Forums

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

Sort:
Uke8
Uke8
Nov 30, 2019
0
#101
Elroch wrote:

Yes. randomness is about what is (not) known, and quantum randomness is about the absolute limits on what can be known about a system.

We have problems accepting that there is no absolute reality, just one which is inherently uncertain.

you are not very clear... i'm guessing you mean that reality is inherently uncertain to us as humans? the real question im puzzled about is if reality itself is uncertain, not our knowledge about it.

Based on our normal intuition we would be much more comfortable with the idea that there is some definite truth and the randomness is merely the incompleteness of our knowledge of it, but that is not the case.

Same thing... what is the case than? our inability to gain knowledge about it, or you mean that there's actually no definite true to reality.

 

Uke8
Uke8
Nov 30, 2019
0
#102
KingAxelson wrote:

Uke, I’m curious now what prompted your interest in ‘Randomness’. Was it a random event(s)? I’ve seen random images in the clouds, certain wall textures, subliminal advertising etc.. (Disneys got a cute one). I would like to see a chart created, that shows a breakdown of where this anomaly begins, and where it ends. In your humble opinion, do you think that’s possible?

I just had a random digression with said clips.. Was not expecting that.

https://youtu.be/6vERCnJ-DLw

https://youtu.be/RG9TMn1FJzc

https://youtu.be/y6He0FWoFj0

https://youtu.be/kNV-kd_-IwM

 

I'm not sure what you mean by creating a chart. I enjoy very much to see all sort of random images within patterns, in fact i regularly exchange photos of such random images with a childhood friend mine.
he's a professional artist so he study these sort of things for his work. alot of it is a play of lights and shadows, but is also closely related to gestures (that's drawing something like a person with just a minimum amount of lines, and still deliver the movement of it. probably a terrible definition)

he have a really pristine imagination... recently i sent him a photo of a shadow from a tree on a staircase. asking... "do you the see the face?" his reply was... which one of them? i see a dozen. lol

heres a much better definition... copy/pasted

"A gesture drawing is basically a quick drawing that captures the essential gesture of a subject in its most distilled form. Gesture is everywhere, embodied in every object, person, and place. It is action, emotion, movement, and expression all rolled together into one cohesive motion"

 

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
Nov 30, 2019
0
#103
Uke8 wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Yes. randomness is about what is (not) known, and quantum randomness is about the absolute limits on what can be known about a system.

We have problems accepting that there is no absolute reality, just one which is inherently uncertain.

you are not very clear... i'm guessing you mean that reality is inherently uncertain to us as humans? the real question im puzzled about is if reality itself is uncertain, not our knowledge about it.

Based on our normal intuition we would be much more comfortable with the idea that there is some definite truth and the randomness is merely the incompleteness of our knowledge of it, but that is not the case.

Same thing... what is the case than? our inability to gain knowledge about it, or you mean that there's actually no definite true to reality.

That's right. At the fundamental level, the classical state of things (eg velocity and position, used throughout Newtonian mechanics) can never be definite. So using your wording, there is no definite truth about the classical state.

 

 

Uke8
Uke8
Nov 30, 2019
0
#104

"definite true" was your wording and it was my mistake to repeat it because its too ambiguous and im trying to be practical and decisive so lets drop it.
also lets drop Newtonian and try to simplify things by concentrating on just a single particle.

do you think that there's anything about what a single particle is doing that is truly random? in other words, will it behave the same way every time given causality condition are absolutely equal?

btw, you can chill, i'm fully aware that this is just your own opinion and by no means looking for some revelation here today

Sillver1
Sillver1
Nov 30, 2019
0
#105

Food of the future or food for thought?

I stumble upon a small startup company out of california that is reviving an old nasa idea. they want to scrub co2 from the air, feed it to a specialized bacteria, and then make protein as well as oils out of it. sound nasty at first but is really just very similar to beer production.
they didnt say when, where, or if they will start production but it looks very promising. meanwhile all they seem to do is registering patents.

I wonder if it makes financial sense. and if so why the big boys dont jump on such an opportunity.

https://www.airprotein.com/

the speaker in this clip is the founder and ceo.

KingAxelson
KingAxelson
Nov 30, 2019
0
#106
Uke8 wrote:
KingAxelson wrote:

Uke, I’m curious now what prompted your interest in ‘Randomness’. Was it a random event(s)? I’ve seen random images in the clouds, certain wall textures, subliminal advertising etc.. (Disneys got a cute one). I would like to see a chart created, that shows a breakdown of where this anomaly begins, and where it ends. In your humble opinion, do you think that’s possible?

I just had a random digression with said clips.. Was not expecting that.

https://youtu.be/6vERCnJ-DLw

https://youtu.be/RG9TMn1FJzc

https://youtu.be/y6He0FWoFj0

https://youtu.be/kNV-kd_-IwM

 

I'm not sure what you mean by creating a chart. I enjoy very much to see all sort of random images within patterns, in fact i regularly exchange photos of such random images with a childhood friend mine.
he's a professional artist so he study these sort of things for his work. alot of it is a play of lights and shadows, but is also closely related to gestures (that's drawing something like a person with just a minimum amount of lines, and still deliver the movement of it. probably a terrible definition)

he have a really pristine imagination... recently i sent him a photo of a shadow from a tree on a staircase. asking... "do you the see the face?" his reply was... which one of them? i see a dozen. lol

heres a much better definition... copy/pasted

"A gesture drawing is basically a quick drawing that captures the essential gesture of a subject in its most distilled form. Gesture is everywhere, embodied in every object, person, and place. It is action, emotion, movement, and expression all rolled together into one cohesive motion"

 

What a cool pastime, your very fortunate to have a friend like that. You remind me very much of a photo I should like to share with you and your friend. Believe it was a black and white, with a heightened awareness to it. Or a very subdued color photo, if you know what I mean. I will try and find it if I can. In any event, it is a living room with windows. The ‘artist’ challenges the viewer to find what he (she) has hidden on purpose..

https://youtu.be/B-Jq26BCwDs

KingAxelson
KingAxelson
Nov 30, 2019
0
#107

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
Dec 1, 2019
0
#108
Uke8 wrote:

"definite true" was your wording

With all due respect, it wasn't. I see your post where you used it and I have just searched all of the pages of this discussion to verify that I had not previously used it.

and it was my mistake to repeat it because its too ambiguous and im trying to be practical and decisive so lets drop it.
also lets drop Newtonian and try to simplify things by concentrating on just a single particle.

do you think that there's anything about what a single particle is doing that is truly random?

Yes, but it's not just a thought, it's one of the central conclusions of quantum mechanics.

in other words, will it behave the same way every time given causality condition are absolutely equal?

It won't. With a single particle, there is no way to set the starting conditions so that you can be sure exactly what the particle will do in the future. Here I am assuming the particle is free, when you can't know both its position and velocity, for example. If it is trapped, it may remain trapped (but will still necessarily have random oscillations that have randomness).

btw, you can chill, i'm fully aware that this is just your own opinion and by no means looking for some revelation here today

You will find my input very reliable. I happen to have done a very interesting course on randomness by a physicist which helped develop my understanding of randomness in different contexts. I also deal with randomness on a daily basis in my work.

 

Uke8
Uke8
Dec 1, 2019
0
#109
Elroch wrote:
Uke8 wrote:

"definite true" was your wording

With all due respect, it wasn't. I see your post where you used it and I have just searched all of the pages of this discussion to verify that I had not previously used it.

with all due respect, you are being sloppy. hint... #101

and it was my mistake to repeat it because its too ambiguous and im trying to be practical and decisive so lets drop it.
also lets drop Newtonian and try to simplify things by concentrating on just a single particle.

do you think that there's anything about what a single particle is doing that is truly random?

Yes,

its difficult to interpret what you mean by 'yes' because you kept arguing the semantics of true random.

but it's not just a thought, it's one of the central conclusions of quantum mechanics.

not sure if i understand you and i hate to bark at the wrong tree. qm is the most successful theory we have, nobody argue that. but the interpretations are arguable. thats just a fact.

in other words, will it behave the same way every time given causality condition are absolutely equal?

It won't. With a single particle, there is no way to set the starting conditions so that you can be sure exactly what the particle will do in the future. Here I am assuming the particle is free, when you can't know both its position and velocity, for example. If it is trapped, it may remain trapped (but will still necessarily have random oscillations that have randomness).

we are finally getting into a constructive conversation here. thank you!
to be decisive is important that we be on the exact same page, so let me try to simplify this even farther... imagine a universe with no life, no agents what so ever, just matter alone  (thats to say that we are not doing an experiment in a lab. its all natural and stripped to matter and laws of physics alone.)
now take just a single particle in a single moment. any state, anywhere, it doesnt matter. all that matter is what it is doing in the next moment (we are not a classic observers that interact with the particle, remember we dont exist so we surely have no influence, this is just hypothetical)
now hypothetically again... say you could move time back to the same moment (so to say that all the other particles in the universe as well as condition and preconditions are absolutely identical to the first scenario)

do you think that this particle may behave differently then the first time? (everything before this moment is absolutely identical. so causality is identical)

more clarification... we are not trying to calculate probabilities... we simply observing without influencing.

now please... if there's anything unclear in the scenario i attempt to describe... please clarify before you answer. its important we be on the same page or we just keep shredding water.

 

btw, you can chill, i'm fully aware that this is just your own opinion and by no means looking for some revelation here today

You will find my input very reliable. I happen to have done a very interesting course on randomness by a physicist which helped develop my understanding of randomness in different contexts. I also deal with randomness on a daily basis in my work.

I honestly respect and appreciate your knowledge about the topic, otherwise i wouldn't overlook your .... nvm : )

 

 

Uke8
Uke8
Dec 1, 2019
0
#110
KingAxelson wrote:

 


creepy! lol. but like you said yourself... it looks hidden and not random.
now let me give you an example of what i mean random... (its not an impressive example, just one that pop from your photo)

look at the same photo... see the gutter downspout in the patio outside? looking thru the window.. (right where it connect to the gutter) the sun reflect on it and makes it look like a little bird.
now this bird is not impressive enough that i'll bother to exchange, but if it had say a dark spot where the eye suppose to be, or maybe something else randomly contrasting it... that would be cool.
do you see what im talking about or do i sound like a nut job! lol

DavidNorman435
DavidNorman435
Dec 1, 2019
0
#111
This all is like saying "Is Water Wet"???
DavidNorman435
DavidNorman435
Dec 1, 2019
0
#112
Yes, but from a very scientific perspective, no.
DavidNorman435
DavidNorman435
Dec 1, 2019
0
#113
From a very broad view, yes, there is a way everything is random (even to explain why certain things happen), but from a specific and very scientific view, no. It's like rolling a dice. Some people know how to roll it just right in order to get what they want when they roll, but from just rolling, it's all about it's shape, the physics behind the roll and etc.
DavidNorman435
DavidNorman435
Dec 1, 2019
0
#114
And in that case, when no one is looking for a scientific answer, yes, so randomness is used as an excuse for the ignorant (no offense when i say that)
DavidNorman435
DavidNorman435
Dec 1, 2019
0
#115
Although, what y'all were talking about as quantum randomness, i have no clue, although it must follow a set of rules, even if we haven't gotten there yet to find them out.
Sillver1
Sillver1
Dec 2, 2019
0
#116

David435, Do you see anything creepy in the living room photo or do they just mess with us?

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
Dec 2, 2019
0
#117
Uke8 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Uke8 wrote:

"definite true" was your wording

With all due respect, it wasn't. I see your post where you used it and I have just searched all of the pages of this discussion to verify that I had not previously used it.

with all due respect, you are being sloppy. hint... #101

Stop being pointlessly argumentative. That post is AFTER the one where you used the phrase and doesn't use it. This point to be for acknowledging and moving on, not for digging a hole for yourself.

and it was my mistake to repeat it because its too ambiguous and im trying to be practical and decisive so lets drop it.
also lets drop Newtonian and try to simplify things by concentrating on just a single particle.

do you think that there's anything about what a single particle is doing that is truly random?

Yes,

its difficult to interpret what you mean by 'yes' because you kept arguing the semantics of true random.

but it's not just a thought, it's one of the central conclusions of quantum mechanics.

not sure if i understand you and i hate to bark at the wrong tree. qm is the most successful theory we have, nobody argue that. but the interpretations are arguable. thats just a fact.

in other words, will it behave the same way every time given causality condition are absolutely equal?

It won't. With a single particle, there is no way to set the starting conditions so that you can be sure exactly what the particle will do in the future. Here I am assuming the particle is free, when you can't know both its position and velocity, for example. If it is trapped, it may remain trapped (but will still necessarily have random oscillations that have randomness).

we are finally getting into a constructive conversation here. thank you!
to be decisive is important that we be on the exact same page, so let me try to simplify this even farther... imagine a universe with no life, no agents what so ever, just matter alone  (thats to say that we are not doing an experiment in a lab. its all natural and stripped to matter and laws of physics alone.)
now take just a single particle in a single moment. any state, anywhere, it doesnt matter. all that matter is what it is doing in the next moment (we are not a classic observers that interact with the particle, remember we dont exist so we surely have no influence, this is just hypothetical)
now hypothetically again... say you could move time back to the same moment (so to say that all the other particles in the universe as well as condition and preconditions are absolutely identical to the first scenario)

do you think that this particle may behave differently then the first time? (everything before this moment is absolutely identical. so causality is identical)

more clarification... we are not trying to calculate probabilities... we simply observing without influencing.

now please... if there's anything unclear in the scenario i attempt to describe... please clarify before you answer. its important we be on the same page or we just keep shredding water.

 

btw, you can chill, i'm fully aware that this is just your own opinion and by no means looking for some revelation here today

You will find my input very reliable. I happen to have done a very interesting course on randomness by a physicist which helped develop my understanding of randomness in different contexts. I also deal with randomness on a daily basis in my work.

I honestly respect and appreciate your knowledge about the topic, otherwise i wouldn't overlook your .... nvm : )

 

Hypotheticals like rewinding the Universe don't help, because they neither inform nor provide anything that can be tested. For understanding it is sensible to base understanding on the scientific method. An excellent choice may be experiments that test the phenomenon of entanglement. Since we cannot rewind the Universe, these experiments rely on being essentially reproducible (i.e. we keep everything that matters the same. To think of it another way, like in all science (and physics in particular) our knowledge is general enough to apply to similar things.

Anyhow the results of these Bell experiments individually are just 1s and 0s, but our predictive knowledge, based on quantum mechanics is of the form of probabilities. As you probably know the experiments show that there is no local hidden variable explanation of quantum mechanics. To put it another way, there is randomness unless causality itself is broken.

Note that without causality, any sort of conspiracy to produce experimental results is possible. All that you need is an agent outside of space and time that makes sure that the results are those that are implied by quantum mechanics in order to fool us that there is real randomness.

Since this and analogous examples mean that all of our knowledge of the Universe is based on causality being true, all physicists accept that that causality is correct and there is irreducible randomness in quantum behaviour - information that is a part of the entangled state but not localised and influences observations in a way which cannot be explained by information propagated in a causal way, or directly observable.

Mathematically there is an interesting intuitive idea here. Deterministic information is real numbers and bits (the 0/1 values of a polarisation observation say), while quantum states are inherently of a different form, using complex numbers and matrices. It is the irreversible process of a quantum state leading to an observations in many different ways that leads to the weird behaviour.

Jacqueline22
Jacqueline22
Dec 2, 2019
0
#118

the face behind the pillow at the left side cry.png

Sillver1
Sillver1
Dec 2, 2019
0
#119

thank you for the guiding hand, i mean eye. lol. creepy indeed

Sillver1
Sillver1
Dec 2, 2019
0
#120

Elroch, how about you just answer his question directly and sincerely instead of all that glibbery? its a perfectly suitable question for a casual thread such as this one.

there is no experiment whatsoever that prove any of this beyond and above any doubt. and if you want to argue that? there are endless of threads about it out there, here are just 2 quick picks... you can take it with them if you like

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/18586/deterministic-quantum-mechanics#18598

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/29364/does-true-randomness-actually-exist