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

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.

So now you're saying that all the matter in the universe didn't exist at the singularity, whereas earlier, you implied that it did. So which do you prefer and what was the mechanism that changed the "early history" to the one we all know and love?

<<There is no necessity that there is some point in space time which is before all others.>>

Would you say that there is a point in time that is before everything that came after it? You can call it space time if you prefer. The argument is still open as to whether there is a fundamental entity, space-time, or whether it's a concoction. I tend to incline to the latter alternative.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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. 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?

yes

The Big Bang is also outside science because science depends on incontrovertible and empirical evidence. So the BB is not science. It's about as scientific as .... someone we're not allowed to mention.

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).>>>

You've nailed it, as they say. I don't but I thought I would in this case, to show that I'm one of the people, not that I am; and yet I am one too.

Your sentence, which I just quoted, means closing ranks and defending the position. The alternative (how terrible!) is the thought of millions of scientist-hours.
Wasted.
Oops.

Never mind. As well as wasting trillions of hours which could be used more profitably in finding a better way to make baked beans, mankind has wars, over-breeds and overpopulates our World, the supportive ecosystem of which we're destroying. In the next century the population will be reduced by a few billion due to famine and disease and those that are left will be able to do it all again.

People are stupid .... even the clever ones, who can better hide their stupidity.

It hasn't had a singularity for nearly 50 years.>>

Are you saying that you're nearly 50 years old? It's all downhill now, you know. At 45 I could still play football for three hours. Now, 23 years later, I can barely crawl out of bed.

Son also got an MMath (1st) from Newcastle, and the physics bit was at St Andrews.  He once told me that he thinks physics PhDs are easy and hard, or "soft" and "useful". He thinks that a relatively average person can get a physics PhD if they're lucky with their assignment. He also thinks that the less able tend to be drawn to cosmology for the reason that it's much harder to get real evidence which will prove them wrong. So actually I got the impression he doesn't have too much respect for cosmologists.

There are two sources of apparent randomness. First is the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, with fundamentally non-deterministic randomness. For example, radioactive decay is a random process, even though the expected half-life emerges from many such events. Though Einstein protested, it appears that God does play dice. (Maybe someday a successful Planck-scale string theory will reveal some hidden deterministic mechanism underlying quantum randomness? Don't hold your breath -- you'd need an accelerator bigger than the solar system!)

Then there are non-linear dynamic systems with chaotic behavior, which are deterministic but nonetheless completely unpredictable. You can't really call them random because of their deterministic nature, being completely governed by known equations, but since every real-world input is known only to a limited precision, and since these systems display "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" (butterfly effect), they are effectively unpredictable, much the same as pseudo-random computer algorithms that produce numbers with statistical properties of randomness even though completely deterministic.

For example, a rock tumbling down a cliff is always governed by Newton's law, but because the detailed geometry of all the contact points cannot be precisely known, its path is rendered unpredictable as if random. Some water faucets drip at time-varying rates that are also unpredictable, even though governed by known equations. Essentially it's why we can't exactly solve a three-body problem in gravitation.

At human scale, chaotic physical systems seem to be everywhere -- most real-world objects have interacting parts that introduce non-linearity that usually gives rise to chaotic behavior in the mathematical sense. (The book to read is "Chaos" by Gleick.) = copied

Probability

 Fooled by Randomness is about probability, not in a mathematical way but as skepticism.

In this book probability is principally a branch of applied skepticism, not an engineering discipline. …

Probability is not a mere computation of odds on the dice or more complicated variants; it is the acceptance of the lack of certainty in our knowledge and the development of methods for dealing with our ignorance. Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability almost never presents itself as a mathematical problem or a brain teaser. Mother nature does not tell you how many holes there are on the roulette table , nor does she deliver problems in a textbook way (in the real world one has to guess the problem more than the solution).

“Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability almost never presents itself as a mathematical problem” which is fascinating given how we tend to solve problems. In decisions under uncertainty, I discussed how risk and uncertainty are different things, which creates two types of ignorance.

Most decisions are not risk-based, they are uncertainty-based and you either know you are ignorant or you have no idea you are ignorant. There is a big distinction between the two. Trust me, you’d rather know you are ignorant.

https://fs.blog/2015/02/fooled-by-randomness/

“Outside of textbooks and casinos, probability almost never presents itself as a mathematical problem”

Pure drivel! Firstly nature never presents itself as a mathematical problem, even in casinos. People have to find the right mathematics.

So many fields of human knowledge are filled with uncertainty that can only be modelled quantitatively using probability theory. In many, the probabilities are precisely determined by the mathematical models used (all of quantum mechanics, for example).

Moreover in other areas where there is, by contrast, no basis for a claim that a certain model is best, probability theory remains the basis of all reasoning about uncertainty. Of course it is always important to recognise when it is possible that a model is not the best. That's the reality of an inconvenient world.

Randomness exists solely in certain ones of us. We spread it unto the innocent masses with glee from our knowledge of the rising chaos it can affect! "What will happen? How will they respond?! Who knows!! Who cares?! Helterskelter... YEEEEEEE!"   

Q. which of the following illustrations of space time fabric is more accurate?
one has space time curve toward the object, and the other has the curvature wrapped around the object.

These pictures, however, suggest that space and time are three dimensional...
This, however, is clearly inaccurate as space and time are ALL-dimensional.