Ding 🛎
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3023
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
As I have explained, defining "true randomness" exactly as I did (to correspond to the strongest definition of randomness possible in our Universe), this has been demonstrated to exist (barring the most extreme of "loopholes"). The strength of this conclusion has grown with each improvement to Bell's experiment implementations.
yes elroch, but only according to your own definition. problem is that your definition exclude D to begin with, and as such.. it has no room in a discussion about D. its hard to believe that you dont see it for yourself. but wait..
do you even make the claim that physics (not interpretations) proved Determinism to be false? (according to the agreed definition of D from stanford)
Physicists are in very good agreement that the Universe we live in is not deterministic (according to a definition that is adequately precise, which is often not the case with philosophers).
There is a good argument that even classical physics is not deterministic in practice, assuming only that infinite precision in measurements and calculations is not possible (to deny this would have been rather extreme at any time). The reason can be described as "the butterfly effect", whereby even small uncertainties can grow greatly over time.
MustangMate wrote:
Ding 🛎
lol !!
MM ?...the day u stop teezing me is the day i get worried.
E's so right here. only cuz we happen to agree on this one 
.
but E, i do have a question 4u. lets say e/t and all that i do is D (im asking u to get hypothetical here and wear s/o else's pumps yee).
ok. lets say this whole time ive been played into thinking my will is free for intent & purpose. ok. so. why would it matter if my perception wuznt my reality ? iows, tell me how that would change my being. how would my life be different than wut it is today ? assuming now that all my thoughts and all my actions are not of choice.
I guess what im sensing is that i feel our reasoning has come circular and that both may just be the same color coat designed differently but performing the very same function - keeping us warm...and that the HUP may just be one a those principles that holds zero value. thats all.
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3028
So - ur asking if someone were hit over the head by the sledgehammer of truth
They!d wake up and come to some ones else thinking
📬 post dated reply
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
As I have explained, defining "true randomness" exactly as I did (to correspond to the strongest definition of randomness possible in our Universe), this has been demonstrated to exist (barring the most extreme of "loopholes"). The strength of this conclusion has grown with each improvement to Bell's experiment implementations.
yes elroch, but only according to your own definition. problem is that your definition exclude D to begin with, and as such.. it has no room in a discussion about D. its hard to believe that you dont see it for yourself. but wait..
do you even make the claim that physics (not interpretations) proved Determinism to be false? (according to the agreed definition of D from stanford)
Physicists are in very good agreement that the Universe we live in is not deterministic (according to a definition that is adequately precise, which is often not the case with philosophers).
There is a good argument that even classical physics is not deterministic in practice, assuming only that infinite precision in measurements and calculations is not possible (to deny this would have been rather extreme at any time). The reason can be described as "the butterfly effect", whereby even small uncertainties can grow greatly over time.
this feels like pulling teeth. but you keep swirling around it and leave me no choice. you know very well that is a factual Q with only one answer.. and the more you swirl around it? the more you come across as deceptive. and people are not as stupid as you think, they can see that.
maybe enough?
physics has no proof whatsoever that Determinism is false, and it all comes down to beliefs and interpretations. thats the fact. want to argue that?
i like questions. even when i know the answers : )
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3032
Wat to say sil -
ya don’t get it do ya ?
All dis same ole wid E -
mud boring boring and then some more boring
ya just don’t get it- E is E
dings 🛎 never change at our age
give it up - only appears to be trolling
i dont try to change his or anyone's beliefs. i respect other beliefs.. but it bother me that he preach them in such a way. you obviously don't fall for that.. good for you : )
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3035
E is usually in Right Field ...
So wats da big deal ?
Let him shag foul balls - who cares ?
laters.. : )
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3038
gottcha well
bothered wid beliefs
held dear
letting go dis de hard part
bells arent. and thats wut u should have on ur horsey collar so u can warn us ur coming. ::/