Forums

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

Sort:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola
Thee_Ghostess_Lola
May 21, 2020
0
#1541

such as (excuse me for being outrageous) the original topic.

when i read this i totally lost it...hilarious !...a sincere thanx happy.png . made my morning !

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
May 21, 2020
0
#1542
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:

Constructive suggestion to everyone here (including me): don't discuss other participants at all, To be honest, it gives an infantile impression. Probably best not to discuss yourself either (it encourages the trolls). Discuss something else instead, such as (excuse me for being outrageous) the original topic.

Isn't that reasonable?

[snip for focus]

<<Intuitively, this observation might be random before it has happened but has lost its randomness after it happens>>

Here, you're actually using the concept of randomness incorrectly. That should be obvious. I don't know if it's something you wrote or something someone else did. Can you see what's wrong with it?

Not I can't. I think it should be clear that I am informally referring to the belief states about the observation, which are all the Bayesian viewpoint deals with.

Given that, this is a correct description of the way randomness applies to real events in the real world (this forum being about randomness in the real world).  Intuitively, for a coin toss, a belief state for this coin toss before it has occurred should incorporate randomness, a belief state for it after it has occurred can have no randomness. It's the simplest example of Bayesian inference (you get the result, you know the result whereas the prior was uncertain).

You might also think of it as the way the Copenhagen interpretation deals with change in information over time.  My sketch definition merely took care to adapt this to the actual relativistic world.

If there is some point I have missed please do clarify.

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 21, 2020
0
#1543
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:

"Regarding a definition of true randomness, this was indeed posted and repeated in the earlier discussion. I will post it again if you can't get it from someone who was more observant at the time."

go ahead..

Sure. Consider an observation which has a priori more than one possible value associated with it (eg whether a photon is vertically polarised.  Such an observation might occur when a photon hits a polarising filter). 

Intuitively, this observation might be random before it has happened but has lost its randomness after it happens, so our definition needs to avoid applying to the future of the event.  The very strongest degree of randomness in the event is that the outcome of the event is random to any point in space time that is not in the future of the event.

A precursor to this definition is a restricted definition of ordinary randomness. An observation somewhere in space-time is random to some other point in space-time if all of the information accessible to that second point in space time (i.e. everything in its past light cone) is inadequate to determine the value of that observation.

To be fully precise it is necessary to quantify randomness, which is the purpose of probability theory. All the above can be restated with quantified randomness, which is measured in bits.

For example, the result of a fair coin toss has more randomness than the result of one that comes down heads 75% of the time, but both have some randomness. To be more precise the fair coin has 1 bit of randomness, the biased coin only has just over 0.8 bits of randomness (The basic coin example is useful for clarifying the fact that the result of the event is random until you reach the future of the event, when it has lost its randomness).

For simple randomness, a classic way (18th century) to get intuition about the degree to which something is random is to imagine being able to bet on it. The degree to which it would be possible to profitably bet can be used to quantify the randomness. A random event (or truly random one if you like) providing odds that correspond to its probabilities is one that you can't make money on in any way by betting with those odds.

==============================================================

So, short version, I suggested a definition of true randomness of an event or observation as meaning that event was random even given the entirety of information accessible to points not in its future.

==============================================================

thats fine for a baseline. so lets test it against MW. are there any events in MW that lack the entirety of information?

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 21, 2020
0
#1544

"We had the best buds, suds, and seating."

suds? some fancy pants.. : )

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 21, 2020
0
#1545

"so on that, there is stuff that just wont be happening"

ouch tongue.png

Thee_Ghostess_Lola
Thee_Ghostess_Lola
May 22, 2020
0
#1546

i feel life is wonderful happy.png . just hadta get that one out.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola
Thee_Ghostess_Lola
May 22, 2020
0
#1547

...and wouldnt it be yucky if it was even so much as subconsciously predictable ?

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
May 22, 2020
0
#1548
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:

"Regarding a definition of true randomness, this was indeed posted and repeated in the earlier discussion. I will post it again if you can't get it from someone who was more observant at the time."

go ahead..

Sure. Consider an observation which has a priori more than one possible value associated with it (eg whether a photon is vertically polarised.  Such an observation might occur when a photon hits a polarising filter). 

Intuitively, this observation might be random before it has happened but has lost its randomness after it happens, so our definition needs to avoid applying to the future of the event.  The very strongest degree of randomness in the event is that the outcome of the event is random to any point in space time that is not in the future of the event.

A precursor to this definition is a restricted definition of ordinary randomness. An observation somewhere in space-time is random to some other point in space-time if all of the information accessible to that second point in space time (i.e. everything in its past light cone) is inadequate to determine the value of that observation.

To be fully precise it is necessary to quantify randomness, which is the purpose of probability theory. All the above can be restated with quantified randomness, which is measured in bits.

For example, the result of a fair coin toss has more randomness than the result of one that comes down heads 75% of the time, but both have some randomness. To be more precise the fair coin has 1 bit of randomness, the biased coin only has just over 0.8 bits of randomness (The basic coin example is useful for clarifying the fact that the result of the event is random until you reach the future of the event, when it has lost its randomness).

For simple randomness, a classic way (18th century) to get intuition about the degree to which something is random is to imagine being able to bet on it. The degree to which it would be possible to profitably bet can be used to quantify the randomness. A random event (or truly random one if you like) providing odds that correspond to its probabilities is one that you can't make money on in any way by betting with those odds.

==============================================================

So, short version, I suggested a definition of true randomness of an event or observation as meaning that event was random even given the entirety of information accessible to points not in its future.

==============================================================

thats fine for a baseline. so lets test it against MW. are there any events in MW that lack the entirety of information?

You don't need to go to the MWI to have the entirety of information on all events. Just include all points in space-time and everything is determined. This is why the definition above talks about the information available in a region of space-time that does not include the results of the event of interest.

In MWI you can happily say "I am going to now measure the polarisation of a photon. It will be vertical in one branch and horizontal in another", then do the experiment, find the result was vertical and say "see I was right", but there is nothing more impressive about this. The MWI proponent was no better able to predict the result of the experiment that would be observed. Indeed he cannot even prove that there is a second branch of the multiverse in which the result was different: this is a purely speculative claim without any way of testing it. Positing something additional that cannot in any way be checked to exist and claiming this changes the nature of physics is a misunderstanding of what the science of physics does. It deals with observations in the real world and models that allow us to predict those observations.

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 22, 2020
0
#1549

"You don't need to go to the MWI to have the entirety of information on all events. Just include all points in space-time and everything is determined. This is why the definition above talks about the information available in a region of space-time that does not include the event of interest."

not sure what you mean by 'everything is predetermined'. for face value it seem like determinism, but that isnt your pov. or is it?
and im not sure how regions that does not include the event itself relate to TR. won't they fall under ordinary randomness?

toxic_ness_main
toxic_ness_main
Closed: Inactive
May 22, 2020
0
#1550

i am randomness

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
May 22, 2020
0
#1551
Optimissed wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

(Optimissed wrote)
before it happens it's a possibility

<<azzit happens itsa event. right.

after it happens its data. right.

and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)

and what follows interpretation is feeling.>>

Yes maybe, whatever, but this is where Elroch and Silver have lost us. Elroch's being inconsistent in what he says

No, I don't believe so. You need to provide a clear example.

and obviously trying to impress by spouting jargon

Definitely not trying. If that is an incidental effect, so be it. If there is any "jargon" (terminology) that hasn't been explained, it is because I assumed a term would be familiar to those those most likely to read the post. If anyone can't understand a term after googling it, please ask.

and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed.

That amounts to trolling Sillver1, and thus likely to disrupt this discussion further. Why?

[I got bored after that, so I'll skip it]

 

KingAxelson
KingAxelson
May 22, 2020
0
#1552

Somehow I just don't see Silver lapping up anything..

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 22, 2020
0
#1553

opti: "and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed."

elroch: That amounts to trolling Sillver1, and thus likely to disrupt this discussion further"

lol. actually it amounts to bwite sarcasm mixed with a healthy amount of truth : )

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
May 23, 2020
0
#1554
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

(Optimissed wrote)
before it happens it's a possibility

<<azzit happens itsa event. right.

after it happens its data. right.

and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)

and what follows interpretation is feeling.>>

Yes maybe, whatever, but this is where Elroch and Silver have lost us. Elroch's being inconsistent in what he says

No, I don't believe so. You need to provide a clear example.>>

I don't *need to* and I think it's clear enough. For instance, you asked someone "who had been observant" to remind Silver of a definition and then you changed your mind and pretended that a completely different definition was in order.

The words were different, the definition was the exact same. I am surprised you did not see that.

Trouble is, it didn't work because it was completely self-referential.

Simply nonsense. Again, a surprising falsehood.

It was expressed in terms of independent concepts (such as space-time, an event with more than one outcome, information accessible from and prediction possible from specific points of view). I also pointed out the reliance on a simpler notion of randomness, and added something about that.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that you have to provide examples of randomness from physics

The topic is about randomness in the real world. Physics describes all of the fundamental behaviour of the real world.

which you're more familiar with than we are. It would be a lot better to refer to examples without that obscurantist effect, since the idea is to discuss in a way where it's clear you aren't just making things up. The fact is, sometimes I'm impressed by your accuracy but at others, there's no doubt that you make logical errors. I've been noticing that for years, literally.

Bear in mind the possibility that you yourself may be misunderstanding. This is not that unlikely. I am of course always willing to have what are believed to be errors in my reasoning pointed out, but as a Cambridge mathematician, it is uncommon for me to make errors of reasoning.
In a nutshell, you appear to be playing games.

Not in the slightest. Just trying to make the truth clearer in a non-competitive way.

and obviously trying to impress by spouting jargon

Definitely not trying. If that is an incidental effect, so be it. If there is any "jargon" (terminology) that hasn't been explained, it is because I assumed a term would be familiar to those those most likely to read the post. If anyone can't understand a term after googling it, please ask.

I think it's better to stop doing it.

and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed.

That amounts to trolling Sillver1, and thus likely to disrupt this discussion further. Why?

I'm criticising both of you but mainly you. I had thought you had altered the way you relate to others but you have definitely reverted to attempting to control the agenda and I was pointing it out. I had been upset because Lola was really gunning for you and I thought it was over the top but then, I hadn't been reading all the comments. I definitely think you deserve criticism.

[I got bored after that, so I'll skip it]

I probably came up with some specific and well-focussed criticism at that point. I think you should accept that "randomness" is an English word rather than a Physics word.

 

The discussion would be both less unpleasant and more productive if everyone stuck to discussing the facts in a specific, clear way. (Generalisations and vague claims about what people have said are equally suboptimal).

 

toxic_ness_main
toxic_ness_main
Closed: Inactive
May 23, 2020
0
#1555

yeet

 

toxic_ness_main
toxic_ness_main
Closed: Inactive
May 23, 2020
0
#1556
Optimissed wrote:
toxic_ness_main wrote:

yeet

 

yert

 

yoit

Elroch
Elroch
Show your flair!
May 24, 2020
0
#1557
Optimissed wrote:

In my opinion, you let your ego control you at a crucial time, when you had been the butt of quite a bit of scepticism and I tried to support you. Maybe it wasn't deliberate and you just can't help giving a bad impression and you really don't understand why people object but I'm far from the only one and I'm afraid I am very unimpressed. It may seem like nothing but it amounted to you trying to screw other people to regain control, and the control doesn't belong to you. I'm beginning to think Lola was right.

You have chosen to ignore my request to get back to discussing the facts in a productive manner for the sake of better understanding (my sole motivation from beginning to end).  I don't have any interest in your pissing contest or your projection of this mindset, so bye!

2bz
2bz
May 24, 2020
0
#1558

Sillver1
Sillver1
May 24, 2020
0
#1559

"You have chosen to ignore my request to get back to discussing the facts in a productive manner for the sake of better understanding (my sole motivation from beginning to end)."

you'll never get a better understanding unless you'll make a sincere and objective effort to do so.
surprise me..

 

im_not_new
im_not_new
May 24, 2020
0
#1560

The odds of being killed by a falling vending machine is 1 in 112 million!