Random, stochastic, and improbable - Educate me

Faith & Science Conversation
41

@T_aquaticus, @Christy, @glipsnort, @GJDS, @03Cobra, @knor

I have a clarification which I hope will help.

It appears to me that we are dealing with at least two different situations here. !. Systems that are created to be random and are random, such as dice and playing cards. 2. Natural events or situations that are not predictable, because we do not know all the variables. Weather is a common example and the ones that @GJDSsefered to . " From my experience with chemical kinetics, I abhor using the term random for any reacting system, although stochastic treatments can be used as predictive tools. All chemical events are the result of clear reaction routes - in very complicated processes, we may lack the understanding needed to fully treat them and we resort to techniques that we know are simplifications.

My point is the character of the two situation are different, even though we might use the same type of tools to analyze them both One situation is inherently random. The other is impossible to accurately predict because we do not know all the factors. The weather and evolution being in the second category. Mathematical models are valuable tools, but we should not confuse them with nature-- reality.

. .

42

Throwing dice or flipping a coin are the examples most often used in these exchanges to illustrate random as a term. Yet each of these are very specific and the only question is the expected outcome. So… if I make a coin with two heads the probability of a toss giving heads is 100% and tails 0% … has a random process disappeared? or was it a specific system that can be altered at will? There are any number of conditions that are system specific … I construct dice that will always give a 7 … others will say that is cheating because I know the outcome with certainty.

The term random is very sloppy and is useful only as a way of describing our expectations for some outcomes. You will not find a maths formulae that includes a random term, but we can find results that may be analyzed statistically.

With QM complementary notions are used re uncertainty principle.

43

It is very difficult for us humans to wrap our heads around these processes. Our brains are built around associations between things so we can have a tough time when there are no associations.

Strangely enough, I would probably put a flip of a coin or a roll of the dice in your second category. If we could accurately measure the starting position of a die, the forces put on it, and the surfaces it interacts with then we could accurately predict the outcome, much like weather. For the “truly” random, which is an inherently flawed and vague term as well, you would need to look at the quantum realm. That would include interactions between molecules, which would put them more in category 1 on your list. For example, when you react hydrogen and oxygen the main product will be water, but you will also get small amounts of other compounds, such as hydrogen peroxide. How all of those interactions play out is probably best described through quantum mechanics. Other examples include the interference pattern in the double slit experiment and radioactive decay.

We shouldn’t confuse our intuitions with reality, either.

44

There is plenty of precision in the definitions of ‘random’ in probability theory. Or rather, in that field there are precise mathematical definitions of ‘random variable’, ‘random function’, ‘random field’, and so on.

45

I note you asked for examples.

I did many studies in power system reliability.

A power plant might have a forced outage rate of 5%, but that could be 2 outages in a year averaging 219 hours or 10 outages in a year 43.8 hours each.

With 100+ units in a “control area,” a region all served by the same fleet of power plants with various failure modes, the simulation of those combined characteristics into a total amount of capacity available to serve load is a complex evaluation.

Add to that the random variations in customer load due to weather and other factors, and it is more complicated.

Then, with wind variation and hydro variation, complications are greater.

The power outages happening now in California represent a failure of the planners and other people responsible for implementation of plans.

The best method that I know for simulating the system and preparing to meet the needs of the regions is a Monte Carlo based-evaluation of the options. Monte Carlo is computationally intensive but easy to understand.

1 Like
46

Statistical analysis would use these terms (e.g. in providing the probability distribution of flipping a coin, how many cars have done this or that). This is anything but precise. see The idea of a probability distribution - Math Insight

47

@GJDS,Thank you for your feedback.

The problem with the information that you cited is that it dealt with the common artificial processes that most people are familiar with, dice esp.

My contention is that there is an important difference between this type of process which are intended to be random and are, and events in nature that are perceived to be random, because some factors are unknown, not unknow3able. Quantum events are another situation, but we ere not talking about quantum events.

The weather is not totally predicable, so it is not random, but some aspects of it are probable.

Vance, thank you for the information.

It is especially helpful because it clarifies what kind of models so are talking about and their uses, to predict poddible3 problems. It seems to me that these problems are not the result of random variables, but caused by the orderly laws of nature acting in a complex situation. .

This is the same situation as natural selection. It is not a random process en that the variables are not random, but it is often unpredictable because it is complex and complicated.

Please, give me an example of a situation where there are no associations between things. Are you saying that there is no relationship between evolution and ecology as I have claimed. Are you saying that these is no relationship between the asteroid, climate change, and the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs? . .That there is no relationship between climate change, the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, the flourishing the mammals, and emergence of birds?

Reading between the lines I would have to say that you are reading much too much in to new revelations about quantum physics. I probably sound like an old fuddy duddy saying this and I am old, but as time goes by we are finding that quantum physics is different from macro physics, but it is not random as claimed. The problems is one of philosophy and science because they assumed that science was reductionist and materialistic and it is not.

intuition

[ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n]

NOUN

intuitions (plural noun)

  1. the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.

You seem to make4 a false dichotomy between science and intuition. We need to bring together experience and logic. We cannot go on experience only or logic only. We need to test everything on the basis if both. When we do we see that natural selection is not random, but is based on ecology. .

If you wish to disprove that statement, feel free to do so.

48

You seem to be implying that the “orderly laws of nature” do not result in random variation in outcomes.

I suppose you could argue that flat tires do not happen at random, because everything that happens to a tire is a result of the “orderly laws of nature,” whether it is caused by:

  1. a “random” attack by a disgruntled juvenile delinquent with a knife or
  2. a “randomly placed” nail that fell off a construction truck or
  3. a “random” belch which distracted a quality control inspector who should have seen a flaw at the Michelin factory or
  4. some other event that is not predictable by people without prophetic ability.

In general, the physical characteristics of individuals are set by their genetic code according to the “orderly laws of nature.” But I find it interesting that identical twins don’t have identical fingerprints because random processes impact those prints.

49

There is no question that there are such things as accidents. We are not talking about “random” incidents. We are talking about Natural Selection and Evolution which are Natural processes. Variation which is half of Evolution is a process which causes change. Children are different from parents. and each other.

“Identical” are an excepti0on to the rule, but I think you information is inaccurate. For the record a better name for them is mirror twins, because they were created when a fertilized egg divided so we have two persons who are mirror images of each other, including their fingerprints. This is not a random process, although it may be a random event.

Random events canno0t be predicted, but when we look are evolution we can see how the processes worked that create4d new species, They are not random in relationship to the ecology.

50

image
image1120×323 142 KB

51

Superstitions in sports are a good example. There are athletes who will wear the same socks, always pick up pennies that are heads up, and a long list of other activities that are absolutely not associated with the game they are playing. Early medicine is littered with false associations, such as releasing of humors which were thought to cure diseases.

That would be another false association. You seem to have associated my claim of the existence of false associations with the position that all claimed associations are false.

The physics I am talking about are from the early 1900’s. It’s not that new.

If you think human intuition is infallible then you should study up on the history of science.

52

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.