principle only says something about the fundamental impossibility of knowledge of both velocity and location, not about determinism)

[weary estuary]

Thats why I said it depends on your interpretation of random. And yes it applies more or less only to the copenhagen interpretation, but that's the interpretation that's taught in universities, so that's the interpretation i go with in this discussion.

[weary estuary]

Although the uncertainty principle is not just applicable to impulse and position, that is indeed the way it is taught, as that's the uncertainty principle Heisenberg determined

However, on a meta level, the uncertainty principle is generally true in quantum observations to any set of observable variables as long as they are interdependent

So for example, the amount of energy in a quantum state and time have an uncertainty relation. Or the angular momentum of a particle and the angle of given particle etc.

So the way I like to think about it is: ''order'' is only an emergent property that emerges when you have many many particles together. All the properties you can ascribe to a set of particles becomes mostly irrelevant if you try to ascribe them to the individual particles themselves. Their behaviour as a group is vastly different from their individual behaviour.

[vagrant mortar]

momentum & position (de broglie wavelength ig

[dapper nymph]

Most things that we think of as random aren't actually random, but give the appearance of it because of our limited knowledge of how they operate. It's entirely possible that that applies to everything that appears random, but we can't know for sure.

Lacking any evidence of an overall system, I think the most likely thing is that everything overall is random, but that we exist in a place where random chance has formed some patterns (as randomness always will). So I expect that what we will find is that none of the patterns we observe will encompass everything, and we'll never get a complete understanding of our existence, and we may well find that the rules appear to change in different situations.