randomizations and determinations are one and the same.
one cannot coexist without the other. Period!
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
red.. i want to assure you that i’m not after blood.. it’s the other way around. but what’s right is right.
May 12, 2023
0
#2185
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
The last sentence - "Rather you use a different definition of deterministic." - is simply true. That's what matters.
If you didn't understand, I was referring to the fact that people say the Everett interpretation is deterministic, while accepting that quantum mechanics is not deterministic regarding the outcomes of future experiments. Quantum mechanics being the entirety of the scientific consequences of the Everett interpretation, it is clear that the two meanings of the word cannot be the same, or there would be a contradiction.
distinguishing between causal determinism and what you call scientific determinism sound like a step in the right direction..
"Scientific determinism" emphasises the point that it is only the relationship between information that is observable that is part of scientific truth. Information that only exists in (some) models has a much more ephemeral status (the hard scientific knowledge amounts to what can be predicted, not how you get there).
If you are willing to talk about determinism in terms of indetectible information, absurdities are easy. All you have to do is say that a complete record of all future events exists indetectibly everywhere and you can say that this makes everything deterministic. It's the exact same Universe, so is this a good idea?
If a proposition involves something which can never be discerned by observation, it is not part of scientific truth and never can be. It has a different status.
Attitudes to this sort of thing have changed over time. The more modern viewpoint is a pragmatic one. Indeed the notion that there is one theory of quantum mechanics despite a diverse range of formulations exhibits this viewpoint.
honestly red, right now i’m not in a state of mind to follow you, nor i have the time, so i probably shouldn’t comment at all. but if i got you correctly before, by scientific determination, say SD, you mean the ability of a physicist to predict an event without the use of statistics. is that correct?
May 12, 2023
0
#2188
on a chalkboard...... anything can be "proven".
whether random or otherwise i.e. determined.
PHD Piled Higher & Deeper. 
May 12, 2023
0
#2190
Sillver1 wrote:
honestly red, right now i’m not in a state of mind to follow you, nor i have the time, so i probably shouldn’t comment at all. but if i got you correctly before, by scientific determination, say SD, you mean the ability of a physicist to predict an event without the use of statistics. is that correct?
Well, due to the nature of the laws of physics, I believe many of the consequences of the laws of physics are statistical. That is to say that there is some data that is predictable and some which is random - scientific knowledge amounts to the description of the two parts.
There is a way of quantifying the amount of each, interestingly. Suppose you have a boolean event. If it is 50-50 - the most random possibility - there is 1 bit of randomness and 0 bits of predictability. If it is 75-25 (i.e. heads 3/4 of the time) the amount of randomness is quantified as
-0.75 log2(0.75) - 0.25 log2(0.25) = 0.811 bits.
Thus there is
1-0.811 = 0.189 bits of predictable information.
Doesn't seem much for such a strong preference, but that is the math that has the right properties!
May 12, 2023
0
#2193
some litigators might try and convince you there is only one side to every coin
May 12, 2023
0
#2194
micropan34 wrote:
lol, sometimes you can tell someone is a cheater by the dumb **** they say. This shangtsung kid is 1100 rated for sure.
(Quoted from page 71 of this topic)
Well, the incredibly obvious cheater @shangtsung111 was finally banned. I reported 'em back in March.
I guess someone pushed hard for it, considering my report was ignored and shangy hadn't played a single rated game in 2023.
May 12, 2023
0
#2195
hey LAMA. take that 9 iron and smack that ball into a 1000000000 foot crevice,
May 13, 2023
0
#2196
paper_llama wrote:
micropan34 wrote:
lol, sometimes you can tell someone is a cheater by the dumb **** they say. This shangtsung kid is 1100 rated for sure.
(Quoted from page 71 of this topic)
Well, the incredibly obvious cheater @shangtsung111 was finally banned. I reported 'em back in March.
I guess someone pushed hard for it, considering my report was ignored and shangy hadn't played a single rated game in 2023.
I reported him at the same time as a result of analysis in response to the discussion.
May 13, 2023
0
#2197
There was plenty of quantitative evidence in his moves. Playing some honest moves doesn't change that.
May 13, 2023
0
#2199
FWIW I didn't look at any moves... the moves weren't what made it obvious.
May 13, 2023
0
#2200
Optimissed wrote:
Hey, I played two live games yesterday, first time I've played live chess for over 6 months, online or otb. So this is the first one. Did I cheat too?
Ok, I'll use the same criteria I used for shang.
-
-
This distribution is what I'd expect from someone who hasn't played in months. You look like a normal player.
You are determined to randomise.