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

Big deal? Penrose didn't fabricate the Penrose triangle; he and his psychiatrist-mathematician father popularised it. If you are to direct so much hatred to this glorious mathematical physicist, berate the necessary Swedish graphic artist, Reutersvärd. And good grief, the fruit in these impossible figures, you may be enticed to ask? Well, mathematicians are toiling away generating algorithms and formulas and the process of doing so has applications in computer vision. The Impossible Figure has applications in cognitive science. 

From your tone and language expressed, you may have a tendency to enjoy video games more than all the members combined on this forum. Consequently, I've rummaged my rucksack for a glorious game to play. Actually, my rucksack shouldn't proceed to exist due to your hatred toward impossible figures. Play Momument Valley, it's a nifty alternative to your hatred and video games.

hes the picasso of mathmeticians

nuff sed

Picasso of mathematical physicists

"You're either in, or you're out. right now..
Las Vegas ahh?"

you scared me.. i hear this while cogitating to cancel my coming trip to vegas! lol

"The holy grail of the fly and how the body interconnects with the mind and eventually emotions."

exactly.. bypassing consciousness has its advantages : )

here's a riddle that i cant make sense of..
they say that photons doesnt experience space nor time. iow, in their own frame of reference, they are created and absorbed instantly, as if they never even existed. but how is this possible?
to be clear.. i dont care for the mathematical explanation, nor the standard explanation of reference frames, time dilation, and such. instead, im trying to understand it in terms of human experience.

so again.. if this is true.. a photon leaves point A and arrive at point B instantly, while passing all the distance in between, regardless to the length of travel (not teleporting). so how is it possible?

It absolutely does not! You seem to be confusing two concepts that have scarcely any relationship.

True randomness is absolute unpredictability. Quantum physics provides unlimited examples of absolutely unpredictable future observations.

• If you take a vertically polarised photon, you cannot be sure if it will pass through a filter at 45 degrees to the vertical.
• If you hold an small particle at rest in the centre of a box containing a vacuum (with no gravity), and then release the forces holding it there, you can't predict which direction it will move to hit the wall of the box. (The reason is that constraining its position makes its momentum very uncertain).

Elroch - You make claim the two concepts have scarely anything in common ?

Oh ... how wrong you are ! 

If Planck's constant is decreased, the speed of light would increase.

Understanding the relationship between the two concepts and how they are related forms the foundation of A TOE.

You should know better. Mathematics has many examples of equations with Planks constant on one side and the constant for light on the other. Both are constants, both set limits, and upper and lower on the properties of the Universe. 

You say they have scarcely anything in common ? Well OK - so you'd similarly say the quantum world and the real world have nothing in common it seems. Maybe they don't and that's why unified theories appear unsolvable - but We know better.

"True randomness is absolute unpredictability. Quantum physics provides unlimited examples of absolutely unpredictable future observations". - Elroch

I dare say this is your own peculiar definition. Randomness really has nothing to do with the ability to predict events.

Examples of "future observations" ??? Now I know you've fallen out of your Rocker ! Quantum physics makes predictions, collapsing wave functions seem random ... 

but absolute ? Can't be proven.

Monthly Mind Benders - March

1. What do you get when you cross an agnostic, dyslexic and an insomniac?

2. Derive the formula for the De Broglie wavelength.

3. Deduce whether the following Aristotleian syllogism is valid.

Zeus is an immortal god. Quantum immortality saves Schrodinger's cat. Therefore, if we shrank Zeus down to the subatomic scale, Zeus would save the feline.

That's funny, coincidence has always had a timely sense of humor. ; )

I remember gittin held over in Sparks, NV back in the day. It was several days, but boy did I eat good. Can't remember how much I gambled though.

The machines are right in the next room to your dinner tables, if you get my drift.

For the past three years at least, I've been down to five bucks a week if you can believe it.

I'm one to keep score by the way, and I only broken that one once. : )

I seem to recall criticising your approach with the suggestion that a better definition of randomness might be "completely lacking pattern". I don't remember my exact words. Of course, that's an idealism. I accept that. In reality, patterns have to be recognised and the only way to recognise a pattern is through predictability, so unless I worded it differently, I do now accept that your definition, Elroch, is "more correct" than the one I attempted. I just realised suddenly, a minute ago. Now I'll listen to the video.

Sorry.

elroch: "True randomness is absolute unpredictability. Quantum physics provides unlimited examples of absolutely unpredictable future observations."

if you want to define true random in terms of unpredictability, its fine. but you'll have to forget about observations,  because it's a fallacy.  this sort of unpredictability stem from disruption in causality (if it even exist), and has nothing to do with observers. big difference

as for quantum, its not the physics that claim true randomness, its just some of the philosophical interpretations of it, and those are meaningless to the truth.
but because we already been thru that before, and i know that you understand this concept very well.  i'd like to ask you a personal question if you don't mind..

do you understand why? i mean.. why do you keep making false statements despite understanding very well that they are false?

Ultimately, mankind is forced into interpretations because we are trying to use ourselves to look at ourselves and to compare ourselves with. Or we are trying to use the universe to look at the universe and to compare it with the universe.

We can only do this by adopting as many different "positions" and by using as many different ways of looking at things as we can and comparing results. That's a general case and I can't be bothered to do the hard work to come up with a good example of that. Elroch is better at that than me.

yes and no. its hard for me to put it in words, but i'll try..

you can say.. "photon behavior is unpredictable for an observer". that is true.
but if you say.. "photon behave unpredictably regardless to an observer". that's a subjective opinion and may or may not hold true. like i said.. big difference.

and btw, i have no problem with subjective people such as yourself, it is not for me to decide who is right and whos wrong. but if you claim to be objective and then make subjective statements, thats just bad news.

as for interpretations.. they are only required when we dont know the truth. once we know the truth, they become obsolete. it is what it is, and thats all to it : )

My subject is philosophy rather than physics, although physics was always my best subject at school. I'm extremely interested in psychology and ideas about our minds, so I'm reasonably at home discussing subjectivity and objectivity.

I should like to tell you that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity, for a very good reason.

Things that exist are just things that exist .... no more and no less. We understand about some of them and we don't about others and all of our understanding is via our ability to make observations which can be interpreted as evidence, which is as concrete as possible.

Thus, objectivity is merely the procedures we try to use to make evidence concrete and reliable, by adopting various systematic methods. Objectivity doesn't exist in and of itself unless we choose to call existence "objectivity", but the problem there is that objectivity always implies subject and object .... that is, perception of an object by a subject, which we try to make as all-encompassing and as accurate as possible. Without our observations of existence or reality, there's nothing to be objective about. Ultimately, we can never disassociate our understanding of reality, of physics or whatever, from some, small degree of subjectivity and of course, we can confidently say that our assessment of some things has a large degree of subjectivity to it, such as music.

You make a fundamental mistake, because EVERY assessment of what truth is, is ultimately subjective, because it's performed through us, the subject, assessing the world, which is the object. Therefore it's incorrect to distinguish in absolute terms between what we consider "objective" and "subjective".

Do you follow me? This is my field of expertise. It doesn't make me any less "objective" than you but it does enable me to shed false expectations.

Watch out there's a Type 3.14 civilisation in the midst of the inexplicable. I believe the civilisation's been hoodwinking our thoughts and all irrationality. 

Why does the subject of synchronicity keep getting ignored in this thread?