Who needs the scientific method when we have Heliocentrism?
The end all... be all... of randomness
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
Feb 7, 2023
0
#323
BigBlueKing wrote:
===========
Elroch
0 #426
Perhaps you are forgetting that quantum mechanics involves the sort of randomness that can never be removed, and that everything is made of quantum mechanics, so to speak!
===========
In quantum mechanics the coin is flipped in both sides, in quantum computing qbits are both 0 and 1 at the same time. These are given positions not of the unpredictability of their positions but for their precise function of their dualistic properties. Even when speaking for the dead cat in the box as a thought experiment the cat is both alive and dead but the problem persists to be stedifast dualistic even at the double slit experiment, where the particles react as waves or
particles depending on the observing status after the slit. This we know as a fact and it is
not something random, although it is a paradox of our todays mathematical models.
For practical scientists who have not yet found the models this is called superdeterminism.
YET it is given as a theory from other scientists like Hossenfelder.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.01324
Randomness means that if you send a photon polarised at 45 degrees through a polariser at 90 degrees, you simply cannot in any way know whether it will go through or not. It's not that there might be some way we don't know about, it is that the possibility of knowing it is not consistent with the empirical facts.
If you wish to postulate a superdeterministic multiverse (a perfectly reasonable interpretation of QM), the thing you can't predict is which branch of the multiverse you will end up in. The result is the same - randomness to any observer.
The experiments and reasoning that lead to this conclusion are not trivial to understand, but the conclusion is robust.
noodles2112 wrote:
Who needs the scientific method when we have Heliocentrism?
The end all... be all... of randomness
Do you ever stop inserting this garbage into every thread you infect? I could post a topic on peanut butter and your response would be the same nonsense. This topic is far beyond your extremely limited abilities and certain has nothing to do with the flat earth you think you live on.
Take your meds and go back to your padded cell.
Feb 7, 2023
0
#325
If you take a university class in fiance or advanced economics, they will tell you that true randomness does not exist in any financial market. At least, that's what the graduate level textbooks will say. So they came up with alternative name, "pseudo-random". If you take another class about physics, they will tell you that, again, true randomness does not exist, even in nature. Is this true? Well, yes, but only if you believe the authors. I tend to do so, because they know a LOT more than I do about finance and physics. If they are right, then I think we can extrapolate the idea to chess, and perhaps go with the "pseudo-random" label there as well. But again, it's sort of in the eye of the beholder. Or at least, the calculator of the statistician.
Feb 7, 2023
0
#326
I agree. As I said earlier, eye of the beholder. No one can prove one way or the other, now can they? You said it yourself.
Optimissed wrote:
No but a few of us have it on good authority from God.
The ultimate fallacious appeal to authority.
Optimissed wrote:
That's nonsense. A few physicists believe randomness doesn't exist but most are more intelligent than that.
Isn't in a tad amazing that all the intelligent physicists agree with you?
It matters little what anyone believes. It only matters what can be proven to be true.
Feb 7, 2023
0
#329
Festerthetester - I asked you a long time ago if you knew the difference between science and pseudoscience/physics and theoretical physics and to this day it is obvious that you haven't a clue! They are one and the same in your brain. Please just remain Lost as you so choose to be for it appears far too difficult for you to trust your senses. Just stick with CGI/Cartoon Animations for your reality just like those stuck inside Plato's Cave
Okay flat earth boy.
Feb 7, 2023
0
#331
Why not try and prove the toy globe impossible? It's not difficult.
On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to accept!
The ramifications from such a revelation are almost unfathomable!
What's really difficult to accept is that you are allowed out.
Feb 7, 2023
0
#333
Festerthetester is real because emotionally discombobulated people are real
Feb 7, 2023
0
#334
Festerthetester wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
That's nonsense. A few physicists believe randomness doesn't exist but most are more intelligent than that.
Isn't in a tad amazing that all the intelligent physicists agree with you?
It matters little what anyone believes. It only matters what can be proven to be true.
You should read my post where I reitereated that Bell's experiments demonstrate the existence of unavoidable randomness, with only very limited assumptions.
It can also be concluded that in the many worlds interpretation of QM, Bell's experiments imply superdeterminism, but that has exactly the same implications for the only part of the many worlds multiverse we can observe - what happens in our universe. i.e. that it has unavoidable randomness.
Optimissed wrote:
Incidentally, @Festerthetester, if you're so sure that something must be proven before being known, that may mean that you can be more easily duped than the rest of us, if we don't believe that. Your judgements will be linearly based around deductive proof, so something could be set up to convince you, to gain your confidence, or con you, because it would, quite simply, be easier, if it's known how your mind works.
I did not say that something must be proven before being known. What I said was you can't claim " the simple explanation, which cannot be refuted, is that randomness is real." That's a very different statement.
We seem to be discussing two different things.
One is whether or not anything can be known for sure and the other is whether randomness exists.
Randomness is hardly a normal topic. In life in general, only reality matters, not what you believe to be true but what is actually true. I can prove, for example, that the heart pumps blood because if the heart stops blood flow stops. Randomness however, is a little less obvious. I can claim, for example, that god exists and also claim you can't refute it. It's one of those things that seems logical or illogical but there's no way to prove it one way or the other. We just believe what we believe.
You know that paranormal is real? That explains a lot.
Optimissed wrote:
I believe I could prove that God doesn't exist
I have spend a substantial portion of my life studying the history of religions and can easily prove all are based on poppycock but whether or not something called god exists is neither provable nor disprovable.
By the way, your statement flies in the face of your belief in paranormal.
Interested in a crock? Here's some reading material to fill it.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/how-to-get-rid-of-ghosts-haunting-spirits
Note: The author is a 30-ish female with a BA in creative writing and makes the best of it as a self proclaimed expert of health, wellness, and spirituality, not to mention how to rid your house of ghosts.
The scary part is how many of these charlatans exists and how many people fall into the abyss they create.
Randomness is the state of lack of knowledge. Using the scientific method it is possible to demonstrate the impossibility of possessing certain knowledge - i.e. proving randomness exists. This is not an easy topic.