Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% ) - Chess Forums - Page 213

Uke8 · 2019-10-19T13:59:37-07:00

Note: The title of this thread, “Does True Randomness Actually Exist,” was plagiarized by someone I blocked for persistent trolling and spreading misinformation. If you encounter the plagiarized thread, please consider reporting it. Oct. 19. 2019 Original opening: statistically If you throw a dice

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4241

We have plenty of natural philosophers here.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4242

Optimissed wrote:

It will make more sense to me after I've watched it another twice, if I get round to doing that. The problem, slight though it is, is that there could be a deterministic mechanism which gives the appearance that determinism has been disproven through polarisation experiments.

The scientific conclusion is that for the particles to conspire to reproduce the statistics (rather than behaving independently in absolutely any way), it would be necessary for the particle pair to communicate with each other at faster than the speed of light. While the particle pair possesses non-local quantum information, this information does not determine the results of observations, merely the statistics of those observations, a crucial difference - the one between determinism and the real world.

This conclusion is achieved by choosing the direction of the measurements at each location in a way that is unknown at the other at the time of measurements.

Einstein's initial position was that the result predicted by quantum mechanics was so absurd that an experiment would prove quantum mechanics wrong.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4243

but since it actually interprets the code each time it is run,

lol !...can u even return hello world in python ?

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4244

You can see how useful numpy is, Ghostess? To do 200,000,000 trials per second (on my old i5) rather than in 12 minutes! The key is to do everything with arrays rather than individual samples.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4245

Uke8 wrote:

@elroch, maybe you want to explain them that bell disproved Only local hidden variables proposed by Einstein, and by no mean disprove determinism? I'm not too hot about a thread of misinformation under my skirt.

You need to break causality in order to try to revive determinism. If you do that, there is no order of time, so nothing makes any sense. Far better to accept that determinism is dead in our Universe.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4246

my return on 1BB flips from the code abv...

Counter({'Tails': 219860894, 'Heads': 219860894})

Counter({'Tails': 500027761, 'Heads': 499972239})
3789 seconds

so parity stopped after abt 220MM flips and tails took it home from there...yay !

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4247

Elroch wrote:

You can see how useful numpy is, Ghostess? To do 200,000,000 trials per second (on my old i5) rather than in 12 minutes! The key is to do everything with arrays rather than individual samples.

i went w/ a object list & dict.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4248

Using numpy is good. A billion flips and analysis took 25 seconds. (With this number the array of flips is about 4 Gb in RAM).

Here is another view of the cumulative differences in the numbers of heads and tails for a billion samples.

Here the y-axis is scaled by sqrt(number of samples). That is because its standard deviation is proportional to that.

The x-axis is a log scale of the number of samples, because things like the number of crossings go up like this scale.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4249

With probability 1, the excess of heads changes sign an infinite number of times.

Optimissed

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4250

It goes up and down a lot, in a major way. Is it me not understanding the axes or are the flips a bit on the pseudo-non-random side? I would expect a very high probability against what appears to be a non-random distribution.

Uke8

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4251

Elroch wrote:

Uke8 wrote:

@elroch, maybe you want to explain them that bell disproved Only local hidden variables proposed by Einstein, and by no mean disprove determinism? I'm not too hot about a thread of misinformation under my skirt.

You need to break causality in order to try to revive determinism. If you do that, there is no order of time, so nothing makes any sense. Far better to accept that determinism is dead in our Universe.

Really? still obfuscating? I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed. think it’s best we separate our own ways.

To be fair, maybe you or optimissed can start your own determinism thread and have everyone follow you there.

Thank you everyone for participating. this thread is officially close.

Be well and keep it real

Optimissed

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4252

Elroch wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

It will make more sense to me after I've watched it another twice, if I get round to doing that. The problem, slight though it is, is that there could be a deterministic mechanism which gives the appearance that determinism has been disproven through polarisation experiments.

The scientific conclusion is that for the particles to conspire to reproduce the statistics (rather than behaving independently in absolutely any way), it would be necessary for the particle pair to communicate with each other at faster than the speed of light. While the particle pair possesses non-local quantum information, this information does not determine the results of observations, merely the statistics of those observations, a crucial difference - the one between determinism and the real world.

This conclusion is achieved by choosing the direction of the measurements at each location in a way that is unknown at the other at the time of measurements.

Einstein's initial position was that the result predicted by quantum mechanics was so absurd that an experiment would prove quantum mechanics wrong.

Point is that doesn't matter at all (about faster than c communication) because in any case we have a mechanism that is completely unintelligible, anti-intuitive and going against everything we understand. So simply exceeding c would seem like a small thing.

But in any case, Brownian motion, wasn't it, that used to be thought the same? And various other things that can't be explained without communication faster than c. For the record I never bought that c was a road block in that way. I imagined, when I was younger, that there will be far stranger things than c being exceeded in some ways. So that isn't actually a veto on extra-special hidden variables, is it? Just that they're extra-special. I mean from an analytical sort of direction, logically it can't be ruled out. It's still nonsense as far as we're concerned but really we could all be decorations, inside someone's goldfish bowl.

DiogenesDue

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4253

Elroch wrote:

Not really. Python is (fairly) slow for sequential operations. However, vectorising your code using numpy means it is quite fast.

For example, tossing a million coins a hundred times, and print out the difference between the number of heads and the number of tails in each of the 100 trials.

This code takes just over half a second.

import numpy as np
from time import time

start = time()
x = np.random.randint(2, size=(1000000,100))
diffs = 2*np.sum(x, axis=0)-1000000
print(means)

print("That took", time()-start, "seconds")

Having noticed Ghostess post above, here is the vectorised way to do that once, also taking about half a second.

import numpy as np
from time import time

start = time()
x = np.random.randint(2, size=100000000)
diff = 2*np.sum(x)-len(x)
print("Surplus heads =", diff,"taking", time()-start, "seconds")

That's kind of the point, though. You wrote that code in a way that compiles and/or interprets faster, and that code snippet works largely unaltered in many languages. But your average Python programmer isn't going to write it that way.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4254

Quantum mechanics is not about a "mechanism". It is solely about the statistical relationships of observations. Determinism implies that future observations can be predicted with no uncertainty given some information that exists in the past. Bell's experiment shows that is false, presuming only that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light (without which nothing makes sense, since there would be no meaning to an event being in the future of another event).

Optimissed

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4255

Uke8 wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Uke8 wrote:

@elroch, maybe you want to explain them that bell disproved Only local hidden variables proposed by Einstein, and by no mean disprove determinism? I'm not too hot about a thread of misinformation under my skirt.

You need to break causality in order to try to revive determinism. If you do that, there is no order of time, so nothing makes any sense. Far better to accept that determinism is dead in our Universe.

Really? still obfuscating? I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed. think it’s best we separate our own ways.

To be fair, maybe you or optimissed can start your own determinism thread and have everyone follow you there.

Thank you everyone for participating. this thread is officially close.

Be well and keep it real

??? what's the problem? I'm not interested in determinism. You seem to be. Why the interest after so long??

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4256

btickler wrote:

Elroch wrote:

llama36 wrote:

btickler wrote:

llama36 wrote:

Oh, if time is the problem, there may be tricks to speed it up. Everything in the computer is 1s and 0s, so it works with them very quickly. Just pretend 1s are heads and 0s are tails (or the other way around).

Then you can use simple operations like AND and bit shifting, which computers do very quickly.

For for example you do the AND function for two bits. If it returns 1 then you know they're the same. If it returns zero you know they're different. Then you shift to the next bit and do it again. (lol, 0 and 0 outputs zero, but still... use XOR same idea).

When the answer is zero, just pretend they "cancel out" and when the answer is 1, increment a counter. What you'll be left with is the counter shows the "extra" heads or tails. Add half of your starting number to the "extra" for heads, and subtract "extra" from half the starting number for tails (or vice versa).

I've never tried this with python, but I assume it's possible. You can also start experimenting with C++ for example. Once you can do one language it's pretty easy to try some of the same things in a new one. Python tends to be slower which is why I mention it.

Python is slow for such applications...it's an interpreted language, not compiled. Some Python developers will try to claim it is compiled *and* interpreted, because Python has a runtime "compiler" that takes the interpreted bytecode and runs it in the Python virtual machine, but since it actually interprets the code each time it is run, it is an interpreted language, and the step of interpreting the code is just wasted cycles vs. a compiled executable.

Compiled executables are themselves somewhat inefficient, but very few people write Assembly Language code anymore, so a good compiler is about as fast as you are going to get.

The app itself is simple. You could write a coin flip app in a batch file , but that would also be incredibly slow.

Oh, so python is simply bad for such things, ok.

Not really. Python is (fairly) slow for sequential operations. However, vectorising your code using numpy means it is quite fast.

For example, tossing a million coins a hundred times, and print out the difference between the number of heads and the number of tails in each of the 100 trials.

This code takes just over half a second.

import numpy as np
from time import time

start = time()
x = np.random.randint(2, size=(1000000,100))
diffs = 2*np.sum(x, axis=0)-1000000
print(means)

print("That took", time()-start, "seconds")

Having noticed Ghostess post above, here is the vectorised way to do that once, also taking about half a second.

import numpy as np
from time import time

start = time()
x = np.random.randint(2, size=100000000)
diff = 2*np.sum(x)-len(x)
print("Surplus heads =", diff,"taking", time()-start, "seconds")

That's kind of the point, though. You wrote that code in a way that compiles and/or interprets faster, and that code snippet works largely unaltered in many languages. But your average Python programmer isn't going to write it that way.

I dispute that. Using numpy is very Pythonic, and is not in any sense an unusual or advanced technique. Virtually all my code starts with an import of numpy. numpy is 27 years old and is described accurately as "the fundamental package for scientific computing with Python".

"Vectorise" is generally a very early piece of advice given to Python programmers.

Optimissed

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4257

Elroch, for some reason you still have me blocked. I think you should unblock.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4258

Odd that. I thought I did not. I have made that so.

Abhinav

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4259

True. At this point, NumPy has become so ingrained in python that it's basically considered vanilla python.

Elroch

Nov 10, 2022

0

#4260

Uke8 wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Uke8 wrote:

@elroch, maybe you want to explain them that bell disproved Only local hidden variables proposed by Einstein, and by no mean disprove determinism? I'm not too hot about a thread of misinformation under my skirt.

You need to break causality in order to try to revive determinism. If you do that, there is no order of time, so nothing makes any sense. Far better to accept that determinism is dead in our Universe.

Really? still obfuscating? I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed. think it’s best we separate our own ways.

To be fair, maybe you or optimissed can start your own determinism thread and have everyone follow you there.

Thank you everyone for participating. this thread is officially close.

Be well and keep it real

Please do refer to some peer-reviewed work that backs up your objection.