Yeah, universe may mean all there is but I look at it as "all we can detect" or "all our best math indicates". I don't see why imaging something more is any more pointless than most other philosophical questions that can't be definitively answered.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
I think this is a philosophical question…do humans have true freewill? Or is our life determined by a mix of genetics and environment? (Think nature vs nurture)
Honestly questioning if randomness exists is just a waste of our times. Even if “true randomness” exists or not it wouldn’t change much considering “randomness” exists
I. Agree with jakes talking about philosophy is truly a waste of time
I never cared much for philosophy. It's very much circular thinking that tends to go nowhere. I took philosophy to satisfy the general education requirements in college. That was a long 16 weeks. However, it does have its purpose. I believe it is safe to say that true randomness exist in nature. Not sure if that is even debatable, I think it is widely accepted as truth. I think a good question is whether or not true randomness can be created by people. People sure try with encryption and random number generators. But it's not true randomness because it is all based on algorithms that can be figured out for the pattern and therefore predicted
Dec 28, 2022
0
#227
The thing about mathematics is that it can used to "prove" both fact/fiction.
The religion of Heliocentrism is an example of the latter.
No argument there. It is my personal prejudice. It's funny you mention mathematics because that is what I prefer. But as I said, philosophy has its purpose and usefulness. I certainly don't have any real experience in philosophy, so I will not pretend to be an expert in it. My understanding is that true randomness is something with no pattern or predictability. Which can only be observed in nature.
Elroch wrote:
noodles2112 wrote:
Never claimed to be some genius. I am looking at the sun/moon right now. If heliocentric theory was valid then the moon would be full like the alleged sunlight reflecting rock ball heliocentrists claim it to be.
As usual, your reasoning is nonsense. The Moon is NOT currently opposite the Sun in the sky. It is quite a long way off 180 degrees (see map of where the Moon and Sun are overhead right now - the point 180 degrees from the Sun is somewhere near Bangladesh).
As a result, the Moon is more than half full, but well off full.
Sorry for the late response, but based on that graphic I wanted to point out that a Waning Gibbous moon is Lovecraft weather...
Dec 29, 2022
0
#230
The first time I heard the earth was not some flying speck of dust Lost in Space(some 10 years ago) I tried to argue that it was. When I discovered I could not prove current cosmological belief(s)......I then challenged my own belief in the model. That is when things began to make sense.
Most people will never challenge their worldview i.e. core beliefs. That much I do know. Some get really upset..........and I understand why.........it is like finding out Santa Clause is a myth........only about a million times worse
noodles2112 wrote:
The first time I heard the earth was not some flying speck of dust Lost in Space(some 10 years ago) I tried to argue that it was. When I discovered I could not prove current cosmological belief(s)......I then challenged my own belief in the model. That is when things began to make sense.
Most people will never challenge their worldview i.e. core beliefs. That much I do know. Some get really upset..........and I understand why.........it is like finding out Santa Clause is a myth........only about a million times worse
Translation:
My dementia started kicking in about a decade ago, and I have lost my ability to reason. The same way that many older scientists get taken advantage of by the powers that be to foist their anti-science theories.
What's your explanation for retrograde movement of the planets again? I'm sure this will be good...
I’m a bit off topic here but philosophy is just mankind making stuff up and crying over it like is true randomness real this is why philosophy is not at all good it legit has no use
The word philosophy means love of wisdom. It's a study of thought which is very much needed.
Dec 29, 2022
0
#234
btickler - You mean wandering stars. Terra Firma planets do not exist. They are luminaries the same as the fixed stars/constellations.
Sure I can see that. The love of wisdom is the Greek root of the word itself, and I was just pointing that out for a historical perspective of the subject. Be patient. This is not my strongest subject, but I do enjoy it.
Three body problem is random
If you define randomness as unpredictability that is
Dec 29, 2022
0
#239
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
They have an element of randomness. Randomness is about incomplete information, not a lack of any information.
That may be slightly prejudicial to a true understanding, if it's taken to imply that the information may exist, except that we don't have access to it. So perhaps it supports the idea of "hidden variables" much more than it should.
Better to define randomness or t.r. as absolute unpredictability. Just thought of that but it seems ok.
When you have a random event, information about the outcome is incomplete before it occurs. After it occurs it is known, so there is no dispute that the information lies somewhere. This issue is that it is somewhere inaccessible before the event (a place called the future).
Dec 29, 2022
0
#240
It doesn't. That would entail the information being in the past of the event, making it non-random (partial information could reduce the randomness).
The really interesting thing is however where information is non-local. Intuitively this is where there is randomness in two (or more) events, but that randomness is shared. It is challenging to be comfortable with this weirdness.
I guess I don't really have an opinion whether the universe is all there is or if there is more. I just have to imagine there is more to try wrap my head around simulating it. If being completely predictable means all my thoughts and emotions have been predetermined that's OK. If I'm just a virtual character in a actual simulation I'm still OK with that. I perceive my thoughts to be independent and spontaneous so that's my actual reality.