Yes. The macro world is made up entirely of micro components. The behaviour of the whole derives entirely from the behaviour of the components.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Jun 22, 2020
0
#2183
Sillver1 wrote:
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.
Oh, I think they started way back. 
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.
We are discussing a hypothetical scenario in a hypothetical Universe where quantum theory cannot apply (since quantum theory makes the assumptions impossible).
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?
The game is determined by the past in a deterministic Universe. That is by definition.
I'd like to throw in a notion I have been thinking about developing here which relates to the MWI which you have referred to as (if I recall - I think it was you) a sort of globally deterministic physics which includes the non-deterministic physics we observe in a random branch.
The notion is to consider toy Universes that have some of the key properties of the MWI.
First, and very simple, might be a Universe that consists of a coin continually being tossed. So the MWI analog is a bifurcating tree of sequences of coin tosses, twice as many at each step, with all sequences appearing.
A Universe in this toy multiverse consists of one infinite sequence of coin tosses. A question about physics would be "what is the next coin toss based on all previous ones?" and the correct answer is that it is random.
The exact physics depends on exactly how our Universe is selected from the multiverse. One natural version would be that every branch has probability 0.5. In this Universe the entire physics is that all the tosses have probabilities of a fair coin independent of all previous ones.
The physics experienced in such a Universe is of course not deterministic. Indeed it is maximally random.
This toy Multiverse is extremely simple. A more complex version might involve a more complex structure with something akin to relativistic causality. Of course it could also be made not entirely random. There is likely enlightenment to be found in exploring such toy models.
One realisation I had was that it seems entirely possible for the global picture to be a static structure with no uncertainty and for the passage of time to be entirely illusory. Intuitively you, right now are at a point in this structure which contains information about its relationship to stuff we consider the past. At another point in time "you" are a different point. There is a relationship between the information at the different locations, but no movement occurring. Also, very interestingly, each "you" at some time is associated with a single past (at least in one version) but with an exponentially increasing number of futures. Each of these futures is as valid a "you", but you only ever see one of them.
There is doubt about the "uniqueness" of the past, because of Feynman's observations about the sum of all possible paths of particles leading to the observed behaviour. So it is fair to say that what we observe happening is the result of everything possible that could have led to it having happened, which may even be symmetric to the way the future exponentially branches. The single past is like the combination of all possible pasts, so it is unique, but it is not a unique path/Universe.
This might also mean that it is misguided to think of a single past state leading to the present state, as it is really that a vast number of past states combine to do so.
I think you can see why toy models are desirable to get some more intuition and clarify some points.
elroch: "The game is determined by the past in a deterministic Universe. That is by definition."
ok. now that we agree on determinism, we can finally revisit your definition of TR.
can you explain how your definition of TR compatible with Determinism? (after all they are just two sides of the same coin)
lets use the same analogy of a chess game so everyone else can understand this conversation too. (and lets not get distracted with MW)
E
Stand for exulting in the success of others, especially your competitors and those who consider themselves your enemies. Your competitors and enemies will become your helpers when you exult in their success.
“E” also stands for the principle that expectancy determines outcome. So always expect the best and you’ll see that the outcome is spontaneously contained in the expectation.
Jun 23, 2020
0
#2186
I was careful to make my definition of true randomness scientific in character, because only scientific questions about the Universe can ever be resolved (that is essentially the definition of science). Note that this does includes the potential for observations of types that we have not even thought of yet.
It is based entirely on what can be gleaned from experiment. It refers to the information available from any point in space-time, which would exclude so-called hidden variables. It also cannot be affected by any distinctions between models of reality that are not distinguishable by experiments - so for example MWI and the Copenhagen interpretation are viewed as equivalent models (which is why they are considered interpretations of QM of equal scientific standing).
lets stay on the critical path.. if you dont understand my Q, ill rephrase, but is best if you simply use the analogy of a chess game to illustrate your concept of TR in a deterministic U. (without going to MW)
Jun 23, 2020
0
#2188
The deliberately scientific definition of true randomness I gave can apply in a hypothetical deterministic Universe (I am happy to acknowledge that this makes the term less than ideal, as one might wish determinism to exclude the possibility of "true randomness".
It is worth emphasising here that the idea of starting with a label and then trying to pick the right concept to go with it (as was necessary in this forum) is very much the wrong way round. In science and maths, concepts are chosen because they are important and labels are then selected for them. My concept is a good one for science because it describes the most random something can be according to science.
The key to having randomness in a scientific sense in a hypothetical deterministic Universe is to have crucial information in inaccessible hidden variables.
For example, let's say there is a computable rule for what the next move to be played in any chess game is, based on some local hidden variables. Then the moves in games are not predictable even with all past information that is accessible, and they satisfy the scientific definition of true randomness (prediction is absolutely impossible with all available information).
I have to say at this point I am a bit uncomfortable with the idea of hidden variables being "in the Universe" (as they are commonly in physics. Eg a wave function). What is it that makes them "there" if there is no effect of this? Of course the wave function is only part of a model and other models lack it, so it is fair to say it is not (necessarily) really there.
Elroch wrote:
The deliberately scientific definition of true randomness I gave can apply in a hypothetical deterministic Universe (I am happy to acknowledge that this makes the term less than ideal, as one might wish determinism to exclude the possibility of "true randomness".
sweet.
its good that we are finally on the same page. at least to some degree. should be more pleasant from here on, but i need to take a break : ) we'll get back to it.
Jun 23, 2020
0
#2191
The importance of the point is not so great, since we know we live in a Universe that is not deterministic.
If you have any thoughts of MWI, it's like a game of chess is not deterministic, even though the complete tree of all chess games has no uncertainty in it.
Jun 23, 2020
0
#2192
Well- I’ll say it’s all well and good to know what the Universe is not.
A grand scene, those far off places of possibility.
Rather discuss what IS - in meaningful terms.
F
Stands for the fact that in every failure is the seed of success. In the manifestation of the material from the non-material, of the visible from the invisible, a fundamental mechanics is involved. This is the principle of feedback.
Our failures are stepping-stones in the mechanics of creation, bringing us ever closer to our goals. In reality, there is no such thing as failure. What we call failure is just a mechanism through which we can learn to do things right.
Jun 24, 2020
0
#2194
@Uke8
please block KingAxelson
this constant posting of his veiled religious agenda , going thru the alpha bet needs ending.
I kinda like it and im looking 4ward to G. pretty pleez dont hold it against me.
TRs aesthetic. and in my humble O (lol ! had those), it took ppl like oscar and marcel (pseudo sans-retinal) to incubate & draw out QT musings in the early 1900's. art always takes science places (and will keep) cuz the <3 leads the head .
does a/o know that one song ?
i'll be riding 6 wide horseys when they come ?..izzit wide or white ?
this song makes me laff like u wouldnt believe !!
lol. 6 horseys dont sound like a humble O 
Here’s the hard part to reconcile-
The micro and the macro are the same thing
Just in different form.
Sound familiar? -a common theme perhaps found throughout nature. The two worlds are not so distinctly different after all.
QM Theory is less than 100 years old. These whipper snappers today think they know a thing or two about it. Perhaps so. But I also know 100 years from now, by its very nature QM Theory will be making far different conclusions about nature.