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

Nice rebuttal.

However, I’ll elude to your explanation of how Life started- by random chance. Despite the odds being much higher (random assembly of matter/DNA/RNA than given for the dice example - insistence  is made such things are entirely possible because it happened.

Appears as the same argument is used in validating both competing sides.

That something is so uncommon as not to be feasible- but when another thing is believed to be true- the uncommon becomes meaningless. It’s as if you pick and choose descriptions of how the universe operates, using numbers/probabilities randomly !

As Elroch so eloquently just explained...

mathematical probabilities can be used to explain anything  and everything. 
Used to validate both spectrums- narrow or broad.

And know what? I agree

Mathematics is a great tool. It can be used to make abstract sense of it all. To make comparisons.

Where we disagree- mathematics is just that, and is not a real description of reality- the physical world that behaves in its own manner. Drawing conclusions based on only abstract thought is an error imo.

u dont know that. u only think that.

"D and R are abstract concepts- they do not exist as physical properties"

thats true from an objective pov. but if anyone want to claim that true randomness is more than just unsound belief, they must demonstrate a physical mechanism capable of defeating causality.

unfortunately we dont know of such mechanism. even QM which is the most successful physics we have, dont offer such a mechanism. you could say that free will do, and i will personally agree. but that is a subjective pov, incompatible with matterialism/naturalism. and yea.. so far so good.

That simply does not make sense. The best it manages is to hide in the vagueness of almost everything referred to.

Randomness is about absolute unpredictability. Quantum mechanics provides simple examples. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - itself a result from Fourier Analysis - implies that it is always impossible to predict the future position of an free particle accurately (with the inaccuracy always increasing with time). It also provides a more subtle demonstration that this impossibility is not merely because we do not know enough.

Mathematics is how we express all our knowledge of the physical world. As such mathematical reasoning leads from knowledge to what is implied by that knowledge. This is more important we have a lot more knowledge than we do about abiogenesis!

Arithmetic is just theory. we call it the real world for a reason. we dont call it the 'theory' world. so go ahead and apply arithmetic as ur art form.. knock urself out. just dont trust it...unless ur gullible dum. 

"knock urself out. just dont trust it...unless ur gullible dum." lol

Self-propaganda

Self-propaganda is a form of propaganda that refers to the act of an individual convincing them-self of something, no matter how irrational that idea may be.^[73] Self propaganda makes it easier for individuals to justify their own actions as well as the actions of others. Self-propaganda works oftentimes to lessen the cognitive dissonance felt by individuals when their personal actions or the actions of their government do not line up with their moral beliefs.^[74] Self-propaganda is a type of self deception.^[75] Self-propaganda can have a negative impact on those who perpetuate the beliefs created by using self- propaganda.^[75]

elroch:"Quantum mechanics provides simple examples. For example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle"

do you really believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle defeat causality? 

You seem confused. Causality is one of the cornerstones of scientific understanding. We were talking about examples of "true randomness".

youre playing silly word juggling games again, and back to obfuscating TR. lets try again..

do you really believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle defeat causality?

in other words.. how do you break from causality to justify your belief that QM is not deterministic?

We need to speak the same language for us to have a discussion.

I said "Randomness is about absolute unpredictability. Quantum mechanics provides simple examples."

It seems obvious I meant "examples of absolute unpredictability" (and I did).

You (wrongly) suggest "absolute unpredictability" involves counterexamples to "causality". No physicist would agree.

You are confusing "determinism" (the absence of randomness) with "causality" (which is that information propagates forward in time. i.e. in a relativistic universe, the transmission of information is bounded by the future light cone). If you don't know this, please read the article Causality (physics), that will bring you up to date.

I can see now that you may be using "causality" in the way Hume might have in the 18th century, but understanding of the world has advanced to require a more precise meaning. The world is not like people thought it was in the 18th century, and an 18th century way of thinking about it is no longer precise enough. Until the 20th century people could still imagine the world was deterministic, but that stopped being so with improved knowledge.

....and to go any further breaks the ridiculous rules that cause even such obscurity.

elroch.. this is just more of the same. lets rephrase my Q. and this time lets use the one definition we already agreed upon. determinism.

"Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law"

why do you believe that QM is not deterministic?

another Q. is why do you think that D has anything to do with predictability? after all D and TR are in the same equation, but thats secondary.. and only if you wont use it to avoid the above.

......but.. you like reality’s opposition??

............... it has  n e v e r  been a thing in relation to all that is Good!

We certainly can discuss it, but obviously not on this thread. I would be happy to chat message, or accept yours.

....have sent request

The reason I say QM is not deterministic is that it is not.

Suppose you specify the wave function of a particle in empty space. Absolutely any wave function you like. Note that another way of thinking of this is as a sum of eigenstates according to your preferred basis (position eigenstates correspond to the usual eigenstate and the wave function describes the coefficient for every point in space, each of which corresponds to a basis vector - an eigenstate with fixed position.

Now suppose you are going to observe the position of this particle one second later. When you make the observation, you will know the position of the particle precisely.

The wave function at the start determines the wave function at the time of observation (by Schroedinger's equation).  The wave function at the time of the observation determines the PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION OF THE POSITION.  But it does not determine the position itself. This has an element of randomness.

The reason I described this example with a delay before observation is that without it, you could (in principle) have a wave function that was a Dirac delta function at a specific position, which would mean that for an instant, the position is known precisely. But as time passes uncertainty in the position always grows (because this is a combination of uncertainty in the initial position and uncertainty in the momentum.

So the lack of determinism in quantum mechanics is restricted to observations, described as "collapsing of the wave function" in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Another way to think of it is that the wave function describes our lack of complete knowledge about state, Even when it is in an eigenstate w.r.t. one observable, it will not be w.r.t. another observable if the latter does not commute with the former (eg momentum and position). Observations reduce our lack of complete knowledge for some observable, but the physics (eg Schroedinger's equation) is describing the evolution of the state of knowledge (or the state of knowledge of the state  ) over time.