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

Sort:
Elroch
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:

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.

Maybe my understanding of some of the fundamentals of cosmology is better than yours though, and you're deceived into thinking yours is better, perhaps because you are distracted by too many details, so you can't do the big picture. I don't consider it "unfriendly" for you to point out what you subjectively believe is objectively true, if you do it properly and well. Your obvious hostility and controlling behaviour, however, has been of your own making. Perhaps you can't help it and it isn't intentional but I get on well with everyone who behaves well and has respect for all others, as I try to do also. Perhaps you allow the wrong people to influence your behaviour but you passed a point quite recently where I decided that enough is enough.

Your last sentence might easily mean that you will never compromise a petty debating point in order to behave in a more friendly or decent way to others. It seems that it does mean that; or should mean that.

It is not "subjective" that space-time is curved. Remember this is a proposition about the relationship between different observable quantities, testable by experiments making appropriate measurements. This is how the scientific method tests objective propositions.

There are precise experiments that make the measurements that confirm curvature of space-time.  A remarkable example was the recent one that demonstrated gravitational time dilation over a height of less than 1 mm in the Earth's gravitational field - this is an effect billions of times smaller than the curvature of space on a planetary scale, itself very small because the Earth is not very massive!  The anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury is likewise due to the curvature near the Sun. (This would be a lot simpler if there were only one planet, since Newton's laws cause precession due to the force between planets)

The fact that light is deflected by masses despite its lack of mass is a consequence of curvature. In flat space-time, you can't get gravitational lensing at all: if two beams of light come from the same point, they can never bend back together, because straight lines in Euclidean space can't cross twice.

Elroch

Yet again, curvature is a quantitative concept relating to geometry (distances, angles).

It is a property of an abstract sphere, an (approximate) real sphere, an abstract Riemannian manifold and real space-time, having a similar description in all cases.  In all these cases it is a proposition about the geometry, determined by observable quantities in the real-world cases of an (approximate) real sphere and space-time.

It is a typical example of the power of mathematics that closely related concepts apply both to the elementary spherical surface and to space-time, but the key thing is that the observed distances in space-time make it impossible that it is flat (just like distances on a sphere make it impossible it is flat, even if you had no other information but these distances).

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

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.

just curious...cuz since we have so many differing opinions here abt randomness then its firmly resting in a state of subjectiveness in our group consciousness, right ? cuz its seemingly apparent that its happening all around us e/d, and i havent heard any convincing argument that it isnt.

maybe its gonna take experiencing a overview effect to help u/s it. not sure.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

just wondering...if there isnt a true arithmetic formula for controlling randomness, then maybe s/o can explain to me how it doesnt exist ? chbl !!

...and pseudo's dont count.

 

djuphav88

"cuz its seemingly apparent that its happening all around us e/d, and i havent heard any convincing argument that it isnt."  you already answered your own Q. "...and pseudo's dont count."  and have you ever heard any convincing argument that TR exist?

besides.. what is your interest in TR anyways? it doesn't really help with understanding FW, consciousness, or imagination. those are different phenomena's independent from TR. 

 

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

trust me. im just here for the hehes. and i dont claim to have any real ans. but i tend to bleeve in stuff being random. and id ask u but i dont really care. but i do respect whatever it is u bleeve so long as it doesnt harm others. 

djuphav88

"Well, you did say that you believe in "objectivity" 

objectivity is not gullibility. all i can say objectively about your statement is that some people believe in telepathy.

"They won't believe that they are fettered by "destiny". Neither are the fettered by "naturalism"

I dont believe in neither, and not sure what it has to do with telepathy. 

djuphav88

"and id ask u but i dont really care. but i do respect whatever it is u bleeve so long as it doesnt harm others."

ok.

djuphav88

"Yes I agree with that. If you don't accept that telepathy is real, you're gullible because you believe the people who don't know much."

ok.

djuphav88

thats more like it. youre tuning nicely..

Sillver1

nostalgia : ) 

https://youtu.be/EpTivOXjVEY

Gregg-Turkington

If “random” is a concept then it is probably an invention to describe something not understood.  If it is descriptive, it is describing something not easily explained.  

Can patterns and randomality coexist?

Sillver1

“If “random” is a concept then it is probably an invention to describe something not understood.”

yea, kinda, but i’m not in the mood.. :j

Fisikhad
Random does exist

For example,rolling a dice.Do you know what number will it roll?Is it 6?2?No one knows until it rolls a number.Because it is possible that one number will roll out of all 6 possibilities.
Gregg-Turkington

*concept only    I mean.  It could be describing something that in actuality is not random.  But since it exceeds our understanding and perception it is easier to simply say it’s random.  After that is just a matter of what a person accepts to be random or not

Gregg-Turkington
Fisikhad wrote:
Random does exist

For example,rolling a dice.Do you know what number will it roll?Is it 6?2?No one knows until it rolls a number.Because it is possible that one number will roll out of all 6 possibilities.

True but it is explainable always as to why a umber is rolled.  So therefore can be replicated.  Then it is no longer random.

Elroch

How can anyone see this thread wake up after 7 months and not think true randomness actually exists?? wink.png

Elroch

Randomness is how we describe the incompleteness of our knowledge. Modern physics tells is complete knowledge is absolutely impossible. You can deduce the answer to the titular question.

Sillver1
Elroch wrote:

Randomness is how we describe the incompleteness of our knowledge. Modern physics tells is complete knowledge is absolutely impossible. You can deduce the answer to the titular question.

so far so good, except  that you’re confusing general randomness with TR which is a whole different story. again.

and i’ll borrow your own line.. it was explained to you so many times, that there’s no excuse for you to repeat that.. 

happy to see you’re still live and kicking : )

Fisikhad
@JosephMarkSpaulding I understand.But randomness does exist.

For example,you asked a computer to randomly pick a number from 12-67