Elroch - The next time A. C. C. does a sequel you should audition for the part HAL. You’re a natural.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
May 31, 2020
0
#1743
The question of true randomness becomes only meaningful when considering the origin of new matter (assuming new matter is being created in the Cosmos).
The question becomes muddled in terminology when considering what is being observed. No agreement of relevancy. Does not matter is the point. Looking for and finding a cause/causes tells us absolutely nothing about the question. Everything effects everything else. Quite impossible to conclude absolutely one way or another.
But what if new matter were observed being formed? Perhaps we’d be getting somewhere.
May 31, 2020
0
#1745
malcontents randomly appear. No worries though because I learned as the #’s increase they’ll be canceling themselves out. Everything to appear hunky dory.
ive read that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I think thats a law called conservation of mass. iows the total amount of mass AND energy in the universe is, and has always been, constant...s i n c e d a y o n e.
uhh...so. they say this is a scientific law. any questions ? comments ? concerns ?...or any parta that u dont seem to u/s ?
...hello ??
May 31, 2020
0
#1747
The notion that matter can be neither created or destroyed has long been dismissed. It’s taken modern science a long time to concur with what’s been known for ages.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another).
May 31, 2020
0
#1749
All well and good for closed systems.
But what say of an open system as the Cosmos?
May 31, 2020
0
#1752
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1] The total energy and momentum of the initial pair are conserved in the process and distributed among a set of other particles in the final state.
Thats my E impersonation. I’ve done my best to make things clear. Matter and energy are being created and destroyed at this very moment we speak.
May 31, 2020
0
#1753
Assume that to be true-
the Topic is ...
True randomness... does it exist?
The particle physics reference refers solely to known particles. What of new particles popping into existence from nothing ? Perhaps they do - but in an organized nature and not random at all !!
Elroch wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch:"The term was undefined. It was therefore not about anything specific until the term was defined, By undefining it, you do not improve the situation"
it was defined by the OP in so many ways. here's just one of them..
uke:"and if random is just an illusion, does it mean that every game of chess is already determined before it even start?"
please stop undermining his thread
That is in no sense a definition. The mere fact that it is a QUESTION should give that away!
No. Clearly from my eye this is where you are the one who has totally missed the point and direction of the topic. Because people do not agree does not mean they don’t understand. Briefly I thought troll but no one can be so genuinely illogical. You’ve defined the topic to suit your agendas. Nobody I’ve seen agrees. Opti was out of line. Seems he lost it over needless frustration. I learned long ago to take your responses in humor. A little effort and I can predict your response! Now there’s proof randomness doesn’t exist 😎
The question about a chess game is actually excellent and right to the point. The question leads directly to the issue. Philosophical questions. Science makes the observations and measurements for us. We make our assumptions and conclusions based on the best evidence. Your failure has always been in thinking your conclusion is the only possible correct one and give reason - it’s grounded In your version of science. (An outdated relic) and even if partially true would remain outside the scope here.
I hope at least my example involving a bookie helped you understand how when you combine a large number of random quantities, the randomness of their combination can be proportionately less.
I hope you (and others also now understand that randomness has only one serious established meaning (uncertainty in the prediction of an event) as found in any reputable text on the subject. I hope you also understand that determinism means a complete lack of randomness and that the question of whether the real world could be deterministic has been answered convincingly in the negative, firstly by the observation that quantum mechanics implied there could never be an underlying deterministic explanation and secondly, by the verification of the violation of Bell's inequality by a series of increasingly convincing experiments starting in the 1970s and continuing up to the last decade.
Of course, you can choose not to know any of that. Is there a word for such a person?
mustang, think you can explain the topic to elroc? you seem to have the sort of patient it takes 
"Perhaps because all the time in debate (which was never a true debate) is perceived as time wasted ?"
lol.
'I miss burning the incense when sippin my wine. Cat's, plants, tree's and views were mine. Had the remembrance, so I made the rhyme.'
these sort of gems made it worth the while ; )
May 31, 2020
0
#1757
Me patience? Now it’s my lol
Dont get something after a couple a tries ... I relent and move on. Perhaps a pun or 2 to be seen.
May 31, 2020
0
#1758
Sometimes in real debate the jury decides there is no winner. Both sides have brilliantly proven each other’s weaknesses but have failed miserably to address the topic. Score: 0/0. Come back next month better prepared.
so ur saying that the First Law of Thermodynamics is dumb (or like munchins small-minded) ?
Banter between someone who always needlessly turns the discussion to one of physics
Physics is what describes the fundamental behaviour of EVERYTHING in the physical Universe. (There is a reason why the motto of Fermilab's Subatomic Stories is "physics is everything")
While it is often useful to model behaviour in a different way, all of this higher level behaviour is emergent from physics.
and deliberately closes down discussion
The idea that I have some superpower to close down discussion here (seriously?) is as ridiculous as the idea that I want to do so or have done so.
Use some common sense!
where he's genuinely being challenged gets boring and ridiculous when he's allowed to get away with it by others, so I've completely lost interest.
Let me bore you with a little about me. I started a Facebook account circa 2003 or 4 and got into debating. I was interested in varied subjects. At one time, unasked for, I was being called "the best debater in English on Facebook". Naturally, there were several hundred people who tried to "win" arguments with me. It was like being a fast gun in the West. Tedious.
In my one previous incarnation here on Chess.com, several years before this one, I met up with Elroch and in those days he was such an obvious troll
I certainly am not. You repeatedly make rather serious errors in trying to guess what different people are thinking.
I love functional knowledge (not rote learning!) and understanding. It is one of the things which has always characterised me. My interest in discussions is as a way to learn (and to help anyone else interested in doing so). It's a shame if this is an attitude you don't understand, but I am glad to be able to clear up your misunderstanding.
that I spent an hour investigating him. I found out his name, his job and the name of the village near Cambridge he lived in. Just in case. It's as well to be aware of who some people are.
Creepy.
There are trolls and trolls and some of them are intelligent and subtle. Most people are no match for them at all. His thing is "control". That's all .... control and selling his self-image of the perfect intellect.
100% bad guesses about another person's thinking. Presumably you will continue to blunder in this way?
I write stuff about objective truth. I am no more responsible for you feeling inexplicably "controlled" (seriously?) than the inventor of headlights is for mesmerising rabbits.