"If pattern prediction is impossible then so is pattern recognition and therefore we have a series of events which are not distinguishable from truly random events."
it may work as a 'catch all definition' but i think that its very important to distinguish TR from apparent randomness because they are 2 different things, and mixing them together is nothing but trouble.
Humpty sat on a fence, thinking there is no way to know. Humpty won’t ever fall off, being the unknowing elephant.
Errors in logic are most prevalent.
On principle, if one event were to be truly random, logically others will follow. Over the course of time these random events multiply exponentially. By now the Cosmos would be in chaos unable to maintain stability. If the possibility exists for truly random events to occur reality would not be.
Stuff is the way it is- ordered.
No getting around or about, it’s truly that simple.
It’s called disorder. And once it starts only further disorder ensues. Any school boy can tell us. No. No. If random events occurred, nature is not selective and certainly can not be restrictive.
How can you distinguish them? If there's no way to do so then to all intents and purposes we have true randomness.
yes, i get that part now. but why is it difficult to exclude general randomness? how about something simplistic along the line..
"an event without predetermined results"
randomness would be a off topic thing popping right out of nowhere.
Thus is really a simple matter. Whether or not something/anything is predetermined is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the event is random.
Far too simplistic is the notion that randomness and uncertainty share the same corner.
because true randomness is an abstract idea
physics gurus have tried he!!abunches to quantify consciousness w no real success (ive watched enuf YT to know lol !). sooo...dont we hafta treat our hot little pursuita TR (vectoring SA particles in S-T) apart from the abstract of thought ? i mean arent we dealing w two diff curiosos here ?
and mixing them together is nothing but trouble (AR vs TR).
making me thinka that one math theory rebuttal where it doesnt exist until we discover it (consciousness). then its here and we cant unwind it (for better or for worse). or wuz it always there waiting for us to find it ? OR did we hafta create it for it to exist ?
sadly, the intellectuals go into greater and greater levels of complexity because the can never see the simple truth of something.
On principle, if one event were to be truly random, logically others will follow. Over the course of time these random events multiply exponentially.
No, not exponentially.
By now the Cosmos would be in chaos unable to maintain stability.
I am sure you would agree that's a guess (perhaps based on the incorrect assumption of exponentially increasing entropy (disorder, randomness). The truth is that the Universe is still a very long way from maximum entropy. For one thing most of the nuclear fuel has not yet been burnt. As it happens, even after all the nuclear fuel is burnt it will still be a very long way from maximum entropy because gravity provides greater potential for increasing entropy (under normal circumstances, black holes are the highest entropy state). And beyond this, after the Universe cools to very low temperatures, there is an even higher entropy state where black holes can evaporate to low frequency photons. It is when the Universe reaches this state - like the CMB but much colder - that it will be "chaos". This is many trillions of years away.
If the possibility exists for truly random events to occur reality would not be.
They occur all the time, in vast numbers. It's a fact.
Determination has absolutely nothing to do about randomness.
Determinism (note the word) is the exact opposite of randomness.
Suppose some event is going to happen and the result could be 0 or 1. If there is no way of knowing which it will be, the event is random. If the result is certain to be 0, the event is deterministic.
How can you distinguish them? If there's no way to do so then to all intents and purposes we have true randomness.
I would say you are interpreting "true randomness" as what is normally just called "randomness" by people working in this area. It means fundamental unpredictability. For example, while a pseudorandom number generator might appear random, the outputs can be predicted entirely reliably by someone who has knowledge of the algorithm. More subtly, they can also be predicted by someone who took some position on what algorithms might be used and observed a large number of examples to work out what the algorithm might be. (See note at the end of this post)
This is the sort of thing that is eliminated as a possibility for quantum randomness by Bell's experiments.
While it is important to be clear about from what viewpoint something is to be assessed as random, the distinction between my suggested definition of "true randomness" and your more established notion of randomness is not as important as the distinction between randomness and pseudorandomness.
Note: there is an interesting theoretical result that there is a single artificial intelligence algorithm that, if you present it with a sequence of bits generated by ANY program, will eventually work out how to predict the bits with 100% accuracy and do so from then on.
Out of all the threads on chess.com that I don't understand, this one is my absolute favourite. I always come in with curiosity, and leave with a tad bit knowledge of physics. I really can't decipher what is being said all the time, but I try my best.
Can you please recommend a Youtube channel or any other site that might help me understand what you guys are sayin' ... Just a little something to get me started.
All well and good .... creation and design hold a different image for everyone. But they really are not part of this topic.
Does true randomness exist?
Perhaps a creator created the cosmos complete with any set of physical laws. Doesn’t matter nor does it address the question
True randomness is the question. Not observation of random events.
Can an event occur that is lacking any previous effect? - My definition which does not make any reference to causes or origins.
A question may become can a given atom one day behave differently under exact same conditions?
The answer is No. Of course not. Direct observation becomes misleading. But conditions are never repeated are they?