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

you are welcome to expend your thoughts about why radiation decay is a truly random process. preferably with your own words. however, if you chose to do so, i want to take this opportunity and encourage you to do so politely. Gracias!

I would say this comes down to all the understanding of quantum mechanics, and the absolute randomness this implies. Even ignoring the fact that obtaining any information about the state of a nucleus has a big effect on its state, the maximum amount of information you can obtain only provides limited predictive capability, and this partial predictive information declines towards zero at an extremely high rate after such an observation.

In the usual case where you have a nucleus about which you only have basic information about its state (number of protons and neutrons and say the fact that it is in its ground state), the fact that there is no information you could possess about the nucleus that would provide complete predictability of its decay certainly means that without this information the decay is uncertain.

The actual practical uncertainty is such that a poisson distribution (the canonical probability distribution for a one-off event that has an equal probability of happening in any time interval of a given time.

The correctness of this probability model (by comparison with one where the rate would vary in some way over time) is proven empirically by large numbers of observations.

sooo right Hi-Ho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6mjSAgxusM

Intuitively, I don't see any difficulty in the idea of some quantifiable entity (a future observation say) about which one does not have complete information (complete information is when you know the quantity). And that is what randomness is.>>>>

Well, perhaps the idea of randomness is that it would be impossible to have information about a future behaviour, when considering a behaviour that is not governed by any fixed relationships of any kind. That is a possible definition which goes further than the idea of "any known relationships". Consider the Platonic idea of knowledge as "justified, true belief" and the legitimate objections to that definition on the grounds that "justified, true belief" applies to propositions which are known to be correct but such knowledge can only be held in retrospect, where the applicable question is "in retrospect of what?"

In other words, in this context, truth and knowledge are synonymous and the addition of the weaker idea of "justified belief" is being used to obscure the fact that the stronger idea takes precedence and ultimately, Plato is defining knowledge as knowledge.  given that knowledge and truth are synonymous in the context of these ideas, since truth is a statement proposing an accurate description of that which exists, as is knowledge, without the statement, of course. And that is a bit silly.

These types of idea are always a bit tricky, due to the circular nature of definitions of fundamental ideas. Mathematics is a simplified, codic way of stating propositions, all of which can be rendered in English or another language, although usually far less efficiently.

PS it's the beer speaking but I'm enjoying it.

I think that is important for you to be clear that absolute randomness is just your subjective belief and not some sort of a scientific true. without being clear about it this post may be very misleading.
the truth is that quantum physics does not imply absolute randomness. it is just an interpretation made by people to try and explain what we dont understand and its no more then a story telling. the true is that we just don't know.

 you sound confused. we are talking about true randomness, not pseudo cause and effect thingy. 

Optimissed- PS it's the beer speaking but I'm enjoying it.

lol. which one was it i want to give it a try. having fun birdie?

i wanna know s/t...is determinism proportional to randomness ? or is this an illusion ? is one a function of the other ? leading me to....does free will coexist w/ determinism ?

iows, if FW and/or D is a function of R, then is R a yes or no question ? an all or nothing state ? (state a confuzion - lol !)

I'll try to answer this very simplistically and loosely for it to be helpful and easy to understand. once you get the foundation of it we can expand.

Determinism is the idea that since the beginning and all the way to the future everything happens precisely as a result of cause and effect and it is unchangeable.
for example, when you wake up in the morning and decide what to wear, its not really an independent decision of yours, it just seem this way in your mind.
in other words, theoretically someone with the ability to trace what every particle in the universe is doing could predict your choices millions of years ago.

freewill is the idea that our choices are real and independent. so taken the same example... when you wake up and chose what to wear, it is truly an independent choice made by you and your decisions actually do change the future. therefor if this is true, determinism is out the window because you serve as a 'gate' that actually make real choices and change the future.

the idea of true random (unlike pseudo) is very much like freewill in this sense, because it is basically an independent "choice" between different number of possibilities. therefor if true random is true, determinism is dead because just like freewill the random choices do change the future.

I think our friend Uke might be applying Occam’s razor here. : )

https://youtu.be/bvcvAWJR56U

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms. According to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay"

You should do your homework and read about the topic at hand before stating that no randomness exist, you don't want to be a cuñado.

Then you don't know what randomness is.

u fools can believe whatchu want, but i use my own freewill allllllll daaaaaaay long. and every choice i make affects the future of the U (albeit in the most teensiest-weensiest of ways).

sad is the person who doesnt dream in blocks of lucidity. like me. there is nothing that bridges subconscious freewill w/ determinism like a sheep's cloud. they both exist in the Sub-C (for some). enuf proof 4me. feeling comfortable.

which leads me to ask....is freewill (as it relates to randomness) a personal thingy ?....subjective ?

****

I've asked myself to find the sunset in my eyes

so go....n'find the clouds of hazel green where blue resides 

lucid drifts will surrender to the wisp of morning heather

as I slowly bring me back to my soothing nest a feathers....smiling !

****

nite everyone....its high 70's (as usual) and it feels sooo good  .

Occam's razor, honestly don't we sentient beings have any other device for trimming? Ah yes, the lousily underrated lawnmower.

Simplicity is a trimming, complexity is a growth. ; )

*Lucid dreaming only once.

Torn from me with sleepy punch.

Now I dream of songs anew.

Music that I never knew.*

’Zach a wry a we’ chorus.. : ) 

Random over long period is no longer random!

Except it is.

Well said : )

'which leads me to ask....is freewill (as it relates to randomness) a personal thingy ?....subjective ?'

true randomness (if exist) disrupt the flow of a deterministic world and so it allow for FW to exist too. (as related to physics)
it is only our beliefs that are subjective and personal. no one really knows the truth. and honestly? the truth dosnt really matter because FW feels real as real can be and thats good enough reason to believe in it. (subjectively speaking ; )