entropy hasta do w/ heat, right ? i mean u guys taught me that a long time ago. so why cant we run a test by getting the temp to near AZ ? and try2record stuff going on atta more manageable S & T frames.
smart ppl have already done this, right ?
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
and since they say the ave temp of the U is...
Considering that Big Bang was the reason behind creation of universe , we know that radiation was left over after Big Bang and based on measurements of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) the average temperature of the universe today is approximately 2.73 kelvins or −270.42 °C or −454.76 °F .
...so kinda hard to believe that theres much going on out there in aetherland.
May 27, 2020
0
#2004
Take it easy 2nd day Henry I had a singular laugh over your notion. I’ll point out another either or that Elroch suggests - things are either deterministic or not. Yet another example of limited and constricting thought. People see as they wish. Things lie at either end of imagined spectrum.
May 27, 2020
0
#2005
If something is deterministic, you can predict it with 100% success. Either you can do this or you cannot: there is no middle ground.
However, if you mean that something can be partially random, that is unquestionably so, and covers most of the real world. So I agree with what I guess you had in mind, but not with the way you expressed this (if you say something is deterministic, this means it has no randomness).
May 27, 2020
0
#2006
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
entropy hasta do w/ heat, right ? i mean u guys taught me that a long time ago. so why cant we run a test by getting the temp to near AZ ? and try2record stuff going on at more manageable S & T frames.
smart ppl have already done this, right ?
"AZ" I deciphered, but S and T are not clear to me. Nor exactly what you imagine being done. Do elaborate if you like.
The idea of entropy arose in classical thermodynamics, but this led to a more general definition in terms of the quantum states of a system. For example, one such microstate would correspond to specifying the combined states of all the molecules in a container of gas.
May 27, 2020
0
#2007
No middle ground hey ? Precisely why Any discussion becomes a dead end. It sure appears E has all his science text books copied, ready for pasting. Anywho, stuff is neither deterministic nor random. Wrong terms.
The beginning of this world and of life is inconceivable since they have neither beginning nor end. The world was not created once upon a time, but the world is constantly being created millions of times every second and will always continue to do so.
"Real world simple examples seem to be avoided here."
a falling star ..but not showers
i mean.. if you just sit there mind your business and all of a sudden you notice a falling star, its so random and fast, that even your wish is kinda subconscious?
but when its showers you just watch the sky expecting them, so its not so random.
maybe that will take you off the falling leafs 
Elroch wrote:
Regarding a few posts relating to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:
As Valerio Scarani points out (and this is the standard definition) randomness is the degree of unpredictability of some event from some chosen viewpoint.
You'd have save yourself a lot of problems if you'd stuck to that perfectly reasonable definition instead of trying to change it to confuse Silver and confusing yourself more than you confused him. But no, you decided to try to turn people here against one-another.
MustangMate wrote:
Take it easy 2nd day Henry I had a singular laugh over your notion. I’ll point out another either or that Elroch suggests - things are either deterministic or not. Yet another example of limited and constricting thought. People see as they wish. Things lie at either end of imagined spectrum.
Depends on what you mean by it.
I use determinism to mean that all is determined. I won't speak for Elroch because he can no longer be trusted not to change his definitions.
The reason I use it that way is that we are all, I assume, ok with the role that causality plays. So, classically speaking, we also assume randomness where it belongs and free will where that belongs. However, the hard line determinists claim that all events are the unalterable effect of previous events ... i.e. causes ... **and nothing else exists**. No randomness and definitely no free will. When someone says they are arguing for determinism, that's what they're arguing for. They are not arguing for the classical view that unites mechanistic causality in the macro in the same universe as randomness in the micro.
If Elroch were capable of putting things as clearly as that, there'd be no problem; but he isn't. It's in his nature to find fault with most things, to try to assert his ownership of physics. I wish I were kidding but I'm not.
If something is deterministic, you can predict it with 100% success. Either you can do this or you cannot: there is no middle ground.
wait a sec. grey is real. wut would u call being able to predict exacts for 20 secs then get disappearance for 20 secs then 20 secs of 100% complete description ?
S & T is space & time
yea, we'll have to talk about determinism again, but my guess is that elroch will redefine it : )
MustangMate wrote:
Too many brain cells may become stressed, to contemplate the Cosmos Origin. (If it had one). Has to be either designed or by default- chance. Thinking these are but the two existing possibilities is so typical of Western thought. Rather shallow and limiting in scope.
Neither ... the cosmos exists as it is because that is the way things exist. If we have to have existence, which we do because we exist, then it exists in a particular way ... this way ... because the inherent nature of material existence is that it has no alternative possibility. No multiverse. No Creator to decide for it.
Sillver1 wrote:
we'll have to talk about determinism again, but my guess is that elroch will redefine it : )
It's at times like this when I REALLY wish we had a simple "like" button. 
Optimissed wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
Too many brain cells may become stressed, to contemplate the Cosmos Origin. (If it had one). Has to be either designed or by default- chance. Thinking these are but the two existing possibilities is so typical of Western thought. Rather shallow and limiting in scope.
Neither ... the cosmos exists as it is because that is the way things exist. If we have to have existence, which we do because we exist, then it exists in a particular way ... this way ... because the inherent nature of material existence is that it has no alternative possibility. No multiverse. No Creator to decide for it.
In case anybody objects to this, I am NOT arguing here that there is no Creator. 
It is simply the most elegant solution possible.
oops. i deleted the thing. another time.. lol
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
If something is deterministic, you can predict it with 100% success. Either you can do this or you cannot: there is no middle ground.
wait a sec. grey is real. wut would u call being able to predict exacts for 20 secs then disappearance for 20 secs then 20 secs of 100% complete description ?
S & T is space & time
I'd call it confusing if you still used an egg-timer or a burning candle to tell the time.
May 27, 2020
0
#2019
All well and good .... creation and design hold a different image for everyone. But they really are not part of this topic.
Does true randomness exist?
Perhaps a creator created the cosmos complete with any set of physical laws. Doesn’t matter nor does it address the question
True randomness is the question. Not observation of random events.
Can an event occur that is lacking any previous effect? - My definition which does not make any reference to causes or origins.
A question may become can a given atom one day behave differently under exact same conditions?
The answer is No. Of course not. Direct observation becomes misleading. But conditions are never repeated are they?
MustangMate wrote:
All well and good .... creation and design hold a different image for everyone. But they really are not part of this topic.
I think they are, myself. Absolutely fundamental to it because the relationships that exist between past events and future events are most important when it comes to assessing how the universe might have originated. Therefore, we have the same thing, that origination hypotheses are completely dependent on assumed relationships between events.
Does true randomness exist?
It seems so.
Perhaps a creator created the cosmos complete with any set of physical laws. Doesn’t matter nor does it address the question
True randomness is the question. Not observation of random events.
Well, if you can observe a truly random event, then T.R. exists. Simple as that. So how do we assess an event as being random? It has to be dependent on whether we can recognise patterns in the sequence of events, which depends on whether we can predict patterns. If pattern prediction is impossible then so is pattern recognition and therefore we have a series of events which are not distinguishable from truly random events.
Can an event occur that is lacking any previous effect? - My definition which does not make any reference to causes or origins.
A question may become can a given atom one day behave differently under exact same conditions? The answer is No. Of course not. Direct observation becomes misleading. But conditions are never repeated are they?
Depends what we mean by "conditions", doesn't it? They can be general or specific, general or exact, depending on context.
Elroch is trying to bamboozle is with basic physics implying somehow the uncertainty principle is relative to randomness. Science IS able to measure both speed and location very accurately- just not at the same Time. This is a function of time and unrelated to whether or not events occurred randomly.
No, I described a specific fact about the future: where is a specified particle (for simplicity in empty space with nothing interacting with it) going to be at a specific time in the future. This is fundamentally impossible (without fixing the result - akin to altering a coin toss to suit a prediction!)
Note also that things get worse if you would like everything to be deterministic (i.e. not random) that is because as well as the issue of randomness in all of the parts, there is also the general fact that the second law of thermodynamics applies. This law is usually expressed as "entropy increases", so when you remember that entropy is the quantity of randomness, you will see it also says "randomness increases".