My take is Elroch is yanking your chains with his dribble. Nobody actually believes that stuff ... come on really? He's gatcha going sideways. 

Whether or not True Randomness exists in nature - I've presented both views. My position has been is something is found to be truly random, than everything else must be so.

 Somethings are random and some things are not ? Sorry ... can't work that way.

It's story time..

Are “trustworthiness” and “integrity” bogus concepts?

I went into the bank awhile back to make a deposit, when a customer came in with a look of shock on his face.

He went to the teller and said, "Did you see that guy who just left? He kicked the door, and was cussing--is everything OK?" When he said this, the teller laughed.

"Oh, he does that all the time," she said, "it's just how he is. You get used to it--he's always the same."

What was interesting to me about this whole event was, if it had been a customer who was always polite and pleasant who'd started cussing and kicking the door, the bank personnel probably would have called the cops instead of laughing.

Why did they laugh? Because the guy was predictable. They knew what he was going to do, and would have thought something was wrong if he DIDN'T cuss and kick the door. In a strange way they could "trust" him.

I've written about this before, but it is such an important concept, I want to re-visit it today: I'll take "predictability" in a person over "trust" and "integrity" any day of the week.

Why? Because "trust" and "integrity" are two highly emotionally charged words, and everyone has a slightly different definition of what they mean... and that's where problems start.

What usually happens is this: two people get in a relationship with different definitions of "trust" or "integrity." One person does something they think is perfectly OK, the other thinks it's a violation of trust or integrity. They then classify the other as not being "trustworthy" (a very negative thing, something no one wants to be known as), and map that "untrustworthiness" into other areas of their life.

Every time they do something they don't like they build the "untrustworthy" image more and more, until a big blow up occurs, a blow up that was precipitated because two people had two different map/models of the world when it came to emotionally charged concepts.

Another problem with "integrity" and "trustworthiness" is, everyone thinks they have integrity and can be trusted... even the most hardened and ruthless of criminals. People love to impose their own "integrity map" on others because it makes them feel good.

It's not that "honesty" and "trustworthiness" are useless concepts--they are, and people in general can pretty much agree on what is and isn't dishonest. It's the specifics where they get into trouble, and the act of imposing their definition of trust/honesty on others that causes friction.

That's why I much prefer the concept of predictability--it's emotionally neutral, and lays the groundwork on how to deal with individual people. Instead of imposing your map on them, you elicit and observe theirs and deal with them based on observed, recurring behaviors.

Let me give you an example. Years ago, I had a girlfriend who was, shall we say, a bit dramatic. If there was no drama, she'd create it. But I noticed something interesting about her. If I performed a "show of strength" every three days, the drama would cease. If I went over three days, it would start up again.

So, I was stern with her every three days, and the drama went away. Why this worked I have no idea (and it's not something that applies to all women), but it did. She was predictable.

When you judge someone based on predictability, you can have relationships you could never have if you used trust/honesty as a measuring stick. Why? Because no one wants "dishonest" or "untrustworthy" people in their lives--makes you look like a fool. But when you use predictability you can spend time with people in
certain areas, and avoid them in others.

For example, I used to have a friend who I just could not bring around any woman I was interested in. He'd cut me off, try to date her, and do everything he could to talk me out of seeing her. Obviously not behavior I want in my life. But, he was also a funny, personable guy, and someone who was great to go to happy hour with the guys.

So, I simply saw him for happy hour, enjoyed his company and that was that. He was predictable in that area, and just as predictable when I brought a woman... so I didn't do that.

I had another friend who had a habit of flaking out about half the time we agreed to get together. But, he was good guy when we did get together, and I enjoyed hanging out with him. So, instead of getting rid of him, I always made plans that included other people and if he showed, great, if not I still had a good time. He was predictable, and I managed our relationship based on predictability.

Obviously this carries over in all areas of relating to women. All you need to do is determine if she's predictable, and spend time with her in the areas you can predict. When you quit worrying about if you can "trust" her, and start spending time with her based on predictable behavior, you quit worrying and your emotions around her are stable.

Stability of emotion leads to good decision making, and allows you to choose your outcomes with women. So, the next time you're with one you find attractive, stop asking, "can I trust her?" and start asking "is she predictable?" Things will go much better.

Yeah nobody believes in science and the scientific method. The whole world is ignorant.

i hope this makes sense : )

why do you pick up on him? there's nothing wrong with his statement.
are you 'truly' not understanding him, or is this an indication of manipulative and bully behavior?

as for yesterday.. and i'm not sure if i even want to go there, but..
i never questioned your qualifications or knowledge, so why did you list them? how do they relate to what i said?

king, i like your story.. you got me thinking ; )

I didn't pick on him, but I agree my response was too argumentative in character. I will try to express responses in a more positive way. A replacement for the above is:

Physics implies the existence of randomness that cannot be removed, but also the existence of (very close to) perfectly predictable phenomena (i.e. phenomena where the randomness is very tiny).

Clear opening for a third option!

Guinea pigs are actually very smart.  They have a complex language, they all know their names, and you can teach them commands.  That said, thank you for your kind words

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/there-is-no-randomness-only-chaos-and-complexity-c92f6dccd7ab

Deconstructing Randomness as Chaos and Entanglement in Disguise

Here’s a question the perhaps needs to be asked, but hasn’t been asked enough. What is randomness and where does it come from?

This is one scary place to venture in. We take for granted the randomness in our reality. We compensate for that randomness with probability theory. However, is randomness even real or is it just a figment of our lack of intelligence? That is, does what we describe as randomness just a substitute for our uncertainty about reality? Is randomness just a manifestation of something else?

What is the motivation for examining something seemingly as fundamental as the notion of randomness and ultimately probability? The motivation is that given Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has been a problem that is unsolved in decades of attempts, that we must at a minimum perform the due diligence to see if there are any flaws in the tools that we employ. I’ve written about the flaws of Bayesian inference. In this piece I will explore in greater detail our understanding of randomness and ultimately probability.

Physics implies the existence of randomness that cannot be removed, but also the existence of (very close to) perfectly predictable phenomena (i.e. phenomena where the randomness is very tiny). -Elroch

This will get you laughed out of the hall ! "phenomena where the randomness is very tiny" ?? 

Randomness is an abstract concept like infinity that exists only in concept and has no physical basis.

i liked your original comment better than the edited one. it seemed sincere.

now im not sure what you mean by this phenomena of very tiny. or how it relate to his statement?

A true fence sitter - "very close to perfectly predictable phenomena (i.e. phenomena where the randomness is very tiny".

In other words, it means whatever Elroch wants it to mean. A ready made explanation is at hand.

So - everything is near perfect, except for that tiny bit of randomness that exists?

Both were entirely sincere. The second is not directed at anyone in particular, nor refers to what anyone has said.

There is enormous uncertainty in every small quantum system (small total energy).

An example of what I meant by tiny is that the motion of the centres of mass of a (macroscopic) gravitational 2 body system (eg a couple of asteroids in a huge empty space) can be predicted with great precision, because the objects involved are very heavy (uncertainty in position is reciprocal to mass).

An example with (in principle) no uncertainty is the conservation of quantised charge. If a closed system has a fixed number of electron charges, it always will. However, in the real Universe there is interaction with the outside and one would have to avoid charge entering or exiting the region. This can be achieved with very high reliability in practice.

without getting into the details to avoid sideways..

are you claiming that you found a 'hole' in MWI that is not absolutely deterministic?

"Nesting" implies ordered, "Mutually supportive" implies at least one loop. So not sure what to make of it.

Not at all. It is quantum mechanics as a scientific theory of what happens in our observable world that is not deterministic. That is the scientific part of the MWI (which is an interpretation of QM which makes all the same predictions as the others, but has a different underlying model).

The only source of randomness appears to be the branching which we can consider to have happened to get us where we are

Perhaps a simple analogy will help one or two of the people who might read this. Imagine you have a kind of pyramid of symbols. The symbols in the n'th level have n binary characters.

Level 0 has the string ""

Below this string there are the two strings "0" and "1"

Below "0" there is "00" and "01". Below "1" is "10" and "11".

From then on, below every string there are the two strings with 0 and 1 appended, respectively.

This pyramid and the order you traverse it from the top is a very simplified analog of the Multiverse.  A real universe has a history which is a path down through the pyramid always going to one of the two strings below a string.

Physicists in one of these Universes (   for these physicists to actually exist, we clearly need more structure than this) find that at every stage the probability of 0 is 1/2 and the probability of 1 is a half. So physics in their Universe is non-deterministic. But in their Multiverse it is all deterministic - at every time, everything possible happens (in terms of bits being added to strings).

Ain't it Grand ... Everything possible happens ! Coming to a theater near you, sometime in a far off Galaxy, in another dimension, in another mind ...

Thanks to the holy bits and vibrating strings, a mathematical model tells us of the 10th dimension, or the 11th, depending on which Physicist suits your fancy.