[bitistoll (OP)]

When we talk of the universe as being like a computer rather than like ue, that is, we are capable of being self-regulating and correcting, but the universe is not, I wonder if we should not consider OURSELVES as part of that universe, and if we do, then the universe, at least in its PARTS, and that includes planets like the Earth, which has a self-regulating biosphere, IS self-regulating.  The question would then become, what significance does one attach to those parts? 

One can imagine a scenario in which universes are being born and dieing by the billion all the time.  A universe is born with a set of laws, and only the ones that have a VIABLE set of laws will survive, and ours is one of those rare survivors, BECAUSE the laws it was born with worked.

But it is surviving on a knife-edge, incapable of coping with random events.  If it is going to continue to survive it must somehow deal with this, must develop the ability to cope with change, random or otherwise.  To put it another way, the only universes that can survive long-term, are those that are capable of changing beyond their first set of laws... and that is where we and our planet come in... we are the universe developing the ability to self-regulate!

We are used to the idea of the universe evolving, we are just not used to thinking of ourselves as a significant part of that evolution, but, out planet with its self-regulating biosphere evolved before we did, and that is more  understandable.  That is sort of like saying that BIOLOGY is the universe developing a way of being self-regulating.

[another_someone]

most effects have a conceivable cause, like gravity.  But my viewpoint seems to weaken here when you come across an event that has no conceivable cause.  It could be explained that, due to the pecularities of quantum physics and miniature time dimentions, that such effects do indeed have causes, they just have not occured as of yet.

What do you mean by the term 'cause'?

Being practical, gravity is not so much a 'cause' (for we cannot actually know true causes, if they exist), but a set of equations that model actions, and those equations can be used to predict future actions.

It is conceivable that the true causes of motion have noting to do with gravity, but the idea of gravity is sufficient to allow us to make predictions about motions of massive objects.

So, the questions regarding quantum phenomena are as much about whether you believe they are predictable as whether they have a cause.  If you cannot create a predictive model, then from our perspective, the actions are random, no matter whether there be hidden causes or not.

while such randomness does occur in coding, it is caused by those things you just listed, therefore is not completely random.  these causes, as you said, are beyond the perception of the program.  such random events, however, are usually known, and the program will act accordingly as if were input.

Yes, but from the perspective of the program, it cannot maintain a predictive model of such events, and so such events are (from it's perspective) purely random.

Looking back at the multiverse examples we discussed above, if entities are jumping from one universe to another within a multiverse, someone with an overview of all of the multiverse may well be able to determine a predictive model that encompasses the entire multiverse, but to someone who only has information from within a single universe, these jumps between universes will simply be percieved as unpredictable random events.

again, the systems are not truly random, since the effect of random is based on the cause of quantum noise effects.  as I stated earlier in the post, on a quantum level, it is possible that causes are on a differing timeline than ours, generating the perception of an event that has no cause.

But perception is all.  If it quacks like a duck, etc.  Science is about explaining and predicting perceived truths - it does not delve into the metaphysical or unperceived 'realities'.

[lyner]

The statistics of these 'truly' random events (e.g. thermal noise) seems to imply that randomness is a 'real' concept. The autocorrelation function of good healthy white noise is pretty much an impulse, however carefully you measure it. The mechanism which is producing this, what you might call 'quasi randomness' must be pretty good - in my opinion it is easier to think that it is actually randomness and not something that just looks like randomness.
What is the problem with accepting randomness as a concept?

[another_someone]

The statistics of these 'truly' random events (e.g. thermal noise) seems to imply that randomness is a 'real' concept. The autocorrelation function of good healthy white noise is pretty much an impulse, however carefully you measure it. The mechanism which is producing this, what you might call 'quasi randomness' must be pretty good - in my opinion it is easier to think that it is actually randomness and not something that just looks like randomness.

To play devils advocate, the statistical characteristics of the output of a good encryption algorithm, or an idealised compression algorithm, would both look like random noise unless you knew to decryption/uncompression algorithm to recover the original data.

[science_guy]

The statistics of these 'truly' random events (e.g. thermal noise) seems to imply that randomness is a 'real' concept. The autocorrelation function of good healthy white noise is pretty much an impulse, however carefully you measure it. The mechanism which is producing this, what you might call 'quasi randomness' must be pretty good - in my opinion it is easier to think that it is actually randomness and not something that just looks like randomness.

To play devils advocate, the statistical characteristics of the output of a good encryption algorithm, or an idealised compression algorithm, would both look like random noise unless you knew to decryption/uncompression algorithm to recover the original data.

are you saying im the devil? [!]

most effects have a conceivable cause, like gravity.  But my viewpoint seems to weaken here when you come across an event that has no conceivable cause.  It could be explained that, due to the pecularities of quantum physics and miniature time dimentions, that such effects do indeed have causes, they just have not occured as of yet.

What do you mean by the term 'cause'?

Being practical, gravity is not so much a 'cause' (for we cannot actually know true causes, if they exist), but a set of equations that model actions, and those equations can be used to predict future actions.

It is conceivable that the true causes of motion have noting to do with gravity, but the idea of gravity is sufficient to allow us to make predictions about motions of massive objects.

So, the questions regarding quantum phenomena are as much about whether you believe they are predictable as whether they have a cause.  If you cannot create a predictive model, then from our perspective, the actions are random, no matter whether there be hidden causes or not.

while such randomness does occur in coding, it is caused by those things you just listed, therefore is not completely random.  these causes, as you said, are beyond the perception of the program.  such random events, however, are usually known, and the program will act accordingly as if were input.

Yes, but from the perspective of the program, it cannot maintain a predictive model of such events, and so such events are (from it's perspective) purely random.

Looking back at the multiverse examples we discussed above, if entities are jumping from one universe to another within a multiverse, someone with an overview of all of the multiverse may well be able to determine a predictive model that encompasses the entire multiverse, but to someone who only has information from within a single universe, these jumps between universes will simply be percieved as unpredictable random events.

again, the systems are not truly random, since the effect of random is based on the cause of quantum noise effects.  as I stated earlier in the post, on a quantum level, it is possible that causes are on a differing timeline than ours, generating the perception of an event that has no cause.

But perception is all.  If it quacks like a duck, etc.  Science is about explaining and predicting perceived truths - it does not delve into the metaphysical or unperceived 'realities'.

it seems that you are focusing on the existance of random based upon the perception of a cause, rather than the existance of a cause.  if that is your viewpoint, then I agree with you completely.  my argument is that, assuming we could know and perceive everything, than everything would have a perceivable cause.  as per my earlier argument, the effect of our orbit around the sun is from the cause of gravity.

my term for "cause" by the way, is something that generates an effect.

[another_someone]

are you saying im the devil? [!]

I hope this statement was not to be taken seriously, despite your 'angry' smiley?

my argument is that, assuming we could know and perceive everything, than everything would have a perceivable cause.

This sounds like something of a circular argument.  You seem to be saying that if we could know the cause of everything then everything must have a cause.  This is self evidently true, as is the converse argument, that if not everything has a cause, then we cannot possibly know the cause of everything.

as per my earlier argument, the effect of our orbit around the sun is from the cause of gravity.

I would suggest that this is convenient shorthand, but is not provably true.

What we know is that the equations for gravity can be used to predict the orbit of our motion about the Sun, but we can never prove that this is, nor that it is not, the actual cause of our orbit around the Sun.

my term for "cause" by the way, is something that generates an effect.

But cause and effect are merely perceptions.  This is particularly demonstrably true because there are situations where relativity predicts that the apparent order of events may appear to be different for one observer than for another observer, and in that case, how can you determine cause and effect?

[science_guy]

no, it wasn't taken seriously []

This sounds like something of a circular argument.  You seem to be saying that if we could know the cause of everything then everything must have a cause.  This is self evidently true, as is the converse argument, that if not everything has a cause, then we cannot possibly know the cause of everything.

im not saying if we know the cause of everything, I am suggesting that if nothing is beyond our perception, then we could perceive a cause for everything.

I would suggest that this is convenient shorthand, but is not provably true.

What we know is that the equations for gravity can be used to predict the orbit of our motion about the Sun, but we can never prove that this is, nor that it is not, the actual cause of our orbit around the Sun.

while I was giving an example, it was a poor one for this situation.  the quantum example i've given is more approiate for what I am saying.

But cause and effect are merely perceptions.  This is particularly demonstrably true because there are situations where relativity predicts that the apparent order of events may appear to be different for one observer than for another observer, and in that case, how can you determine cause and effect?

as a certain interpretation, yes, causes and effects are merely perceptions.  but, for lack of a better word (English is so limited...) I must use them.  I am saying that everything must have happened as a result of something else happening.  Perhaps more than one cause, or more than one effect, perhaps causes and effects in differing timelines.

an anology could be given that the big bang was the rock that was dropped into the water, and everything that has been happening are millions upon millions of ripples, which create more ripples, and so on.

[bitistoll (OP)]

this is a quicky, just to draw the three threads I started together, because that makes sense.  The relevant post is in the thread titled: how do we know the laws of physics are really laws.... , posted under the alias rainwildman