So what exactly in nature do we think is TRULY random?

[WelshBloke]

A bucket of soapy frogs, two kittens, a wolverine, and a large pile of blow.

 

[Humpy]

If nature is defined as everything in an infinite volume of space over an infinite timeline I would ask what isn't random?

 

[John Connor]

Radioactive decay, PERIOD.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

What do you mean BarkingGhostar? The force is consistent as to what it is, so far as I know. Do you mean that the VALUE of the force is random in that it could have been any number, but it appears extremely finely tuned to permit the existance of galaxies, stars, planets and life? Almost like it, along with the other fundamental forces of nature, were purposefully set to what they are by someone or some thing? That is a different topic, I've tried to explain to the bafoons on here but they just don't get it.

I was alluding to the radioactive decay and ourr inability to predict which atom, at any given time, will be the atom to decay as a result of the weak force, or interaction.

 

[TheVrolok]

So this guy is like a less political A420? Amirite?

 

[DigDog]

A: we do not know.

We assume nothing is random, as every event is a direct causality of the information of the universe. "information" means "the way something is, in detail". so two balls hitting each other are doing so because they "were moving towards each other", or "information".
However, this assumes reality isn't quantized. "quantized" means "things can only be so small, once you get to that size, you can't have fractions of smaller forms of that number".
So, if reality was quantized, then two sets of information colliding could give a slightly different result then expected because of "missing numbers", just like when you try to multiply too large numbers of a cheap calculator.
OR, reality could suffers from influence by other dimentions, which could potentially be infinite, so everything is random (to a point).

 

[ImpulsE69]

Free will is random. I'm talking true free will. Example: choosing to click on this thread or not, and choosing to post or not. You could possibly discern some reactions based on past experience, but even that is fallible. You could say from the perspective of the person making the decision it is not random, but that would only be in some scenarios. People can choose to not do what they normally do at any moment for any reason, and in some cases have no reason.

 

[IronWing]

OP, go read up on chaos theory and strange attractors. If nothing else, it will provide fodder for your next thread.

 

[BxgJ]

A decent place to start, plenty of interesting wiki links in this section -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics

Most relevant quote from there, though the entire section is interesting.

This is where statistical mechanics come into play, and where physicists begin to require rather unintuitive mental models: A particle's path simply cannot be exactly specified in its full quantum description. "Path" is a classical, practical attribute in our every day life, but one which quantum particles do not meaningfully possess. The probabilities discovered in quantum mechanics do nevertheless arise from measurement (of the perceived path of the particle). As Stephen Hawking explains, the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities

 

[Red Squirrel]

Deterministic systems break down around the atomic level. Nuclear physics and stuff is based on probability.

Yeah I was mostly being silly. Though when you get super deep into this stuff, one could argue that everything is predetermined even at the atom level.

 

[ctbaars]

schrodinger's cat