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

Sort:
Avatar of Elroch
MustangMate wrote:

Perhaps this -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

For much of the history of the natural sciencespeople have contemplated the exact nature of matter. The idea that matter was built of discrete building blocks, the so-called particulate theory of matter, independently appeared in ancient Greeceand ancient India among Buddhists, Hindus and Jains in 1st-millennium BC.[6] Ancient philosophers who proposed the particulate theory of matter include Kanada (c. 6th–century BC or after),[7]Leucippus (~490 BC) and Democritus (~470–380 BC).[8]

I recall Democritus' association with the atomic hypothesis - that matter was made of indivisible units. However, I am not aware of any discussion of energy and matter being converted to each other until the 20th century.. Stuff appearing out of nowhere is of course a common part of many ancient stories, but not in a way that improves understanding.

Avatar of Sillver1
Elroch wrote:

Randomness is about unpredictability (it's how it is defined).

Physics reveals that certain specific events are entirely unpredictable (the reasoning is non-trivial but is established knowledge), answering the question of the title.

This is independent of any claims about randomness in cases where it is impractical to use physics (even though fundamentally it determines all behaviour in our Universe). For example, predicting the result of a horse race.

Wrong answer Try again tongue.png

Avatar of Sillver1

mustang, how much are you into the global consciousness project?

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Stuff appearing out of nowhere is of course a common part of many ancient stories, but not in a way that improves understanding.

u mean like what squawking hawking got caught saying about the big bang breakfast donut ?? 

"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature,"

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

HiHo...he kinda reminds me of a teeter totter. uknow if the patient is unbalanced then all ur gonna get is unbalance from the patient. iows GIGO. sad.

Avatar of Optimissed

All about ego, trying to mess with people and memememe. He is such a fool.

Avatar of OneThousandEightHundred18

my username is literally the result of me pressing random keys on my keyboard. i don't know the implication of this

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

i'll try2call u right now. lol ! LA right ?...hold on...

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

wait. im gonna text u instead. in about 15 minutes.

Avatar of Optimissed

<<<One of us has a distinction in a course on randomness and has worked on modelling stochastic systems for years. Can you remember which? >>>

Firstly, Elroch says that different labels don't change the nature of the thing being discussed. Then he insists we are discussing "true randomness" rather than "apparent randomness", although he didn't pay any attention when I tried to engage him on the subject of duality in our thinking about it.

Now he's saying that he must be right because he's modelled stochastic systems. Didn't say I'm right because I'm the one with a degree in philosophy and have done a lot of further work on theory of knowledge, which is my specialism. He's right and I'm not, of course.

A question. How is it even possible to model stochastic systems? Well, you can do it using a statistical approach, sure, but you can only model the macro view and guess what? When you do that, you are automatically modelling a determined system. The very nature of randomness is that it cannot be modelled with regard to any specific data. You can only model the overview, which is not random at all but which is a product of algorithms designed to imitate randomness. So that may be "A.R." but it isn't "T.R."
All told, there's some fraud happening here! happy.png

Avatar of PicklesOfTheJar
Nice
Avatar of MustangMate-inactive

Observations are measured and quantified. Remarkable technology. A device can shout randomness but only when we tell it too !

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive
1818-1828271 wrote:

my username is literally the result of me pressing random keys on my keyboard. i don't know the implication of this

Perhaps by pressing random numbers. The dash appears mighty suspicious. Were the eyes open?

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive

@Sillver - I try to keep up with progress from The GCP. I’m in such a rural area it’s difficult to participate. I’m sure it’s possible though - perhaps?

Science has profoundly changed the way we view reality, but there is so much more waiting to be discovered. A more complete understanding of our world requires a more advanced set of tools and practices. IONS uses scientific exploration and personal discovery to push beyond the current limits of human knowledge. - copied

https://noetic.org/

 

 

 

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

i ended up calling u instead n gotta architect firm in the SF valley. when i asked2talk2the blue guy w goiter red eyes they sounded confuzed. o well. i quit.

Avatar of Elroch
Optimissed wrote:

<<<One of us has a distinction in a course on randomness and has worked on modelling stochastic systems for years. Can you remember which? >>>

Firstly, Elroch says that different labels don't change the nature of the thing being discussed.

i.e. if two labels refer to the SAME concept, it doesn't matter which one you use.

Then he insists we are discussing "true randomness" rather than "apparent randomness",

which are two labels referring to DIFFERENT concepts. Spot anything?

although he didn't pay any attention when I tried to engage him on the subject of duality in our thinking about it.

Not sure what you mean, but you caught my attention when you brought up the very relevant topic of pseudo-randomness.

Now he's saying that he must be right because he's modelled stochastic systems. Didn't say I'm right because I'm the one with a degree in philosophy and have done a lot of further work on theory of knowledge, which is my specialism. He's right and I'm not, of course.

Good for you, but the first subject is about modelling partially random systems.

A question. How is it even possible to model stochastic systems? Well, you can do it using a statistical approach, sure, but you can only model the macro view and guess what? When you do that, you are automatically modelling a determined system. The very nature of randomness is that it cannot be modelled with regard to any specific data. You can only model the overview, which is not random at all but which is a product of algorithms designed to imitate randomness. So that may be "A.R." but it isn't "T.R."
All told, there's some fraud happening here!
You tell them!

To be serious, it is both possible to sample from stochastic models (get lots of examples of what might happen) and to directly calculate statistical properties of the range of things that can happen. Both are used a lot.

 

Avatar of Sillver1

"there's some fraud happening here! happy.png"

i dont think so. his responses tells me that he really dont get it. maybe we should just leave him in the dark.. lol. what say you elroch?

Avatar of Sillver1
MustangMate wrote:

@Sillver - I try to keep up with progress from The GCP. I’m in such a rural area it’s difficult to participate. I’m sure it’s possible though - perhaps?

Science has profoundly changed the way we view reality, but there is so much more waiting to be discovered. A more complete understanding of our world requires a more advanced set of tools and practices. IONS uses scientific exploration and personal discovery to push beyond the current limits of human knowledge. - copied

https://noetic.org/

 

 

 

im not too familiar with it myself, but im curious if they detected anything special since the corona thing started. seem like the ultimate test.
is this the same project?
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Avatar of Elroch
Sillver1 wrote:

"there's some fraud happening here! "

i dont think so. his responses tells me that he really dont get it. maybe we should just leave him in the dark.. lol. what say you elroch?

With all due humility, I'd point out that I am the one with a distinction in a course on randomness. That means I have a track record of getting answers right on this topic.

I am not sure you understand yet that answer to the title question was conclusively reached in the 20th century (and cemented by even higher quality experiments in the 21st century). 

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive

Think I’ll just have to call you on that one Elroch, the part about getting answers right. 
Just moments ago in your Evolution thread I asked a question “tell me something that is not theoretically possible?”

Your answer: “Anything that breaks the laws of physics” 

 Readers can make their assessment. 

Avatar of Guest7533424274
Please Sign Up to comment.

If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.