Well I’d think the issue has been resolved. True randomness exists when using the predictive approach.
The proof lies in Opti and Elroch continuing discussion given their past history. as if nothing ever happened. This could not have been predicted, not in a million years ! Has to be truly random by definition.
Randomness can and should be looked at through all sizes, and types of lenses.
If a painter is inspired to paint on his canvass a random painting, we enjoy it and accept it as such.
But what was the catalyst that pushed him to paint? Why did he accept the challenge in the first place?
Passing by something curious perhaps, that would be enough for most of us.. And if said 'curiosity' was not supposed to be there in the first place, but was 'accidental' then we still don't have randomness.
Do we need to re-look at what spontaneous really means, because I'm not so sure I do anymore.
Have you ever asked yourself, where the universe came from? Or why everything exists instead of just nothing? So, what would you say to the question: why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
Have you ever asked yourself, where the universe came from? Or why everything exists instead of just nothing? So, what would you say to the question: why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
That is just good ole fashioned human curiosity right there. Everybody has thought about that @eryxc
We can't say what we really think about that here. But did you know that the universe has a perimeter? You might ask yourself what is on the other side of it? : )
if u look at that eye u can almost see what theyre looking at. u gotta zoom in ultraclose.
There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being
OK I’ll bite. Why must there have been a cause?
2nd. What if it was the universe itself that willed it’s own existence?
and 3rd. Hard to fathom but perhaps is been here for all time and will continue as such.
and last perhaps it is being created as we speak, always renewing, just as the cycles of Life and consciousness.
It seems accepted that all matter and energy are the same thing, just in different form.
I wonder why it’s hard to accept everything is affected by everything else. The idea all is one- interconnected, not random nor determined. Original events happen independently of each other. Specific causes do not exist. Everything that has happened is an accumulation of all previous events and for the adventurous perhaps including future events.
All rather tedious and boring placing labels and making distinctions of what qualifies as randomness in philosophical discussion. All well on good if solutions for practical problems are sought by science. Knock yourselves out with the maths of predictability. For abstract contemplation best to avoid the irrelevant.
@elroch, I appologzie if my opening post appear convoluted to you.
Are you sure I said that? I can't see why I would have.
however, since your idea of true randomness largely contrast mine, I must ask you to align with the topic.
Actually, you brought up the specific point I have focussed on. See below.
thank you in advance for your corporation and contribution.
You're welcome!
It's worth noting that the discussion of a form of randomness in physics that definitely cannot ever go away is an answer to the point you made in your opening post when you said:
"4. Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it."
It is this hypothesis which is not true for the quantum systems considered. The randomness is definitely inherent rather than being just a matter of us not being aware of some hidden information. Your thinking has a long pedigree: it is close to what Einstein hypothesised, but which was eventually proven wrong.
i say mute him. lol
..thats until he make a sincere effort to understand what you mean by true randomness.
I dunno what's happening. I'm sure you're writing with a Barbadian accent Sillver ...
lol. why barbadian from all accents?
E understand what someone is saying ?
Never going to happen. Predictable answers going on nigh 10 years. Not when he knows what your statements really mean and can educate us as to the true nature of the Cosmos. Just sit back and become enlightened. You’ll find yourself far less stressed knowing it happened by random chance- had nothing to do with anything whatsoever... except naturally for the physics of it all.
I dunno what's happening. I'm sure you're writing with a Barbadian accent Sillver ...
lol. why barbadian from all accents?
Presumably due to some vague association with BimShire.
"Presumably due to".. i like your screen name
Randomness can and should be looked at through all sizes, and types of lenses.
If a painter is inspired to paint on his canvass a random painting, we enjoy it and accept it as such.
But what was the catalyst that pushed him to paint? Why did he accept the challenge in the first place?
Passing by something curious perhaps, that would be enough for most of us.. And if said 'curiosity' was not supposed to be there in the first place, but was 'accidental' then we still don't have randomness.
Do we need to re-look at what spontaneous really means, because I'm not so sure I do anymore.
This is something that shouldn't be approached spontaneously but via a planned and systematic approach.
OK, junk that for a second.
Human rational or calculative cognition evolved via the only means that traits and abilities evolve .... it kept people alive by slowing down their thought processes, making them "cautious".
Our subconscious minds work at about five frames per second, give or take. Some might be marginally faster and some slower. The frames consist of conceptual associations. A really clear mind, if it's been given the right information and receives the right stimulus, can come up with something in a minute that would take five scientists three years and a three million pound (Sterling) project to verify using the scientific approach. That's provided they ate lots of carrots and fish too, kept off the beer and pursued mentally refreshing activities in their leisure time.
And that's what spontaneity is .... following mental associations to where they lead, recognising where or when they're worthwhile and acting on them.
Have you ever asked yourself, where the universe came from? Or why everything exists instead of just nothing? So, what would you say to the question: why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
That's absolutely right. The cause is the existence of the universe. I mean, what else is there?
@818, you made good points, now let me try and better explain my dilema.
if you set an experiment and all the conditions match perfectly, the results should also match perfectly right?
so. if we think of the universe as a grand experiment and apply the same concept, it mean that everything will happen in the same exact way every time. leaving us irrelevant, lol
another important point is that it doesn't mean that the universe is going toward a certain goal, but just that in theory if you could simulate every atom in it, you could predict whats going to happen next.
so back to your drawing example... the banana or mona lisa were may be drawn by chance, but not random. that is to say, it was drawn in a predictable chain of cause and effect events in comparison to randomness which is unpredictable.
another important point is that I'm just thinking aloud here and by no means claim to know what im talking about. lol, your input is appreciated.
To me the logically necessary condition is that there is only one way the universe can develop in the macro. The universe exists .... therefore it's possible that it exists and since it's possible that it exists, it's necessary, since without a universe there's no time. Without time, the concept of when it came into existence is meaningless. That accounts for the macro ... the overall, general form of the universe is an inescapable result of the accumulated effect of randomness in action. It would be perfectly predictable and it cannot be anything other than what it is.
However, the detail .... that's different. Think of it as an accumulation of random error. It can cancel out and in extreme cases it can cause extremely significant local differences, and the more local we get, the more difference is embedded into reality. The ultimate source of difference is the extreme micro .... quantum effects.
So the universe is a continuum of statistically determined and locally variable effects and reruns aren't possible. Different every time! 
"Passing by something curious perhaps, that would be enough for most of us.. And if said 'curiosity' was not supposed to be there in the first place, but was 'accidental' then we still don't have randomness."
i love the sound of that ; )
"So the universe is a continuum of statistically determined and locally variable effects and reruns aren't possible. Different every time!"
there are many possibilities, but i like those without the assumption that QM is truly random. if that makes sense (even if you reject MW)
You could almost have written the O.P. yourself! You're so random! I'm sorry but what is MW again? My wits are muddled.
I was just thinking. I think I prefer assumptions that are assumptions because they're correct! Think about it. If we have no randomness (and, presumably, no free will, since for many people much of the time, free will appears to be random) then we live in a determined universe.
The classical argument is that things like quantum effects are determined by hidden variables. Interesting that quanta are supposed to be the smallest things and yet they are determined by even smaller things, but my question would be, what determines how the hidden variables act? Do they have even more hidden smaller variables and so on and so on? We can junk the multiple universes theory (many worlds) because it's actually completely illogical. So what makes the hidden variables act as they do? How are they programmed to act in such a way that they cause apparently random behaviour?
Another thing is, if everything is predetermined, how did we evolve? How did our brains evolve? I think it would have been far simpler just to have a universe which created everything as it is now. Just as likely or unlikely, I'd suggest. I do veer towards a-week-last-Tuesday-creationism. Nobody can really remember what happened a week last Tuesday, after all, and we can be created with pre-programmed memories to make us think there's a point to it all.
Think about it. If we have no randomness (and, presumably, no free will, since for many people much of the time, free will appears to be random) then we live in a determined universe. - Opti
You are as confused as Elroch on the topic by placing such demands and ultimatums upon nature. He insists everything is defined and answered with physics. Your explanation makes demand the universe to be predetermined if conditions you set forth are not met.
If the universe does not behave one way - it must behave in the opposite manner?? A common error to assume.
Recently you said causes are everything. Seems you’re in Erochs camp - something is random if it can’t be predicted by any means. Same ideas as finding and attributing a cause.
I see why you never respond - My view on is the polar opposite. Causes and predictions all have their place but arenot relevant to the existence of true relevance.
Yes, the individual samples from typical pseudorandom number generators are computationally cheap. If you want to use a lot of them, that is an advantage compared to using a natural source of randomness directly.
Page 8 of this Intel document is about "true random number generators" and draws attention to this issue! It also explains the practically important point that by seeding the random number generator at intervals, you get both high performance and high security (because the sequence of numbers between two reseeding events is too short to be cracked, and the reseeding probably makes past information useless).