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

Determinism is a shallow, mistaken and simplistic ideal and I've no idea why Elroch's taking it seriously. With determinism, evolution is impossible. Free will or randomness aren't good arguments against determinism because they are simply like for like. Evolution is the killer. The brain couldn't possibly evolve so therefore, we were created as we are.

I mean that I'm aware I have free will but I can't possibly prove it to one of you. However, did you evolve or were you created as you are? Unfortunately we're butting up against the limits of what we are allowed to discuss. It makes it difficult. However, we're arguing with someone who thinks that randomness has absolutely nothing and can have absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence of the universe so it's very, very clear what motivates him.

We agree that MWI is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

However, you have forgotten that I pointed out that MWI does not permit prediction of random events in our Universe. This is the randomness that matters to science (which is all about real observations in the real Universe). Randomness is unpredictability. That's the definition.

To take the position that the inability to predict (i.e. randomness) we know exists can be ignored as "not true randomness" because one interpretation of QM involves deterministic evolution of an unobservable mathematical entity is just trying to define away reality.  It's like saying the deals in a game of cards are not random because you can imagine all the other deals taking place. Would that make any sense? You also ignore the fact that the application of the MWI to the real world also involves a second random part - the continual random selection of the branch that we see. 

In truth the entire basis of your dispute appears to be your attachment to a bad (implicit) definition. The contrast is that the viewpoint I have presented says a lot about how the real world behaves and the limits of what can be deduced. Your implicit definition throws no light on reality (and appears only to be useful to ignore the randomness in the real world).

[For convenience I will also point out here that @MustangMate inexcusably misrepresented me by claiming I believed there was a proof that alternative Universes exist. It would be ridiculous to do so, since all other interpretations of QM are exactly as consistent with experiment]

I think you were wrong to dispute it since what I referred to is a matter of history. It was accepted that free will exists. Most people still accept it but one can now get away with disbelieving in free will since various famous figures are now there to be copied, so the link between mental illness and disbelief in free will is a lot weaker. I wouldn't say it's disappeared though, because I think a person has to be a bit off to disbelieve that he or she can make real decisions. It's just that by the time many people have arrived at a position in life where they have the leisure to consider such things, they've actually forgotten, many of them, what making a decision is like. They've gone into the trance which is the defining feature of many people as their brains get older and perceptions become less intense and less accurate.

Perhaps some people are lulled into the belief that they never made a meaningful decision because in retrospect, their lives seem very ordered and basically routine and inescapable.

It is definitely a fact that the firing of neurons is a stochastic process.

To be more specific, the probability of a neuron firing depends on the activity of the inputs to that neuron, but there remains some randomness. If this is not obvious, bear in mind that firing is partly the result of the motion of molecules which move according to Brownian motion. This is random (it comes down to quantum mechanical randomness in the motion and interaction of molecules).

It's funny really, making a parallel commentary alongside two "sides" who ought to know by now that their endless discussions are completely futile. It's definitely rather funny. By the Way, MustangMate misrepresents anything he likes, all the time, because he's really no idea what's going on. I don't believe it's deliberate. Yet there must be those who think him very wise.

Knowing you, you just admitted I'm right. I'm the best completely natural psychologist I ever met. If I think something about a person, it does tend to be right, Mr Newton.

you see elroch.. either you dont understand the topic. or you being manipulative about it.

both options are odd.. which one is it?

He does understand it. Very often, he doesn't represent his understanding clearly enough, in words, which can give a false impression. He also pays far too much attention, in my opinion, to ideas like determinism and MW, which are silly. Which are childish, really, like some people can't get their heads round a complex reality so they invent a fantasy to keep themselves happy, because they can think they understand it.

"It's funny really, making a parallel commentary alongside two "sides" who ought to know by now that their endless discussions are completely futile"

it is funny. but there's no argument here. i understand him perfectly, but i dont think that you do, because i understand most of you too, and its easy to see the differences.

in fact, this mess could be easily cleared up if not for the emotional.. 

You're sniping at him, MustangMate inhabits an alternative universe and Elroch is practising getting easy, abstract ideas into the heads of impossible students. I can understand him if I pay a lot of attention .... sometimes his meaning isn't clear. But I had practice interpreting difficult and slightly mad philosophers for three years, so I can do it. That's if I make the decision to do it, which I don't always do, but I do try a nominal amount, just to keep tabs on things. Meanwhile, Mustang isn't following a thing but he manages to look wise to some and you keep changing your mind. A bit like George Formby playing one of his early roles maybe. Lola is getting bored and starting to wander and she's hardly paying any attention. I sense she knows she has better things to do but likes to show her face. She thinks I'm confused between the abstract and the real so she's slightly confused. As for the creator of this thread, he could be right amongst us now, for all the difference he's making.

where does he stand on the topic then? or any of the others for this matter.. did you ever stop and listen?

Last time I told you how Elroch defines randomness, it caused trouble. I don't think I'll bother.

Most people who have visited this thread hold a fairly enlightened position that's a middle ground. I think quite a few think that making a great play of words is beside the point that it's something that we don't experience directly so all our ideas are bound to be assumptions. There's a strain of wisdom that claims it's better to ask questions than to give answers. My own procedure is different in that I've always tried to give answers honestly. Where intellectual honesty exists, answers have to mesh into each other at least most of the time. But there are quite big areas where "formulating answers" is nebulous and very often, apparently disparate half-answers have to co-exist. That causes different reactions in different people. Some are ok with cognitive dissonance and others aren't. When they aren't, intelligent people try to keep an open mind. Hence Elroch's acceptance that MW, which I reject as definitely wrong, is a possible interpretation of QM, on a par with others. Oh, and I believe I know what motivates Mustang, and it's something we can't discuss. The same is true for some others. As for you, I believe you're playing an interesting game and I'm vaguely interested as to the outcome.

We agree that MWI is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

would u pleez stop tryn2mix these two ? ur pathetically hung up in a delusional romantasy. this is just another one a ur pitiful drifts from the SM. so either take a break or take a pill.   ::/

You'd probably be surprised at the proportion of Physics PhD candidates that believe or accept Many Worlds as a likely interpretation of QM. I suspect about 7% actually claim to believe it's the most likely interpretation. Like you imply, it makes their humdrum existence more fun. It can't possibly affect real physics and it can't possibly be tested for, so they're free to follow it and it makes them interesting to others, apparently. A bit like a politics student growing a beard and saying he's a Marxist?

What would be interesting would be an engineering student growing a beard and saying he's a Marxist. That doesn't happen, as a rule.

opti, realize that the SM is their biggest archenemy. im pretty sure they have a deep-deep hate for it. they look for any way that they can to express themselves. and so it ends up thru heady fantasy. they seek beauty in their U and cant find satisfaction so they start making stuff up and argue like he!! for its side. iows, they use the foundations of the SM to defend their very own private luvfest.

crazy as it sounds ?...i luv that theyve found s/t to try2show us their <3. but to hide behind reason & logic and deny the emotion of love (their very essence) makes it all really-really sick. im sorry.