He(the author of the forum)asked me to delete the random fish.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Dec 3, 2019
0
#143
Statistics consists of the practical methods used to analyse random processes in the real world, including both their deterministic and random parts (and the theoretical mathematics used to justify those methods). Probability theory is essentially a branch of pure mathematics based on certain sets of axioms, which has key applications in statistics.
It is a very interesting fact that the single mathematical theory has two quite distinct interpretation (i.e. "real world meanings") or applications - Bayesian statistics and Frequentist statistics. The meaning of the basic concept of a probability in the two interpretations is entirely distinct, even though both have the same purpose of modelling randomness.
Dec 3, 2019
0
#144
If you want proof that true randomness exists, play a game of chess with me before I've had a cup of coffee in the morning... 
KingAxelson wrote:
@ Silver I’ve never been to one of their seminars where they would address issues like that. It would certainly not be overlooked, that’s for sure, they want this to work. Also, I don’t think it has anything to do with a ‘utopian’ mindset. They want to build sustainable floating cities in international waters. Right now it’s more of a think tank in motion, and much more than a pipe dream.
Their about me page had something about moral imperatives, thats where i got the impression of utopia. i dont really know. its only the impression i got from few minutes into their page.
in any case, all that futuristic stuff is way cool and im happy you introduced me to their concept.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
I'm very aware that experiments prove that agents can never access complete information, but im not aware of any experiment that show that the information do not exist regardless to agents.
do you understand what i mean by that?
The part of the information in a quantum state which no agent can have access to is the absolutely random part. It's random to everything. It does exist - if it didn't there would not be absolute randomness.
(Note that the term "absolute randomness" is not standard, but I have made the meaning clear, and these things are almost always left implicit in discussions).
It is the experiments that violate Bell's inequality that prove that there is no possibility of recovering determinism - the randomness is absolute.
absolutely inaccessible for an agent? or just absolutely random regardless of any agents?
By agents, I am referring again in a slightly non-standard way to all possible physical information, Incidentally, I think the only thing that matters about what information is accessible to different agents is their relationship to any significant events (which fall into three categories - past, future and space-like). The simplest example is where to one agent some event is not in the past (imagine someone watching a coin about to be flipped) and to another it is in the past. Only the latter has access to the value of the coin flip. So agents to whom the flip is in the future or space-like, the value is random.
This might be better expressed with quantum measurements of spin or polarisation, which have two values like a coin flip.
That's much better! now i can finally take your opinion for face value without worrying about semantics and misunderstandings. you do believe that true random exit.
to be better understood... i dont use the terms 'opinion' and 'belief' to hint that you are wrong, I just use it to say that maybe youre not correct, if thats makes sense. subjectivity is always prone to errors and that one is just too enormous for me to overlook. i rather stay objective.
is that the main stream understanding within the physicists community?
Optimissed wrote:
Uke8 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Uke8 wrote:
statistically If you throw a dice 12 million times it will fall 2m times on each # right? so how exactly is this random? wouldn't you expect a random spread?
and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start? consulting with google was surly not a random decision, lol. here are my finding:
1.Math and the art of describing randomness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dKvoa2ITw
2.When I’m bored I text a random number “I hid the body… now what”
3.I was talking to my friends and they said a random topic about cats and I’m like “Water you talking about”
4.Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it.
I'm confused!>>
Well, statistics and randomness aren't quite the same thing. However, there are some people .... we can call them "determinists" .... who believe that the entire universe is like a piece of clockwork and if we had the knowhow the entire future of the universe could be predicted from its present state. These people tend to believe that free will and randomness are both illusions. They might also believe things like free will being a necessary illusion to keep us happy because otherwise we would see no point to being alive, Another fallacy is the "chronology in reverse" idea, which roughly goes something like this: if we could imagine that everything has a cause, and all causes have causes and so forth, then this stream of causality proves that this and only this outcome could be reached, and so on forever.
Of course they have no empirical evidence for any of this and what's more, it isn't a logical outcome of the idea of causality, which only holds that some things are connected by cause and effect. It's a belief they hold .... a bit like a religious belief, in fact, and they believe their belief to be based on logic.
I think that not only genuine randomness but also free will exist.
to my understanding everything is connected by cause and effect. tell you what, i've already been there few pages ago, so i'll just copy/paste. its the most simplistic scenario i can think of if you want to share your thoughts.
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)>>
You've hit the nail right on the head. Indeed, that's exactly what we're discussing. I'm saying that there is no reason that everything should be the same. That's also what Elroch is saying and he's a physicist. Being a physicist doesn't automatically mean that people are right about everything related to physics. In a way, this is a bigger concept than physics but it's also hard to pin down, hard to find evidence either way. Elroch is saying that things will be different each time. My son is also a physicist but that doesn't mean he's right when he says he doesn't owe me £5 or that he's better looking than I was when I was his age, which of course are the really important things.
"I'm saying that there is no reason that everything should be the same"
will you elaborate please? are you saying that the particle in question will behave differently if you repeat the same scenario over and over? i.e. behaving absolutely randomly?
this is sure a good thread !
yes, true randomness exists, because everything that exists began in thought. (tuna)
luv this one. thx !!....does anyone here think our our feelings did too ?
Real random.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
this is sure a good thread !
yes, true randomness exists, because everything that exists began in thought. (tuna)
luv this one. thx !!....does anyone here think our our feelings did too ?
I would venture to say that feelings have always been a part of who we are. Not sure how much they may differ from emotions, but I am just going off random thought here. Anyway, feelings were once described to me as ‘A complex series of chemical reactions.’ I bought it as a good enough explanation as any. However, I believe that there is more to it than that, as they sometimes act independently of thought or stimuli. (I’m also talking about all the senses too.)
Here is an interesting sideline related to how we feel. I was glancing through a Tony Robbins book some time ago, when a random phrase caught my attention. This is not word for word now, but close.. ‘Most everything that we do, is to change the way that we feel.’ It’s a powerful statement, with a lot of levels to it. I think on it a lot, and here is a possible scenario I extracted from it. Let’s say that I want to take a natural mild sedative. So, if feelings follow thought, then all I have to do is bum myself out a little bit. Boom, I am now in a relaxed state, my breathing is easy and the nerves are gone.
addendum : I should probably say here that’s just me looking through a lens.
Dec 5, 2019
0
#153
Uke8 wrote:
statistically If you throw a dice 12 million times it will fall 2m times on each # right?
No, actually not. It is likely that the number of times it comes up 6 (or any other number) is NEAR 2,000,000. It is quite unlikely to be more than a few thousand away from 2,000,000. You can work out exactly how unlikely. For illustration, I have done your experiment 1,000 times (with perfect digital dice) and here is a graph of the number of 6s
You will see that it was usually within a couple of thousand of 2,000,000 sixes and very rarely more than 2004000 or less than 1996000. With a lot more than 1,000 runs you would get occasional runs getting results further than this from 2,000,000, with increasingly low probability. (The histogram counts results in ranges of about 1000)
The fact that the spread is quite small compared to the mean is related to the most important truth about randomness, the law of large numbers.
so how exactly is this random? wouldn't you expect a random spread?
See above graph! Probability theory tells you how random it is.
and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start? consulting with google was surly not a random decision, lol. here are my finding:
1.Math and the art of describing randomness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1dKvoa2ITw
ok. I am going to be a bit shocking here. The guy giving the video knows what he is talking about and is competent at dealing with randomness in his work like (as, with all due humility, I say I am). Despite this, his claim at the start is a little bit wrong. I will explain why.
We should think in a Bayesian way about whether a coin is biased. This is the interpretation of probability theory that is the only way to correctly quantify our beliefs about the real world. It is reasonable to believe that the behaviour of the coin is described by a Bernoulli model (fancy name, very simple model) with some unknown variable p which gives the probability of a head. If we know the coin is fair, p=0.5 with probability 1. If we don't know it is fair, there is some probability of p being something other than 0.5. For example if p=0, the coin always comes up tails. If p=0.55, it comes up heads 55 times out of 100 on average.
There is considerable flexibility in allocating this prior probability distribution, but what matters is that whatever (non-trivial) values you give them to start with, every toss of the coin provides you with information that allows you to revise them according to Bayes rule, the mechanical process by which Bayesian statistics allows you to learn from observations. By non-trivial, I mean you don't allocate all the probability in the same place, eg at 1/2, which would mean you start with certainty about the behaviour and observations cannot affect your belief.
Regardless of what you originally chose as the (non-trivial) probabilities, tossing 4 heads will increase the posterior (i.e. in light of observations) Bayesian probability of the coin being biased towards heads (and/or decrease its probability of being biased towards tails). It it started small, it will still be fairly small, but this very precise reasoning shows that it is entirely reasonable (indeed correct) to have slightly stronger belief that the coin is biased towards heads if you see nothing but a series of heads when you start flipping the coin. It would be incorrect and foolish to think it is definitely biased. It would also be incorrect to be as sure it is fair (except in the case where you were absolutely certain it was fair to start with, so the prior probability is all located at p=0.5 and this cannot change with evidence).
So the real message is don't overreact to small amounts of evidence, but don't ignore it either. If you want to react exactly the right amount, learn Bayesian probability (it's not hard).
addendum : I should probably say here that’s just me looking through a lens.
u sound kinda apologetic. not sure why. hopefully u don't think u hafta appease/explain2 the gen pop as to how u feel. they have their own issues they're dealing w/. lol !!
thought-reason follows feeling-emotion. its one a those inherent things. when we were babies we didn't really think (id level). better, event-interpretation-emotion. and yeah, there's a diff btwn F and E. w/ E's it really isn't a conscious thing. F's are. take being optimistic e.g. that's F-based. not E-based. or take excited. that's of course E-based.
anyway, contrary to what some ppl say, E's are pretty random. F's less so. the trick is to try not to let random external events govern ur E's too much. its bad for ur health. 
right tuna !....thats why the Evo'ists hafta be careful in what they argue for....lol !
Dec 5, 2019
0
#156
Actually, pseudorandomness suffices for evolution.
(Pseudorandomness is generated by a deterministic process that produces outputs that for almost all purposes behave as it they were random. The Mersenne Twister algorithm for generating random numbers is a significant example, used for providing random data for computer programs, including those that successfully use evolutionary algorithms. There the random numbers are used to do things like select which mutations occur).
Are you guys and gals all evolutionists? You know it doesn't make sense.
Dec 6, 2019
0
#158
So instead propose the existence of something infinitely complex without any explanation and it is easy to explain the emergence of finite complexity without hard work. No knowledge or expertise is needed to do this, which is surely a great advantage! The downside is that no useful understanding is gained, no capability for predicting anything. Or to put it simply, no progress.
Instead scientists respect Occam's razor and accept that hard work is necessary to explain the phenomena in our Universe - especially the most complex ones including life itself - and that this hard work on the details of how life works is necessary to gain useful understanding of the sort that dominates medical science.
Optimissed wrote:
"I'm saying that there is no reason that everything should be the same"
will you elaborate please? are you saying that the particle in question will behave differently if you repeat the same scenario over and over? i.e. behaving absolutely randomly?>>
You may think this is unlikely or impossible to happen, because you may see the universe as a collection of "parts" with no innate tendency to vary, but this is not necessarily so and indeed, quantum mechanics seems to indicate that it is not so. The problem is, of course, that it is impossible for you or for anyone to re-run the universe and to collect the data that would empirically show either of us to be right or wrong. But given that I think randomness exists then I would think that the universe is not determined in its future states.
First, i want to emphasize that the reason for my question was to understand you correctly, not to criticize you.
now, personally I like the idea of quantum fields.. and it say that each particle have its own field and as a whole they form the underlayment for all matter throughout the universe.
now i hate to sound like a crockpot, but try to keep an open mind... what if life itself or even consciousness has their own fields?
basically what im saying is that our knowledge about the world seem closer to zero than it is for being complete. way closer.
I dont have the time to keep yapping about it now, here's an introduction to Q fields... (can skip to 19: to get to the essence of it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg
I'm very aware that experiments prove that agents can never access complete information, but im not aware of any experiment that show that the information do not exist regardless to agents.
do you understand what i mean by that?
The part of the information in a quantum state which no agent can have access to is the absolutely random part. It's random to everything. It does exist - if it didn't there would not be absolute randomness.
(Note that the term "absolute randomness" is not standard, but I have made the meaning clear, and these things are almost always left implicit in discussions).
It is the experiments that violate Bell's inequality that prove that there is no possibility of recovering determinism - the randomness is absolute.
absolutely inaccessible for an agent? or just absolutely random regardless of any agents?
By agents, I am referring again in a slightly non-standard way to all possible physical information, Incidentally, I think the only thing that matters about what information is accessible to different agents is their relationship to any significant events (which fall into three categories - past, future and space-like). The simplest example is where to one agent some event is not in the past (imagine someone watching a coin about to be flipped) and to another it is in the past. Only the latter has access to the value of the coin flip. So agents to whom the flip is in the future or space-like, the value is random.
This might be better expressed with quantum measurements of spin or polarisation, which have two values like a coin flip.