Henry-the-VIII wrote:
sadly, the intellectuals go into greater and greater levels of complexity because the can never see the simple truth of something.
lol.. No ****
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
I know what I'm talking about.
I'll explain it more clearly. We have a notion of true randomness, which is an ideal which we assume MIGHT correspond to a concrete reality. The concrete reality we can call "real true randomness", for the purposes of this discussion.
However, we start from the premise that "real true randomness" may exist and that "true randomness" is an ideal that is meant to correspond to it, if it exists, or to set a limit, if it doesn't. We have no access to the mechanisms at work, if any, and all we can do is to go ahead and analyse sequences for patterns, to the best of our ability.
Each of these ideas or concepts refers to the same thing, because we have no means of distinguishing them and because they define the same as one another. For three millennia and maybe more, mankind has been trying to theorise about idealism. We have Platonists, for whom, perhaps, the only real is the ideal. There are real idealists and probably ideal realists. They're like the Socialist Workers' Party of Tooting and the Workers' Socialist Party. Each approach is only a matter of transient perspective on the same thing. It is probably necessary to study idealism is philosophy for about two years to make absolutely sure that you have noted all the differing approaches and yet all we would have done would be to have undertaken a course in practical psychology.
Ultimately, there is no difference except one of transient, human perspective.
^^ Slightly edited. I decided that it would be clearer to call the two concepts "true randomness" (which is the ideal that we know exists, because it exists as a concept) and "real true randomness", which is, supposedly, a possibly existing, concrete reality which tr is meant to correspond to.
The trouble is, we have no observational, direct access to either of them and also no means of telling them apart. Thus we have to assume that they are one and the same. Thus, the composite reality of rtr is an ideal which may exist and which is assumed to exist in reality for the purposes of using it as a concept, or it is assumed not to exist if one is arguing against it.
They're one and the same .... there's only one concept, approached from differing directions.
Henry-the-VIII wrote:
sadly, the intellectuals go into greater and greater levels of complexity because the can never see the simple truth of something.
and...
Fortunately, I've made it very, very simple. You have to read it carefully and hold the concepts in your mind as you do so, and all will be well. Even Elroch should understand what I've just written and hopefully, people will start to understand that the concepts we're discussing are one and the same.
I've just given you all a crash philosophy course on basic idealism. That will be 50 cents please.
Abhinav0121 wrote:
...with a tad bit knowledge of physics.
Can you please recommend a Youtube channel...
maybe start here ?...idk...(Physics of Consciousness)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbjP5XjEnA
This is all I have at the moment, sir. And mind it, foreign is a bit hard to come by in India. Your explanation really helped. Thank you for helping to keep me slightly educated. I really do appreciate it 🙏🙏
Optimissed wrote:
I've just given you all a crash philosophy course on basic idealism. That will be 50 cents please.
lol. ill give you my 50c after you tell me whats wrong with something along the line..
"an event without predetermined results"
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
Determination has absolutely nothing to do about randomness.
Determinism (note the word) is the exact opposite of randomness.
Suppose some event is going to happen and the result could be 0 or 1. If there is no way of knowing which it will be, the event is random. If the result is certain to be 0, the event is deterministic.
enough with the obfuscation
Sillver1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I've just given you all a crash philosophy course on basic idealism. That will be 50 cents please.
lol. ill give you my 50c after you tell me whats wrong with something along the line..
"an event without predetermined results"
I think your concise explanation of randomness sounds ok to me. I don't think it's a definition because randomness is an abstract concept referring to a series of data and you're talking about, like, one datum.
Abhinav0121 wrote:
This is all I have at the moment, sir. And mind it, foreign is a bit hard to come by in India. Your explanation really helped. Thank you for helping to keep me slightly educated. I really do appreciate it 🙏🙏
That is very considerate of you, sir. In fact, your kind words are the nicest thing anyone has said to me for 132 years online.
May 28, 2020
0
#2056
Randomness / Deterministic
incorrect terms that make abstract attempt at explanation of reality.
Call it as you may, as Opti said it’s all the same.
May 28, 2020
0
#2057
No one has yet to explain how selective randomness is?
Do only some things posses the ability of being random while others not so? Or is everything in a state of potential randomness? (For those who think randomness exists).
s/o please define for me physical chaos ?
If you roll a dice 12 million times, then you would expect one side (such as 5) to appear around 2 million times, but not exactly 2 million times.
Out of all the threads on chess.com that I don't understand, this one is my absolute favourite. I always come in with curiosity, and leave with a tad bit knowledge of physics. I really can't decipher what is being said all the time, but I try my best.
Can you please recommend a Youtube channel or any other site that might help me understand what you guys are sayin' ... Just a little something to get me started.