> ....... Radioactive decay
>is the only thing I'm aware of which is truly random.
>It all depends on how random one needs ones numbers.
>
>____________________________
>Mr. Daniel P. Bebber
That is a matter of opinion. Another view is that perceived randomness in
any sphere, biological, physical or whatever, is merely a symptom of our
ignorance of, or inability to cope with, the underlying deterministic
details. In many applications the "random model" is the only practical view
of the world - but I think we should always keep a mind open to the
possibility that more satisfactory deterministic models may sometime be
developed - even for things like radioactive decay. Randomness is a very
useful tool (which I have used throughout my adult life as a statistician of
course) - but is an intellectual "cop-out" if used as an explanation of
anything. A bit like invoking "God" or other supernatural notions to
"explain" anything we don't currently understand.
I don't know what the latest thinking on particle physics is - but I
remember enjoying reading "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics" by David
Bohm (I think) about 30 years ago. A good read.
Jim Burridge.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|