Randomness: A Circular Argument (Part 1)

Draft 5.0

i. On Mathematics and Potential:
In practice, mathematical representations are limited and simplistic. The universe does not exist thus constrained by mere human abilities and concepts. Possibilities are not just numbers drawn from a hat. Probabilistic representations are different from actual behavior. Electrons may be described as mathematical points, then consequently found to have an infinite potential. We can mathematically re-normalize to cancel infinities, or else each electron contains all the energy in the universe which is not possible. We could also consider each electron to be a possible aspect of all others, or a single particle with an infinite number of aspects. No fermion may be distinguished from any other besides by its set of quantum numbers, which are unique. Hence, each electron is a concrete state of all possible states of the primal electron forced outward in an expanding universe. Contraction would represent the step toward unity again as space un-creates itself. New possibilities might enfold, but not computationally random ones. Chance is not so simplistic...

ii. On Mathematics and Complexity:
Confused with an inherent inability to comprehend an entire system, complexity is a misnomer. Different modes of thought, some contradictory or less than complimentary, have become tools to explore and explain the once ungraspable. The seed grew rootlets and historically diverged into the three main related camps of science, mathematics and philosophy. This situation occurred mainly due to demands for results. Although science and mathematics have continued an inter-relationship, philosophy has left the pale to the point where it ceases to be considered except against itself.[1] Unfortunately, philosophy has tended to retard advancement by outliving its time, like positivism, or ventured into metaphysical irrelevancies. However, this situation need not necessarily follow from a philosophical approach. Philosophers, mathematicians and scientists have misapplied reason to the exclusion of all else. The tool is blamed for user failings. Approximation methods and their significance are often ignored by philosophers, whereas physicists and mathematicians will discount qualitative approaches. The human mind may intuit beyond numbers and calculations. The ability deserves serious consideration. Einstein would never have developed Special and General Relativity without physical and geometrical intuition, because no basis previously existed in all physics beforehand and the mathematics involved were curiosities. It all began with day dreams about chasing light beams. This advancement could not have occurred when it did without the glue provided by Einstein's geometrical sensibilities.[2] Computers may calculate without intuition, albeit quickly, but still need to be told when to stop. On the other hand, theologians usually fail to consider any remotely logical product and therefore misapply unreason. All tools have limited uses, beyond which new modes are required for advancement, thereby enabling new relationships to be explored. These new truths may then require still new modes ad infinitum. Unfortunately, complexity often serves as an excuse for ignorance and stagnation, rather than an opportunity for expansion. Fundamental flaws may be produced by failing to view a problem or system from all its possible vantage points. Necessity is often a matter of immediate requirements and perceptions. An electron may be a single possibility of ONE actualized, or not. The correct view is entirely dependant upon those qualities and quantities we wish to observe and prove. Concrete results become important. Few care about meaning. Stagnation results from overly rigid treatments of reality. Mired conceptions are only circular and prove nothing. Sometimes, a conscious choice may be made to remain static, but should not be considered inherent. A self-imposed limitation is often a strength. Perception alone may be the decisive factor by introducing bias into the descriptive. No viewpoint is universal. Often masking itself behind individual motivations, the herd mentality has its additional effectual influences. Statistical behavior patterns are not random, but constraints within boundaries. The chances for a goat to spontaneously grow wings and fly are absolutely nil. Economics provides a less flippant example. Supply and demand are not arbitrary, nor malleable to dictatorial fiat. Twenty dead million Russian peasants may testify to this truth. Value provides motivations, but the unknowable and uncontrollable consequences are not random. An indirect result following a complicated causal relationship is not random, but contained. Perturbation effects rule-out strict determinism. Random elements are often simply the results of our ignorance and limitations. Long periods may appear random, instead being outside our scope and patience. A ball driven by a sinusoidal force may not be seen to repeat for days, but the behavior we do observe is not random. Indeed, certain periods, like 3, will deny chaotic behavior. Perhaps, the random is merely incomplete information.

[1] See Weinberg, 1992, pp. 166-190.

[2] Of course, albeit brilliantly, Einstein later rejected quantum behavior by misapplying positivist philosophical reasoning. This action is often cited against philosophy itself.