# Is the universe govern by the Laws of Chance? ?

How accurate is the Laws of Chance? Most cosmological atheists insists that the universe is governed under the laws of chance or randomness or laws of probability. However this appears to be inaccurate considering the consistency observed in nature or universe seen in its laws.

What are the evidences that would prove beyond reasonable doubts that this universe is indeed under the laws of chance? Are there even any? Or is it just an assumption of ones imagination influenced by ones belief? Should we even consider the proposal?

Update:

a_college_student: Me in my education (college degree)...not much more direct references so feel free to argue...

I think discussions (exchanges of ideas) would be more appropriate

AI K: The Laws of Chance are immeasurably improbable!!!

goto evolutioncult.com to see the numbers...

I will consider your input, thanks.

Update 2:

Dave M: Probabilities are used to determine the "unknown variables" in a complex system.

So you are saying that probability theory is no more than a tool in an observable universe?

Update 3:

physbeat: The probability of the situation is not a "law", but it is a predictive tool we have that the data will converge to some number as the number of coin flips increases.

So there is no chance at all for those who argue that this is a law to win their argument? Considering the answers I've got so far, it appears that the claim of cosmological atheists bears no relevance whatsoever. If so, then what is the standard teachings as of current about the origin of the universe?

Relevance

Those cosmological atheists are misinterpreting mathematics.

Yes. The universe is governed by mathematics. Math is a universal language written on the fabric of space and time and it is observed and interpreted by human beings through the laws of physics, chemistry, algebra, geometry, and calculus (ect...). Mathematics in one sense is merely the manipulation of input to generate an output. In essence, this is what the universe is formed by, however, saying that all things are affected by mere probability is nothing more than a theory. While probability and randomness can typically be the catalyst for many of the starting points of many reactions in the universe, the idea of PERSPECTIVE must be considered.

Consider gas molecules. If you look in the room around you, and you could see the gas molecules, you would see seemingly random interactions between gas molecules. [Important Note: we are using this "room" as an analogy for the "known universe"] However, if the position and velocity (which is speed and in what vector) of every molecule was known, then you could predict the interactions of all of those interactions of molecules forever (using the full laws of physics...which I would bet we don't completely know...yet). Yet, this reaction is still random as the initial start was a random positioning and vectoring of each molecule.

HOWEVER, if you expand the perspective of the model, and you consider that the room was once a vacuum, and you release the gas molecules into the room from a specific point in a specific way (where you could know the starting point of each molecule and its vector) the interactions of the gas molecules are NOT random. This is because you are controlling the start.

This is why the start of the universe is so important to both the views of atheists and religious people (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, ect...). Overall, it is about belief, not science. Descartes put is best by stating the science and religion can exist in their own spheres and not interfere (don't quote me on that...go check out wikipedia descartes)

----Conclusion---

The laws of "chance" (better said..."probability") cannot be judged as accurate. You are asking "what is the probability of the laws of probability being right" and that doesn't work. Overall, phenomenally more more data about the universe is needed.

What are the evidences that would prove beyond reasonable doubts that this universe is indeed under the laws of chance?

THERE IS NO INCONCLUSIVE DATA to say so.

Or is it just an assumption of ones imagination influenced by ones belief?

Not really an assumption, but a theory that requires more data.

Should we even consider the proposal?

Sure. Why not. Theories are meant to be tested by data. However, i personally believe that probability does control all of the natural interactions, but the problem is that is hard for probability to predict the interactions of Free Will of humans and the such. I personally believe it will be impossible to judge inconclusively wether the laws of probability "control" all of the interactions between life. Probability can go both ways.

NOTE: While I believe that all natural occurrences (physics, chemistry, biology ect.) occur by probabilty, that doesn't believe I don't believe in God. I am a Christian, but an educated one. The point is...who started the party? And that's where God comes in.

Source(s): Me in my education (college degree)...not much more direct references so feel free to argue...
• DLM
Lv 7

Probabilities are used to determine the "unknown variables" in a complex system.

Rolling dice seems random, but if we know the trajectory, velocity, initial conditions, and account for the bounce, we cna *know* every time how the dice will land. (Yeah, I left out quite a few other variables, friction, air resistence, gravity, and about a few hundred others)... but if we had *all* the conditions proir to the toss/roll, the outcome would be predictable by the laws of physics, regardless of what *probability* says is the greatest possibility.

Probability is an excellent tool for determining the possible outcomes (and which ones are most likely) in a complex system where we simply do not know all of the variables. If we knew them all, the probability of any *random* thing would either be exactly 1.00 (guaranteed to happen) or 0.00 (completely impossible).

<edit>

Of course I'm suggesting that probability is a tool. When we don't know all the variables, probability is the best measure to calculate the most likely outcome. If we did know all of the variables, and how they work (i.e. infinite knowledge) then probability would be irrelevant, becuase we would have solid laws to explain everything in complete detail, with a 100% success rate.

a_college_student's answer was excellent. There were a few things I wanted to add, though.

Because we cannot know every bit of information about each particle in the universe, physics has figured out a way to describe things in a way that allow us to predict things. That's essentially what the goal of science is. To have a set of knowledge that we can use to describe the natural world.

With that in mind, the "probability" that is being spoken of is that tool we've come up with to describe what we've seen in the world. "Statistics" is the analysis of data.

Consider this example: There is a coin with two sides, heads and tails. Let's say you flip that coin 6 times. Each coin flip has 1/2 probability of being heads, and 1/2 probability of being tails. It doesn't always end up that you get 1/2 of your flips as heads, and 1/2 of your flips as tails. Try it. Sometimes, you'll get 6 heads 0 tails, or maybe 2 heads, 4 tails. Why is that? The probability of the situation is not a "law", but it is a predictive tool we have that the data will converge to some number as the number of coin flips increases. If you flip the coin 2 times, 10 times, 100 times, 1000000 times, in which case will there be closer to a 50-50 heads-tails number?

With that example in mind, we can use it as an analogy to particles, like what 'a_college_student' was talking about. The reason the coin flips are random is that when you flip it using your finger, there are variables you can't control. The way your finger (or thumb?) strikes the coin cause it to vibrate and rotate in such a way that when it hits the landing surface it will bounce around in a seemingly unpredictable way. There are so many variables in its movement that we can't describe every one of them for each coin flip, BUT we do know that for lots of flips, it approaches 50% each of heads and tails.

With particles in the universe, there are a googlishly insane amount of variables influencing each event. We can't describe every one of these, but we can observe the events, and try to get a useful conclusion that allows us to look at other similar events and use the same tool to analyze them.

That's why we use probability and statistics. It is not that the universe is under the "laws of chance", but that our view of the universe uses probability as one of the best tools we have to describe certain processes. Check out the links below for more stuff about this topic.

• Anonymous

The Laws of Chance are immeasurably improbable!!!

goto evolutioncult.com to see the numbers. I'm not supporting any 'sites' but there are good videos and scientific journals to explain the impossibility of mere chance that our universe, and us, exist.

you can dis me if you don't find what you need.

* Do these guys work for Wikipedia? gotta luv the cut & paste.*

Discover Magazine; "Shockingly Unlikely.". How's that for cut & paste?

The universe adheres to strict laws.

The only chance is the uncertainty principle which is noticeable in fundamental particles but gets less as the distances increase,it still exists in galaxies but it is not detectable.

i think what your talking about is the string theory. its the theory where there are many dimensions for every possibility of an outcome. Lets say i flip a coin and it lands heads. In a parallel dimension, the coin will land tails and the future will be totally different

According to "Murphy's Law" then yes the universe is governed by chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

"However this appears to be inaccurate considering the consistency observed in nature or universe seen in its laws."

You lost me.