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

Sort:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola

wut if apparent randomness of the observed wuz actually due to randomness of the observer ?

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

iows, wut if its all in ur head & nature isnt random at all ? i mean history repeats itself, right ?

idk, maybe its just the song im listening to....nvm me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDLCSb8EIMk

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

w/e u do togi, dont start listening to me. no one else does.

Phylo-Beddo

i only read every post by the Goddess.

KingAxelson

The thread gets read by plenty of people that just won't bother to post in any event. That makes Lola a star, Henry the 8th I am.. everyone. So like as not, we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value.  

I just sip another glass of chard, waitin on my five lessons a week to re up. Wait, five lessons a week with platinum?

Erik.. fix that.

Elroch
Lightning148 wrote:
If you roll a dice 12 million times, then you would expect one side (such as 5) to appear around 2 million times, but not exactly 2 million times.

You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).

Elroch
Optimissed wrote:

There's no direct evidence that the CMB is a relic of the BB. It's an assumption.

The existence of the CMB can be deduced from the Big Bang Theory. It is an inevitable consequence of it. Crucially, it has the correct temperature (it is possible to calculate the initial temperature of the Universe at the time of last scattering, and the present temperature of the CMB can be deduced by allowing for the expansion over the intervening period).

I've no idea of what a time-varying universe would be. Perhaps when you use such names you could mention what they refer to?

Very simple. Early in its life the Universe was a hot plasma, then a hot gas, then galaxies and quasars formed until eventually the Universe is like it is today, with older galaxies and no quasars. Far from time-independent, as required by a steady state theory.

I would be grateful if you would do so because it's tedious for everyone who has to Google every three words. Thanks. Back in the day when I studied things like relativity I had the concentration and focus to understand the arguments from a BB perspective but I still think that the BB is fundamentally unlikely and that it's accepted because it's easiest to accept it for a number of reasons.

The point about the "near uniform expanding gas" refers just as much to intergalactic space and we don't know how large the universe is or how old it is if the BBT is incorrect, so although your criticism works IF the BB is true, it probably doesn't if it's false.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. We see a Universe that was uniform and hot very early on. That is what the CMB is. We don't see the lack of local uniformity that is the norm now (a sizeable fraction of the matter is "clumped" into galaxies).

Also, I tend to think that the topography of the universe gives similar mathematical results for some aspects of it that we're aware of, independently of some theory. I think perhaps it might be surprising how close results based on different assumptions about the universe would agree, since the universe is the basic shape it is, and so we have that and we have all the data on things we can actually see. Now, what I just wrote conflicts with the previous paragraph. I'm just throwing a few spanners around. Too tired at the moment to think well.


I told the story of Reginald Kapp not to push his idea so much as to illustrate randomness in a more or less interesting way, as part of a story. I'm not going to get into another argument about it. Goodnight.

You don't have to discuss the facts, but it is relevant to post them for balance.
 

 

Sillver1

"we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value."

nothing like a bird's view ; )

Sillver1

"if it ain't one thing, it's another
When you need someone to pull you out the bubble.." tongue.png

 

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).

wut are the chances that u'll reach parity at any time during the 12MM rolls ? math theory should be able to make s/t up. 

L148...why dont u try to roll it like 600 times and see wut happens ? or better, for all u math adherents ?...before u produce a probability # ? why dont YOU do a 600X's roll and report back to us ? might do u some good.   ::/

Thee_Ghostess_Lola
Sillver1 wrote:

"if it ain't one thing, it's another
When you need someone to pull you out the bubble.."

 

thx Hi Ho !...i absolutely luv the audience singing along ! they were sooo into it. damm wish i wuz there.

KingAxelson
Sillver1 wrote:

"we provide countless people we will never know a certain entertainment value."

nothing like a bird's view ; )

Gotta keep it real or live trying. Just had a funny thought.. What if you didn't know where your affectionate nickname came from?  

https://youtu.be/rZIqg0gBcYM

Elroch
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

You can also deduce that there is more than 95% chance of the number of 5's being between 1999000 and 2001000 (and similar statements for other probabilities).

wut are the chances that u'll reach parity at any time during the 12MM rolls ? math theory should be able to make s/t up. 

Simple: 100%. (This is a sort of random walk where there is a theorem that it returns to "parity" an infinite number of times, with probability 1. There is nothing "made up" about this, you can bet your house on it, as long as you have enough patience).

L148...why dont u try to roll it like 600 times and see wut happens ? or better, for all u math adherents ?...before u produce a probability # ? why dont YOU do a 600X's roll and report back to us ? might do u some good.   ::/

I have often done simulations throwing millions or billions of dice (or at least comparable random samples). However, calculated probabilities like the rough one I stated are general results that provide information about what will happen when you do this over and over again. An individual run might be worth doing but not anything close to be as informative.

The key result I used was that the variance of a sum of N identically distributed random variables is N times the variance of one of them.

The mean of the number of 5's in a roll of 1 die is of course 1/6

The variance of the number of 5's in a roll of 1 die is:

(1/6) * (1 - 1/6)**2  + (5/6) * (0 - 1/6) ** 2 = 0.139

This means the variance of the number of 5's in 12,000,000 die rolls is:

12,000,000 * 0.139

This means the standard deviation is the square root of this, which is about 1291.

The distribution of the number of 5's is very close to normal (by a well-known theorem), so 95% of the time the result is within 1291 of the average.

So my statement was rather rough - it has 1000 instead of 1291, which is really not good enough!

 

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

just learned s/t new...

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.

so from this def, doesnt this make scientific truth subjective as it depends on experience (empiricals) ?...and where do we cross the line into fact ?

Elroch

While science is the most reliable way to obtain information about the way the real world behaves, a philosopher of science can legitimately point out that no scientific result is ever 100% certain. But they can be very close.

Elroch
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

outta all the threads ive ever been on ?...this is definitely one a them.

Really like that comment!

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

ok. a fact is that there is this website. but thats not scientific, right ?

ok. heres another. 5 is a number. that seems like a fact, right ? but 5 is aparta math. its not aparta science.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola
Elroch wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

outta all the threads ive ever been on ?...this is definitely one a them.

Really like that comment!

it wuzza space odyssey

Elroch
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:

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.

enough with the obfuscation

I can be blamed for failing to make the point clear to you, but I cannot be (legitimately) blamed for not trying to be clear!  To be honest, I still can't see why that is not clear to you.

Let's make it a concrete example. The event is whether a photon will pass through a vertically polarised filter (call it "filter 2"). Assume all filters work perfectly for simplicity (real ones are not quite perfect).

In experiment 1, the photon has already passed through a vertically polarising filter, so we know it is vertically polarised. We can infer it will pass through filter 2, so the result is deterministic

In experiment 2, the photon has already passed through a filter at 45 degrees to the one of interest. Thus it has 50% chance of passing through filter 2. So the result is random.

 

Elroch
Abhinav0121 wrote:

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. 

I admire your desire to understand and your honesty.

It really depends on what your background is. Have you studied probability theory, the only consistent way to quantify randomness? If so that is useful. If not it would be worth finding an introductory material. (I am guessing you probably have done some).  The other most relevant thing is quantum theory, because it is the best example of where you find true randomness in the real world. While the subject itself is very technical, the key result which permeates the subject is that often there are observations you can make of a system where the result of the observation is fundamentally random and cannot be predicted for certain (a lot of the subject relates to working out the probabilities of specific results when you make specific observations).

A great site for introductory material on a lot of subjects (including probability theory, quantum physics, entropy and randomness in different contexts) is Khan Academy. If it suits you, I suggest you search the site for different relevant phrases and wander around at your leisure. As well as searching without signing up, you can sign up for free which will give some advantages.