doncha luvit ??...yee !!
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Vegas?
sure !
so now i ask how much is truly D'ed and how much is illusioned D ?
Sep 24, 2021
0
#2568
Optimissed wrote:
ChampoftheCommieCamp wrote:
Ah the old free will, hard determinism question?
is nonsense. If determinism were absolute, it would have been impossible for our brains to evolve. Therefore that would require a God who created everything and yet was itself completely dominated by determinism.
That's quite an effective reductio ad absurdum refutation of the entire idea of determinism.
Actually, pseudorandomness would suffice. It comfortably serves the same purpose.
Since determinism is not consistent with experiment without implausibly contrived explanations (a sort of cosmic conspiracy to fool us), there is no strong need for more proof.
Sep 24, 2021
0
#2570
Optimissed wrote:
"Actually" doesn't constitute a logical and informed argument, though, does it?
No. This just happens to be something I know from study of related topics. For example, some optimisation algorithms that have similarity with biological evolution. For practical purposes, pseudorandomness serves the same purpose as randomness. The key concept to ponder on is that the variation in the pseudorandom input has no relevant relationship to the variation in the system being modelled.
The same notion appears when considering experiments that require random choices, such as Bell's experiment in quantum mechanics. There is technically a "loophole" if it is impossible to make independent random choices at two locations. However, this seems ridiculously implausible since one could use any sort of independent input to make choices, this input being at least pseudorandom (in the sense that there is no harmful relationship between the choices made at two places, determined using different inputs).
However, taking you at your word,
thank you
because you're making an unsupported claim, pseudo-randomness would have to be part of a deliberate creation, wouldn't it?
Interesting thought, but I can see the answer is no. One can easily imagine a deterministic Universe (say a cellular automaton) where the external environment is pseudorandom (it is not random because this is a completely deterministic system). It is not inconceivable that there be a natural Universe which is deterministic and has the same property (indeed some wise - but wrong - people have believed ours was, Einstein being the most famous example).
Note that the science of chaos is about deterministic systems which possess strong pseudorandomness.
Which is exactly what I was arguing. So given that, why did you use the word "actually", as though you were trying to correct me?
My comment was an observation that did contradict your (unsupported) claim that evolution required randomness. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. "In truth" would have been an alternative to "Actually".
Isn't that what you've been doing all along? If you don't like the look of something, try to give the impression there's something wrong with it, without "actually" making a proper criticism?
See above.
Otherwise, please try to frame your comment as though it's an addition rather than a confrontation.
I am not very good at pointing out something that is not quite right while avoiding your type of reaction. This is my failing. But on the other hand it would be a disservice to say "yes, evolution could not happen in a deterministic Universe". It could, because pseudorandomness suffices.
Twpsyn wrote:
Isn't genetic drift a random process?
The Hard determinism idea is that everything follows the laws of nature... and basically every is restrained by laws and determined even though it may seem "random"
Sep 24, 2021
0
#2573
Two successive realizations of a random process will give different sequences, even if the initial state is the same. This is not true of dynamical systems.
Sep 24, 2021
0
#2574
I think Elroch's argument is as follows: There is no scientific evidence for determinism therefore there there is no determinism. But there is scientific evidence for determinism towards entropy 
What is the capital of asia?
Sep 25, 2021
0
#2576
Twpsyn wrote:
Isn't genetic drift a random process?
Yes.
Twpsyn wrote:
I think Elroch's argument is as follows: There is no scientific evidence for determinism therefore there there is no determinism. But there is scientific evidence for determinism towards entropy
No.
Advice: read what someone says to find out what they mean rather than guessing.
That is not anything close to my argument. Here is something you can accurately describe as my argument: Bell's experiment disproves determinism. Indeed this is how it arose:
- Einstein hypothesised the Universe was really deterministic
- Quantum mechanics is not deterministic
- Thus Einstein doubted that quantum mechanics could be correct
- Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen came up with an prediction of quantum mechanics that seemed absurd - "spooky action at a distance"
- Bell's experiment was designed as a practical way to check this prediction
- Aspect and others did versions of Bell's experiment and found the predicted behaviour occurred
- This behaviour is incompatible with determinism
It's a slightly complex arc but study it carefully somewhere it is documented well and it should sink in.
Sep 25, 2021
0
#2577
Optimissed wrote:
Twpsyn wrote:
I think Elroch's argument is as follows: There is no scientific evidence for determinism therefore there there is no determinism. But there is scientific evidence for determinism towards entropy
He isn't actually making any coherent argument.
Your apparent lack of comprehension of points like the above would not be objectively relevant.
Sep 25, 2021
0
#2578
Optimissed wrote:
<<This just happens to be something I know from study of related topics. For example, some optimisation algorithms that have similarity with biological evolution. For practical purposes, pseudorandomness serves the same purpose as randomness.>>
I would also take issue with that, Elroch. Superficially, it may appear to be the case. However, we should understand, perhaps from playing online card games, that what is called pseudo-randomness tends to be a very poor facsimile of randomness. I wouldn't trust people with PhDs claiming that it does the same job regarding the evolution of the brain. I would think they may be wrong. Note that I didn't agree that they were right. I just thought that the very ide of a universe where randomness is really pseudo-random would have to be deliberately created. Of course, if the universe were deliberately created then it would be most efficient to deliberately create it as it really is ... with real randomness. So I think your reaction to my argument to be childish. and basically wrong-headed.
I respect your right to have a position but it seems clear to me this one is incorrect.
Let me give you an example of pseudorandomness that would suffice for all but the most artificially chosen of tasks.
- Take the binary expansion of pi
- Pick your own way of selecting some of its bits. Every thousandth or millionth if you like, or something much more complicated (any function providing a non-repeating sequence of indices, say)
This provides an extraordinarily high quality source of pseudorandom bits for virtually any practical purpose. Certainly for playing online card games!
I am not sure what sources of pseudorandomness you use, but I gather [EDITED] Squares RNG seems to be the latest thing!
I would be interested whether you would have any problems with something really simple like a LSFR with a very large period. While not always suitable for cryptography this is unlikely to be relevant. It is certainly possible to find statistical tests this would fail, but does that actually matter for your purpose?
Sep 25, 2021
0
#2579
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Twpsyn wrote:
I think Elroch's argument is as follows: There is no scientific evidence for determinism therefore there there is no determinism. But there is scientific evidence for determinism towards entropy
He isn't actually making any coherent argument.
Your apparent lack of comprehension of points like the above would not be objectively relevant.
That's apparent to you but it works both ways. I have enough experience of you by now to know your strong points and weak points. One of your strengths is a very good knowledge of many aspects of relevant issues in physics. [snip]
which was the basis of the coherent argument I had given and an important part of which I have now summarised in post #3203
This exposes the arrogance of your rash false statement about me.
Ah the old free will, hard determinism question?