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

"probably the most diff person to treat is the narcissist. as their ability to be mindful, truthful, & accepting of disorder (the very nature) is basically in absentia from any session. top it all off w/ probable SA denial and there u have it. i mean its really that simple."

imo, when it comes to SA, and because they all share the same addiction for external emotional supplies, it makes sense to consider emotional suppliers as their substance of choice.
the whole thing is really sad because it probably stem from an abusive care giver and roller coast from there. yea, i noticed the speedy wiki too. lol

ill try to explain it one more time.. a conversation about narcissistic behavior and how it relate to a specific individual can not be done in general terms and must involved analyzing the behavior of the person in question.
that would have to make the conversation all about you. make sense now?

"a definition of "true randomness" was needed to make the question meaningful"
its been a long time since you first talked about TR definition and i still didnt see you put forth your final one. its never too late..

Please note that if you indulge in any more personal attacks on me or anyone else, or indeed indulge in obsessive discussion of me or anyone else to the detriment of the topic of this forum, I will report you to chess,com. Note that I have a good track record of only doing so when there is a likelihood of action being taken.

Because of your snide behaviour, I will observe that you are a non-paying member of a chess website who has played virtually no chess,, belongs to no groups and has one "friend". If this is your only account, what are you here for? If it isn't, note that is a breach of the site rules.

Regarding a definition of true randomness, this was indeed posted and repeated in the earlier discussion. I will post it again if you can't get it from someone who was more observant at the time.

is it worth needing a dbl bypass over ?

here. why donchu chillout and listen to izzy. it is his doodle day uknow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1bFr2SWP1I

and s/t else. Hi-Ho wuz one a the very 1st posters on this wonderful thread (#7). and has been very active thruout its run. and that to me speaks volumes.

Perhaps you missed the fact that he stated he was clueless about whether real randomness existed and inferred (incorrectly) from this that everyone else was clueless as well, then wandered off topic. That might suit you, but I have an interest in the actual subject.

wutchu HAVE is a need to dominate threads (via threats) & puffing up ur chest like...

...u birdbrain !

And dont diss Shakespeare and Tolkien w/ ur st*p*d comparison to their incredible works. wutchu really need 4saying that izza ice cold cyberslap across ur face.

and s/t else there hotshot. if u hadta wonder if u had NPD or not by taking the test ?...then theres a near certainty that u already do !

back in the day i used to breed pigeons. seem like a different life now : )

elroch youre being funny again.. im no saint but feel free to point out which of my comments did you find offensive. we can take an objective look at it together.

Silver, there may be a notional thing that is "true randomness", which is an ideal, but all we can do is observe that a pattern seems random because it's unpredictable, which, I have learned, is the same as saying that a pattern cannot be recognised, but more concise. That's a definition of randomness which we're "working with".

"Regarding a definition of true randomness, this was indeed posted and repeated in the earlier discussion. I will post it again if you can't get it from someone who was more observant at the time."

go ahead..

opti.. please.. unless he post his final definition, its really meaningless to try and assume whats on his mind..

I would say that Elroch has made clear what he considers to be a correct definition. It is going to be what I've just written. I think you and Lola have pissed off Elroch to the extent that he isn't going to reply to you much more. You can take it that he will agree with the definition I posted. I'm sure he would tell us if he doesn't.

The second part if his "if" statement has been fulfilled, because I posted it, so you can't expect him to post it again. Basically, it means that we've been arguing all this time without noticing that the definition of what we're discussing was agreed to by me and not by you at the time, because perhaps you didn't fully understand the implications of predictability w.r.t. pattern recognition.

To be honest, without being honest, that is, I don't like to overdo it.

Constructive suggestion to everyone here (including me): don't discuss other participants at all, To be honest, it gives an infantile impression. Probably best not to discuss yourself either (it encourages the trolls). Discuss something else instead, such as (excuse me for being outrageous) the original topic.

Isn't that reasonable?

Sure. Consider an observation which has a priori more than one possible value associated with it (eg whether a photon is vertically polarised.  Such an observation might occur when a photon hits a polarising filter). 

Intuitively, this observation might be random before it has happened but has lost its randomness after it happens, so our definition needs to avoid applying to the future of the event.  The very strongest degree of randomness in the event is that the outcome of the event is random to any point in space time that is not in the future of the event.

A precursor to this definition is a restricted definition of ordinary randomness. An observation somewhere in space-time is random to some other point in space-time if all of the information accessible to that second point in space time (i.e. everything in its past light cone) is inadequate to determine the value of that observation.

To be fully precise it is necessary to quantify randomness, which is the purpose of probability theory. All the above can be restated with quantified randomness, which is measured in bits.

For example, the result of a fair coin toss has more randomness than the result of one that comes down heads 75% of the time, but both have some randomness. To be more precise the fair coin has 1 bit of randomness, the biased coin only has just over 0.8 bits of randomness (The basic coin example is useful for clarifying the fact that the result of the event is random until you reach the future of the event, when it has lost its randomness).

For simple randomness, a classic way (18th century) to get intuition about the degree to which something is random is to imagine being able to bet on it. The degree to which it would be possible to profitably bet can be used to quantify the randomness. A random event (or truly random one if you like) providing odds that correspond to its probabilities is one that you can't make money on in any way by betting with those odds.

==============================================================

So, short version, I suggested a definition of true randomness of an event or observation as meaning that event was random even given the entirety of information accessible to points not in its future.

==============================================================

It's rather too restrictive. It's difficult to discuss this topic without references to "anecdotal" evidence which can involve references to people.

I have a counter-suggestion, which is to read posts and to answer those which are worth answering, in your estimation, while ignoring others because they may seem worthwhile to some people. That way, everybody is happy(ish).

In my opinion, this thread stopped being worthwhile some time ago, when the personal attacks intensified against you. But that was mainly trolling, because everything reasonably possible has probably been said.

The explanation of randomness that you waded into is way too complex for this thread and what's more, I didn't like it. Specifically,

<<Intuitively, this observation might be random before it has happened but has lost its randomness after it happens>>

Here, you're actually using the concept of randomness incorrectly. That should be obvious. I don't know if it's something you wrote or something someone else did. Can you see what's wrong with it?

It doesn't matter whether this so-called "intuitive concept" is deliberately incorrect and the same criticism applies because if it is incorrect then not only is it difficult to follow but it would be irrelevant to any definition you may be trying to construct. You yourself recommended sticking to topic and this, being incorrect, is off-topic. It is therefore obscurantist.