Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
peterbrandt1000
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2121
Cringey cringey cringey
I thought that once you understood determinism in the context of this topic along with the quote bellow, everything will fall together for you. guess i was wrong.
"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
maybe mustang will be kind and explain this to you. i dont have the sort of patience it takes right now
my cyberdonut is bogota colombia.. almost there, im counting on your spells : )
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2124
Sillver1 wrote:
I thought that once you understood determinism in the context of this topic along with the quote bellow, everything will fall together for you. guess i was wrong.
Objectively, I understand everything relevant to this subject better than you. Your opinion of yourself is however unsurpassed.
"and if random[ness] is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
You would have to be brain dead not to realise by now I firmly conclude the first clause is false. Thus this sentence is a question about the consequences of a falsehood. While the answer is trivial, this makes it insignificant.
maybe mustang will be kind and explain this to you. i dont have the sort of patience it takes right now
Lack of patience, ability, understanding, experience, knowledge, and also excessive ego - there are so many reasons why your comments are random and disjointed, such as talking about explaining a trivial consequence of a false pretext.
Yeah, well, if you scratched out your egocentric oddity things would run smoother.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2126
Sillver1 wrote:
gary keller has more than 100,000 independent people working under his brand name KW, and his one thing is to keep them educated and motivated. i think hes good at it because they generate sales of over $250B's yearly.
He is a good businessman and (IMO) a good writer with bold, interesting ideas.
.....and there are p l e n t y posts here totally random showing how completely ridiculous this debate whether it exists.
There are two types of knowledge and one is wise, and that’s nothing to do with the worldly.
jumphrope wrote:
Well that was random ;)
😂
"elroch:"You would have to be brain dead not to realise by now"
lovely projection..
elroch:"I firmly conclude the first clause is false"
your conclusion is based on your own definition.. thats a silly fallacy. and if anyone took a close look at your definition, they will clearly see that you dont define TR, you exclude it, and replace it with randomness that is knowledge based.. silly.
also excessive ego
lol !!
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2135
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"I firmly conclude the first clause is false"
your conclusion is based on your own definition.. thats a silly fallacy. and if anyone took a close look at your definition, they will clearly see that you dont define TR, you exclude it, and replace it with randomness that is knowledge based.. silly.
Not me.
The dictionary, all the people who work in related areas and me.
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2136
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"I firmly conclude the first clause is false"
your conclusion is based on your own definition.. thats a silly fallacy. and if anyone took a close look at your definition, they will clearly see that you dont define TR, you exclude it, and replace it with randomness that is knowledge based.. silly.
If we were living in a different Universe to this one and that Universe had no randomness, then by definition it would be possible to accurately predict the moves in a game of chess before it had been played.
As I pointed out, this is irrelevant as it is nothing like our Universe.
This is a question that would be better addressed to a misguided determinist.
Also, amusingly, in the MWI, it is safe to say that for every game of chess you play, there are alternatives that correspond to every single legal game of chess (to be precise, an infinite number of branches for each of them). Empirically, some of them are much more likely than others (this can be statistically verified). The reason this is so is the quantum mechanical evolution, which has to be consistent with the probabilities given by any interpretation of quantum mechanics.
One might imagine this corresponding in some natural way to volumes in slices of the multiverse corresponding to all the paths. I have not seen the technical details.
[At root, the idea here is that the physics that governs the behaviour of the players in a chess game leads them to play reasonable moves but also has some uncertainty which corresponds to variation in the moves they will play. The amount of variation might be large or small - it is very difficult to tell because the system involved is so impossibly complex to deal with practically].
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2137
Those guys sitting across in their easy chairs have some really exiting terms to scribble down. The always reliable Sophomaniac comes to mind here. Problem is, all these mental health issues are easily recognized and labeled. Nothing haphazard about it, but as yet no known cure exists.
It’s like Love- which there ain’t no cure for.
"It’s like Love- which there ain’t no cure for." amen to that ; )
Jun 19, 2020
0
#2139
Why is it that so many people have this odd reaction to anyone who states things as they believe them to be true? Please keep your feelings of inferiority to yourself! Indeed, eradicate them, and think about the facts instead, in a non-ego-related way, as many of us do naturally.