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

i think u git confuzed as to wuts mine and wut isnt. iows, its not my diagram.

and plz dont try to explain FW vs D w/ science cuz u obviously dont know where to start....let alone end.

and s/t else. enlightening us w/ your self-proclaimed fact ?...doesn't make it a fact. sorry.

(and remember, this isnt ur thread)

.....riiiiiight.

and btw, i think ur having kinda a bad day.

Making such a lot of such elementary mistakes in the simple piece I wrote is quite disheartening, isn't it, and also quite a coincidence, given that it's someone who disagrees with me who's making the adverse comments. I think someone needs to stretch his mind a little, and take it for a walk, for some exercise. Doesn't even understand induction, although by then I'd moved into tease mode. But actually, there's never any legitimate basis for brilliance.

There are two distinct categories of discussion going on here. One is a discussion regarding randomness. There are some who support hidden variables hypotheses, on the basis that there is no real randomness. Elroch and I both support an "intuitive" position in which determinism exists to a limited extent, and so does randomness, and they interact. So much for physical systems.

The other conversation is related and is to do with the idea of "free will" or the idea that somehow, we are able, at least some of the time, to make decisions that are not merely the result of determinism and randomness. Again, I take the intuitive position that free will is possible and Elroch opposes it, believing that physical systems always fully impose themselves on our apparent or assumed decision-making, to the extent that it doesn't really exist.

To be honest, I would take Elroch more seriously if he were more pleasant in his disagreements and didn't automatically assume that others, who happen to disagree with him, are talking nonsense. If, by some chance, those others are right or partly right, he is going to learn nothing.

I think we should attempt to discuss more positively, without trying to blind each other with science.

if i ever seen glibbery? this is it. the rest is just more of the same.
you've been rubbishing FW since the topic came up here, and you weren't shy about bringing arguments against it to pronounce your disbelief in it. the only thing you were shy about was stating your opinion in a clear, plain, and none ambiguous language, despite my very direct request for you to do so.
and its ok. im sure you have your reasons.
but because your interest seem to consist of making 'funny' statements without having a meaningful dialog about them, i just dont see the point in keep going at it.

lol. i know youre being funny, but if you want to be serious? just add 'truly' to it : )

"duz ne1 no if ramdomnis occurs truly randomly or not?"

this is somewhat like the difference between saying 'universe' and 'observable universe'. we have some ideas about the observable universe, but we are clueless about the universe as a whole. and clueless is an understatement ; )

opti, how about something foolish but fun to think about? where do you see humanity 10k years from now? or a million? (im hesitating to say a billion or more) lol

(....wutsa few zeros ?) 

Lola I'm afraid that determinism-compatibilism square you posted doesn't make sense, at least to me. Can you explain what it is that the pillock .... I mean, person responsible for it means by hard incompatibilism? I'm afraid he or she is just patching together ideas without any plan or rationality. I'm always willing to learn so if it makes sense to you, please tell!

I mean, that's the determinism=0, free will=0 slot but if the former then there's no determinism to be incompatible with anything, irrespective of the free will position. Whosoever drew it was confused. Equally, the slot where both are true is labelled as compatibilism, but compatibilism is itself a completely illogical idea since by its very nature, determinism is incompatible with free will, thus giving rise to the present argument. And a lack of compatibility certainly wouldn't give rise to a hard or emphasised version of a situation which only exists if compatibilism DOES make sense. I'm sorry, I haven't been very clear .... the entire thing is full of implied double negatives.  Lots of love.

I have a strong feeling that you are discounting those with differing views as irrelevant. Don't forget that "relevant" might just mean those who agree with the approach being taken by these people, who will naturally tend to publicise each others' beliefs **and work in the same way** so that it all depends on the circles you move in. In Cambridge, the majority disagreed with Brexit, which is rather Freudian reason why all of a sudden we don't have free will, none of us. And what is neuroscience? Cognitive science is a soft science and hardly attracts the best brains, and in any case, these things go in fashions, which are governed almost politically.

Peer review means virtually nothing except that there aren't any blunders horrific and obvious enough to be picked up by peers with no relevant, specialised expertise. Please try to say something which indicates that you can at least see some kind of middle ground. The idea that Conway and Kochen have suddenly proved "no free will" by latching onto the obviously fashionable quantum gig isn't believable except to the rather gullible, maybe?

Regarding "funnies" I'm genuinely only trying to keep it light while arguing my p.o.v. reasonably forcefully. When I first met you here, I thought you were overwhelmingly patronising and conceited, so much so that I investigated to find out who you actually were. Later on, maybe as we got to know each other a little, you seemed to change and become more generally pleasant, especially when I mentioned what my son was doing and tried to explain something of his PhD research. But you really take these things to heart too much. If you can find it in you to give way a little and to express some kind of understanding of opposed points of view, you'd be more persuasive, but you do give an impression of someone who cannot question his beliefs. I genuinely hope that you will be able in future to be more amenable to real discussion rather than laying down the law, Elroch. The way you conduct yourself seems strange in someone who can't make choices and who acts in a completely determined way with occasional, undirected, random sparks to keep people guessing or to maintain unpredictability. You believe that and yet you don't extend it to others and accept that they can't help themselves either. OK, so you take qualifications very, very seriously, which may be normal, given where you work. I just think that qualifications indicate a general level of attainment. Quite often, they don't mean that someone is likely to be right. In some circumstances, they can mean that someone is likely to be wrong. Perhaps you can work out why?

I have to go. It's someone's birthday. He's a Turk and one of the cleverest people I ever met. Maybe about the only person I ever met whom I thought might very possibly be smarter than me. Within two years of coming to this country as an engineering student he could do the very hardest crosswords in English in around 15 minutes. I lived with him for six or seven months and we were good friends. See you around.

it actually makes pretty good sense. ppl are trying to take control of their future by proacting instead of reacting. s/t both should be done (in a back-n-forth), right ? s/t neither (just wait)....i feel anywayz.

there is no true future cuz once u get there ur in the now. its just getting mistaken for hope/happiness. they say hope isnt an emotion. but they say happiness is. im ok w/ that.

I have found ppl confuze hope and happiness when they wonder about FW & D. i feel u hafta have a genius EIQ to fully u/s it. wish i wuz. know im not. feeling comfortably apathetic right now. lol in place a thots a tomorrow.

Two articles in Scientific American.

The first points out that scientists in the field of psychology generally view the behaviour of the brain with the materialist hypothesis in mind and reject the medieval notion of some external entity making decisions without being part of the physical processes. But the claim that they deny free will relies on a different definition to that of myself (and Conway and Kochen).

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/

The title here refers to something I realised a long while ago. Regardless of the nature of free will, it is very important that we all act as if free will exists in the way we think of it, because otherwise we feel powerless. This would be an error. For example suppose someone fails to eat because he is depressed at the idea that he does not have a genuine choice whether to eat or not. This person is (in a while) much worse off than a person who does not have such a defeatist attitude and chooses to eat as normal!

The second points out that readers of SciAm are 60% in favour of believing in free will. Unfortunately, there is little clarity about what precise definition they agree (and disagree) in.

There is an important general point here. Discussions of interest are about well defined concepts. Often we assume words and phrases do refer to a well defined concept, but often (eg in the case of "free will") the meaning of the phrase is unclear. As a result a discussion that refers to a phrase may not even be about a single well-defined concept and this makes the water very muddy.

See some viewpoints here close to mine, as well as others:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/talking-back/site-survey-shows-60-percent-think-free-will-exists-read-why/

When you're a genius, people don't understand you because they simply don't get it .... can't make the jumps you can, so they may think it's a fraud. From what you say, you seem bright enough but more importantly, you think in the right direction. Anyone who does that gets there. I wish you great happiness and contentment, now and in the future.

good luck in trying to u/s FW vs D using STEM.

Ghostess frequently proves the existence of randomness.

I will point out that physics implies the world is not deterministic. Therefore anyone who agrees the world is not deterministic is agreeing with me (and all the physicists) to some extent!

the randomness in the dice roll is the time u roll a two... for eample  1,4,3,5,2,6,1,2,4,3,5,6 is random.. but the amount of the same number is the same