https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/there-is-no-randomness-only-chaos-and-complexity-c92f6dccd7ab
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Feb 13, 2020
0
#742
Feb 13, 2020
0
#744
im fascinated by mad scientists !!
now. Onward....to the edge of chaos !
Feb 13, 2020
0
#748
https://curiosity.com/topics/why-computers-can-never-generate-truly-random-numbers-curiosity/
Modern computers can do some pretty amazing things. So why can't they do something as simple as simulating a dice roll? It all comes down to the way computers are programmed. Computers follow algorithms, which are essentially just lists of instructions on how to carry out tasks. They're slaves to their instructions, so they're completely predictable. Still, engineers are pretty savvy, and they've come up with a few different ways to make computers generate something very close to random numbers, even if they can't generate true randomness.
Feb 13, 2020
0
#749
If true randomness existed at any time, perhaps it was at the Big Bang, if that's your cup of tea. Since then everything is ordered. If true randomness ever came into being, the universe would have ended long ago.
Bye 'til next week so....
Happy Valentine's Day Everyone !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCDvINm0Vo
Feb 14, 2020
0
#751
MustangMate wrote:
If true randomness existed at any time, perhaps it was at the Big Bang, if that's your cup of tea. Since then everything is ordered. If true randomness ever came into being, the universe would have ended long ago.
Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that there was less randomness at the Big Bang than at any time since then!
Feb 14, 2020
0
#753
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
If true randomness existed at any time, perhaps it was at the Big Bang, if that's your cup of tea. Since then everything is ordered. If true randomness ever came into being, the universe would have ended long ago.
Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that there was less randomness at the Big Bang than at any time since then!
Repeat "the Big Bang does not exist" 7 times.
There is no question that the Big Bang exists - as a time when everything we see now in the observable Universe arose from a tiny, rapidly expanding, extremely hot, and nearly uniform state. This is a matter of inference from facts including the visible state of the Universe as it was 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when it first became transparent.
Indeed these days it is generally agreed that the emergence of this extremely hot, dense and rapidly expanding state from a period of cosmological inflation is also a reliable conclusion, based on successful quantitative predictions from this hypothesis.
If you want to redefine "Big Bang" to require something else, you can reject the existence of that something else, but pretty much every cosmologist uses the term Big Bang for the above picture and accepts it as true.
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
If true randomness existed at any time, perhaps it was at the Big Bang, if that's your cup of tea. Since then everything is ordered. If true randomness ever came into being, the universe would have ended long ago.
Well, the second law of thermodynamics says that there was less randomness at the Big Bang than at any time since then!
mustang talk about true randomness, and elroch talk about general randomness.
the difference between these two concepts already discussed here in details. so instead, i want to talk about Contextomy. lol.
quote: "Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning"
another quote:"Contextomies may be either intentional or accidental if someone misunderstands the meaning.."
Feb 14, 2020
0
#755
Optimissed wrote:
Define the Big Bang, please. Nothing you have written there indicates exactly what you think the "Big Bang" is.
Do you genuinely think that at the moment of the Big Bang, all the matter at present in the universe existed in that tiny point?
The Big Bang is the early history of the Universe, back to the epoch of cosmological inflation. There is no "moment of the Big Bang" in this picture, nor (with inflation) is it clear that one exists. Note that time is not an absolute anyway, rather it is a partial order on space-time and events. There is no necessity that there is some point in space time which is before all others.
Quantum gravity seems to inevitably smear points to something less clear at the highest energies/temperatures/temporal resolutions, but with the (fairly) modern idea of inflation, the temperatures at which that is key never quite get reached (at a somewhat lower, but still stupendously high, temperature inflation kicks in.
Feb 14, 2020
0
#756
Optimissed wrote:
Do you genuinely think that at the moment of the Big Bang, all the matter at present in the universe existed in that tiny point?
Ah, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity.
"Your evidence is moot because the conclusions they suggest are not intuitively true to me"
Feb 14, 2020
0
#757
Optimissed wrote:
llamonade2 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Do you genuinely think that at the moment of the Big Bang, all the matter at present in the universe existed in that tiny point?
Ah, the good ol' argument from personal incredulity.
"Your evidence is moot because the conclusions they suggest are not intuitively true to me">>
If you understood more than you do, I would be able to show you that the arguments that led to the adoption of the intuitively ridiculous BIg Bang hypothesis are rendered incorrect or, if you prefer, inapplicable or "moot" because a steady state factor is necessary to perpetuate acceleration. The original assumption was based on a sort of Occam's Razor or Parsimony of hypotheses, which no longer works since the BBT is accepted as not steady state but as a singularity and yet a steady state process is clearly necessary. Thus we need two divergent hypotheses and so the original motivation for the BBT is voided. Every intelligent cosmologist and physicist I've explained this to has accepted that what I say is correct. Only the ones who can't think well are in denial.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I don't know enough about cosmology to judge whether you or Elroch is making a more complete and earnest argument, but I know enough basic bits that what you said rings true... whether that's due to my general ignorance on the topic or not I have no idea.
Feb 14, 2020
0
#758
I have never said anything about a hypothetical singularity and there are very good reasons for believing it does not exist. Firstly it is a classical extrapolation that ignores the fact that classical physics cannot be extended past the Planck scale, and secondly, it is now pretty clear that the Big Bang enters an inflationary phase rather than continuing like it does at later times, The hypothetical singularity only existed in cosmological models before the 1970s (and only those that assumed the Universe was finite).
Feb 14, 2020
0
#759
IIRC Elroch, you don't like to go "all the way" back. You only go back to just before the bang.
Whatever that means, I dunno.
But the moment of, and especially before, the big bang, we can't ever get data on it, so it's outside of science.
Is that accurate?
Feb 14, 2020
0
#760
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
I have never said anything about a hypothetical singularity and there are very good reasons for believing it does not exist. Firstly it is a classical extrapolation that ignores the fact that classical physics cannot be extended past the Planck scale, and secondly, it is now pretty clear that the Big Bang enters an inflationary phase rather than continuing like it does at later times, The hypothetical singularity only existed in cosmological models before the 1970s (and only those that assumed the Universe was finite).
A "singularity" refers to a point, considered unique and hence "singular", at which the hitherto prevailing normality is broken by a new factor, which appears.
A singularity is a mathematical concept. It happens to be one which does not feasibly correspond precisely to anything in the real world (including the greatest extremes). The Planck scale alone precludes this.
If you go for continuous creation, which I accept as the most likely hypothesis, then either this CC began or did not begin. If it began, that would be the "singularity". If you go for a Big Bang, the point at which the BB happens is the so-called singularity.
I really don't know the context in which the inflationary epoch exists. Nor does anyone else. Many speculative ideas have been expanded. The Big Bang describes what happens in the early Universe. It hasn't had a singularity for nearly 50 years.
Space-time is very likely an emergent phenomenon, thus even the notion of "before" or "earlier" probably breaks down in the very early Universe. It is likely that at ground level, stuff just exists without time, and time is an illusion we perceive as part of this static truth.
There is nothing that can beat clear thinking. No amount of belief in the prognostications of mathematicians who don't believe in the necessity to understand what their calculations might really mean can beat it. As you know, my son's a mathematician. He was considered to be top class by others in the same physics PhD class.
I have a first in maths and an MMath from Cambridge (England), and a lot of knowledge and experience gathered since then. I focused mainly on analysis at University, but have done a lot of work on computational modelling of physics.
He agreed with what I'm trying to say after thinking about it for a day or two, and that's because he can think for himself. I have also convinced some others but the ones who come across as not that bright are rarely willing to take it seriously. You, Elroch, are an anomaly because in my opinion, you come across as bright. But perhaps too trusting of your peers?
Your son surely respects many well-known cosmologists, physicists and mathematicians and accepts the validity of accepted scientific knowledge (and recognises the status of that which is not, such as more speculative ideas).
That which the large majority of a field believe should not be rejected without exceptional reason (the sort of thing that would convince many others).
only dead fish go with the flow ; )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSSPDwAQLXs