SULPHUR

Its position is unknown but the distance from the nucleus is

ps418

No. What you might have in mind is the idea of "random mutations." The claim that mutations are random is not a statement that no one knows how mutations occur -- much is known about how mutations occur. 'Random mutations' as the phrase is usually used simply means "random with respect to the fitness of the organism," which is something quite different.

Patrick

Philosoft

I have no idea. The only related things I vaguely comprehend are force particles and chaos theory. I don't think there's a layman's way to understand the models of the quantum structure of space-time. You can scream for a sound-bite explanation all you want, it's not going to make one appear. And it's not going to open up any more holes for you to cram the supernatural into, either.
Many of them do just this, in a highly structured and organized manner. It's called college. You might want to look into it.

tensorproduct

I think that the misunderstanding here may be in what is considered to be randomness. We must acknowledge the difference between randomness on a macroscopic scale, and on a quantum level.

In the everyday, observable world many processes appear random because of the sheer number of outside influences affecting the outcome.
For instance, consider a ball flying through the air. Simplistically, if we know exactly all the parameters of this system (mass of the ball, initial velocity, wind speed, etc.) we could, using simple Newtonian mechanics, predict the exact point at which this ball would hit the ground. However, many elements of this system cannot be determined exactly, or are changeable, e.g windspeed, so our prediction may be innaccurate. To counter this the obvious next step is to find out exactly what the windspeed will be at all times that the ball is in the air. But everyone who has gone out in a t-shirt because the met office said it would be sunny all day knows that this simply cannot be done. Weather systems are non-linear, and chaotic, and so may be affected by the smallest change in parameters (the famous butterfly flaps its wings and causes a tornado on the otherside of the world.)
A similar argument applies to genetic mutation, it would be impossible for a geneticist to take into account every outside influence on a single strand of DNA over even a short period of time, never mind over the entire lifetime of an organism.

Secondly, in the quantum realm randomness is not the result of not being able to map the whole system, or because the governing equations are non-linear. Schrodinger's equation, probably the most important in QM, is linear and quite simple, therefore, unlike in the everyday world, QM is deterministic and even an approximate knowledge of initial conditions should give accurate predictions for some time after.
The randomness in quantum physics is an integral part of the theory, so you could say that it is caused by nothing, but it would be more accurate to say that this randomness is how the universe is.
Of course QM has flaws and there are many theories being proposed to replace and we may see at sometime in the future a new dominant theory, which disposes of the idea altogether.

Damn, this is the longest post I've ever made.

Principia

False dichotomy. Something random could cause itself. Also, you have not shown that what seems logically absurd is in fact logically absurd. What in fact is logically impossible about acausality, yguy? Isn't your God uncaused? Also, the fact that you can't come up with a logical explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. After all, it wasn't too long ago on the geologic time scale that bipedal creatures thought if they walked far enough it seemed logical that they fall off the face of the earth.

Nothing., since you have only succeeded in devaluing the meaning of "directed." What then is not directed, yguy? If everything including apparent randomness is directed, then, pardon me while I yawn.

I note that you have not in fact answered my question. Answering a question with more questions goes no where. I repeat again: How would you explore that fundamental nature of randomness in quantum mechanics?

<taps fingers>

Wounded King

If you take a many worlds QM interpretation then all of the possible interactions occur, problem solved

Principia

Loaded question. Why must something make a particle behave a particular way? Once again, tell us how you figured out that something must have a causal agency in order to behave randomly.

Dr Rick

The correct answer is "NOTHING does" because there is no cause for the randomness. You erred in part because you implicitly assume the false premise that all things must be caused. The idea that all things and events must have a cause is part of Newtonian physics (ie for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction), but not of QM.

Rick

yguy

OK.

You just admitted that you can't answer the question, but you are neverthless telling me you know there are people who can.

Great is thy faith.

yguy

If you asserted that A = not A, I wouldn't be able to show that THAT was absurd either. In logic, you inevitably get to the place where you either see it or you don't.

Yes, but He is not a thing. An electron is.

As a general proposition, I have no problem with this.

Invalid comparison. There was no particular reason to think that, other than that it was the consensus view at the time.

Nothing, IMO.

As of now, I haven't the foggiest idea. What of it?