"unjust ?...lemme say it a little nicer"..
lol. the crises that we're experiencing with the nail salons shut is unjust : )
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Having discussed the issues of determinism and free will online for about 15 years, I think that those who support determinism are far less convincing, for a number of reasons.
lol. yea, you said that FW is a good reason by itself to dismiss determinism. but you have to admit that in the end of the day those discussions are subjective and comes down to "she said he said" type of thing.
thats not to say that your subjective view is wrong.. obviously one of you is right, or both are wrong. but both can not be right. if that makes sense.
Optimissed wrote:
I thought that one had already been answered sufficiently, Elroch.
maybe it was answered but never sufficiently. do you understand where he stands with that?
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch, its cool we could finally come to an agreement that the existence of true randomness and determinism is an open question that yet to be answered.
We haven't. I explained how to define the term in the strongest way that applies to our universe and pointed out that modern physics implies this type of randomness definitely exists. Those familiar with the physics will agree with this.
agreements by silence are actually an interesting topic by its own right
No, that sort of fallacy is just a convenient way for people like you to fool yourself. It seems to have been successful.
firstly.. it would be nice if you lose your narcissistic tone of voice .. just saying.
Not narcissistic. Just, with all due humility, possessing more knowledge and expertise.
secondly, agreement by silence is not a fallacy. it is a sort of dispute that modern courts address regularly.
That is such a sloppy analogy. It is perfectly reasonable for anyone not to have any time to respond to some petty forum on chess.com. There is no requirement to be here, nor any reason for it to be high on a list of priorities at all, never mind every week.
"we have 2 schools of reputable physicists. one claim true randomness exist. and the other reject it and claim absolute determinism. this is a fact, so lets stick to it and avoid irrelevant distractions.
consequently, because those expert physicists cant agree one way or another, any competent person without emotional attachment to the topic will agree that true randomness remain an open question."
That is not an accurate representation of the status of scientific knowledge. There are no (competent) physicists who believe that all events in the Universe could be predicted with enough information. Those events that cannot be predicted are truly random in the strongest sense possible in our Universe (which is the only one available).
youre basically telling me that you dont understand the first thing about narcissism, and the concept of agreement by silence. thats fine.
"we have 2 schools of reputable physicists. one claim true randomness exist. and the other reject it and claim absolute determinism. this is a fact, so lets stick to it and avoid irrelevant distractions.
consequently, because those expert physicists cant agree one way or another, any competent person without emotional attachment to the topic will agree that true randomness remain an open question."
That is not an accurate representation of the status of scientific knowledge. There are no (competent) physicists who believe that all events in the Universe could be predicted with enough information. Those events that cannot be predicted are truly random in the strongest sense possible in our Universe (which is the only one available).
but this is exactly the opposite of what MWI and its competent physicists say. they do believe that the universe behave in a precise and predictable manner with no true randomness involved.
note that this is not to be confused with the actual ability to predict events. that will always remain out of reach according to both interpretations.
or simply put..
its a fact that many competent physicists believe in determinism and dont believe in true randomness.
do you still want to dispute this fact?
0
#1587
Please ... get off that horse. It's dead.
You've been given the answer in multiple terms and examples. Not about to change after 40 years.
Get it ?
0
#1588
What is meant - for Elroch to concede your point, mountains will fall and the oceans will rise. In other words, absolute beliefs can never be compromised.
yea, but he keeps coming back with more nonsense, and hes very crafted in making it sound legit. i'll give him that ;o;
cookie monster....keeping u in my orbit. 
not sure yet.
HiHo u kill me .
Not narcissistic. Just, with all due humility, possessing more knowledge and expertise.
Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pattern of self-centered, arrogant thinking and behavior, a lack of empathy and consideration for other people, and an excessive need for admiration. Others often describe people with NPD as cocky, manipulative, selfish, patronizing, and demanding.
with all due humility ?...wu-wut ??...are u 4real ?
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
cookie monster....keeping u in my orbit. not sure yet.
Sorry?
ProfYoung wrote:
Interesting forum.
Yes indeed.
MustangMate wrote:
I argue that true randomness does exist.
Does this MEAN I believe in Determinism?
This is where you all make the CRUCIAL mistake -
Believing it must be either or.
I would say that if no randomness AND no free will then determinism.
I think randomness and free will exist.
DifferentialGalois wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
If you are to exclude the SS theory solely because of its inadequacy to elucidate the CMB, then that is unjust.
unjust ?...lemme say it a little nicer. its IGNORANT !!
Let me say it a tad bit nicer, since I am the creator of that post. It is nescient, too inchoate an idea, disrespectful, unacceptable and only acceptable for those who yearn for the creationist nonsense that the theological implications of the philosophical implications of the Big Bangers that loom over the cosmic theory of the Big Bang. (------ Great sentence structure.
It is nescient, too inchoate an idea>>>>
I used to think you could never have too much chocolate. Then high blood sugar followed by much more exercise and guilt feelings regarding chocolate.
Oh wait, you said inchoate.
Sillver1 wrote:
Having discussed the issues of determinism and free will online for about 15 years, I think that those who support determinism are far less convincing, for a number of reasons.
lol. yea, you said that FW is a good reason by itself to dismiss determinism. but you have to admit that in the end of the day those discussions are subjective and comes down to "she said he said" type of thing.
thats not to say that your subjective view is wrong.. obviously one of you is right, or both are wrong. but both can not be right. if that makes sense.
Ultimately, all discussions are subjective. I've heard it said that people who don't believe in determinism are fooling themselves but the truth is that people who don't understand that all our opinions are subjective are certainly doing so! Yes, there's evidence but we select it and interpret it.
0
#1599
Free will exists.
Regarding randomness and especially "true randomness" as generally understood, it does NOT exist.
I find it perplexing, why it's assumed the Two must go hand in hand. But then , just another example of "either or" - if things aren't one way they must be another; or if one thing exists something else must be of similar nature.
Sillver1 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I thought that one had already been answered sufficiently, Elroch.
maybe it was answered but never sufficiently. do you understand where he stands with that?
Yes, he's saying that there's overwhelming evidence that the fundamental fabric of the quantum universe is inextricably stochastic.
Too many big words there. When I start writing big words it means I'm too tired to use small ones. I'm going to bed.
Well, soon ....
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I'm just not in his equation.
No one has entertained the idea yet as to who or what the randomness is attached too.
I would assume people, but does everyone at the same time assume that? I doubt it.
One of the mistakes here is lumping everything under one big umbrella. For instance..
The randomness of snowflakes and leaves falling to the ground, would probably be different to that of a bird(s) flight, or the meanderings of an elk through the woods.
Take anything non human and analyze it's properties totally separate from that of the humans. (In randomness terms) That is for more perspective, that is sorely needed.