Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
PPP
Feb 2, 2020
0
#642
Superstring theory is 10-dimensional, M-theory is 11-dimensional.
The mathematics related to this stuff is awe-inspiring.
No doubt. Perhaps not far off, it will be found God is a Mathematical Formula in disguise. Kidding aside, 10/11 dimensions is quite old, right? Haven't kept up much, lost my interest. That the smallest particles are but the same vibrating energy which manifests itself in differing forms, I can relate to. But this 10/11 dimensional stuff is so much ....
Tell me an infinite amount of dimensions exist ... and I might agree or call you nuts !
Feb 2, 2020
0
#643
Well, I know what it is. For the mathematics of string theory to be consistent, 10 or11 dimensions are required to make it all add up. The concept that vibrating strings make up nature is quite old, quite valid and intuition suggests the concept is likely true.
Feb 2, 2020
0
#644
In the teachings of the Kabbalah, from long past, 10 dimensions, vibrating strings (different terms used) we can see the beginnings present string theory.
Feb 2, 2020
0
#645
AngryChess45 wrote:
llamonade2 wrote:
Most seem to be below 15 or above 50. I'm stuck in the middle
Isn't the old people stereotype for scrabble?
It's not a stereotype because I think most people don't know about it, and I'm only counting people on the forums.
Forum-goers tend to be a lot younger or older than me, and that's not something I realized until I'd been here many years.
Feb 2, 2020
0
#646
And your perception is based solely on hearsay evidence. What people report in profile or reveal in private. Naturally, being astute goes the extra mile, distinguishing fact from fiction.
Optimissed wrote:
I can't believe that people are seriously arguing about the multiverse. It should be obvious that the multiverse is the grown-up equivalent of a child's construction set. I suppose you all just have to think about it some more and find a way to get an overview of what prompts mankind to come up with thoughts like that one. And then pretend to sanctify it with mathematical water.
seems like this wuz all started before there were legos. hafta do a date check. back later.
Feb 3, 2020
0
#649
MustangMate wrote:
Superstring theory is 10-dimensional, M-theory is 11-dimensional.
The mathematics related to this stuff is awe-inspiring.
No doubt. Perhaps not far off, it will be found God is a Mathematical Formula in disguise. Kidding aside, 10/11 dimensions is quite old, right?
Yes. That's the thing about truth (in this case mathematical truth, even though some of the detail remains a bit sketchy), it gets discovered then it remains there for ever.
Haven't kept up much, lost my interest. That the smallest particles are but the same vibrating energy which manifests itself in differing forms, I can relate to. But this 10/11 dimensional stuff is so much ....
That's a feature of the mathematics: there are very special mathematical objects that have certain properties, and that dimensionality is a key one. The precursor was the bosonic string theory that exists only in 26 dimensions (25 generalised spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension). The (less than obvious) reason for this (weird?) dimensionality is that the sum of the square integers up to 24 is the square of 70 - this is the only example of the sum of squares being another square! I could explain but John Baez is much better at this. But of course bosonic string theory has been cast aside because the 10 or 11 dimensional theories could explain all of physics including gravity rather than just part of it. I feel that such beautiful mathematics must have its place somewhere though, and I have fairly good record in terms of such guesses.
Tell me an infinite amount of dimensions exist ... and I might agree or call you nuts !
The best tested and most trusted theory of physics - quantum mechanics - is fundamentally an infinite dimensional theory in the elegant Hilbert space formulation. Finite dimensionality - including whatever TOE is true! - arises as an emergent phenomenon from this solid foundation, in a way which is beginning to be better understood.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch: "the choice of which branch you are in is random at every time branching occurs (which is all the time everywhere)."
the problem with this statement is that every time branching occurs you proceed to all of the branches. there is never a random choice.
That is true AT THE MULTIVERSE LEVEL.
However, all agents (take yourself as an example) see a SINGLE outcome of each event, not all of them.
To use a classical analogy, it's like if you toss a coin N times, what you observe (and afterwards can remember having observed) is a single sequence of N heads and tails, not a superposition of 2^N sequences of N heads and tails.
It is the information an agent receives that is random, not what happens in the (unobservable) multiverse.
this is an essential part of understanding this discussion and by no means nitpicking.
Nor is the above, which makes it science, by relating it to observations.
that is true at any level of branching (not just the top), and there's never a random choice. it is always the same monotonous process.
if you want to use a classic analogy of coins, that's fine. but you'll have to forget about flipping and sequences. the only thing worth talking about are possibilities.
for example.. you look at a coin and see 2 possibilities (but you never flip it). instead, you branch onto 2 equal copies. one take the head, the other take the tail, and you wave eachother goodbye to never meet again.
if you think of a dice, its the same thing.. you see 6 possibilities (you never throw the dice). instead, you branch onto 6 copies. each take a unique number and you walk your separate ways.
in other words, nothing is ever left for chance. and there's no randomness whatsoever in this interpretation. it is rigidly deterministic interpretation.
Randomness applies to the information that an agent experiences.
For example an agent is aware that a photon is about to interact with a polarising filter. In the multiverse there may be a branch where it passes through and another branch in which it doesn't, but to that agent he knows that in the future either one or the other has occurred, and this is random to that agent: he could not predict it. This matters to all observable behaviour.
youre too funny
Feb 3, 2020
0
#652
llamonade2 wrote:
Wait wait wait... they've made some real world physical connection with the monster group?
I would say it's more that the mathematics is closely related to the mathematics of string theory. So it is merely a potential physical connection. I feel it is too beautiful not to be true.
See the link above for some stuff that it tangentially related. Note that it also relates mathematics associated with number theory and the prime numbers (the Riemann zeta function, the modular function etc.) to these special mathematical objects like the Leech lattice, the Monster group, and string theory. Stuff from particle physics like Calabi-Yau manifolds - which explain the 10 dimensions of string theory - are in there somewhere as well.
In mathematics, monstrous moonshine, or moonshine theory, is the unexpected connection between the monster group M and modular functions, in particular, the j function. The term was coined by John Conway and Simon P. Norton in 1979.
AngryChess45 wrote:
I did an rng of 10 numbers from 1 to 1 million:
433186
409874
386666
907486
36007
888484
479279
59506
378362
480844
Average: 445969.4
using a 10% bell median, its 439k and change. so close. a 20%'er yields 428k+.
In the unlikely and near impossible scenario where you're able to control every natural part of the universe you could recreate a event where the result of the action would be obvious.
Exploring a question that was debated in the 17th century by scientists and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, and many others before and since, doctoral student Marcin Kapitaniak at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland and his co-authors created a sophisticated theoretical model of the die throw in three dimensions. They considered how the effects of gravity, air resistance, friction of the table, and other factors influence the outcome of the roll.
By that said, when you, as a example, throw a dice and get the needed number. Many different factors are responsible for the outcome. If you now where to recreate these factors and where to do it exact as before the outcome would be the same. It’s worth noting that there are so many factors to take in a count so in a practical point of view this scenario is pretty much impossible. But in theory, this it’s possible.
Thank for for recognizing Blaise. He truly wuz heaven sent.
....and Blaise ?....if ur reading ?....and I know u are....i will luvyu 4eva 
. Lola LB
did u see lucy?
xAmalia_chess wrote:
In the unlikely and near impossible scenario where you're able to control every natural part of the universe you could recreate a event where the result of the action would be obvious.
Exploring a question that was debated in the 17th century by scientists and mathematicians Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat, and many others before and since, doctoral student Marcin Kapitaniak at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland and his co-authors created a sophisticated theoretical model of the die throw in three dimensions. They considered how the effects of gravity, air resistance, friction of the table, and other factors influence the outcome of the roll.
By that said, when you, as a example, throw a dice and get the needed number. Many different factors are responsible for the outcome. If you now where to recreate these factors and where to do it exact as before the outcome would be the same. It’s worth noting that there are so many factors to take in a count so in a practical point of view this scenario is pretty much impossible. But in theory, this it’s possible. >>
That must be why I once saw someone throw seven triple sixes in a row.