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

The assumption that information is all and it's never destroyed is quite an assumption, however. In a black hole, for instance, compression forces matter into a succession of predictable states, according to a thesis I once read. There is no reason to imagine that, in these states, all information is preserved. Believing that is to adhere to an idealism.

Just think, we could be in somebody else's black hole.

Or invite colleagues to join you and become a founding member of an innovative research group as Lee Smolin did - The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

Son did sensible thing and took job with energy company. Probably more money that way, if things go well.

there is no randomness in the universe

Which universe?

I thought about that black hole idea, that I might be in someone else’s black hole and came to a conclusion. I am not in a black hole. Can’t speak for you. Perhaps you really are in one (doesn’t mean we all are) but it is Your black hole and yours alone- nobody else’s !

For me

The difference between randomness and true randomness is as follows-

randomness refers to the behavior of singular events. We make definition of what qualifies. Things look and smell random. Lists are made of what’s random or not.

True randomness refers to the general behavior of  the universe. As a whole- is the universe behaving randomly as it appears to be on smaller scales?

For me, TR is the grander question, not just the micro but at the macro. I’ve heard the explanation, large uncertainty’s cancel themselves out. Well good for them but Its not true for the reasons given !

Perhaps a discovery- it’s often not about the conclusion but disagreement over the reasons. “ You can be right for all the wrong reasons” 🌝

Or you can be Wrong for all the right reasons 👍

I was only joking. This is a black hole in a very lightweight universe. There's an infinite progression of black holes with universes getting denser all the time. In the densest universe one atom is a trillion times heavier than an entire universe at the light end. But it was a joke.

If no-one has claimed it already, I want to coin the word omniverse.

Sadly, it's been grabbed already.

I'm very uncertain about large uncertainties and can't answer, except inasmuch as my own uncertainty cancels them out, as you suggested it might.

Yes, yes I knew there was a logical explanation. There always is. What you say is all very true. What’s it’s an explanation of remains the mystery !

is the model of the universe- the displacement of matter- is it random? Seems to be a good starting point. Our measurements, do they say the universe in the billions of years of existence , progressed in an orderly (but not predetermined) fashion... is the structure in some way ordered? Or is the structure random? It sure appears to be completely random by most definitions.

howbout Optiverse ?

I'm afraid I only believed in the Big Bang between the time it seemed a novel and interesting proposition to me, and  bought the idea that it reduces the number of uncertainties, and when I read that stuff by Reginald Kapp, three years later. It wasn't as if I believed everything Kapp wrote and I thought I detected mistakes but it just seemed so neat ... that matter and space form in the inter-galactic regions, condense in a cold universe which is becoming hot, and end up mainly in black holes, evaporating out of existence.

That model is extremely orderly .... quite the reverse of the explosive chaos depicted in the Big Bang Theory and whatever instinct I possess tells me that the Big Bang is wrong and all the evidence for it is better explained in other ways. It is absolutely a baseless assumption that the CMB is a residue of the BB. There's no evidence for it and it's an ad hoc guess, since it needs to be explained eventually, that it's the Big Bang. I think the Big Bang is a completely preposterous idea and much prefer an orderly expansion, out of the cold, intergalactic regions.

Back when I was actually still quite good, I imagined that in the coldest reaches approaching absolute zero, standing waves could occur and their nodes were the focal points of a process of some kind of spatial replication. Years later my son told me that someone had just done a piece of theory indicating that standing waves could occur in the cold, vast reaches of extragalactic space. I hadn't guessed so much as I'd worked it out as being a likelihood based on a very patchy knowledge of cryogenics. But everything is basically a guess really.

I thought for a second

And then a thought beckoned
And so I opened my purse
I paid the Piper
And felt much lighter
So I flew to an Optiverse.

Probably yes maybe.

While I was there I ruffled my hair
And covered myself with feathers.
Then I flew back cos I'd discovered the knack
Of better flying leathers.
I thought for a bit and I knew what I'd do
if I could find somebody and sell 'em
But then I found I'd nothing to wear
So feeling quite bare I ran like a hare
From this world increasingly rare
While considering more useful endeavours.

Goodnight.

Without being too fussy, the two are compatible. However, if you try to define "cause" in yours, you may find you get to the notion that there are things in the past about which sufficient information is known to be able to deduce the event in question. And that can be rephrased compactly by saying it is possible to predict the event.

It's worth mentioning that the observability of information about past causes is extremely important. Without this, you can imagine that in the past there is a complete recipe for the results of all future possible experiments, which happens to be carefully designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics,  but that this recipe is impossible to directly detect in any way (it just permeates all of space-time after its creation).

The reason this is not a way round the key results disproving determinism is that in order to get the right results, when you do a Bell's experiment and make two observations of entangled photons at random angles, in order to get the right results, at each of the observations you need to know what angle the other observation was made. This is a breach of causality (since the choices of angle can be made simultaneously (in any frame) so there is no time to communicate them between the two points).

It has the same effect as the unclosable loophole that says that although it might appear that you have complete choice of the angles you pick (eg by using any source of randomness of your choice at each location) they are really all predetermined by a global conspiracy.

Got it. Simple explanation is best. I like the parts where you always refer back to Bells experiments and how they prove randomness. Little doubt as it’s all so well predicted.

All the “reasons” you give for things being the way they are I had never thought of as they make so little sense. Upon contemplation I have to agree with myself. 😟

That's absolutely right. Simple explanation is best provided it's sufficient. Here we have the simple being more useful than the extremely convoluted, at explaining the universe.

I have just read what Elroch wrote, Mustang, and I understood every word and even agreed with it all. But I had to work at it slightly and the thought occurred to me that finding simpler means of expression would be useful. I think that mathematicians are sometimes plagued by the necessity for dry humour. My maths teacher for A level was called mr Symonds and we called him Zoot. He was impossible to follow, his writing on the blackboard was illegible, and the chalk kept hitting greasy bits of blackboard.

The universe is not determined.

The term becomes associated with ID - the idea that causes for all events are controlled/destined. 

The universe never behaves in a random manner yet new events come into existence.

Independent Origination