Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
I. Agree with jakes talking about philosophy is truly a waste of time
aarnavhps wrote:
I. Agree with jakes talking about philosophy is truly a waste of time
Therefore, talking abut talking about philosophy is even worse.
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
ActivatePlan357 wrote:
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
The top diplomats tend to have degrees in it. It's a difficult subject at degree level, which equips people to be able to win an argument by arguing strongly and picking what facts to use. It enables you to see the strong points in opposing arguments, if they exist.
There are people who don't like mathematics. It's just a personal prejudice.
Dec 28, 2022
0
#285
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.
The best examples of randomness in nature are quantum events, such as radioactive decay, which seem to have a built-in probability. Brownian Motion.
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...
noodles2112 wrote:
The thing about mathematics is that it can used to "prove" both fact/fiction.
The religion of Heliocentrism is an example of the latter.
To be quite honest, I have no idea why they're arguing with you. I don't think it's productive so I thought to myself that there's no point arguing with you. You seem ok and you have a weird belief. Lots of people do. For instance, I believe in magic. Genuinely, not joking. I'm not going to argue it out with these people. We all should believe what we want.
But it helps if it makes sense! 
Dec 29, 2022
0
#290
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
An earth-centric theory fits a very old, psychological need regarding mankind's importance in the universe and so forth. Maybe it seems to make sense because of that?
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.
aarnavhps wrote:
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
My own take on philosophy is that it should ultimately be centred around an interest in, an understanding of and maybe an exposition of epistemology, which may be roughly described as mankind's relationship with knowledge.
The "wisdom" implication is a bit of a red herring. But saying it has no use is borne out of ignorance. Perhaps you could reconsider and then, you may gain from this, by learning something!
Dec 29, 2022
0
#296
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.
My approach to philosophy is fundamentally dualistic. That is because there are two mental focuses, which we can employ. Two modes of understanding the relationship between thought and the things which are the object of thought. The dichotomy between these two modes cannot be more important, to the study of thought itself.
We have the absolute and the relative. If you like, the first is regarding thoughts or ideas which stand alone because they are not compared with or judged by comparison with other thoughts. The second is that everything is judged, weighed and understood in relation to other thoughts. This we have a primal or fundamental duality, on which, in my opinion, the entirety of philosophy, and therefore of thought itself, is based.
I pursued this theme for my philosophy dissertation, which therefore took the nature of a research dissertation, which is unusual for a first degree. I continued exploring the theme after receiving my degree and one day, I might give it a name.
