Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

@ Uke.. Are you surprised that the subject of astronomy has not come out yet? Talk about randomness, that realm is filled with it. Or so it seems.

Anyhow, here is another strange observation of mine. And perhaps what makes it so strange, is that I’ve only noticed it in the past couple of years.

By my calculations, eight times out of ten, I’m the first in line at a stop light. Meaning before it turns green, and the person next to me almost always waits for me to go first. 

It doesn't matter if I’m driving my personal car, or a company semi. Same result, being local or on the road. Always doing the speed limit. Almost wish I could run some kind of experiment on this type of thing. Much like Elroch’s digital dice.

Record a good sample of empirical data. It is very easy for an impression to be wrong.

If you seek the insight behind the key aspect as to why G varies with time, then I recommend the answer displayed on Physics Stack Exchange:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/500308/what-is-the-justification-for-diracs-large-numbers-hypothesis

There aren’t exactly a nimiety of websites dedicated to the hypothesis contrary to the aforementioned probability theory (I suppose it forms an integral part of QM). Yet, I entrust that you will find a decent selection.

that also explain my dilemma about the proportions because if i go back to the coin flips, the 'choice' is govern by the laws of physics and given both obverse and reverse are identical, it just make sense for the proportions to be as well.

but there's nothing truly random about coins obeying the laws of physics. would you expect identical proportions if that scenario was absolutely random?

going back to a single particle... i cant think of any 'mechanism' that will cheat some laws of physics and make a chaotic choice.

Maybe your single particle is just confused

'look, determinism sux. no one wants it. well, maybe a convict does, but that a different conversation'

why would a convict want determinism to be true?

'...and the person next to me almost always waits for me to go first.'

sounds like a reason for concern. lol.

I heard that Oregonians drive super politely. is that true?

The relationship between probabilities and the real world is an (irresolvable) philosophical problem. In terms of Frequentist probability, there are no long runs in the real Universe, just finite ones (at least at any point in time) so no long run statistics ever actually apply.

When you try to see how closely a probabilistic prediction will approximate the real data, you find the meaning comes down to things like there is a certain probability of the real result being within a certain range of the probabilistic result. Then you need to interpret the meaning of that new probability. That leads you to a third one which needs interpreting and so on!

In terms of Bayesian probability, things are a bit simpler. You quantify beliefs and the way in which these beliefs change is uniquely determined by a small set of assumptions which are pretty inarguable. But this too provides no guarantees about what will happen, just that, in a sense, your quantitative beliefs are consistent and rational in the way they take account of information.

One very old idea is that when you don't know what is true, you make as neutral assumptions as possible. So if you know that if a die can give you 6 results and you know nothing else, the best assumption is that all 6 possibilities are equally likely. However, when you move on to taking into account empirical data to revise your model of reality, this fails to be adequate.

Say for a coin (to simplify), if all flips of the coin are assumed to be independent, then there are a range of possibilities, each given by the probability that the coin will come up heads. Because there are only 2 mutually exclusive possibilities, the proportion of heads tells you absolutely everything. The problem is that you need to start with some belief of how likely all these possibilities are (to be revised later by empirical data).

For example, you might say there is 99% chance that a coin is fair, and 1% chance that it is biased, and then you need to pick some way to distribute that 1% across the other possibilities. Your choice. This is the hard truth of picking a prior in Bayesian statistics: there is no right answer. If you start by being really suspicious, you might start with the belief that there was 50% chance of the coin being fair, and the other 50% might be mostly concentrated at high probabilities of heads or high probabilities of tails. 

Given one of these starting points, empirical data revises your beliefs by being more consistent with some of the possibilities than others. Bayes rule is how you do it. The nice thing is that whatever (reasonable) prior you start with, when you have a large enough amount of data, your final beliefs are pretty close to the same. This is the way empirical data overwhelms the prior in the end. Good news for anyone who wants to make sense of the world.

@king, astronomy or astrology ;? here's that eagle carrying a fish that appears like a monkey's head i told you about.. its not edited, just still images from a video. (the talons combines with the fish gives that random illusion of a head)

sorry, i totaly messed this one up. was thinking of the benford law and meant to ask if you know the reason for why this pattern happen?

why do you assume that all possibilities are equally likely? I'm not referring to a physical bias to the die which obey the law of physics. (or a bias to empirical data results from pseudorandom) instead, assume an absolute random... why do we take for granted an equal distribution? (large numbers included)

Yes of course, rationality usually wins the day in the end. And I prefer that course as well. Still, challenging perceptions is a dominant pastime of mine.

Take for instance our friend Silver. He thinks it’s polite for the guy waiting at the green light with me to chill until I drive away first. Oddly enough, I never thought of it that way. My perception is that they just don’t want to take a leadership role. I’m offended by that conclusion. So until my perception can change on the matter, I’m somewhat stuck. 

And so I’ve relegated the issue a random value. When people mill around in crowded places, it’s much the same thing to me. (Meaning walking around at the grocery store etc..) There are those that will crowd you, and those that will give you space. That reflection makes sense to me, the transference is damn near the same. 

why would a convict want determinism to be true?

because no one could be blamed for wrong doings. it would make all our actions inevitable?

...enter free will and how it all ties in w/ emotion.

d

d

d

d

There are various explanations that have been developed to elucidate Benford's law, albeit it is somewhat more ready to prove it mathematically. Moreover, it plays prevalence in Planck's study of thermodynamics, in spite of the subtlety. The following links could be invaluable and furthermore, one should note that Zipf's law asserts that the frequency of a word is inversely proportional to its rank in the frequency table. In a simplistic mathematical form (I place simplistic so as to stress the beauty of probability theory even when it's not enmeshed with mathematical jargon), the probability of 'finding' the nth most common word is given by the approximation: P(n) = 0.1/n.

Are you alluding to cyclotron's principle of working?

Which is why "free will" is defined as a type of randomness, as described and analysed by Conway et al.

king... 'Yes of course, rationality usually wins the day in the end. And I prefer that course as well. Still, challenging perceptions is a dominant pastime of mine.'

that's solely depends on your perception of what is considered to be a 'win' ; )