wait. im gonna text u instead. in about 15 minutes.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Nice
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1784
Observations are measured and quantified. Remarkable technology. A device can shout randomness but only when we tell it too !
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1785
1818-1828271 wrote:
my username is literally the result of me pressing random keys on my keyboard. i don't know the implication of this
Perhaps by pressing random numbers. The dash appears mighty suspicious. Were the eyes open?
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1786
@Sillver - I try to keep up with progress from The GCP. I’m in such a rural area it’s difficult to participate. I’m sure it’s possible though - perhaps?
Science has profoundly changed the way we view reality, but there is so much more waiting to be discovered. A more complete understanding of our world requires a more advanced set of tools and practices. IONS uses scientific exploration and personal discovery to push beyond the current limits of human knowledge. - copied
i ended up calling u instead n gotta architect firm in the SF valley. when i asked2talk2the blue guy w goiter red eyes they sounded confuzed. o well. i quit.
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1788
Optimissed wrote:
<<<One of us has a distinction in a course on randomness and has worked on modelling stochastic systems for years. Can you remember which? >>>
Firstly, Elroch says that different labels don't change the nature of the thing being discussed.
i.e. if two labels refer to the SAME concept, it doesn't matter which one you use.
Then he insists we are discussing "true randomness" rather than "apparent randomness",
which are two labels referring to DIFFERENT concepts. Spot anything?
although he didn't pay any attention when I tried to engage him on the subject of duality in our thinking about it.
Not sure what you mean, but you caught my attention when you brought up the very relevant topic of pseudo-randomness.
Now he's saying that he must be right because he's modelled stochastic systems. Didn't say I'm right because I'm the one with a degree in philosophy and have done a lot of further work on theory of knowledge, which is my specialism. He's right and I'm not, of course.
Good for you, but the first subject is about modelling partially random systems.
A question. How is it even possible to model stochastic systems? Well, you can do it using a statistical approach, sure, but you can only model the macro view and guess what? When you do that, you are automatically modelling a determined system. The very nature of randomness is that it cannot be modelled with regard to any specific data. You can only model the overview, which is not random at all but which is a product of algorithms designed to imitate randomness. So that may be "A.R." but it isn't "T.R."
All told, there's some fraud happening here!
You tell them!
To be serious, it is both possible to sample from stochastic models (get lots of examples of what might happen) and to directly calculate statistical properties of the range of things that can happen. Both are used a lot.
"there's some fraud happening here! 
"
i dont think so. his responses tells me that he really dont get it. maybe we should just leave him in the dark.. lol. what say you elroch?
MustangMate wrote:
@Sillver - I try to keep up with progress from The GCP. I’m in such a rural area it’s difficult to participate. I’m sure it’s possible though - perhaps?
Science has profoundly changed the way we view reality, but there is so much more waiting to be discovered. A more complete understanding of our world requires a more advanced set of tools and practices. IONS uses scientific exploration and personal discovery to push beyond the current limits of human knowledge. - copied
im not too familiar with it myself, but im curious if they detected anything special since the corona thing started. seem like the ultimate test.
is this the same project?
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1791
Sillver1 wrote:
"there's some fraud happening here! "
i dont think so. his responses tells me that he really dont get it. maybe we should just leave him in the dark.. lol. what say you elroch?
With all due humility, I'd point out that I am the one with a distinction in a course on randomness. That means I have a track record of getting answers right on this topic.
I am not sure you understand yet that answer to the title question was conclusively reached in the 20th century (and cemented by even higher quality experiments in the 21st century).
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1792
Think I’ll just have to call you on that one Elroch, the part about getting answers right.
Just moments ago in your Evolution thread I asked a question “tell me something that is not theoretically possible?”
Your answer: “Anything that breaks the laws of physics”
Readers can make their assessment.
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1793
Yes, they can. It does however come down to how you interpret "theoretically". You might be thinking of something like "conceivably", which is actually rather different.
You would be correct to take the position that although the laws of physics are present "theory", there is the possibility (in some cases the certainty) that they will one day be found to be not the whole story. In this case, what is theoretically impossible now could turn out to be possible in the future.
However, I would take the view that our present understanding of physics is rather solid in most respects (unlike its state in the 19th century).
MustangMate wrote:
Think I’ll just have to call you on that one Elroch, the part about getting answers right.
Just moments ago in your Evolution thread I asked a question “tell me something that is not theoretically possible?”
Your answer: “Anything that breaks the laws of physics”
Readers can make their assessment.
Well everything is theoretically possible, if you bend the rules
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1796
https://www.quantamagazine.org/perpetual-motion-test-could-amend-theory-of-time-20130425/
Theory by Nobel Physics Professor on possibility of perpetual motion.
Jun 2, 2020
0
#1797
In February 2012, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek decided to go public with a strange and, he worried, somewhat embarrassing idea. Impossible as it seemed, Wilczek had developed an apparent proof of “time crystals” — physical structures that move in a repeating pattern, like minute hands rounding clocks, without expending energy or ever winding down. Unlike clocks or any other known objects, time crystals derive their movement not from stored energy but from a break in the symmetry of time, enabling a special form of perpetual motion.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
"there's some fraud happening here! "
i dont think so. his responses tells me that he really dont get it. maybe we should just leave him in the dark.. lol. what say you elroch?
With all due humility, I'd point out that I am the one with a distinction in a course on randomness. That means I have a track record of getting answers right on this topic.
I am not sure you understand yet that answer to the title question was conclusively reached in the 20th century (and cemented by even higher quality experiments in the 21st century).
its been some 8 month now.. and you still you.. confused, and determined to confuse everyone along your way..
so here.. if anyone was following this thread and got the wrong ideas from the elroch.. im willing to try and undo the damage.. he really dont understand what this topic is all about. im serious : )
With all due humility
omg absolutely hilarious !!
i'll try2call u right now. lol ! LA right ?...hold on...