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

'Actually, pseudorandomness suffices for evolution.'

I was thinking about this once and reached the same conclusion. mindless evolution is fine even with determinism and does not imply a certain outcome. although it does open the door for that.

@ Ghostess.. Not so much apologetic as to a disclaimer. : )

Yes, true randomness exists

But the only case where true randomness lies is quantum mechanics.

Basically the state of a tiny tiny particle will always change randomly.

lol.. beautiful mouth birdie, not bad on short notice.

Yeah!

I'm pretty sure, speaking for myself, that life came from rocks. 

an absolute howler !!.....woohoo !!!!

Anyway, no-one has full knowledge of anything worth while and hard work is always overly extolled as a virtue.

so true. as its usually borne outta the greedy & obsessed person.

There has to be something else and I tend to think that scientists who assume there doesn't need to be haven't really grasped the enormity of their suppositions.

u mean like elroch ?....lol !!

The vast majority of events that play prevalence in our lives can be envisioned as pseudorandom. For instance, the quintessential example illustrated with your dice roll is pseudorandom as it can depend on a good few other factors such as viscosity of the air, friction of the arbitrary surface, the gravitational force, etc. Obviously, this is true. If you persist to think about it, a dice roll is only “coerced” into some turmoil if it extends over an infinite period of time, which of course is impractical.

its cool that you did that. however, your chart show an error margin of what? less then 1% or so? either way its very close to 2M each.
what puzzle me is why dont you get a real random and chaotic spread? like 500K at one experiment and 5M at another? how come the margin is so small?
explaining this with the phenomena of the large numbers doesnt really help, because its not a real explanation and equal to asking me for acceptance of the phenomena without understanding the 'Why' or the 'How' (reminds me the old qm saying... 'shut up and calculate')

everyone keep saying that. and its ok with me. however, i ask you... what was it that convinced you that this is really the truth?

quote:

"Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments (not one prediction from quantum mechanics is found to be contradicted by experiments), there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation. These views on interpretation differ on such fundamental questions as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or random, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and what is the nature of measurement, among other matters."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

some of the random stuff here is just hilarious. i like that. lol

Well, it comes down to counting the possibilities.

It is clearer with flipping a coin (because it has only 2 sides, not 6).

Flip a coin once and half the time you get 1 head, half the time 1 tail. Average fraction of heads is 1/2 but there is a lot of scatter. Every result is quite a way from the expected result of half a head!

Flip it twice and it is a bit different. 1/4 of the time you get 2 heads, 1/4 of the time 2 tails and 1/2  the time you get a head and a tail (in two different orders). The average proportion of heads remains 1/2, but now half the results are spot on (50/50) unlike with just one flip.

Now  flip a coin 4 times. This gives 16 possible results (as sequences of heads and tails)

1/16  4 heads,  1/16 4 tails    These extreme results are becoming rare.

4/16 3 heads and 1 tail,   4/16 3 tails and 1 head     Here the proportions are 3/4 or 1/4 instead of a half, which is only half the maximum variation, so not the expected proportion, but less far from it.

6/16 2 heads and 2 tails     The proportion is exactly 1/2 in this case.

Here the proportion of heads is getting more concentrated near the expected proportion.

The big idea here is that the larger the number of coins you toss, the more ways there are to get a result that is near to the expected proportion. Proportions a long way from 1/2 have a relatively small number of orders of heads and tails that can make them. It's a mathematical fact you can verify by counting.

So it all comes down to counting.

[After writing that quick account I looked for a better one. Here is a pretty good example from Sheffield University].

the quintessential example illustrated with your dice roll is pseudorandom as it can depend on a good few other factors such as viscosity of the air, friction of the arbitrary surface, the gravitational force, etc. 

so are u saying that its more bayesian-based ?....yet dice gambling well-n-overcomes this cuz casinos arent gonna enter into a proposition w/out getting the best side of the equation, right ? as its very hard to bet against 2-dice being rolled under-7 if its already done it 5 straight times. tho its not very hard to argue for an O-7 coming out if ur a frequentist (which i personally feel is fraught w/ error....which creates the true blue separator).

oh well. whaddu i know ?....outside that i dont trust math theory.

and for all u coin spinners ?....try this one !

Spinning, rather than flipping, an old penny will land on heads something like 80 percent of the time. Lincoln's head is heavier than the Lincoln memorial on the reverse, which leaves tails facing up more often than not.

....so true  . evo'ists shout from their stump all things unintelligent design. yay !.....youve just admitted to a designer !  

if i can add ?....only the most ignorant believe in *poof* nature.

@ Silver #188 #189.. That’s about it.