e
Does True Randomness Actually Exist?
Sort:
noodles2112 wrote:
I just went outside and did the little thumb test. Closing one eye and making my thumb appear as long as full grown pine tree perhaps 100 feet away as well as an 8 foot wall some 20 feet away. How exactly does that prove the sun is 400 times larger than the moon and 93 million miles away?
Festerthetester - were you ever a teacher/professor? If so, in what subject(s)?
It is also very easy to understand/comprehend how a few control/manipulate a multitude. Not hard to do at all if one disseminates the majority of information i.e. "knowledge" from the top down. What the public sees/hears/reads via MSM/education etc.
I'm not looking for your friendship fester. But so long as you continue to spout/parrot lies I shall challenge you, whether you realize your lies or not.
I am impressed you actually tried the perspective thing and also that you admitted it. I am befuddled that you don't see the connection. The sun looks the same size as the moon because it is so far away, just like the tree and the thumb. How can someone claiming to be smart not see that?
Yes you know I was a teacher of history in high school as well as lectured a few times in community college. How is that germane? I have never used any credentials to validate what I write in other subjects.
I do, however, have an MA and one can't do that without basic math in high school, like geometry and trigonometry, which apply directly to your arguments.
Or logic which you have failed to master.
I'm don't care about your friendship. I have tried talking rationally to you for a long time. You always resort to insults. I really don't know why I even respond to you. But here you are, everywhere.
No
Any random computer generated number isn’t random. If you try enough times you will repeat, but it is very long
Feb 9, 2023
0
#546
Fester - Elroch and I have been corresponding for some time now. Several years.
As far as logic goes, it would appear your reasoning is if MSM also confirms it, than it must be true, for why would they lie? . If it is contrary to the Gov't/MSM narratives you simply discount it as crazy without the slightest bit of research.
Take NASA for instance. If one chooses to believe their Apollo 11 lunar lander made of curtain rods, cardboard, roofing paper and scotch tape actually landed and took off from the moon then they are not using critical thinking much less basic logic.
If NASA is faking their alleged space adventures then the question would need be why are they doing that? That is basic logic / inductive/deductive reasoning.
So, it is you History. Okay. Sometimes it is difficult to tell since change usernames so frequently.
noodles2112 wrote:
Fester - Elroch and I have been corresponding for some time now. Several years.
As far as logic goes, it would appear your reasoning is if MSM also confirms it, than it must be true, for why would they lie? . If it is contrary to the Gov't/MSM narratives you simply discount it as crazy without the slightest bit of research.
Take NASA for instance. If one chooses to believe their Apollo 11 lunar lander made of curtain rods, cardboard, roofing paper and scotch tape actually landed and took off from the moon then they are not using critical thinking much less basic logic.
If NASA is faking their alleged space adventures then the question would need be why are they doing that? That is basic logic / inductive/deductive reasoning.
So, it is you History. Okay. Sometimes it is difficult to tell since change usernames so frequently.
You routinely invent narratives to suit yourself. What makes you think any of this is true?
As far as logic goes, it would appear your reasoning is if MSM also confirms it, than it must be true, for why would they lie? . If it is contrary to the Gov't/MSM narratives you simply discount it as crazy without the slightest bit of research.
You simply invent what you want to believe about anyone who disagrees with you and it becomes your truth. You have been doing this for at least the three years I've known you.
Regarding NASA: This is another denial of yours that you have repeated ad nauseam. I told you I have relatives, engineers, who work at NASA but you just add them to your list of people who are oblivious to the fact they don't know what they're doing. This is your mantra. Anyone who opposes you is ignorant and only you are aware of the truth.
You must realize this is the classic behaviour of an obsession with conspiracies: you're smart everyone else is stupid, no matter what the numbers.
I agree with you that if one assumes NASA is fake the logical question is why and also why literally thousands of people would be part of that and no one ever leaked the truth. I've asked you why. Your simplistic answer was money. To who? Aerospace engineering is not a particulary high paying job. My niece is an optics engineer who worked on the hubble with 15 years experience and an MS with honors. She makes about $85,000 a year working 80 hour weeks. Is she a liar and a cheat or just ignorant that her work is fake?
Feb 9, 2023
0
#548
I have 2 relatives that have worked for NASA for 20 years and they only know what they are told. Like most large organizations NASA is so compartmentalized that only those at the top know everything. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Truman said that only those very few who worked on the Manhattan project actually knew what was going on.
It really is not very difficult to understand how a few can and do control the many. That is why I don't understand how you keep assuming that if a conspiracy existed than every single person who works for NASA(some 70,000) would be in on it, which of course, would be absurd.
Here is an example. If I have 1000 people and a puzzle of 10,000 pieces and I give groups of 5 people 100 pieces each (where some fit and some don't) do you really think any one of those 1000 people would know what the entire puzzle looked like?
Of course not.
How those at the top of their companies and organizations keep their employees mostly in the dark ought not be any secret.
The military is another good example. Obviously a private in the armed forces does not know what their general knows and so on and on and on.
Please explain to me why you assume keeping the majority in a state ignorance is impossible?
Nah. I'm done trying. Life has too many pleasures to waste any more time with you. Be sure to mention, as I leave, that I couldn't answer your simplistic questions. That's another method of your madness.
Feb 9, 2023
0
#550
haydenheard wrote:
Any random computer generated number isn’t random. If you try enough times you will repeat, but it is very long
Many modern CPUs have a source of genuine randomness built into the design!
This is normally used for seeding a high quality random number generator, but it can be used "raw" as well (the only disadvantage is slowness - but when I read that it uses "thermal noise within the silicon to output a random stream of bits at the rate of 3 GHz" it doesn't sound that slow!).
Source of quote: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/guide/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide.html
Feb 9, 2023
0
#551
Optimissed wrote:
RoobieRoo wrote:
I don't understand how a wave function can collapse, for the maths holds relatively sound for measuring and prediction. Is it really the case that it's based on some kind of subjectivity? That's appears to me to be bunkum. I apologize to those for whom these things are well trodden cattle paths but they are completely new to me.
Back when I was cleverer than I am now, I thought I worked out how a subjectively caused effect would be impossible.
If you imagine a light wave, that's the normal way we think of light: in waves. Yet we tend to think of a photon as an object and also an electron.
If there's nothing obstructing a light wave, it carries on happily, as part of a beam of light. It isn't anywhere in particular. If it encounters an obstacle, it has to "declare itself" as being somewhere. Otherwise, it wouldn't know if it was supposed to be absorbed, reflected or pass on unhindered. It makes it unhappy because it knows it has work to do and also it must declare itself to the authorities. Normally, they like to be under the radar.
Elroch will no doubt correct me where I'm wrong.
thank you, its just too awesome man! I guess there is so much we simply don't know as yet
I think so. A lot of scientists can't get their heads round it. Even theoreticians. Sometimes I've tried to think about what could possibly be the cause of it all and I generally come up with the idea that everything ... all matter and so on, has a field and that's what interacts. We expect matter has a gravitational field, or that it may have. Is it that or something else?
Feb 9, 2023
0
#553
Fester - believe it or not, I often think "Does it really even matter?"
Elroch - Okay. Please help me out here since you are the author of this thread.
Hypothetically - what would be most significant if.....
Randomness exists. What does that prove?
Randomness doesn't exist. What does that prove?
We assume randomness exists. If randomness didn't exist it would indicate that the universe would appear to be a conspiracy to convince us, for apparently no reason, that randomness exists. Randomness existing would just prove that we can trust out judgement to a limited extent.
I dare y’all to have a normal conversation about your days.
Never seen before action
Never seen before action
Determinists (ie those believing in determinism or superdeterminism, which are exactly the same thing, despite what the person pushing superdeterminism might say) are the ultimate conspiracy theorists. They think that the universe is determined to prove intelligent people wrong and unintelligent people right! Except they think they're clever to have predicted that!!
shadowhb123 wrote:
I dare y’all to have a normal conversation about your days.
Never seen before action
Never seen before action
wrong
Optimissed wrote:
We assume randomness exists. If randomness didn't exist it would indicate that the universe would appear to be a conspiracy to convince us, for apparently no reason, that randomness exists. Randomness existing would just prove that we can trust out judgement to a limited extent.
The universe doesn't 'do' anything based on what humans need to understand about it. Your comments seem to all point towards a need for logic in the universe. Why? Humans, life, earth, the sun, our entire galaxy are less than a nit in the universe. What we suppose or deny or need to know about any of it makes no difference to the universe. It is what it is and will do what it does whether we think it fits some math we've invented or not. To suppose any different is beyond ludicrous.
It only takes imagination, not a creator, to understand determinism is possible. There is no way we can come close to understanding let alone proving what makes the universe what it is. Any claim that it must be random is just a guess.
Feb 9, 2023
0
#560
RoobieRoo wrote:
I don't understand how a wave function can collapse
Scientists aren't very good at naming things... as far as I know "collapse" isn't used anywhere else other than quantum mechanics. It just means the moment when the quantum state becomes one thing or another. Before that is pretty interesting... because basically the universe itself doesn't know whether the property is one thing or another, not until a measurement is made.
A simple way to imagine it might be to imagine someone shaking a pair of dice in their hands. The dice aren't anything yet. After you roll them they'll show a number. There are different probabilities for different numbers (7 is the most likely if the two die are 6 sided) but they aren't anything until after you roll them.
Not understanding this is fine since no one understands it, and in fact the need for an observer or measurement has lead many to say that QM is fundamentally flawed, and that hopefully in the future we'll come up with something better.
And here it is for noodles:
Seriously? For noodles? Did you just meet him? Are you not aware he has a sign on his brain that says exit only? You are not going to convince him even that there is no dome much less anything as complicated as gravity.
And his reply to me, as usual, will be a claim that I am the one who is deluded.
According to the way you responded to an explanation I made earlier, you probably are. You certainly seem to be. I wouldn't take any comfort from btickler's intervention on your behalf, either. Mad as a hatter but he conceals it better than some others.