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

Sort:
Avatar of Optimissed

Thanks. Appreciate it. Messaged you.

Avatar of Elroch
Optimissed wrote:

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.

Well, I have transformed the data in a special way that changes its properties. The first way is to rescale the differences as a ratio of the standard deviation of the difference (this goes up with the square root of the number of flips). The second way is to log-transform the x-axis, because this makes the behaviour look similar for any piece of the x-axis. (I think I have that right). The net result is that you have graph which is centred on zero (net difference zero) and tends to stay fairly near (with the frequency of the numbers on the y-axis being just like a standard normal distribution).

An interesting fact is that when the difference crosses zero it is likely to cross zero several more times in the near future. When it gets far from zero it is likely to take quite a while to get back again. At any time the coins don't know what the total is so far, so, untransformed it is a random walk starting whereever it happens to be.

Avatar of llama36

Oh, calling it a random walk, that's a good observation... and of course an infinite random walk will visit all states... including all heads and all tails wink.png

Avatar of llama36
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

You could try to say that the randomness of elementary particles doesn't scale up in a meaningful way, and therefore some version of determinism effectively exists.

I don't know the standard arguments for such things, this is just what I tend to think... that at least with free will we probably have a depressingly small amount.

Avatar of Optimissed
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

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.

Well, I have transformed the data in a special way that changes its properties. The first way is to rescale the differences as a ratio of the standard deviation of the difference (this goes up with the square root of the number of flips). The second way is to log-transform the x-axis, because this makes the behaviour look similar for any piece of the x-axis. (I think I have that right). The net result is that you have graph which is centred on zero (net difference zero) and tends to stay fairly near (with the frequency of the numbers on the y-axis being just like a standard normal distribution).

An interesting fact is that when the difference crosses zero it is likely to cross zero several more times in the near future. When it gets far from zero it is likely to take quite a while to get back again. At any time the coins don't know what the total is so far, so, untransformed it is a random walk starting whereever it happens to be.


Yes of course, unless you believe in entanglement of coin tosses. Thankyou for explaining.

Avatar of Optimissed
llama36 wrote:
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

You could try to say that the randomness of elementary particles doesn't scale up in a meaningful way, and therefore some version of determinism effectively exists.

I don't know the standard arguments for such things, this is just what I tend to think... that at least with free will we probably have a depressingly small amount.

Not sure what the first paragraph meant.

With more free will, survival chances of individuals would be drastically lessened. So, for that matter, would survival chances of all. We do have just about enough free will to survive and it definitely isn't evenly distributed. We all tend to think we have more than we think, because we often see habits as choice where they are more often strongly conditioned. At any time, by an effort of will, it's possible for anyone to be self-determining. Unfortunately that shows sometimes in extreme, anti-social behaviour or suicide. Or basically any act which is seen as badly motivated and crazy.

Avatar of Elroch
llama36 wrote:

Oh, calling it a random walk, that's a good observation... and of course an infinite random walk will visit all states... including all heads and all tails

Well, you will get all possible finite sequences with probability 1 (i.e. probability zero that even one of the infinite number of them is missing).

You will also visit every possible difference in the numbers of heads and tails with probability 1.

But there is also probability 0 of getting an infinite sequence of heads or tails, so that has probability 0 in, a countable sample of infinite sequences too. (Thus, you'd certainly need an uncountable number of tries).

NOTICE TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: UKE8 HAS ANNOUNCED THE "CLOSING" OF THIS TOPIC AND BLOCKED SOME PARTICIPANTS. PLEASE CAN EVERYONE INTERESTED MOVE THE DISCUSSION TO A NEW FORUM OPEN TO ALL? Please post there to acknowledge.

Avatar of llama36

Oh, right, I keep failing to refer to it as uncountably infinite.

Avatar of Uke8

In some 3 yrs of this thread I never had to block anyone. you guys leave me no choice now...

This thread is close! Thanks for those who respect that.

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

seems open to me...and i TY Ukey for this wonderful spool !

Avatar of Jacqueline22

Oh wow! elroch and his accomplices ended up stealing this forum??? I mean counterfeiting it or whatever.

 

 

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

YEAH !!!...its working again...thanks Ukey !!

Avatar of Sillver1

no disrespect, just a uke..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

 

Avatar of Sillver1

i meant nuke

https://youtube.com/shorts/0g5hw_gTcZ8?feature=share

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

just got back from miami & went to the end a hiway 1. we stayed at the arya in coco grove and the opal in key west. it was really fun !...never knew gulf & western music. its hilarious !!

heres one a my favorites that this guy played:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VKGfluxZWw

 

 

Avatar of Sillver1

https://youtu.be/meeWulQosl4

Avatar of Sillver1

like this better..

https://youtu.be/rlSVL774OGk

 

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

they say tonites the first nite of the resta my life

Avatar of Sillver1

Does true love actually exist?

Avatar of czechsalmon
The timeline exists it’s like a movie you can’t change it it’s all scripted if you say I wanted to drink water but to prove it wrong I won’t was scripted the same with randomness it’s just fascinating sometimes it can even be predictable you probably know that scindé toy that if you turn around it will go in a plinco thing and form a fringale what was predicted it’s just chaos and you can’t focus on it making it random