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

With all due respect, take a look in the mirror.

There was no due respect in that statement

..so you can think of it in many different ways. im not sure where were you going with it, as i didnt follow the argument between you two to a T. these sort of arguments are kinda comical to me.

personally, i believe that current physics are great for advancing technology, but they are just a partial description of our world. intelligent as they may seem.. they are not suffice to draw conclusions about our human experiences such as FW and life in general. its obvious that such a statement will rub the majority of people the wrong way, but i have no intention to argue about it for the next 2 years or whatever..

anyway.. my goal in this thread was to debunk the myth that QM contradict with Determinism, because it answer the title directly and conclusively. it seem that this fact was finally established!

actually i had a greater interest here, but its not up for a public discussion. lol. ill just have to accept that some things never materialize even if they appear very promising, and thats all to it.

your first point is understood. the metaphor part? not so much. it seem like an argument from semantics. after all we know that projectiles path will physically curve according to gravity. either the "field of space" (your words) itself is curved or it has properties that are curved.

i did like the way you "personalized" matter. especially when you stated that entangled particles like "to be each other". that's actually a cool way to think about it.

as for QM and D.. its just a fact that they dont contradict, whether we like it or not (its only down to subjective interpretations). and what i meant by establishing this fact is that i didnt hear any more ranting from a "certain someone" about it.

and if you must label me.. i would stick to objectivist rather than compatibilist, simply because subjectively i obviously dont believe in D. and 2'nd.. just like you, i never heard any convincing compatibilist POV.

and no. i dont subscribe to any religion. was raised as materialist/naturalist, but when i realized that it just another belief, and quite a religious one.. i dumped it for objectivity and individualism.

its not curved the earth like a compass drawn circle. likewise its not known how far stars are away from the earth its an approximation which has been going on for over a hundred years in guesses. so man made objects that  are rectangular like a large supercomputer being rectangular   does not imitate life out there anywhere. a rectangle is man made.  unless the gods  in their realm are surrounded in rectangles nature isn't going to be creating something comparable as sharp edges in perfection. so we have to think did something create eyes to look at rectangles ? there fore the meaning of existence is eyes for a long forgotten shape  pilgrim with brain technology that thought in rectangles through punctuated scale s of graduation before finding rectangles to look through to talk........

I think you and others may be interested in this subtle and difficult experimental result.  Note that what it doesn't do is permit a violation of causality as I defined it.

Quantum mechanics defies causal order, experiment confirms

and here is the paper itself - Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch 

"But would you say that the sea is curved, apart from the fact that it's on a spherical planet? It's a lot of things because there are currents and tides: but curved?"

sorry, i lost you.. really. what are you talking about? the curves are kinda approximation, no?

"The certain someone had actually given up trying to convince you about QM and determinism being incompatible."

lol. now when this certain someone is here, maybe he can enlighten us.

I am not sure why @Optimissed is not accepting the fact that any example of curvature is an objective fact about the distances between points. It is no more a metaphor to say that the surface of a sphere is curved than it is to say that person A is taller than person B (also a fact about distances). 

While the definition of curvature is technical - indeed there are several related concepts which have different definitions - it is not so technical to understand that curvature is non-zero where the distances are related in a way which makes it impossible for the space to be flat! 

A simple example is that you can't unroll (embed) any part of the surface of a sphere onto a plane while preserving distances on the surface, without breaking it. Everyone who has eaten an orange can intuitively understand this .  And as well as making orange peel a bit awkward, it's the reason map projections exist!

If the Earth was cylindrical in shape (just the sides of a tin can, with distances measured along the surface), it would be possible to do this. Take any piece that doesn't go all the way round and you can unroll it and embed it in a plane preserving the distances on the surface. This is just as easy as unrolling part of a circle into a straight line without stretching it.

A relativist would always say space-time is curved. However it is technically true that space is curved as part of this.  I refer you to Nobel prize winner Richard P. Feynman who brings the notion of angle into it and observes that in curved space time such as that around a mass, the sum of the angles of a triangle is not 180 degrees, an objective fact about observable quantities.

When you claim you are right and the scientific world is wrong, 99.9999% of the time you are wrong. ("You" here is abstract, rather than personal).

The fact (regardless of your unjustified rejection of it) that space is curved is by definition the same as the fact that space is not flat. Feynman explains how this is an objective fact in the link above.  You would be simply wrong to claim space is flat and that implies you are wrong to say it is not true that space is curved. For example, the little region of space around the Earth is curved (mostly by the Earth's mass) as part of the curvature of space-time that we know as gravity. This is a fact about distances measured in this region (although the departure from flatness is quite small - gamma for the escape velocity is 1.00000000036 and that also indicates the divergence from flatness - less than a billionth.

You should be able to see that what you have done is that to argue that the statement "space is curved" is not the whole story and then (for no good reason) reject it. It is part of the story. Space is not flat.

Certainly, it is very complex to deal with the geometry on a large scale, but curvature is technically a local phenomenon. The Universe is believed to be close to flat on very large scales because the curvature at smaller scales seems to cancel out. This is surely very significant as it is too special to be a coincidence.

Again, I suggest going back to Feynman. It's a good read, as always.  I claimed above that gamma was an indication of the scale of the spatial curvature.  In his lecture, Feynman works out the actual curvature in terms of the discrepancy between the radius of the Earth and the surface area and finds (with a significant approximation of uniform density) that the discrepancy is 2.35 x 10^-10  which is a very similar scale to the magnitude of (1 - gamma) I calculated above before reading this.

If you didn't read Feynman's writing, he summed up the nature of the curvature of space (as applies in a static situation) as "the curvature expressed in terms of the excess radius is proportional to the mass inside a sphere"

The constant of proportionality is G/3c^2

"It's an old trick but rarely used."

please expend. im curious.. and if you dont mind me asking.. how old is your daughter?

izzit possible that randomness is tied to consciousness and that it exists if u let it ?

You are harming yourself to spite me, @Optimissed. Feynman is not a part of this discussion and is (technically 'was' but his words remain fresh) a superb communicator and superlative physicist.

There is no "control" here. I cannot improve your understanding at all - only you can, or choose not to. My point is that the former is more to your benefit and you shouldn't leave yourself worse off on my account.

There is a problem that you view it as "unfriendly" for me to point out that it is objectively true that space is curved (i.e. not flat) and to point you towards someone who is far and away more authoritative than me to explain it (much better than I could).  There is no more unfriendliness in this than in a move in a chess game (good or bad).  But note that my objective is _always_ to get closer to the truth, and I am never willing to compromise that for a petty debating point.

"izzit possible that randomness is tied to consciousness and that it exists if u let it ?"

yes, of course. and we can do better than randomness, we can imagine. imagination is tied to our consciousness, and its probably the one area that we experience the most freedom.

not what?

please expend..

good night : )

thanks. i appreciate it.