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

i understand that youre being randomly funny. but i still want to try and make sense out of it. lol

what did you have in mind when you said the below?
1."The arrow of time, being condensed"
2."But this purple becomes blue, because the oceans, covering much of the crust"

instinctively i want to say that the leaf fall to the ground may or may not be random, but a chain of cause and efect.
but lets forget physics because youre right. in our reality it is random enough. so to follow your thoughts and make it interesting.. : ) what do you mean by 'take over something else'?

opti, your steady state.. what does it mean? if we think of the universe expansion with an analogy of a balloon being puffed... you mean that something continuously puff energy into it at the present? and if so.. how do you explain the cmb? decoration?

(just kidding about the decoration thingy : )

im trying to tie pedesis into a function of time w/ temps approaching absolute zero. but im not doing so hot.   ::/

I feel pretty good that our consciousness cant wholly predict the 'future' (kibbles & macrobits of it, yes). and esp not so if the big bang really happened. maybe so if things were steady state ?

So my next little bridge is if it's a non-random U to all things nonbio-. is it our consciousness that senses such a random state (cuz our past is boring us ?) ? we can do no better than relate e/t to our mortality (time permitting....lol !) ?....or iows, what's next. u know, hope, hope, & more hope ?

btw, I luv uncertainty ! I cant help it ! so i hafta be careful not to commingle my personal yays with the agreed-upon subjectiveness of 8 billion ppl. dont do very well there tho. sorry2blither. fun !

wow, we seem to have some type of cascading effect going on in the forums now. As if chess.com hired some type of goofy algorithm and it’s still in the adolescent stage.?

Reminds me of the Dune books by Frank Herbert for some reason. A seismic shift registers, and the worm appears as scheduled. Oh well, life is grand and New Year’s eve  is almost here. : )  This is why I’ll let others shotgun the forums now.. I just don’t need or want the suspense. I get all of that in a cup of coffee, and that’s where I draw the line.

Silver.. Oddly enough I have my doubts about the leaf falling to the ground as well as soon as I wrote it. Still leaning towards it though. As far as the other thing I brought up, it can be summed up like this..

The instruments that human beings have developed so far are awesome. Yet they still don’t ‘see’ everything that’s really going on. The hidden things of the world are either running scared, because ‘they’ know we will figure it out eventually..

Or, ‘they’ sit back and snicker with that stupid look on their face because they know that we won’t. The problem is that human collaboration has issues, I’ve said it till I’m blue. Now I’m turning a deep purple..

Testing on page #18..?

I woke up jonesin for some Boz Scaggs 

https://youtu.be/HQZBaJAngH8

I'm happy with that, sir. If I contributed here because I wanted to impress people, I think it would be a forlorn hope and completely pointless for various reasons. You can believe what you wish but, in my opinion, you made an assertion and a subjective judgement based on improper evidence and it was also an ad hominen. So I took a different tack and disputed the ad hominem, since you don't wish to address the actual subject under discussion.

Happy New Year.

Lola, are you trying to freeze time to stand still at absolute zero ;?

as for the big B.. im not sure why you relate it to consciousness and uncertainty? uncertainty is somewhat guaranteed. no? it dosnt matter which beliefs we adopt (determinism, randomness, objectivity (my pet), BB, FW, VR, whatever...) all of them promise a human experience with an uncertain future. (from our point of view : )

well, that's unless you get your hands on a crystal ball, but thats a whole different realm : )

King, im with you on this one. the idea that humans and our toys are the pinnacle of intelligence is as shallow as a kiddie pool.
for me entanglement was the last straw... i mean.. isnt none locality a hard proof that something is terribly wrong with our understanding of matter, time, and space?
anyway, thanks for mentioning the fallen leaf, for whatever reason it reminded me that we should enjoy nature just the way we perceive it. sound like a good resolution for 2020 : )

deep purple..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wAPTsjhrjM

cmb isn't proof of anything except itself.  Except for the fact that it's my wife's initials, it just implies what it means. When the Big Bang was thought of, it was thought that cmb is the vestige of the Big Bang but if the Big Bang didn't occur then it must be something else. It is important when working out hypotheses to be aware of priorities. When the Big Bang was thought of, it was assumed that it (the hypothesis) would follow Occam's Razor or parsimony of unknowns. That is, as a general principle, when inventing a possible mechanism and you have to hypothesise (invent) an idea to make it work, prefer that to having to invent two mechanisms and prefer inventing two to inventing three etc. Occam's Razor.

However, if we prioritise the factors that govern potential hypotheses concerning creation, factors that we know have to be explained take precedence over those that only may need explaining. Whilst we want to explain cmb, we cannot be sure that it is part of the creation process. However, acceleration of expansion of the universe is a factor that is fundamentally at the heart of our picture of the universe. Acceleration in general requires an input of energy but it might occur due to a distortion of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. For instance, time might distort or dimensions might distort and relativity would indicate that they do. But we would get universal expansion if space generates more space as a function of the volume of existing space. Space would need to be an entity, like material, perhaps. A constant generation of space is steady state because it is conceived of as occurring constantly. Anything that is a transfer of energy that occurs momentarily is not steady state. That would be the Big Bang. If it occurs constantly, it would be steady state.

The Big Bang is supposedly momentary and yet acceleration of expansion of the universe implies a steady state process. Since Occam's Razor was one of the major factors that prompted the uptake or acceptance of BBT (big bang theory) and since acceleration requires steady state, it is logical to ditch BBT and look instead at steady state processes. Otherwise, we have to have at least two processes, one steady state and one not, when we're looking for one. This would not be so bad if the BBT was in other respects workable but unfortunately, theoreticians have never been able to mathematically model the Big Bang. The numbers nearly fit but they don't fit, especially at the very beginning, which has proven impossible to mathematically model.

This could potentially be explained by a study of the topography of the universe and how our different ideas of what it is, as expressed mathematically, are bound to be very close to one-another due to the fact that the picture we see is constant (fairly) and that governs the general shape of mathematical pictures of the universe.

I was intrigued to notice that earlier you asked whether the laws of physics are dependent on the existence of the universe or whether they pre-date the universe. This is, to my mind, perhaps the most intriguing question we can ask about the universe (and our perception of it). I do have a tentative answer but it would not be to the taste of those who believe in the possibility of "many worlds" (each maybe even with their own laws). There is only one way, to my mind, that the paradox of which came first can be understood. But I have to finish here because this is cmb's computer and she needs it.

Opti: "it would not be to the taste of those who believe in the possibility of "many worlds" (each maybe even with their own laws)"

Multi-verse or Many-worlds? mw is boring, but i think that you meant to say multi-verse? and multiverse? ahh.. that gets my molecules excited : ) and may i say that is just as real as our own existence? i never even heard anyone in their right mind dispute multiverse. not even the most conservative scientists.

just think of it logically.. our Uni is relatively young, under 14B's and look where it got us.. we're getting ready to colonize mars. (Thx Elon) and we are giving birth to machinery evolution in form of Ai's as we speak.

now think of another Uni.. say a 100B's yrs old, and where do they stand in the evolutionary scale.. it just mind blowing.. and we think of ourself as intelligent? in comparison to what? monkeys? (and im not even sure about that : ) maybe we are lucky to be isolated in this galaxy..

as for the laws of physics.. in my understanding the constants may be different.

as for the steady state.. sorry, but im going to leave it at that..

since abuncha ppl, like 7+bb, think & feel itsa random universe, then the burden of proof rests on the determinist. best a luck there.

the big bang points toward random state, right ? im wholeheartedly not convinced of the BB so dont look to me. 

but for weirdodd sake, lets say it did. wuz there gravity prior to the BB ?....iows, are known S-T Continuum forces independent of the BB ? wuz this entity ball (Hawkings proposed a pinhead size - a megahowler !!) suspended w/out forces ? did one of the (4) forces ignite the kaboom ? they say theres a all-things 5th F too....if s/o wansta go there.

Back to page #18 as I post this.. So I’m going off memory here, Silver you rock. I never heard that song before.Thx : )

This is right about what I’m listening to right now.. https://youtu.be/RGmZ3BYif7s

Anyway, It’s time to wish everyone a prosperous new year. And I mean every one.!

Uke.. I trust all is well with you my friend, take good care buddy. : )

In regards to the fifth fundamental force:

https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/scientists-may-have-discovered-a-fifth-fundamental-force-of-nature-theyre-calling-it-x17-7710261.html

My elucidations are poor, and as a consequence, I cannot be bothered to type anything. Some eccentric phenomenon is inhibiting me from doing so, it's so wildly eccentric that I fear that there are five conic sections. 

not sure if the BB say anything about a random state, all it attempt to do is to tell us the story of an extreme condense state, and how it inflated and evolved onto what we see in the present. it does not attempt to explain the state of things before that.

to my understanding the 4 forces are all consequences or properties of matter so i dont think they could preexist the matterialist uni.
the laws of physics are a different question, and to my understanding its still a puzzle.

as for the 'belief' in the bigB, personally i dont swallow it hook and sinker either. but i think that its a reasonable possibility (with the exception that something in our general understanding of space, time, and matter, is possibly very wrong

as for determinism vs randomness again, it seem that what you really trying to do, is it to preserve Free Will, and uncertainty.. to make a long story short.. randomness by itself wont take you there. i know this sound confusing and conflicting, so to make a long story short..

I think that the bottom line is that there are many good reasons to believe that Free Will is true, and none that really disapprove it, include the attacks from physics, biology and psychology.

King, you seem to have a strong preference for standing water and reflections : )

can FW be wholly independent from randomness ?....and vice versa ?

yes.

okay. so lemme get this correct.

they say the 'contents' prior to the BB wuz wut now ??....and then after this so-called BB all forces, known and unknown, got created ?....do i have that right ?

something else. any guesses as to why the BB kaboomed ?....and the pre-BB 'contents' concoction came from where ??

but I didnt change the U's entropy when I will-freely decided to pickup my bungalow ?....cuz isnt there a direct relationship btwn entropy and randomness ? possibly even functionally interdependent ? and isnt it agreed upon by supersmart ppl that theres an 'arrow of entropy' ?