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

mustang, hes talking about general randomness now. and it is closely related to uncertainty

There is nothing uncertain in our ability to measure velocity and location. When we measure one we find the other has been affected. Both can not be known simultaneously. An interpretation of the phenomenon gets made -nature behaves in a random fashion. But this was not the topic of Heisenbergs principle.

A typical search question. An answer goes like effectively yes, literally no as true randomness can not be Proven.

A point trying to be made is that’s its only current thought that suggests the principle implies randomness. 

We’ve been talking about the assumptions people make. We all do- there is nothing inherently off. 

 Mine is that the universe is ordered. That both the micro and macro worlds behave the same. An eloquent theory will unify both. I assume the universe would not be as we see it if true randomness were the nature of things. It’s called our world view, our core beliefs. We make general assumptions that define much that comes later. I recognize them for what they are and don’t pretend to think I know them to describe the world for everyone. I have a hard time thinking somethings are random, somethings not and for the others we don’t have enough information. 

Ordered does not mean predetermined or have anything to do with ID. Some people have a hard time wrapping their head around this. Insist an ordered universe can mean only one thing- a designed one, one with for thought and capable of influencing/controlling past, present and future events. All that is for Religious debate. An ordered universe works just fine without determination.

"Communication is not just about saying stuff that is right: it is about saying it in a way that is received, understood and accepted by others."

i think that its a great advice, and if you change your wording from 'randomness" to 'predictability' youll be way more understood, and avoid unnecessary friction and confusion

Excellent. The terms we use evoke images. We conceptualize what the other person “means”. Relating a perspective should be the point but to often discussion turns to being right/wrong.

Look how difficult it’s been for silver to get people to agree on the term “Determinism”. It conjures up an irreversible image. The term, although it shouldn’t be, is intrinsically associated with ID. Determined begins to mean planned, a conscious decision made by a deity. Once the idea of a deity is rejected, what’s commonly seen is almost the complete opposite view -random creation with no purpose. If the definition for determinism were to be changed, a change in a persons world view would be necessary. (edited to reflect deity)

I’ve said all along, determinism and randomness are the wrong terms to describe our world. The terms evoke too many interpretations that can not be agreed upon.

predictability works far better for me than randomness. If something is predictable or not is concrete, specific and can be proven. Randomness can not be proven, regardless of what some here claim. Physicists to a letter confirm the point- looks and smells random but it’s impossible to prove. The problem of proof lies in the term itself when used as a verb. It’s an abstract idea. These things are never  provable. 

speaking of terms.. im not religious myself but i feel that the term Dog is derogatory and should not be used. maybe deity instead?

I agree. Is commonly used as a substitute but not best. Thanks for the suggestion.

A hat will naturally shrink over time, left alone, being influenced only by the usual suspects.

But a hat can be stretched, by several methods (including your head) to fit a larger size.

The moral of the story is to buy a hat slightly too big as it will naturally shrink. Then again, you might    prefer stretching your new hat a few weeks later, after it’s shrunk, to achieve that perfect fit. 
This might require the occasional adjustment as the hat has left its natural state.

Anything to do with hats? 
Einstein got if right by describing his Theory as Relativity. He choose the term for a reason, perhaps because all things are relative ?

Not everything is relative, but some things are. A key one is velocity. By contrast acceleration, the rate of change of velocity, is not relative. An entity undergoing acceleration can detect this internally. Modern mobile phones use accelerometers to detect aspects of the way you move it, while to determine a velocity they have to refer to GPS satellites.

“Not everything is relative, but some things are”

A bold statement. Isn’t it much the same as saying some things are random and some not? 

btw a search shows-

...not convinced.

Is beauty relative?

Velocity not being relative to anything else? Interesting. Perhaps it’s only relative to itself but that doesn’t count. But somehow I think Time and Space play a role.

Velocity is the rate position changes. Perhaps E is pointing out  such “rates” do not qualify as being relative to anything concrete.

Speed can be easily viewed as relative. Even absolute speed, that of light, is relative to the plank length, the absolute “smallest”.

Time to unravel  this mystery of true randomness.

It all begins in our minds, yours and mine.

A memory appears

and asked from where?

Most often from ordered thought, but what of the seemingly irrelevant ones of days long past?

Does what happen in our minds tells us the nature of stuff? Does it apply to the physical? That we seemingly have at times  random thoughts /memories also mean the Cosmos follows suit?

4 yer resin

beauty is when u rhyme out endeavours w/ a relative 5 or 6 lines the prior  .