may be a local slang. he rejected FW
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
all i was saying is that thought seems to affect entropy, agree ? zero movement. lying in bed thinking perfectly still. am i not triggering neuroxmitters, rearranging molecules, etc ? be it ever so small...is this affecting the U ? meaning that purely random thoughts only in ones mind (no need for dice & mice & stuff) is near proof of aparta our existence is FW (and some D). and a portion of FW is pretty important even if itsa teensy amt.
Jun 9, 2022
0
#2826
It's probably worth clarifying to @optimissed that the type of knowledge that is incomplete is precisely that which would be needed to make reliable predictions. This is why there is not a dichotomy of definition.
There is one way in which thinking in terms of what is known rather than prediction seems natural. In a relativistic context one might consider the result of some observation at a different place. In our relativistic Universe, if the observation is at a spacelike relative location, it is entirely arbitrary whether the observation is in the past, present or future in a conventional sense (because simultaneity depends on the choice of Lorentz frame). On the other hand what we know about the result of the observation is independent of the choice of frame.
The light cones play a more significant role, in that they define the bounds of the flow of information. Only information from the past light cone can get to a point in space-time. Information from that point can only reach points in its future light cone. The idea of information appearing is itself dependent on a lack of determinism - if everything is deterministic no new information is ever added!
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
all i was saying is that thought seems to affect entropy, agree ? zero movement. lying in bed thinking perfectly still. am i not triggering neuroxmitters, rearranging molecules, etc ? be it ever so small...is this affecting the U ? meaning that purely random thoughts only in ones mind (no need for dice & mice & stuff) is near proof of aparta our existence is FW (and some D). and a portion of FW is pretty important even if itsa teensy amt.
no one can answer that with a full face like answering a hard science Q, because it comes down to interpretations, beliefs, and whatnot.
objectively speaking.. a determinist will say that you are nothing but a qm system obeying to the lows of physics and your environment. that include your thoughts, feelings, the whole package. kinda like a biological robot with no FW whatsoever.
those that accept FW and just argue to what degree our choices are truly free, will basically all agree with you that the future is open and everything you do makes a different, just like we experience it. your thoughts included of course.
Elroch wrote:
It's probably worth clarifying to @optimissed that the type of knowledge that is incomplete is precisely that which would be needed to make reliable predictions. This is why there is not a dichotomy of definition.
There is one way in which thinking in terms of what is known rather than prediction seems natural. In a relativistic context one might consider the result of some observation at a different place. In our relativistic Universe, if the observation is at a spacelike relative location, it is entirely arbitrary whether the observation is in the past, present or future in a conventional sense (because simultaneity depends on the choice of Lorentz frame). On the other hand what we know about the result of the observation is independent of the choice of frame.
The light cones play a more significant role, in that they define the bounds of the flow of information. Only information from the past light cone can get to a point in space-time. Information from that point can only reach points in its future light cone. The idea of information appearing is itself dependent on a lack of determinism - if everything is deterministic no new information is ever added!
without reading too much into your conversation I'd guess that you're trolling him. taking him round and round in circles.
iow, making your own definitions. completely in contrast with the context of this thread. and then keep yapping about it. making sure everyone remain confused. not sure if its hilarious or absurd.
my guess was according to my past experience on this thread. elroch had his own definition of TR which contradicted the true meaning of the very own topic as intended. i.e. "Does true D really exist?" so whenever he talks about "True randomness" he is basically off topic. like all the time. his "idea" of TR can happily live in a D for example. can you see the absurd? anyhow,I scarcely read the conversations between you two, all I saw was that you were going again about predictability.. yada, yada.. what are you two love birds even trying to do? redefine TR again?
Jun 9, 2022
0
#2830
Optimissed wrote:
Randomness is true randomness. I don't think he and I are too far apart. The thread title itself is innaccurate.
"Does true randomness actually exist?" We can drop the words "true" and "actually" and the title would suffer no change in meaning.
Good to see you say something that increases clarity! I agree.
Elroch isn't going to argue against that because it's logically correct that those two words add nothing. I mean, how many types of randomness are there? Someone could argue that a whale is a variety of randomness but they wouldn't succeed. Or a true whale. Or a right whale.
As far as I know, the only distinction that has been successfully made here is that between something that is random to everyone (at least everyone in some defined region of space time excluding the future of some events!) and something that is random only to some (for example, if person A gathers some "truly" random bits - eg quantum noise - records them and then reads them out to person B. I believe everyone will agree both that the bits are are just as random to person B when read out as they were to person A when she recorded them.
Anyhow, although I cannot provide you with material from that course I did, here is the author, who has authored a large number of papers about quantum mechanical randomness. Here you will hear him emphasise the relevance of Bell inequality violations, which are something that imply the absolute nature of quantum randomness (rather than any possibility of it being merely a consequence of something deterministic). I have previously drawn attention to this here.
Valerio Scarani, National University of Singapore – Quantum Randomness
Also of a little interest is an article asking:
Is anything truly random? (TL;DR 
- pseudorandomness can fail, but quantum mechanics provides "true" randomness)
Optimissed wrote:
Randomness is true randomness. I don't think he and I are too far apart. The thread title itself is innaccurate.
"Does true randomness actually exist?" We can drop the words "true" and "actually" and the title would suffer no change in meaning. Elroch isn't going to argue against that because it's logically correct that those two words add nothing. I mean, how many types of randomness are there? Someone could argue that a whale is a variety of randomness but they wouldn't succeed. Or a true whale. Or a right whale.
I think that you misunderstood me because I couldn't care less about the wording itself, as long as the definition match the concept. i.e. if R is true, D is false. if D is true, TR is false. that simple. if you define it to describe a different concept than it belong on a different topic.
what do you mean by there's only one randomness. every time you flip a coin you create randomness, but is not something that will effect D in anyway. maybe we are not on the same page.
yea. whatever to that 
Jun 9, 2022
0
#2833
Was it the Right True Whale or the True Right Whale? Obviously I’m not an expert or studied on this topic, but i find it interesting nonetheless. But isn’t this discussion primarily based upon perception and who/what perception? You and i may have an entirely different reaction, by thought and experience that would judge an event as random. Another may have orchestrated the event which would be the exact opposite of randomness. If there is a randomness underlying every event in time and space, would we even be able to discern it from our perspective only?
..and it was the right type to catch because they would float and make an easier and safer catch, not because they were more worthy. whatever hold your wind..
yea. but the pot whales had better quality
Jun 10, 2022
0
#2836
Optimissed wrote:
It was just called a Right Whale, because it was the right type to catch.
One of us, in a particular situation, might have more experience and might be able to make an accurate call as to random or not. In the windy conditions that the inmates of the "luck" thread are obsessing over, a sudden gust may seem completely random to one person and yet to another, it might be expected that such a thing could happen. I practised probably for 100 hours, taking kicks with a rugby ball and kicking footballs in windy conditions. But to them, their lack of experience is the conclusive factor and they say that experience is therefore useless.
This is precisely what i am thinking and trying to say, albeit poorly. Another example from the range. While practicing archery (I’ve put in 1000’s of hours during my lifetime) at the field, you may have 100 archers lined up for a twenty yard shoot. A breeze of 10 mph comes from the North end of the line and effects the first 99 archers as they miss the money dot. Randomness? Who knew the breeze was to blow at that precise time? However, i am lined up as the 100th shooter and realize from the groans and ughs that the breeze has effected their last arrow and i adjust my aim slightly and pierce the money dot. Randomness? Opportunist? I believe perception is a critical element in the discussion. Spectators and archers a like could and will say that “what rotten luck for the first 99 shooters to be effected by the wind!” The same spectators and archers could and will say “but number 100 knew about the wind and was able to make simple adjustments to find the center ring, not fair!”
The breeze may be considered random to the 99, but quite orderly to the 100th.
Jun 10, 2022
0
#2837
Optimissed wrote:
Why don't they all shoot at once?
I have a competition bow somewhere. Haven't used it for decades. Will it still be alright?
I suppose, in theory all could release at the exact point in time but it would be extremely difficult. Plus, no one will shoot until they are ready for reasons of ordered steps, muscle memory, and course safety.
I’d suggest having the bow string examined before putting tension on it if it has been quite some time. Safety first!
Sabine is really clear (& funny @ 8:12...yee !) abt superdeterminism. interesting no one has spoke a SD yet...why not ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyjgIyegDI
and real space-time
uhhh...im not too warm w/ calling it the S-T Continuum. I feel it should be Space-Scalar or Space-Flow or Space-Course...s/t like that. Time is just a metronome sapiens have made up for b-days and $ and to make calculus happy.
he was dogging FW.