# Thread: Life .. Random or Determined?

1. Determined. Randomness is nothing more than a appellation to events who's causes are either unknown or pointless to declare because what determines them is at a level that is irrelevant to one's focus.

2. Originally Posted by TautologousTautology
Determined. Randomness is nothing more than a appellation to events who's causes are either unknown or pointless to declare because what determines them is at a level that is irrelevant to one's focus.
Of course how can yeu determine this without knowing said events and causes? There's no way to 100% proove this without knowing every single event and cause, shred of matter and energy in the universe XD

3. From the perspective of the individual? Random, mostly.

4. It depends on your abstraction level. But if you want a single answer...

Probabilistically determined...at least that is my interpretation of currently accepted science...and I am not including string theory since it hasn't had much (if any) empirical testing.

There are 4 fundamental interactions. There are two forces of limited scale (that is distances that it effects stuff)...the strong nuclear force (responsible for holding nuclei together), the weak nuclear force (responsible for beta decay and other such things). The two other forces have infinite scale, and they are the more familiar electromagnetic force (electric field and magnetic field depends on your reference frame) and the force of gravity.

At base, the universe of particles is governed by Schroedinger's Equation (or rather Dirac's Equation when you account for special relativity), which is an equation of the governing the square root of the probability that particle will be measured at a particular position. The equation also happens to be a wave equation.

Similar equations, Quantum Electrodynamics, describe electromagnetic forces.

Quantum chromodynamics, describes strong nuclear forces.

A theory of weak interactions mimics the theory of electrodynamics except with different mediators.

These theories are all probabilistic in nature. The descriptions are neither complete randomness, not completely determined.

Then there is the completely deterministic description of gravity known as General Relativity.

So at the physical microscopic level things are probabilistic.

But as you get more macroscopic, the averaging effects (law of large numbers, central limit theorem, statistical mechanics, etc.) make the physical world LOOK completely deterministic. This is the world described by classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics.

But as you keep going up in abstraction..chemistry, biology, etc. Things start getting very dynamic and hard to predict, but there remains regularity and an inkling that, underneath it all, it is deterministic. Nevertheless, we model things with a mix of completely deterministic and probabilistically determined ways.

Then we get to the level of individual people...here things are extremely dynamics and essentially chaotic. Psychology, Philosophy, History, etc. all attempt to describe this level, but we are left with things like "consciousness," "choice," and other phenomenon that we are hard pressed to even explain probabilistically. Are these phenomena due solely to complexity, or does the base fundamentally probabilistic nature also play a role?

Then we go up in abstraction and we start to study people in aggregate. This is the realm of demographics, sociology, economics, etc. Here again, we are aided by averaging effects. Things become more predictable, and somewhat amenable to probabilistic descriptions. However, the theories often break down, due to things referred to as "Black Swans" (rare events that have profound effects).

I applaud those who read this far. This is something, I think about a lot.

5. Love the explaination ygolo, but... I disagree.

The only reason these things are probabilistic in nature, is because we are not capable of knowing all the information at all times, if we learn one piece of information more accurately, we know another piece less accurately. It doesn't mean it's not structured, it just means that we CAN'T know the full extent of it.

Here's a quick example:

A+B=C
There's a sliding door between A and B, covering either one at any time, each time yeu move the door to one side, it exposes the other one, and conceals the first, and recalculates the values of A and B. We know the value of A, by knowing the value of A, the value of B is automatically changed based upon A. As soon as we check whot the value of B is though, the value of A changes. Therefore we can never know both A and B at the same time as we're only able to view one of them.

So as we check on A, we loose sight of whot B is, and the value of B is changed to reflect the answer of whot A is. As we check B, the value of A is changed. We can do this back and forth many times, estimating closer and closer to the guess of whot the relation between the two are, but if we don't know for certain whot that relationship is, there may be errors in it as well. If we get enough points of referance, we can guess whot C is for any given value of A or B, but we can never know for certain 100%. It doesn't mean that this's a randomized situation, or that it's even a probability. Our UNDERSTANDING of it is only able to be measured as a probability. The actual solution itself is completely rigid in structure, we just can't see all ends at the same time.

6. Your perspective is analogous to what is known as the "hidden variable" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Sometimes also called the "realist" position. That is the belief that the particle was at a particular position, but it is just that we don't know where it is.

Another interpretation is the "orthodox" position. Which says the particle wasn't anywhere in particular till you measured it. It was the actual measurement of a particle that produces the position.

In 1964, John Bell came up with a way to distinguish the two positions experimentally. Suffice it to say the experiments come down on the side of the orthodox position, and against the realist position.

That is to say experiments give evidence that until you measure the position of the particle, it really isn't anywhere.

I am not well versed in QM enough to elucidate Bell's argument. However, I am taking a QM class this fall. Hopefully, after that, I will be able to explain why the particle really isn't anywhere.

7. Planned for adventures yes but for career kinda halfway. I plan with my career so i can have a adventure.

8. Determinism: Irrelevant or incredibly irrelevant?

9. Determined/quantifiable. Not religiously.

10. Life is whatever you make of it. So in that way, I guess it's determined.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•