First action

According to a story by Woody Allen, "something fell someplace".

I've always felt that's as good an explanation as needed.

I'm partial to the "generous impulse to make noodles" as told by Italo Calvino in "All At One Point" (Cosmicomics). A thoroughly satisfying explanation for the bang.

But you didn't ask about dark matter.. (We have no idea).

What would Carl Sagan say?

Well emc-c, trust you to actually tell us something sensible about the condition before the big bang! Two forces then. It makes sense...

As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "So it Goes".

(Keep bubbling Guest, the answer's there somewhere. You might want to apply for a job at CERN.)

Don't let'em steer you off bubble maintain your bent to vent an accurate dynamic in the balance of rhetorical theory.

Action precipitates reaction, go figure.

The action is prehistoric, prior to notation therefore (what's it there for?) unable to retrive the buttons from ask.com

Here are some short answers to your paragraphs:

1. Generally Newton has right – but just generally because he had no idea about mechanisms of Physics based on which all this thinks are grounded.
2. Generally it is correct by Physics and also by any kind of Philosophy because every action has its past and consequences.
3. Please remember that single "big bang" is only one of Theories. Also, your opinion about "previous balanced and stabile" has no any grounds. Simple speaking, Energy is second fundamental item of a Nature which has to be treated under two different conditions:

a. – when Time is not running and no any Energy transformations are present, and

b. – when Time is running and all kinds of Energy transformations are present.

So, using Newton logic in treating such questions is big mistake.

4. It is complete nonsense treating any existence coming "from nothing" because, "nothing" is not existing in Nature. Existing of different wrong ideas and explanations are the only items "coming from nothing". Therefore, there are no any motions which can "appear" – only their transformations are possible: to the masses and in for us known types of Energy and back to the Ether – in which Time is not running.

5. Answer to this paragraph is under my number 4.

Sorry for my bad English.

Vladimir Markovic

There is no metaphysical significance in Newton's Third Law. It doesn't mean anything deeper than what it says.

Further, I no longer use it (or teach it if I can help). A much better way to make the point is to say that momentum is conserved. This then allows you to use fields rather than direct action.

One of the reasons for abandoning the law altogether is the mistaken idea that there is a sequence: first the action, then the reaction. The two occur simultaneously in the classic sense; there is no sequenential order.

Yes, and by that you and Vlad infer that the conservation of all motion is that of the total energy of the 'Big Bang'? I'll buy that. Going ahead with your reference to the 'time' factor allows one to visualize the continuity rather than cause and effect, since time is an arbitrary human construct of the interval between events. Or have I got it wrong? Or did it all happen 'cause "somebody dropped something"?

Made my day!

The primal basic law of nature seems to be that everything follows the path of least resistance.The planets orbit because it is the easiest path.The universe is expanding because it is easier to expand than not to expand.The pressure "outside" is less than the pressure "inside".

If a cue ball strikes an 8 ball, they both move according to the path of least resistance, whatever that resistance may be.

Light follows the path of least resistance thru spacetime.Not always a straight line, due to curvature of spacetime.

Everything moves because it is easier to move than to remain still (relatively speaking, because nothing is absolutely still).Even an object at apparent rest is moving in regard to some point of reference.

I think every law of nature can be reduced to this simple concept.

Comments?

I do not understand why you are using a word of metaphysic for very simple cases where classic physic is not able to explain what is going on. For example: if we lift apple to the tree than we are spending energy for lifting. But this energy is spent and not accumulated in the body of apple. Reaction was made (during lifting) on mass of the Earth. So, it is completely clear that in the Nature there are no such thinks like "inertia as Energy accumulated inside of body" and similar nonsense regarding kinetic energy.

There is no even smallest prove about possibility to conserve any potential, kinetic or any other Energy or momentum inside of the mass of a body (with exception of temperature, where molecules are vibrating) and that there is no smallest chance that inside of this body, we could not recognize where and how this energy is placed. Of course, during acceleration inside of body we can recognize activity of Force which is accelerating body. But later - during the inertial movements - no way. So, I strongly believe to the theories of Ernst Mach that Inertia and Centrifugal powers are manifestations from Ether – to the moving objects and that there is no any Energy accumulated in the moving masses of Universe.

Time is definitely not only "an arbitrary human construct" This definition belongs to watch for measuring the speed of local Energetic transformations. Inside of AGF (absolute gravity field) we can measure Time from its minimum – endlessly HI speed (before it is transformed to recognizable Energy) to the speed of light (where speed of Time becomes Zero). However, in real Physics - Time is much more than "human construct" but I really do not have wishes to teach you Physics which the most of the people is making unhappy. Also, some engineering "blog" is not a place for that. Sorry for disturbing you with some very small peaces of my unconventional way of treating of Physics.

Vladimir Markovic

If it is a valid hypothesis to reverse the currently expanding universe backwards to the singularity, then it follows that everything in the universe was once absolutley still.Since everything is now in motion, there must have been a sequence of events that occurred to produce this movement, beginning with one initial movement that triggered all others, like dominoes.

Every molecule is moving due to a difference in "pressure" (for want of a better description) between the leading side and the trailing side.Thus can this principle be extended to all matter.

Do you and Vladimir really believe in the Ether Bunny?

Only 110 years ago Einstein made a lot of jokes about Ernest Mach, Lorenz and many other greatest physicists – because of item "Ether". But only 30 years later and after he recognized that with "Kinetic Energy accumulated inside of the mass of the body" nothing could not be explained and understood, he "invented" AGF (Absolute Gravity Field) which is by description exactly the same as previous Ether.

To believe in Ether or not is not a question because even word "believe" belongs to Religion and not to Physics. So, if you are prepare to believe in such stupidities like "empty space" between masses in Universe - it is up to you. Just you must consider that religiously believing to the "final truths" in Physics – even when is clear that using one of them, many items could not be explained, was a basic reason for centuries long stagnations of Science. But before you make jokes about people or ideas which you do not understand, please check the real level of your understandings of classic Physics which you probably do not understand at all. Maybe you just believe in it.

Vladimir Markovic

Vladimir,

It was just a small pun. I meant no offense (that's why I included the smiley face - to show it was light-hearted). But, I do understand classic physics very well, just not very religously. But the ether has been discredited.

Dear!

The Independent force is The Only One Almighty 'ALLAH'.

Hi guest. There is no need for an endless "chain" of actions and reactions (going back, unevitably, to the Big Bang). It's a matter of energy and its transformations. You can have e.g. a cannon and its cannon ball in a rest state. Then you give energy to the system (explosive heat) and put the cannon ball into motion and the cannon into an opposite motion. You don't need to go back "mechanically" to the begining of the world to find the first push.

The creation of the world was just a sudden creation of a huge amount of energy just from nothing (and the creation of space and time, but this is another issue). So, your question should be "how" and "why" this huge, initial energy was created from nothing. And, of course, this issue has not been answered yet. This is the point where the science stops (at least for now). Some attempts for answering this question are rather philosophical. They have to do with a possible "Big Crash" of a previous universe or a quantic fluctuation (of large scale though) or the creation from another "mother" universe or..........

Concerning your question about the particles that "pop" into existence from nothing and dissappear likewise into nothing... They borrow their energy (and come into existence) from the energy of vacuum. (This is the energy which is supposed that causes the accelerated expansion of the universe). They stay into existence just for a while and then they disappear, returning their energy back to the vacuum.

Thanks for saying it better than I, GK. There can be no chain since there is no time difference between the classic action and reaction. They are instantaneous. Or, perhaps, a sequence of instantaneous "delta action-reactions".

For those who see something deeper, calculus has been invented. Pardon my little joke, but engineers all accept calculus.

With the cannon, although the explosion seems instantaneous, a graph of the pressure behind the cannon ball would show a pressure increasing over time.With sufficient stretching of the time line, you would see a gradual building of pressure,which was initiated by the first molecule to oxidize( ignite), and even this ignition did not happen instantaneously.Some of the highest powered chemical explosives have a speed of around 5 miles per second.Fast, but not instantaneous. Nuclear is must faster, but it is a result of a chain reaction, a sequence of events, which if able to observe, would start with a single molecule colliding with another.This molecule was put into motion by a chemical explosion,which as previously described, is also a chain reaction.

The whole universe is the product of a series of events, which as we go back in time,become simpler and simpler, until we arrive finally at the "First Event"

Can you identify a totally independent action? One that is not preceeded by or affected by a prior action?

Please enlighten me if you will be so kind.

Beta decay. Brownian motion.

Beta decay requires a change from a previous state.When an electron or positron is emitted, the energy level depends on the parent and daughter nuclear states participating in the decay.

Brownian motion is caused by an imbalance of forces, but forces no less, so it is not totally independent.It may appear "random" but every motion is caused by an imbalance of forces.A dust particle will move in the direction of least resistance, and away from the direction of most resistance.There are many collisions with air molecules and other dust particles (which, in turn, are at the mercy of other forces), but the end result is the motion in the direction of least resistance.Looking at the whole cloud of dust particles you see "random" motion, but only on a large scale.Each particle still dances to it's own drummer.

Thanks for the answer. WRT Beta decay, you're looking at the characteristics of the decay when you talk about energy levels. The actual decay (think about it in strict probability terms) is not a function of the previous state (unless you're arguing the trivial case that nothing can occur if nothing exists).

But, more clearly perhaps, think about electron-positron annihilation. That process runs equally well in both directions of time. Thus, "previous" has no possible meaning.

As to the Brownian motion answer, can you explain that further. I don't follow your argument.

Regards

Brownian motion is a random action.Termed random, because it does not follow an Easily understood set of rules.

Consider this scenario;

You have an infinite number of dominoes,placed in such a manner that when the first one falls, it triggers the next one in line, etc. consider that the dominoes are placed a variable distance apart,yet still able to trigger the next one, and be triggered by the previous one.Now consider that every nth domino there is a n way intersection;(all possible directions).the domino at the beginning of the intersection trips the common domino that triggers all the other directions.Each direction also branches after n dominoes, just like the first one, and triggers in n directions.

Now let these interactions run for millions of years.

It would resemble a brier thicket, or perhaps a spider web,or a universe.

After a while, an observer would be unable to determine the beginning, and observing the whole structure would determine that the movements of all the dominoes were random.On an individual level, however, things are happening in sequence.And it all began with one domino falling.

This is an oversimplification, but it illustrates my point.Complex actions can originate from a single action.

My question is:What was that single action?

Yes, I see how that would look, if we had any assurance that cause and effect operated for all events. But, we do normally think of Brownian motion as stochastic, do we not? Why do I need a cause? That sounds all very metaphysical to me; I'm only an old country engineer .

But, what about electron-positron annihilation? Surely you agree that has no particular past or future, so could not be said to be either an effect or a cause?

I guess it depends on whether you think anything is truly random, or merely beyond our ability to analyze."Random" to me is more a term of mathematical convenience than a reality.

As for no past or future, if time stopped, all processes (actions, reactions, etc.) would stop.Therefore I think all processes have a past and future, a before and after, a cause and effect.Declaring a very complicated subject to be metaphysical is merely an escape mechanism to terminate and excuse further effort.

I do not have the answer to my question, but I was hoping someone did.Perhaps it has been answered and I am too dumb to grasp it.If so, it is no ones fault but my own.

Net charge BEFORE and AFTER the collision is zero.Stochastic motion, is again, simply too complicated to analyze, but in my opinion has it's origins in a chain of events that has branched many times,yet still leads back to a single event.I guess it is a result of my mechanical mind that I see all things as interconnected, like one giant gearbox.I will admit to being partial to methods that make common sense, and I do not beleive in jumping off when the going gets tough.It is similar to untangling a mass of fishing line.If you have control of both ends of the line when it tangles, and do not let go, there can not really be a true knot, although it may appear so.The tangles should be able to be unraveled without having to pass the end through a loop.When we do pass and end through in frustration, we have created a real knot that will have to be dealt with later.When all is once again untangled, you end up with a simple single line.Such is my view of the universe.

Yes, I have trouble tying my shoes.

I agree things are often interconnected, possibly always to some extent, but my question is this: how can we even talk about BEFORE and AFTER when we have no way of distinguishing between the two? In the electron-positron annihilation I referenced, there is no arrow of time, is there?

If we could slow time to a crawl, we could observe the processes involved at the instant of collision.A before and after implies a time line.IMHO

Let's assume that we push a ball. As we push the ball towards us, we push ourselves (or the ball pushes us) backwards. The question is if the ball is going towards first and, after a while, we are going backwrds or if these two events are happening at the same time.

I think that a similar question arises at the striking of two billiard balls: The ball A is hitting the ball B (which is in rest). After the striking the ball B is moving towards and the ball A is moving backwards. Does the ball B start moving towards first (relative to the ball A)? Or the change of the motion of the two balls is happening at the same time?

First of all there isn't such a thing as "touch". The two balls never actually "touch" each other. They are coming really close and the electric forces from the atoms of their surphases take action. Atoms repel each other making the two balls repel each other too (what we consider as "touch" or "striking" or whatever).

So, concerning these repulsions due to the electric forces: The atoms on ball A approach the electric field of the atoms on ball B → they "feel" the field → they are repulsed by this field... Of course, the same is happening on the atoms on ball B ... And this is happening at the same time...

Let's go deeper on quantum physics and see at the Feinman's diagram concerning the electric field and force between two electrons. (I made the following drawings.)

As the two electrons approach each other they are exchange "virtual photons" (the carriers of the electromagnetic field according to quantum physics, not observable though). (At the diagram we use only one space dimension.) The one electron transmit such a photon, changing, also, the direction of its movement. The other electron absorbs this photon changing its direction too. This change of the directions is the "electric repulsion" between these two electrons. Due to the fact that the photon travels at speed c these two changes are not happening instantaneously (as you see from the diagram). So you could say that the change for the one electron is happening a little earlier than for the other. These is not entirely truth though, because both electrons exchange photons mutualy.

So, we can conclude that these kind of events are happening at the same time.

(Have we gone deep enough???)

A very fast camera focused at the point of impact would show that at the instant of impact, both balls compress and deform at the point of contact.The elasticity of the two balls stores the energy until sufficient to overcome inertia and put the balls in motion.With the proper"English" applied to the cue ball, it can remain perfectly still when it strikes the other ball, imparting all of it's energy to the target ball.Although the motions appear instantaneous,they are not.

You said: "..... it can remain perfectly still when it strikes the other ball, imparting all of it's energy to the target ball ....." Yes, you are right (conservation of momentum) concerning the two balls have the same mass (as the billiard balls are supposed to have). Thanks for the correction. (It should be correct if the one ball was heavier than the other though.)

I don't disagree with you about the elasticity and all the rest. What I said is that there isn't such a thing as "machanical impact" or "mechanical force". In order to interpret the issue of "mechanical force" we should go down deeper in the structure of matter. Then we can see that what we call "mechanical force" is -in fact- electric forces (i.e. electric repulsion) between the atoms on the surfaces of the two balls.

The question was if the change of motion (at the instant of impact) is happening simultaneously on both balls or not. My answer (or my opinion if you like) is: yes, the change is happening simultaneously...

In order to argue I went deep down to atoms scale to see how they are interact (electically) to each other. I described how they exchange "virtual photons" in order to (electrically) repel each other (and this is what we call "mechanical force" or "impact" or "touch" or whatever). Then we see (especially by looking at the 2nd figure) that the continuous and mutual exchange of "virtual photons" between e.g. electrons leads us to the conclusion that the "exchange" of electrical forces and (finally) the change of motion is happening simultaneously on both balls. (Not "instantly" though, as the "virtual photons" travel at the speed of light... BTW, by mistake, in my previous post I said "instanly" instead of "simultaneously"...)

(So, I don't get your objection...)

You use the word creation throughout your explanation.So you believe everything

was created? And from nothing? Ex nihilo?

What faith you must have, to believe in nothing, rather than in something.

Everyone is trying to put the laws of physics, as we know them, into practice on the subject however at the" time "of the big bang or begining or whatever you want to call it all bets and physics laws as we know them were off. In other words, what works here on earth may or may not work elsewhere.

oilcan13

The only one that makes sense to me is this:

There always was energy in the universe and there always will be. The "Big Bang" and other explanations are examples of attempts to discern something we may never be able to. Which is the fact that there was no beginning and there is no end.

Well, more correctly, this is termed "First Cause" and is more of a philisophical question than a theoretical scientific discussion. It was in a Philosophy course I took in college. Of course, many would argue that philisophical questions lead to scientific inquiry. But the mind still wants to know, "what was before all of this?" The answer of "always was and always will be" is not satisfying to the mind for the simple reason that there is a "me" inside each of us that won't let go of the first question of "what was before all of this?" Some neuro-scientists are now saying we appeared to be hard-wired for the concept of "God". Call "it" what you will. I don't think anyone will ever have a "scientific" answer to this question. In that same Philosphy course we also studied "mysticism". Mysticism involves a state of consciousness whereby this question is answered, called by some as "enlightenment". The conclusion by the Professor teaching that course is that you really can't "argue" with a mystic, for that reason. You can't refute his "experience". You also can't share it. Mystics say you have to seek this experience for yourself. So, in my opinion, you'll have a better chance of getting an answer to your question somewhere outside of an engineering forum.

You've nailed it! Einstein sad if he had to do it all over again, he would study metaphysics. Some of the common Knowledge of Mystics is slowly being recognized by physicists through mathematical explanations for what as yet cannot be measured by existing instrumentation.

Hello Guest,

I am not sure exactly where you were taught. But Newton's saying does not include extraneous forces such as explosions. And if you believe it, then the 'Big Bang' was one hell of an explosion!

Newtonian Law describes how the force of a ball or anything else pushes down on a surface while the surface pushes back with the same amount of force, that is all. I realize I have simplified things, but the basics do not change.

bb

Here is a thought: That there was a previous universe that had succumbed to entropy, that the immense amount of time (hundreds of trillions of years) of its existence would allow the "shuffling" of the quantum actions of particles to such an extent that literally anything could happen. Including the creation of conditions that would restart the zero point creation of energy and matter. Not necessarily a "Big Bang" but the zero point effect would create the conditions for a "restart" of the universe in a ripple effect. Like a sudden shock allows a supersaturated solution to instantly crystallize. Or like a stone dropped into a still lake only three (actually four) dimensionally.

Just an opinion Dragon

The vacuum pushes back when squeezed. See casimir effect. So God squeezed the vacuum when it was just a seed, and let go.

Ok, I will accept simultaneously.But, the event was preceded by the balls being on a collision course, which was preceded by the cue stick striking the cue ball, and back down the chain of events that preceded this, and yes,I realize that on a subatomic level there is nothing "solid", so everything was caused by electron filed repulsion,which still needs a precipitating event to start everything in motion.Which goes back to my original question:What was the first action? I do not believe there is "random" anything in the universe, only events for which we do not have sufficient information to predict.

A roll of the dice,even if perfectly balanced,and supposedly random,if analysed in slow motion,the outcome could be predicted at some point before the dice hit the table.

We do not have this information, so it is termed random.If all variables are controlled precisely, the outcome will be repeatble.

Such is my outlook on the universe, that everything, no matter how minute, happens for a reason, and that all action or motion is a result of a primary, primordial single action.But as for what thumped that first dominoe, only God knows.

Guest,

If you're going to insist on a strict casual chain, you might read Roberto Torretti's Relativity and Geometry. There is some baggage that comes with pulling time relations out of spacetime relation.

So you are saying that there are certain events that happen for no reason? Or is the reason simply inexplicable, or too complicated to explain?

Einstein had a term for quantum entanglement,which apparently defied the speed of light:"Spooky action at a distance"

What you are saying is "Spooky action everywhere"?

Einstein also had a term for reality:" ...An illusion----" to which I must concur.

I'm sorry. You completely lost me here. What are you saying? What does quantum entanglement have to do with this thread. I'm not saying anything about "spooky action".

I understand the whole thinking of yours (since we have clarify the "action-reaction" issue or the "strike & change of motion" issue). In a way you are right that there is a sequence of events that, unevitably, is going us back to the first "action" which is the Big Bang. But this is not so simple.

You had a controversy with TVP45 concerning the "cause & result" issue. He said that there are some events that have "no reason". In a matter of fact he is right. There is not always such an interconnection between the "cause" and the "result". This interconnection has to do with the macrocosm (and our capability of observe and perceive its phainomena). But in the quantic microcosm things are different.

As an example, see the nuclear fission: You cannot be sure when (or even if) an atom of uranium will be disrupt (meaning the spontaneous fission, i.e. the physical radiation). This happens by chance.

Another example: You cannot be sure that a photon which is polarized at 45° will pass (or not) through an horizontal polarization filter. The probability is 50% and it seems that this happens by chance. This means that there is no "reason" (not even a "hidden raeson") to do so. (The Quantum physics just gives us the probability of such a photon to pass through the filter.)

Another example: Several particles appear and disappear from nothing (actually from the vacuum due to its random fluctuations) spontaneously. This happens by chance.

There are a lot more examples. It seems that nothing is so regular as we think.

Also, the Chaos Theory tells us that we cannot predict the future evolution of many systems (systems which are very sensitive to the initial conditions due to their "positive feddback") even if we know the initial conditions accurately. (In fact we need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuration in order to do so which is impossible.) So, (in such systems) if we have a "chain" of events we cannot go back and describe the initial event (in fact we cannot even describe the events before a few "steps".)

I hope that all these will unsettle your conviction to determinism.

Some things, on a quantum level, are influenced by forces outside of our normal perception of the universe.We are, at the quantum level, a series of possibilties that appear random to us.So are our thought processes.So is our perception of reality.

"Spooky action at a distance" is an example of information exchange outside of our realm of understanding of the universe.Yet is is a fact that it happens, whether we understand it or not is irrelevant.

There are forces that influence behavior on a quantum level that we term "random", but if we were able to grasp the whole of reality we would see a pattern.

We see the universe through a glass darkly.Our perception is limited by our construction.

Can a blind person describe color if they were born blind? Can we describe that which is beyond the speed of light, except as "spooky action"?

Are you an associate of Timothy Leary?

"Our perception is limited by our construction." Succinctly put. Since we cannot physical perceive the fluctuations of the space/time grid laid over this manifestation of the universe, we have a very difficult time quantifying it.

Good Answer. Dragon

P.S. sign in so that we give credit where credit is due.

It's me, old ShoeshineBoy.I had forgotten my password and did not want to admit I may be slipping a cog every now and then, but I finally 'fessed up' and got a new password.Soon as I did, the old one popped into my head.Isn't that the way it goes?

They say your memory is the third thing to go as you age.....I can't recall the first two....

Anyway, back to my original post, I guess I am a die hard determinist and have to be able to "see" the connection in all things.

At one point in time, we (the whole universe) were one.A singularity.

The Bhuddists and many other religions seek to become one with the universe, but the answer is literally right under their nose.We are one.And as humans, we are but one line in the long definition of space time,which encompasses all matter and energy.

We are really quite powerful,but we do not realize it.We produce more energy than a star, on a pound-for pound-basis. Incredible, but true.(I am sure you will google this fact.)

We really underutilize ourselves, and I am as guilty as the next person. 90 percent of our brain is unused,and we cannot presently do anything about it. Perhaps the silent 90 percent is wise enough to remain silent till we mature enough to handle it.Look what happened to nuclear energy.The first use was a bomb.What would happen if someone discovered free energy?World peace? Harldy.War would be more likely, as the financial powers shifted.Oil rich countries would be penniless, and angry after having been spoiled by oil profits.Cheap energy will have to evolve,allowing time for a natural societal evolution.I would really hate to be the person that discovered free energy, for a lot of guilt would ride upon my shoulders, much as Einstein was haunted to his grave by his discoveries.

SSB

Perhaps it is I who misunderstood.You speak of a non casual universe, where things happen without a preexisting event or action.I say that every action happens for a reason, or previous action.

When events become too complicated to follow or predict, the term "Random' is used.

I do not believe there are random events, only events for which the origins are currently untraceable or unpredictable,but nonetheless, casual.

As for entanglement, I used the term to illustrate that even Einstein,when faced with something he could not explain or understand, deferred to unscientific terms to describe it.(Spooky?)

To me, "Random" or "Chaotic" are simply terms of convenience, used to describe very complicated events which defy our current ability to analyse or explain.Our lack of understanding, however does not preclude a pattern or casual chain of events.

IMHO

Have you seen the demonstration with two cylinders, one inside the other,and the space in between filled with glycerin?The inner cylinder is free to be rotated by hand, and the outer cylinder is transparent.Inject a line of ink with a long needle, into the space between the two cylinders.Now rotate the inner cylinder clockwise.After one rotation, the line becomes slightly smeared.After two rotations, it is very smeared, after three rotations, it disappears entirely.Now reverse the rotation three revolutions, and the line is back.If you tried to analyse the ink particles after 3 revolutions you would have a very difficult if not impossible task.They would seem to be randomly dispersed.Yet turning the cylinder in reverse proves that they are in fact not random.

This is an example of an orderly system that appears random.The universe has been stirred many times and appears random, but at the root is an orderly but very complex system.

IMHO