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

Sort:
Avatar of Optimissed
Twpsyn wrote:

How was Einstein wrong?

He believed determinism  .... "no dice games".

Avatar of Optimissed

Amazing coincidences happen all the time — but are they simply the product of random chance>>>

They can be. Or they can be the product of the law of "like attracts like".

Avatar of Twpsyn

Maybe, maybe not!  Quantum mechanics as far as we can tell up to now is not deterministic.  But perhaps in some subtle yet unknown way it is.  In my thinking it would be dull if we could exactly determine our future by thoroughly examining our present.  However despite life being non deterministic from our perception it doesn’t mean there is no plan.  Also in a macroscopic sense often things can be determined to a known measure of accuracy.

like attracts like...  you mean for instance magnets?

Avatar of Optimissed

Yes, I suppose so. Except that with magnetism, opposite poles attract.

But, if I get to know a person on Chess.com, I learn to recognise the flavour of how that person thinks. If I can duplicate that flavour, then very often that person will feel it. But it only works when people accept it can happen. Otherwise, things like that are blocked. It's what is known as magical thinking.

In the past I was a member of many groups on Facebook, full of people arguing about respective types of indoctrination.  One set of people blocks synchronous thoughts for all the "right" reasons and the other set encourages them possibly for the wrong ones. One set of people is luckier than the other but the other is more intellectually correct. I see myself as lucky in general, touch wood.

Avatar of Twpsyn

Interesting... https://www.spirit.research.yale.edu/

They might be interested in hearing your story.  I came across them because I’ve been diagnosed with schizophrenia and trust me it’s harder than you think to get that as an official diagnosis, because it’s a more severe mental health diagnosis.

Avatar of Optimissed

I tend to suspect that most academic groups that are looking at parapsychology or whatever tend to be negative and inward-looking. Most spiritual groups that try to focus on helping others become "mentally well" stick with their fixed opinions and methods touted by their "leader" and they don't like to reassess.

I'll do something at some stage. My wife's a psychologist and counsellor, as in psychotherapist. I also know some well-qualified people who doubt the entire structure of "mental health" focussing on "schizophrenia", which probably doesn't exist to the extent it is portrayed as existing, but once people are undergoing treatment then they're likely to be mentally ill for life, fixed into it by being fed drugs, which cut off the person from an awareness of what's happening in their minds and therefore from any ability to come to terms with it.

Avatar of Optimissed

Btw  I'm not recommending giving up any drugs a person may have been prescribed, Twpsyn, because of course they allow a safe plateau to be achieved where damaging actions and thoughts become much less likely or possible, whereas stopping taking them all at once, especially not while under close supervision, is going to completely destabilise a person who is used to their steadying influence.

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive
Optimissed wrote:
Twpsyn wrote:

How was Einstein wrong?

He believed determinism  .... "no dice games".

For all the things Einstein got wrong ...

He nailed "no dice games" squarely on it's head.

 

Avatar of Twpsyn

Again interesting...  if schizophrenia is what I had for about a year then let me assure you with all honesty it does exist.  Did I experience auditory and visual experiences that changed the whole perception of my reality?  Yes.  Am I on antipsychotic medication that seem to alleviate my symptoms to the extent that I can live the semblance of a normal life?  Yes.  Have I also been given CBT to help me come to terms with and manage my illness?  Yes.  

Those well-qualified people should have come to see me around two to three years ago and I’d have convinced them for sure happy.png

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive
Optimissed wrote:

Btw  I'm not recommending giving up any drugs a person may have been prescribed, Twpsyn, because of course they allow a safe plateau to be achieved where damaging actions and thoughts become much less likely or possible, whereas stopping taking them all at once, especially not while under close supervision, is going to completely destabilise a person who is used to their steadying influence.

Heart medications are especially a back and forth proposition.

Added are side effects. 

such as - Tinnitus

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive

Tinnitus has been a malady since time began. Almost seems random, (but 30 Million afflicted), only speculation to it's nature. Snake oil the only cure. You can be deaf, and be so inflicted.

Avatar of Optimissed

I don't even understand why people take paracetamol for coronavirus. If it doesn't help the disease but only treats the symptoms, which aren't severe, don't do it.

Avatar of Sillver1

elroch: "Observation is merely the general process of acquiring information from the Universe. It does not need to involve any observers. For example if a photon meets a polarising filter this observes its polarisation whether or not anyone ever sees the result."

that doesnt help either, because it puts you in the Copenhagen camp and outside of objectivity.

Avatar of Sillver1

opti: "to take Silver's position, for a minute, perhaps he really meant "interference in causality" Thus, causality would still be the decisive factor linking all events"

thats right. but its not my position, its the standard Copenhagen position. (wave function collapse cause true randomness)
unfortunately this is just one subjective interpretation and may turn to be false.

the objective truth is that according to current knowledge we have no way to determine if true randomness actually exist.

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

he hazza serious problem w/ objectivity. so makes sense.

Avatar of Thee_Ghostess_Lola

and twippy ?....i'll say my version of prayers 4u tonite. unless u tell me no.

stay healthy. L,L happy.png

Avatar of Sillver1

will you say one for me too? pretty please happy.png

Avatar of Twpsyn
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

and twippy ?....i'll say my version of prayers 4u tonite. unless u tell me no.

stay healthy. L,L

 

Thank you Ghostess, that’s very kind of you.  I think we all need each other’s thoughts and prayers at this time.  This is the first time someone from a different faith has asked to pray for me.  I’ve never given any credence to the ecumenical movement in the past and am firmly of the opinion that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all”.  In all seriousness it’s a difficult question for me.  Let’s make a deal:  I’ll pray for you and you can pray for me.  It can be our little Mount Carmel experiment happy.png.

Avatar of KingAxelson

Avatar of MustangMate-inactive
Sillver1 wrote:

opti: "to take Silver's position, for a minute, perhaps he really meant "interference in causality" Thus, causality would still be the decisive factor linking all events"

thats right. but its not my position, its the standard Copenhagen position. (wave function collapse cause true randomness)
unfortunately this is just one subjective interpretation and may turn to be false.

the objective truth is that according to current knowledge we have no way to determine if true randomness actually exist.

It's not that "current knowledge" is unable make a determination of it's existence - no future knowledge can bring us any closer to Scientific certainty. The more answers we find, the more questions arise. We observe new events, make new measurements, scientific inquiry never ceases. It's not in the business to answer such a question, but rather to report.