one take a 10,000 piece puzzle and put it together if they have the right pieces.
if one thinks they have all the pieces but don't then that can be a colossal dilemma.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
May 13, 2023
0
#2223
True randomness may exist, but it is virtually impossible to actually use it.
May 14, 2023
0
#2224
You may use it every day if you have a modern Intel processor. They include a source of true entropy based on analog-digital conversion of thermal noise. This is typically used to seed random number generation, which is used in many programs.
May 14, 2023
0
#2225
Sillver1 wrote:
‘The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.’
if what you meant to say all along is that QM falsified realistic determinism regardless to causal determinism, it will make everything fall together really nicely.
Nope. Presuming that you are using "realistic determinism" as a synonym as I suggested, my point was that causal has a scientific meaning about observations in our Universe. Forgetting this and using the word for the hypothetical Multiverse is sloppy semantics, ideal for fooling yourself.
Logically, it's the same as someone proving black cats don't exist as follows.
1. Redefine "black cat" as "black cat with 16 legs" (cf "causality in the Multiverse")
2. Show no black cats with 16 legs exist
3. Observe that your new definition means that no black cats exist.
May 14, 2023
0
#2226
Optimissed wrote:
I've finally discovered how to force new paragraphs, since it was altered.
No more need for colons.
Everyone needs a colon!
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
‘The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.’
if what you meant to say all along is that QM falsified realistic determinism regardless to causal determinism, it will make everything fall together really nicely.
Nope. Presuming that you are using "realistic determinism" as a synonym as I suggested, my point was that causal has a scientific meaning about observations in our Universe. Forgetting this and using the word for the hypothetical Multiverse is sloppy semantics, ideal for fooling yourself.
Logically, it's the same as someone proving black cats don't exist as follows.
1. Redefine "black cat" as "black cat with 16 legs" (cf "causality in the Multiverse")
2. Show no black cats with 16 legs exist
3. Observe that your new definition means that no black cats exist.
look red, i understand your frustration. but it is you that run into this absurdities, not me. please don’t try to turn around the table and point your finger at me as if i’m the one straggling for consistency. in fact from my point of view your blunder is crystal clear, and i could pinpoint it for you if you ever be interested.
Everyone needs a colon!
a friend a mine got half a his removed.
May 14, 2023
0
#2229
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
‘The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.’
if what you meant to say all along is that QM falsified realistic determinism regardless to causal determinism, it will make everything fall together really nicely.
Nope. Presuming that you are using "realistic determinism" as a synonym as I suggested, my point was that causal has a scientific meaning about observations in our Universe. Forgetting this and using the word for the hypothetical Multiverse is sloppy semantics, ideal for fooling yourself.
Logically, it's the same as someone proving black cats don't exist as follows.
1. Redefine "black cat" as "black cat with 16 legs" (cf "causality in the Multiverse")
2. Show no black cats with 16 legs exist
3. Observe that your new definition means that no black cats exist.
look red, i understand your frustration. but it is you that run into this absurdities, not me. please don’t try to turn around the table and point your finger at me as if i’m the one straggling for consistency. in fact from my point of view your blunder is crystal clear, and i could pinpoint it for you if you ever be interested.
I hope you and your beliefs are very happy together, but you can't do the impossible. 
May 14, 2023
0
#2230
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Everyone needs a colon!
a friend a mine got half a his removed.
I think you would like this colon joke.
Why should you never believe what your colon tells you?
Because it's full of $#%
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
‘The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.’
if what you meant to say all along is that QM falsified realistic determinism regardless to causal determinism, it will make everything fall together really nicely.
Nope. Presuming that you are using "realistic determinism" as a synonym as I suggested, my point was that causal has a scientific meaning about observations in our Universe. Forgetting this and using the word for the hypothetical Multiverse is sloppy semantics, ideal for fooling yourself.
Logically, it's the same as someone proving black cats don't exist as follows.
1. Redefine "black cat" as "black cat with 16 legs" (cf "causality in the Multiverse")
2. Show no black cats with 16 legs exist
3. Observe that your new definition means that no black cats exist.
look red, i understand your frustration. but it is you that run into this absurdities, not me. please don’t try to turn around the table and point your finger at me as if i’m the one straggling for consistency. in fact from my point of view your blunder is crystal clear, and i could pinpoint it for you if you ever be interested.
I hope you and your beliefs are very happy together, but you can't do the impossible.
lol. i’m happy with your belief that bell falsified causal determinism in the same way i’m happy with noodles belief in flat earth. come to think of it sometimes you even use similar argument tactics.. don’t worry about it red
i’m getting the impression that you are getting ready to sink your fangs in my neck without ever considering.. lol. but anyways, lemme grab a cold one and figure out how to simplify it as possible..
ok, and i’m going to talk very loosely here from obvious reasons.. lol. there are 2 different ways to think about true randomness. one is the philosophical way where true randomness is a challenge for determinism, and i’m sorry but this just an open question in philosophy. anyone says different is just soo last century..
than there’s the other way to think about TR. which is more in terms of math, encryption, and practicality. you seem to be an expert in these fields, and in that sense i have no problem to take your word that TR exist.
May 14, 2023
0
#2235
You seem to be missing the one I have been discussing, which is randomness in the real world according to science. Science - "natural philosophy" - has replaced philosophy (or grown from it?) as a way of understanding the behaviour of the real world.
The mathematical theory of randomness is applied to the real world, like all other mathematical models. It exists as an abstract mathematical theory, but we (I think) are interested in how it is correct as a model of the real world.
The relationship between randomness and determinism is enlightened by the definitions: randomness is about what isn't known. Determinism is solely about what is known (everything in the future, given full knowledge of the past). There cannot be an overlap when they are being defined from the same point of view (what is known can't be what isn't known).
I refer to point of view because this matters. Classically one deals with everything that is known at a particular point in time. Relativistically this is unsatisfactory because simultaneity is frame-dependent. "Everything in the past light cone of a point in space-time" can replace it, as this is frame-independent.
May 14, 2023
0
#2236
the golf balls the cosmonauts hit off the moon surface are still floating randomly by this time somewhere around Uranus.
‘The relationship between randomness and determinism is enlightened by the definitions: randomness is about what isn't known. Determinism is solely about what is known (everything in the future, given full knowledge of the past). There cannot be an overlap when they are being defined from the same point of view (what is known can't be what isn't known)’
yes, problem is that once you redefine determinism from your unique point of view in terms of knowledge instead of using the universal definition, you don’t talk about causal determinism anymore, you talk about something else. foreign to the universal way that science philosophers think and talk about determinism. it doesn’t even add anything to a conversation about determinism other than confusion. so what’s the point?
May 14, 2023
0
#2238
Kinda like Elon Musk joking about his Tesla in space with cosmonaut behind the wheel.
Ever see the movie Heavy Metal?
There is your fantasy/reality.
‘The rest is fine as part of mathematics. Hence the adjective "scientific", for emphasis. Use another, like "real", if you prefer.’
if what you meant to say all along is that QM falsified realistic determinism regardless to causal determinism, it will make everything fall together really nicely.