Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

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.

Yes I can claim that. It's what any good scientist would agree to, as things stand. There's zero evidence for determinism and there seems to be good evidence against it. Randomness is either real or caused (designed). If it's designed, then that would be by a deterministic process, because, if that weren't the case, then we're back to randomness being real. A natural process of simulation of randomness is itself a contradiction in terms. It would also take a massive amount of processing power. But if all matter has a natural, random element, inherently as part of its nature .... as a quality, if you like, then that means that no causal mechanism is necessary to produce randomness. Such a causal mechanism, to simulate randomness, has to be random anyway, to all intents and purposes. I would say that for that reason, the idea of determinism (or "superdeterminism") is incoherent. So scientists tend to reject it and accept randomness.

Hello.

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.

That's nonsense. A few physicists believe randomness doesn't exist but most are more intelligent than that.

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.

No but a few of us have it on good authority from God.

The ultimate fallacious appeal to authority.

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.

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.

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.

It's such a shame isn't it.

I'm intelligent and I think randomness is real, so I imagine that most but not all intelligent physicists will agree. You're completely wrong about proof. We know lots of things we can't prove. For instance, that btickler's a bit strange, that chess is drawn with best play by both sides, that the universe is real and we are too ..... even that you are (probably) real, @Festerthetester. That last one's a guess but probably right.

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.

Festerthetester is real because emotionally discombobulated people are real 

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.

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.

Festerthetester wrote
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.>>>



If you say so. I clearly misunderstood you.