- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It is useful to first determine what a pattern is. Apparently, this is some phenomenon that obeys the rules, known or unknown. If I ask how many photons an LED emits at a given voltage, or how many substances react in a reaction per minute, then with a certain accuracy, all this is natural and predictable. If I ask in which direction a given molecule will emit a photon and when, or with which molecule this molecule will react and when, then I can not answer and from my point of view – this is random. I.e. the pattern depends on how accurate the answer I need. If I don't care about individual molecules, then a “natural” answer will suit me. If you ask detailed questions, you won't be able to get anything logical out of them. In a number of problems, something is considered natural only because errors can be ignored in practice, but generally speaking, stochasticity permeates all our observations, and patterns are reproduced with limited accuracy, a number of simplifications and assumptions. You can certainly say that the behavior of molecules is also natural, but we can't predict these laws, but the problem is that in the 20th century many laws were already discovered that impose very strong restrictions on the ability to know something for sure, for example, about the behavior of elementary particles. Therefore, I have no arguments in favor of the absence of randomness, but there are arguments against it. And the second is that ideas about regularity and randomness are not reality, but only a convenient model for us in our head and nowhere else. Therefore, the question is more about the possibilities of science, in particular mathematics and computing, and not about reality as such. The possibilities are always limited, and the complexity of the tasks that arise is unlimited.
The idea that randomness does not exist corresponds to the natural-scientific ideas of about the 18th century, and is generated by Newtonian physics (Laplace's demon in the same place). It is fueled by the limitations of school education, which mainly provides ideas about problems that are uniquely solved using the well-known equations of classical physics and do not cause cognitive dissonance among school teachers. In mathematics and physics, during the 20th century, a huge array of problems was accumulated that defy analytical mathematical description and/or are stochastic and / or uncertain. On this subject, there is a book by R. Penrose “The New Mind of the King”in Russian. It doesn't really help to understand the problem of reason, although it is claimed to be its task, but you can learn a lot about stochasticity in modern mathematics and physics from it. Examples of randomness:
The system of arguments in favor of determinism was developed quite a long time ago, and over time only some points were clarified. I can give you two arguments.
Randomness exists only “for someone”. The brick fell to the ground – we say it happened according to the laws of gravity. A brick fell on the head of a passerby – we say, what a ridiculous accident. However, what has changed in essence? We can, of course, imagine that man is not a brick and could have taken a different path. But in fact, people's reality is also organized by reasons (for example, habit – how many people do you know who take different roads every time?).
Ignorance does not mean absence. Very many facts that are considered accidental are explained by the incompleteness of the judge's knowledge. For example, we can see damage from fire, but not from radiation, however, to judge that the latter does not harm – you can only if you have not studied anything about it (besides, believe it or not, but the consequences will be). Let us now apply this to any case in which it is not known whether there was an accident or a pattern. Which is more rational: to assume that there was an (unknown) cause or to believe that all science is wrong and cause-and-effect relationships in the world sometimes work, sometimes not? The former is certainly more reasonable (although we will never prove it 100%).
However, in the latter case, I will note that as soon as we are dealing not with the world, but with a person (he has not only reasons, but also motives, including implicit or unconscious ones), then it will not be possible to choose the option of an unknown cause just as confidently. Too often, a person's motives, habits, and passions are so confused that it is impossible to determine whether there was an obvious reason or an accidental fluctuation. People like to make an exception for themselves, although a consistent materialist would argue with this (for him, a person is just a brick, well, maybe more complicated).
I can only argue that there is a certain subjective correlation between randomness and regularity.
I have experience in research of industrial and technological complexes. And I think that the ratio of randomness and regularity is a purely subjective phenomenon. First of all, this ratio is determined by the researcher's professionalism.
Novice researchers usually simplify the scientific method of research. And they pay attention to particular rather obvious patterns within existing production and technological complexes without fundamental strategic changes. They can quite legitimately, based on the facts they have obtained in a simplified “black box” model, insist that absolutely everything in existing objects is built on fairly strict laws.
This is possible as long as the strategic aspect of changes in managed reality development, which leads to deeper and larger changes, is not affected. Under these conditions, the “Curse of dimensionality” operates, which leads such models to zero value when they are tested. That is, when applying the” black box ” to such problems, novice researchers go to the other extreme. The whole world is not predictable, and it is better not to change anything.
When using the more powerful potential of the scientific method to obtain the ratio of randomness and regularity of a new strategic level, it is desirable to carry out development without withdrawal, such as:
a new paradigm of ordering the research object;
a new formula for the productive efficiency concept;
a well-developed system structural or functional target model;
fundamentally new classification of primary analytical features that determine efficiency;
methods for reducing features that have different dimensions and do not yet have a measurement to a single dimension;
previously unknown hypotheses about the relationship between deep and large-scale factorial and effective features;
a new system of analytical expressions for forward estimates of projected changes;
an appropriate system of observation, collection, processing and systematization of factual information in order to avoid the use of indirect, secondary and subjectively corrected sources rather than primary ones, etc.
Thus, a new perspective correlation of randomness and regularity in industrial and technological complexes will be determined by professionalism in using the scientific research method for deep structuring and ordering of the research object. And obtaining a large class of calculated and experimentally confirmed patterns of managing innovative changes.
The question, in my opinion (I may be wrong), requires clarification. I would break it down into several related questions:
What natural phenomena have a truly random genesis ?
What laws of nature have a pseudo-random genesis, that is, they seem to us (at first glance) random, but in reality they have a hidden cause, temporarily unknown to scientists)?
What phenomena seem to us to be strictly deterministic, but in fact reflect the hidden randomness of other phenomena that exist at a different dimensional level of the organization of matter?
What natural phenomena do not have a random genesis (strictly deterministic)
These (and similar) questions fall within the purview of philosophy – problems of relations between interrelated philosophical categories: NECESSITY AND CHANCE.
Approximate answer to the selected questions (I may be wrong) this is it.
1. “Elementary” phenomena that fall within the competence of “Probability Theory” have a truly random genesis: the fall of “tails ” or” heads ” during multiple coin tosses, the movement of gas molecules, the fall of meteorites, etc.
Pseudorandom genesis has a variety of phenomena, which are quite difficult to isolate. A classic example of such a phenomenon is the” accidental ” fall of a turtle from a great height on the head of a bald man (for the example of Democritus, see the book by S. Y. Lurie. “Journey of Democritus”). The event seems (at first glance) random. However, biologists know: this event is natural: the turtle was thrown on the head of a bald man by a mountain eagle. Reset it intentionally (naturally) he mistook the man's gleaming bald head for the glittering stone that mountain eagles break the shells of turtles they catch. Examples of other (modern) pseudorandom phenomena are worth looking for specifically (it is even possible that this is a topic for a dissertation in the field of formal logic or philosophy)
Phenomena formed in a strict quantitative law based on the hidden randomness of other phenomena are known. These are the” gas ” laws of Charles et al. (“school” physics). These laws exist at the MACRO LEVEL (the level of large volumes of gas…). In fact, these laws are a manifestation of RANDOM movements of gas molecules (MICROCOSM). Such laws of nature are called statistical regularities. In a sense , this is also an example of pseudo-random phenomena, the hidden cause of which (the presence of molecules and their chaotic movement) remained unknown to physicists for a long time.
Strictly deterministic natural phenomena are well known. For example: sunrise in the east and sunset in the west, the fall of bodies released from the connection, namely on the surface of the Earth, etc. The probability of occurrence of these events is always equal to one (reliable event). All of them have only one cause (another physical phenomenon), which ensures the occurrence of this event with one hundred percent probability.
I answer exclusively from the point of view of the so-called natural sciences. In their field.
You know the question is turned inside out. Studying the macro world, from the very beginning of these very natural sciences, we see determinism everywhere, and on the contrary, we do not see randomness anywhere. It is necessary to ask so-what arguments can be given in favor of the fact that randomness EXISTS. There are such arguments: under certain conditions, some events are not “predetermined by physical laws and the state of matter before the event”, but “happen” with one or another probability. But in order to make and justify this discovery, humanity had to invent quantum physics and plunge into the microcosm.
The main argument is the achievements of science and technology. The scientific method of cognition is based on the postulate of reproducibility of experimental results. Reproducibility means determinism; under the same conditions, the results must be the same. Determinism means that randomness does not exist.
When people object about the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, then even here randomness is not random, but obeys certain laws describing it, the probability function.
No. On the contrary, there are arguments that this thesis is false. One of them is the presence of fundamental randomness at the quantum level.
Although… Although, it depends on what YOU CALL randomness? That is, the question here is purely purely terminological: what exactly do we mean by this word “randomness” or”regularity”? There is such a – not even a “hypothesis”, but-an INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics (that is, again, it all comes down to what words to denote what), which is based on Hugo Everett: this is the so-called “multi-world” interpretation of it. And according to it, yes, there are no “accidents”. Any “randomness” that can take place in principle is realized absolutely necessarily, that is, absolutely inevitably, but – in some (or some, that is, on a certain subset) of the alternative realities (or “worlds”) that take place. If any two (or more) variants of the development of events mutually exclude each other, then they are simply implemented in disjoint subsets of realities. That's all. If they can be combined, then the corresponding subsets of realities intersect. Well, in this case (in this system of concepts) ,a” case ” can be called a certain subset (“bundle”, “strand”, “jet”) these “realities” in which this particular case is realized. And “regularities” are certain rules that are used to build chains of causally interrelated events (states in which certain material objects and systems reside, and sequences of their changes and transitions).
But the whole point is that one cause (that is, the presence of a material system in some state of its own) can generate not one, but many possible consequences, and each effect is generated not by one, but by many possible causes. And where the possible consequences are mutually exclusive, there are “bifurcation points” (and maybe trifurcations, tetrafurcations, pentafurcations, sextafurcations, septafurcations…), which we perceive as some unpredictable “accidents”. Well, – no one forbids us to call them by this word. And in practice, it is quite appropriate and useful for communication and better mutual understanding. So, in this sense, “randomness” exists. And, here, “patterns that we do not know” are absolutely useless, because they are still not going anywhere. Now, when they become known, then you can continue to do something with them, and from “not known” – what is the use? You can assume their presence only for the purpose of further search and identification, that is, in order to make them known later. And it makes absolutely no sense to refer to or somehow base on them while they are not yet known.
At least the fact that we DO NOT SEE reality, we see only the interpretation of our brain, which is trying to solve its problem, drawing everything TOGETHER for this purpose. Our task is to understand the goal and match it. And there is a choice – to follow it as it is or to move on from it.
In probability theory, randomness is an outcome that cannot be predicted. But it is still assumed that all possible outcomes are known and their number is FINITE. For example, when throwing a dice, there are 6 outcomes.
When studying nature, we do not know the exact number of outcomes, and what they may be. This IGNORANCE is the absence of a pattern. A pattern is not something that you need to find in nature, but something that you need to establish in your mind. Its absence in us creates chaos, randomness, increases entropy.
If we look at the root, then both randomness and regularity are two dual concepts. That is, just ideas. They are convenient, each in its own field, descriptions of the world, when we need to calculate something, or predict the behavior of some system at some stage of its existence. However, both “randomness” and” regularity ” are just our anthropogenic Models of Reality. Reality itself(the universe) is neither random nor natural.
So my argument will be this: If there is no randomness, then there is no pattern.
If randomness did not exist, then there would be no point in talking about free will. After all, if the entire future is determined by the past and its laws, then everything, every thought and act from birth to death is laid down in the first moment of the Universe. Strictly speaking, this contradicts our life experience.
But even if we believe that free will is an illusion, the very appearance of a world without chance remains impossible. If the ultimate void naturally generated new universes, then the big bangs would be heard continuously. So, there was a certain push, a single fluctuation, which was not caused by anything – after all, there was nothing yet, he was the first.
So the atheistic picture of the world cannot be without chance. And in the religious one, of course, “chance is an instrument of God.”
To do this, you need to know the basis of the basics of energy as such. For this purpose, the definition of “objective energy” was introduced. Knowing the basics of the basics allows you to determine how the prerequisite for self-organization of information arises in chaos. Information, having emerged as a structure of charges on carrier matter, becomes the first order as such. This is the beginning of everything as such. As chaos continues to affect primary information, it forms structures of self-defense and self-preservation functions as a self-complication. This first information is called a Word. “At the beginning (of the ordering as such) was the Word, (this!) The Word (and) was God (om) and the Word was with God (as the first carrier of the first order in the structure).” Then the Word self-complicates, grabbing more and more of the chaos, and, as a result, begins to dominate the chaos, making it ordered by one or another structuring. Therefore, communication with God is communication with the first information and versions of its self-complication. The first order was based on light as a structure formed by the mutual arrangement of charges. Therefore, God is holy/of lights. Then The Word/God began to use his inner (!) light as an energy format. As a result, the very first saint was brought together/the light law as a set of standards for the formation and use of light structures. This law is immutable, since only according to its provisions it is possible to form and use light. At the level of operation of this law, there are no accidents, otherwise orderability and its management are jeopardized by the destruction of chaos. But at the level of the forms of complex structures built through the application of the holy law, something appears that these structures themselves perceive as “randomness”. When a complex structure knows itself, its foundation, the Light itself, and its own cultivation according to the holy Law, the concept of “randomness” ceases to exist for it. The very word “randomness” means happenstance as the convergence/combination of rays (light). When the cause-and-effect relationships of this convergence become known and understood, the structure's participation in overall orderability becomes conscious (s-o-aware). Consciousness = c-o-knowledge, where ” c “is light,” o ” is full-periodicity. The knowledge of all / every light in the full period (Circle of Life) is the perfect (=perfect) consciousness (equal-Divine).
It all adds up to the fact that there are no coincidences. At least random events are events that do not have a causal relationship in our understanding, and therefore are not predictable. But this only means that the event occurred outside of our event horizon.
Numerous experiments show that behind randomness there are patterns that cannot be explained.
Life, the universe moves forward, develops.And of course, this is a pattern.And a person,in order to be in this flow, must always be in development, not stop in his self-knowledge.This will give you the confidence and desire to be a useful part of this evolutionary process.
We all learned a little Something and somehow,
So it is with Reality, randomness and regularities.
We know approximately, or agree to assume that they exist or not.
All our knowledge is approximate, but it does not lead us to understanding.
Everything is approximately and in general.
And if you want to be more precise?
So you can want a lot.
But “not poluchitstsa”
Of all the “scientific” laws, life experience has so far taught us to trust only
“If any trouble can happen, it will happen.
and its “consequence”-
It's not as easy as it sounds…
no no no…, think about the fact that randomness is an absolute randomness until we think about it, and since we think about it, we also start looking for the reason , and the reason is what patterns are created from, so dear friends, all accidents live only in our subconscious. TADAMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!! bingo
They say that if Napoleon had not gone to war on Russia, he would not have ended his days on fr. The problem is that there are no “ifs”, events are like dominoes, the fall of one causes the fall of the next, and if any” randomness ” is decomposed into billions of its components, which no computer can calculate, then it turns out that it is not such an accident. In fact, everything around us is a banal Brownian motion of dominoes from the creation of the world)
Everything can be and everything can be, but only what can not be, what can not be at all, but even this can be! The main thing is that an accident should not be fatal!
The fact that for one randomness, for another-a pattern. For one, this is the reason – for the second, the consequence, and this was just an experiment on the development of events. The funny thing is that everyone is right, because at each level of development, the height of the horizon is different.))
The universe and randomness cannot exist simultaneously. Probability theory tells us that with a large number of tests, the number of positive and negative results will be equal. That is, in the universe, all events, including future ones, are balanced with each other. Where is the randomness then?
Chance 2 the name of God. All according to the will of God=The matrix of the Creator revealed by us in the decoded Bible. EVERYTHING! according to the Word of God=The matrix=God according to John the Theologian. It is described in the secret of the Apocalypse, where it is mentioned. 24 elders, 24 lines=Iota and in the middle of the Throne Sitting with a view under the Iapis stone and around the Throne a rainbow. 7 colors=7 stars, 7 churches, etc.
The usual wordplay in the question.
It is not proven that the delusional “arguments that there is no randomness” exist at all and can be “given” here.
It is not specified about what patterns we are talking about, about objective scientific laws of nature or about cause-and-effect relationships in human behavior?
In reality, there are both this and that, there are completely random processes, there are completely natural ones, and there are various metaphorical terms and phrases about “randomness and regularities”, depending on the context.
I'm not a scientist. In my opinion and unfortunately none. Everything is considered to be particularly lucky, or particularly unlucky coincidences.
Is that this “Big Bang”, the birth of the Universe, the planet Earth, the appearance of man. Personally, I think of the sinking of the Titanic with a start.