Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% ) - Chess Forums - Page 82

Uke8 · 2019-10-19T13:59:37-07:00

Note: by “true randomness” I mean randomness that would not be produced by any deterministic process. Oct. 19. 2019 Original opening: 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? an

MustangMate-inactive

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1621

Elroch wrote:

In our Universe there are many binary possibilities which we know will be resolved one way or the other but cannot know which. A simple example is transmission through a polarising filter.

Completely true. This is easily agreed to.

What is not recognized, is that the phenomenon is example of true randomness.

Citing "we do not know" as supporting evidence ... have to look up that - a logic principle perhaps?

Optimissed

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1622

ProfYoung wrote:

KingAxelson wrote:

Addressed to the dear professor by the way..

Huh. I was anticipating someone to address me as a professor. Perhaps you did not investigate the possibility that I may not be a professor? I presume you would have, but may have thought it somewhat blunt to question my status.

If I were a decent professor (decent personality-wise), would I include in my chess.com username of all things my status as a professor? Or would I likely abstain from displaying my professor title and merely restricting my username to be simplistic, something like InsolentIgnoramus or CoolCherry?

If I were a sensible professor, would I include irrelevant posts on a forum in chess.com? Or would I wish to preserve my status as a professor and go about the case appropriately. Indeed, there have been some inane professors (I won't name any that particularly stood out), but why would they go to the chess.com forum which contains a compendium of academic remarks and what not? Surely they would be inane enough to completely infest the forums with quirky remarks?

I have not, so presumably I am not inane to an extreme degree.

And here's one last thing to ponder before I leave:

If I were a professor, would I invest copious time into writing this on a chess.com (of all places) forum?

It didn't occur to me that you are not a professor. If it had occurred, I should have banished the thought as irreverent. Having said that, don't you think that there's a strong overlap between the meanings of the words "irreverent" and "irrelevant"? I should like to have the opinion of a famous professor on that. I feel I know you are a famous professor masquerading as a lesser professor. After all, we intellectuals wouldn't wish to be thought overbearing, would we?

Incidentally, may I compliment you on your writing, which seems as though you may have attended the GhostessLola School of Communication Studies in the Gilbert and Sullivan Islands in the Pacific??

Optimissed

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1623

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

and guilt feelings regarding chocolate.

uhhh, we needta talk

P.M. me. 10 cents per hour, payable to Lucy, Charlie Brown Psychotherapy Practice.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1624

lemme think

(u really want that curse ?)

KingAxelson

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1625

And I was thinking there were piggyback rides in his future.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1626

like up on the roof ? lol !

KingAxelson

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1627

Well, I did visualizeI a sucker hanging out of his mouth and hearing the words 'gidy up' in the background somewhere.. Might of been mistaken.

Optimissed

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1628

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

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.

howzit gonna help ?....do u feel imprisoned if its all deterministic ?....are ur exonerated if ur emotions 'force' u do s/t u end up regretting later ? i mean if it makes one happy to feel controlled then fine. i know no one lives in my body (some try few succeed lol !) and i feel better off witha mixa both FW-D. but then ive warmed up2the lead-follow thing. and really ?....i get kinda touchy suspicious when it swings one way too far. yee !

u mean in converse ispose ..... i mean uhav determ .... if uanme jump outta window 7 floors up .... descent is gonna be determined in a down direct .... an u hav randoms like a wasp upsets car rider who freax an distracs driver who looks wrong way just at second other guy hasa blowout .... an then u hav free will stuf sum think is crazy as if u make ur mind up and do ur thing of ur own volition an some ppl freak about that .... i think is real but thats just me ..... i think our minds isolate from cause/effect enuf to do it ..... but not all time an maybe sum timz or sum ppl moran others .... im just sori ur in divergent isles or wherever .... we cud have real convo like this .... bout chocolate ....

ProfYoung

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1629

Optimissed wrote:

ProfYoung wrote:

KingAxelson wrote:

Addressed to the dear professor by the way..

Huh. I was anticipating someone to address me as a professor. Perhaps you did not investigate the possibility that I may not be a professor? I presume you would have, but may have thought it somewhat blunt to question my status.

If I were a decent professor (decent personality-wise), would I include in my chess.com username of all things my status as a professor? Or would I likely abstain from displaying my professor title and merely restricting my username to be simplistic, something like InsolentIgnoramus or CoolCherry?

If I were a sensible professor, would I include irrelevant posts on a forum in chess.com? Or would I wish to preserve my status as a professor and go about the case appropriately. Indeed, there have been some inane professors (I won't name any that particularly stood out), but why would they go to the chess.com forum which contains a compendium of academic remarks and what not? Surely they would be inane enough to completely infest the forums with quirky remarks?

I have not, so presumably I am not inane to an extreme degree.

And here's one last thing to ponder before I leave:

If I were a professor, would I invest copious time into writing this on a chess.com (of all places) forum?

It didn't occur to me that you are not a professor. If it had occurred, I should have banished the thought as irreverent. Having said that, don't you think that there's a strong overlap between the meanings of the words "irreverent" and "irrelevant"? I should like to have the opinion of a famous professor on that. I feel I know you are a famous professor masquerading as a lesser professor. After all, we intellectuals wouldn't wish to be thought overbearing, would we?

Incidentally, may I compliment you on your writing, which seems as though you may have attended the GhostessLola School of Communication Studies in the Gilbert and Sullivan Islands in the Pacific??

Well, those two words can go hand in hand, I suppose, with irreverent and irrelevant humour. Some top notch jokes can be found below:

https://comedian.com.au/25-irreverent-and-irrelevant-jokes/

I'm by no means a well known professor.

But might I compliment you on your satire; the last sentence had me chuckle for several minutes on end.

Elroch

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1630

zborg wrote:

Or thee Ghostess's fingernails for that matter.

What will be in the next ghostess post is a mystery to all people.

Elroch

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1631

MustangMate wrote:

Elroch wrote:

In our Universe there are many binary possibilities which we know will be resolved one way or the other but cannot know which. A simple example is transmission through a polarising filter.

Completely true. This is easily agreed to.

What is not recognized, is that the phenomenon is example of true randomness.

And what is your definition of "true randomness"?

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1632

if i can cut in here ?....pleez ? and not to attack u Elroch as i probably do too mucha that as it is. but....

why do u push so hard to hinge things on definition ? i mean wut if s/o said im not sure exactly how to say it but i sure know it when i feel it. im mean shouldnt that sit just fine ? it wood me. u know treating it outside a science. as science may not be able to fully capture its essence. iows wut if its bigger than science ?

Optimissed

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1633

zborg wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Randomness is incomplete knowledge. Modern physics says knowledge is ALWAYS incomplete. This answers the title question.

The typical answer for most binary choices is "both."

"There is no such thing as non-discursive access to truth." (Richard Rorty)

"Words Make the World." (Stanley Fish)

I have respect for Rorty but he's wrong on that.

Optimissed

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1634

Although truth relates to accounts of states of affairs which are in accordance with them, we (humans) don't only think in words and in fact our normal thinking tends not to be verbal. It's a typical attitude in academia though .... my favourite philosophy tutor, Dr Mike Fuller, thought we can't get away from words but obviously we can't by talking ourselves away from them.

MustangMate-inactive

Apr 25, 2020

0

#1635

Elroch wrote:

MustangMate wrote:

Elroch wrote:

In our Universe there are many binary possibilities which we know will be resolved one way or the other but cannot know which. A simple example is transmission through a polarising filter.

Completely true. This is easily agreed to.

What is not recognized, is that the phenomenon is example of true randomness.

And what is your definition of "true randomness"?

Should have read: the phenomenon is not example of true randomness.

Anyway- UC it's not about that to begin with. Everything is connected, some things have greater effect than others. A traditional definition includes ideas of identifying causes - but this ultimately gets bogged down with Origins, which can never be known.

Things are happening, and will happen not because of any prior Determinism, and not because of things happening randomly - but because everything effects everything else - to some degree or other. It's a matter of discovering what, how great or small observed influences are - Dependent Origination

Which is not the same as discovering/knowing cause.

Elroch

Apr 26, 2020

0

#1636

MustangMate wrote:

Elroch wrote:

MustangMate wrote:

Elroch wrote:

In our Universe there are many binary possibilities which we know will be resolved one way or the other but cannot know which. A simple example is transmission through a polarising filter.

Completely true. This is easily agreed to.

What is not recognized, is that the phenomenon is example of true randomness.

And what is your definition of "true randomness"?

Should have read: the phenomenon is not example of true randomness.

Anyway- UC it's not about that to begin with. Everything is connected, some things have greater effect than others. A traditional definition includes ideas of identifying causes - but this ultimately gets bogged down with Origins, which can never be known.

Things are happening, and will happen not because of any prior Determinism, and not because of things happening randomly - but because everything effects everything else - to some degree or other. It's a matter of discovering what, how great or small observed influences are - Dependent Origination

Which is not the same as discovering/knowing cause.

We still need to know what definition of "true randomness" you are using. It can be yours or someone else's but without one statements involving this phrase are meaningless. Deflecting the issue does not deal with it.

MustangMate-inactive

Apr 26, 2020

0

#1637

Randomness is a convenient model to describe certain phenomena. There are deeper truths hidden. We view reality through a lens of perception and the models we build are wonderfully useful metaphors for it. But much like a map is not the territory it represents our models are not reality. - summary

True randomness suggests we are unable to associate past events with current observations, not now not ever. Randomness ultimately gets bogged down, at the end of the line, with the natural, final question of Origin- (1st cause). It's assumed if no cause can be found, something must be random by nature. Such discussions reflect world views, rarely based in scientific measurement.

An ordered, interconnected universe does not mean ID or matter behaves in a deterministic manner. Just as we have free will, so does matter. Understanding the cosmos as it is, how it operates defines science. Randomness is abstract thinking, metaphors that make for models. They are never complete mirrors.

In an abstract sense we can conceive of a truely random series but as soon as we try to make one we can't break it out of determinism. Even our best random number generators are deterministic.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Apr 26, 2020

0

#1638

u mean in converse ispose ..... (abuncha stuff) .... we cud have real convo like this .... bout chocolate ....

uhh......huh ???

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

Apr 26, 2020

0

#1639

Everything is connected, some things have greater effect than others.

but because everything effects everything else - to some degree or other.

ohh so seemingly true !

which probably means that our thots or actions (tho we dont needa conscious thot for a action right ? (blink blink)) have some typa affect on our U....as teensie as it may be. that part we first hafta agree upon. if u dont agree w/ me then im gonna...uh nvm. i mean if u dont ? then ur flying very light and very low into the face of Hurricane Entropy. Cat 6. lol ! which im fine w/. but u better be well-versed. tho embarrassment shood be painless when resting comfortably anonymous.

and if we can agree human thot is random until proven o/w ?....then yee ! we have it...right ?

***

iows, the definition of 'communications form' is relative....restricting the whole notion of doing so (not that we shoodnt try....just keep it lobolly frontal ). as our thots/actions are not only kinda societal-based but all brains are not only 'not created equal' but all are flawed w/ some level of illness. except mine. [take that back....esp MINE ! burst !!}

and to add to the whole thing ? brains are running around loose and unbridled from pop-up right-side activity. layering randomness...and then layering it some more.

isnt it fun ?!

Sillver1

Apr 26, 2020

0

#1640

your way or the highway type o thing eh? lol. one way to combine D &FW is metaphysics..

Quote: "Metaphysical arguments on this issue are not currently very popular. But philosophical fashions change at least twice a century, and grand systemic metaphysics of the Leibnizian sort might one day come back into favor. Conversely, the anti-systemic, anti-fundamentalist metaphysics propounded by Cartwright (1999) might also come to predominate. As likely as not, for the foreseeable future metaphysical argument may be just as good a basis on which to discuss determinism's prospects as any arguments from mathematics or physics."

the prawn also said something similar i think..

"Free Will+Determinism -----) Signalling"