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

Thought it was KA who was worried about it? It's just a typical type of scientific wisdom that tends to be put out by people who want to be noticed, but it's completely meaningless, so they're trying to look clever.

The universe is the most efficient way that the information needed to replicate it can be portrayed.

Well, you now very well that I know very well that you're not that stupid, after all

Worried? Lol, heck no. lol..

Oh, I needed that. lol.

P2P !!....thx4coming over !!...a/w izzit just me or does a/o else feel that this so-called BB (if ever) wuz an interruption to an o/w peaceful thing ? cuz s/t's i feel i wooda been better off. owell....u only live twice.

Only twice, that's right. After that you have to recharge the battery. I mean as long as you're not living in the 46th century when things have got to get better and the batteries recharge themselves,  of course.

first, im happy that you finally talk about determinism and true randomness in terms of disturbing causality, instead of meaningless lack of knowledge for an observer. its a step in the right direction..
second, im disappointed that even after showing you the undeniable truth from an objective point of view, you still try to sell your beliefs as if they hold an objective truth.

as for the center of the U, fish & chips and such? maybe later. but for now its a tri tip sandwich with horseradish : )

Just watched a strangely shortened version of From Russia With Love.

Now I've read your feet .... a tall, dark stranger will come into your life ..... your instinctive side presides over your rational side, which is also quite strong but sometimes you ignore it ......

Randomness doesn't actually average out. If you toss a coin a huge number of times, the proportion of heads will converge to a proportion (ideally 1/2) but it will not be precise at any finite number of tosses.

And some systems amplify quantum uncertainty to large scale. For example the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment. Regardless whether you believe there is ever a superimposed dead and alive cat (there isn't for technical reasons - the conditions needed would require freezing the cat), what you can be sure of is that the death of a cat executed by a random quantum mechanical trigger is itself random.

There are many more important, natural examples of the amplification of quantum uncertainty. For example, pretty much any branch of evolution (there is direct evidence for the randomness in the path of evolution from the Lenstra experiment). The nature of humans is partly the result of random molecular events overy prehistory.

Randomness doesn't actually average out. If you toss a coin a huge number of times, the proportion of heads will converge to a proportion (ideally 1/2) but it will not be precise at any finite number of tosses.>>

That's exactly what people mean by "averaging out".

<<For example the Schroedinger's cat thought experiment.>>

I thought it is understood that S. was making fun of "many worlds".

<<The nature of humans is partly the result of random molecular events over prehistory.>>

I don't go along with that. There are combinations that "work" and those that don't and evolution can be seen as a filter for those that work. Why I'm not universally recognised as a genius beats me. Maybe it'll be a late-in-life event?

I suppose the question is "was Schrodinger mad" in that "did he actually believe the literal reality of the Nobel Prize work he performed" or was he sane enough to realise that his results were rather amusing? Equally, I suppose, regarding those who take the many worlds interpretation literally, are they mad or gullible? In fact, is gullibility a specialised or focussed madness and conversely, can madness be a generalised gullibility? I would say yes, in that people who are considered "mad" basically cannot critically evaluate their perceptions.

What is "over prehistory"?  If it's perceived that molecular events are random, then human nature is effected, but it's going to be effected in any case. 

I lean more towards madness. Easy to be gullible about such fantasy, ask Isaac Asimov, the greatest short strory writer on themes as the multi-verse. Entertain fantasy and perhaps allow a certain amount of gullibility, but to whole-heatedly believe that other worlds exist besides this one - is mad, sheer madness !

In general, the problem encountered by Elroch and others is that metaphorical language is used to explain mathematical results and then people go and take the metaphors literally. It's necessary to understand what is happening. Some kind of formal training in philosophy is absolutely necessary for scientists who want to try to interpret theoretical results.

So we get the ridiculous themes of there being literally many universes or, maybe less contentiously, space being really curved instead of understanding that is a depiction of the tendency of massive or energetic objects to accelerate according to gravitational forces.

The truth is that it's hard to get away from the idea of the ether but what is it and how does it work? So the idea of curved space-time is invented to help the human mind grasp the concepts involved, pictorially. Elroch believes that general relativity means that metaphoric language must be accepted as literally true, because "it may explain it".

Yes it is, when it is understood that they think an infinite number of universes exist, just so that randomness apparently needn't occur. It is insanity because it defies the fundamental principles of science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Status_Civilization
Did you ever read any Robert Sheckley? I read this more or less when it was published. Also liked Clifford Simak's Way Station and many others.

Really appallingly badly written plot summary.  Also, do not read it ... it gives the story away.

Not only there is no other universes but there is no other planet as well.  Obvious  nowadays. For example the lady (below) from another planet who was shipped from some other alien proto existing non-quantic and pseudo relativist time zone outside of  what we know nonetheless rightfully protesting for climate change --so to speak-- while  knowing very well what this movement toward ecological counsciousness is about.