on your egg carton today, bullhorn at the ready. Nothing but veiled catch phrases do I see for religious agenda.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2163
The thread is quite unique in one aspect. Most all off topic is filled by stuff posters Know to be trolling. Here, everybody knows it all and fools only themselves.
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2164
Ha ha 👍
although you can’t quite bring yourself to say
such insight is worthy of praise!
Nope. Perhaps is meant the insight applies to myself but absolutely In no way could anyone ever possibly or remotely think it applies to the giver of false praise! 🕵🏻♂️
elroch:"It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information."
i think its best if we pick up where we left last time. it should clearly show you that the formal definition of determinism is the only one relevant to this topic.
will you highlight the difference in substance between the formal definition and the one you suggest? (i know the difference, am asking to make sure you are on the same page)
Evolution implies getting better and better in every way with time, ultimately getting for ourselves the best of everything.
nah...and never eliminating suffering.
i'm excited for D !!
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2168
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information."
i think its best if we pick up where we left last time. it should clearly show you that the formal definition of determinism is the only one relevant to this topic.
will you highlight the difference in substance between the formal definition and the one you suggest? (i know the difference, am asking to make sure you are on the same page)
First consider that your definition referred in a slightly vague way to the past having some sort of state. This is better thought of as a set of information that describes the past (perhaps you can at least agree that is equivalent).
Then your definition refers accurately to the event in question being determined by that state, which may now be expressed as saying that there is a function from the information that describes the past which gives the information of interest (say the result of some observation or event).
Now consider that the notion of prediction is that you start with some information and you arrive at some information about an event of interest. This is essentially the same as the hypothesis that there could be a deterministic model of physics that would involve local hidden variables. Such a model of physics does not mean it is possible in practice to predict everything but if you had access to the hidden variables you could. What I didn't claim was that it could ever be possible to have access to the "sufficient information" you would need to make predictions.
This completes the comparison of the two definitions.
[It's always worth remembering that this hypothesis fails to explain the Universe we live in. There are no local hidden variables that can explain quantum mechanics. The real world is not deterministic according to either definition].
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2169
Reading between the lines revels hidden variables is another way of asserting randomness exists.
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2170
That may be what you read, but the history of it is this.
Quantum mechanics as originally described had a fundamentally random nature. Quite early, the hypothesis arose that this randomness might be merely apparent, the result of a deterministic model of reality that involved local hidden variables that could not be observed. First it was shown that this hypothesis could not explain the predicted behaviour of quantum mechanics. Later it was verified empirically (by a series of increasingly strict experiments over several decades) that quantum mechanics does indeed have the specific behaviour for which this hypothesis is inadequate.
Jun 21, 2020
0
#2171
Are all your posts pre-recorded cause they’re terribly predictable.
By example: I predict I can say in 10 words what would be 100 of yours. ⚖️
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information."
i think its best if we pick up where we left last time. it should clearly show you that the formal definition of determinism is the only one relevant to this topic.
will you highlight the difference in substance between the formal definition and the one you suggest? (i know the difference, am asking to make sure you are on the same page)
First consider that your definition referred in a slightly vague way to the past having some sort of state. This is better thought of as a set of information that describes the past (perhaps you can at least agree that is equivalent).
Then your definition refers accurately to the event in question being determined by that state, which may now be expressed as saying that there is a function from the information that describes the past which gives the information of interest (say the result of some observation or event).
-------------------
Now consider that the notion of prediction is that you start with some information and you arrive at some information about an event of interest. This is essentially the same as the hypothesis that there could be a deterministic model of physics that would involve local hidden variables. Such a model of physics does not mean it is possible in practice to predict everything but if you had access to the hidden variables you could. What I didn't claim was that it could ever be possible to have access to the "sufficient information" you would need to make predictions.
This completes the comparison of the two definitions.
ok. i agree with most of it. the importance is that they seem to match. lets go back to the example of chess.
according to the definitions above, the results of a game of chess will be fixed (determined) before the game even start. do you agree with that?
MustangMate wrote:
Are all your posts pre-recorded cause they’re terribly predictable.
By example: I predict I can say in 10 words what would be 100 of yours. ⚖️
👍😂
D
Stands for the law of demand and supply. Whatever service we are here to give, there is a demand for it. Ask yourself “How may I serve?” and “How can I help?” The answers are within you. When you find those answers, you will also see and know that there is a demand for your services.
“D” also stands for dharma. Each of us has a dharma, a purpose in life. When we are in dharma, we enjoy and love our work.
Jun 22, 2020
0
#2175
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information."
i think its best if we pick up where we left last time. it should clearly show you that the formal definition of determinism is the only one relevant to this topic.
will you highlight the difference in substance between the formal definition and the one you suggest? (i know the difference, am asking to make sure you are on the same page)
First consider that your definition referred in a slightly vague way to the past having some sort of state. This is better thought of as a set of information that describes the past (perhaps you can at least agree that is equivalent).
Then your definition refers accurately to the event in question being determined by that state, which may now be expressed as saying that there is a function from the information that describes the past which gives the information of interest (say the result of some observation or event).
-------------------
Now consider that the notion of prediction is that you start with some information and you arrive at some information about an event of interest. This is essentially the same as the hypothesis that there could be a deterministic model of physics that would involve local hidden variables. Such a model of physics does not mean it is possible in practice to predict everything but if you had access to the hidden variables you could. What I didn't claim was that it could ever be possible to have access to the "sufficient information" you would need to make predictions.
This completes the comparison of the two definitions.
ok. i agree with most of it. the importance is that they seem to match. lets go back to the example of chess.
according to the definitions above, the results of a game of chess will be fixed (determined) before the game even start. do you agree with that?
Yes. The idea would be that the state of the two players and their environment suffices to determine their actions throughout the game.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"It is about the ability to predict given sufficient information."
i think its best if we pick up where we left last time. it should clearly show you that the formal definition of determinism is the only one relevant to this topic.
will you highlight the difference in substance between the formal definition and the one you suggest? (i know the difference, am asking to make sure you are on the same page)
First consider that your definition referred in a slightly vague way to the past having some sort of state. This is better thought of as a set of information that describes the past (perhaps you can at least agree that is equivalent).
Then your definition refers accurately to the event in question being determined by that state, which may now be expressed as saying that there is a function from the information that describes the past which gives the information of interest (say the result of some observation or event).
-------------------
Now consider that the notion of prediction is that you start with some information and you arrive at some information about an event of interest. This is essentially the same as the hypothesis that there could be a deterministic model of physics that would involve local hidden variables. Such a model of physics does not mean it is possible in practice to predict everything but if you had access to the hidden variables you could. What I didn't claim was that it could ever be possible to have access to the "sufficient information" you would need to make predictions.
This completes the comparison of the two definitions.
ok. i agree with most of it. the importance is that they seem to match. lets go back to the example of chess.
according to the definitions above, the results of a game of chess will be fixed (determined) before the game even start. do you agree with that?
Yes. The idea would be that the state of the two players and their environment suffices to determine their actions throughout the game.
i think this is where the problems begin.
you talk about the ability to determine the future actions of the chess players in the hypothetical scenario that you could have suffice amount of information. but according to QM we will never have suffice amount of information. i think you'll agree on this one.
lets rephrase my question a bit more decisively..
according to the definitions of determinism above, the results of any game of chess will be fixed and unchangeable. regardless to the ability to predict future events. are we still in agreement?
they say that (3) std deviations is accurate to about 369x's outta 370. or abt 99.73%. i find it interesting that the more x's u sample out the die ?...(tho asymptotic) the further the hard count diverges from theory...or exactly 2MMx's ea in 12MM samples in this case. this is probly the #1 reason i dont find much solace in math theory. its all about practice. keeps me empirically real.
physicists are creating our celestial aether witha humongous blackboard a wild-haired math calcs. its just theory. nature imitates art but dont trust it to imitate math cuz were missing s/t pretty important here - our senses (consciousness).
i think that if we dont take matterialism too seriously, we already on to a much better path. (matterialism being the belief that life and matter are the same)
physicists are crossing into aesthetics cuz theyre running outta sensual experience data. theyre starting to make stuff up (tho might turn out2be real but then might not be) using wonder like mysterious beauty azza attractant. and i guess thats ok as that opens the corpus callosum for those that are currently operating at 50% capacity. wont name names.
C
Stands for carefreeness and charity. A billion dollars in the bank, without the experience of carefreeness and charity, is a state of poverty. Wealth consciousness, by definition, is a state of mind. If you are constantly concerned about how much money you need, then irrespective of the actual dollar amount you have in your account, you are really poor. Carefreeness automatically leads to charity and sharing because the source from which it all comes is infinite, unbounded, and inexhaustible.