What sillier wrote makes perfect sense to me. Satisfying the definitions does not change how the world is.
Perfectly said. Takes away the restrictions imposed by some.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
you sound as innocent as elroch
AND he gets kinder-confuzed btwn earth-based discoveries and cosmological 'what-ifs'.
Jun 7, 2020
0
#1884
Appears you must have a list, actually two. One for things that are random and things that are not. I can’t imagine once a cause has been found for one thing and it’s placed on the predictable side it ever being moved. But somethings once thought to be random are now be predictable so they get moved over. Is there a 3rd list- stuff you’re uncertain about?
Must be quite the daunting work, all the testing and such. And ensuring the devices are all up to date, giving the most accurate results.
Sometimes I might forget if something is random or not. A quick reference guide for us laymen is in order.
I think perhaps too much needless worry. I could better plan my day if I knew in advance which things were random. I could just go with the flow, randomly bounce about.
Life becomes simple when described in advance. We know what to expect. Lo and behold it unfolds as predicted, verification all is as if should be.
Jun 7, 2020
0
#1885
professor Colva Roney-Dougal of the University of St. Andrews says, “I can never prove that a sequence is random, I can only prove that it looks random and smells random.”
Jun 7, 2020
0
#1886
How funny can Opti get? Now my problems are all a Freudian thing ! How much is the couch 🥴
suggest not adding psychology to your list of accomplishments
Jun 7, 2020
0
#1887
I was going to make a remark about the feud between the rivals of Newton and Hooke, but then, I caught sight of this, and was really very hooked.
"What sillier wrote".. lol
Jun 8, 2020
0
#1890
Sillver1 wrote:
"What sillier wrote".. lol
Absent minded minds think alike. Don't how one would mistake a v for an i since the letters just physically distanced on the keyboard, I think this calls for the radical epiphany that MustangMate is the subject of ^ Comma splice
The Infinite Monkey Theorem
Addendum: Truth be told, my layout is a work of art... truly. Wait...
https://www.w3.org/People/maxf/XSLideMaker/hamlet.pdf
Hamlet'er has enlightened me.
"I think this calls for the radical epiphany that MustangMate is the subject of"
lol. what took you so long
Wolfbird wrote:
MustangMate, are you saying that the universe was neither created by design nor happened by chance? If so, then what?
it may existed forever as far as we know. if you subscribe to the big bang like most people do, you end up with the Q. where this fire ball came from. and the answer is either "elsewhere" or that it always existed in this form or another. this old thing about the universe creating itself is just scifi
Jun 8, 2020
0
#1893
Random. probable, chance, cause, determined, predictable
These terms are Epistemic
They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight. I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature. It’s not the simple matter that stuff “must be” one way or another as seen through a cloudy lens. Stuff originates independently while the Cosmos remains ordered. New stuff happens, is affected by everything else. It is not a random process, this thing we call reality. How can it be ? Everything has an affect. Want to know the process by which the Cosmos behaves? Understand Life’s process. Quite the same.
guess wut ?...when u look at the field of so-called theoretical physics, do u actually believe anyone would even care about nature if they didnt find beauty in it ? i mean, get real ! thats the main reason why ppl study stuff that no one has ever seen. does that seem as soul-seeking to u as it does to me ?
didju know its not really STEP (physics) if its not testable ?...stuff like multiverses, mosta QM, 11-D's ? but lets see. if i torque & caress Math enuf ?...i get popular sci-fi ! yee ! fun !...i just unlocked alla nature's secrets w/ some scratch-n-chalkboard dabble ! who cares about the SM, right ? its elegance & beauty & romance we seek ! so on & on & on we stretch...lol !
ok. so heres the ice hard fact that u needta deal w/. what u really seek is to express ur version of love. sorry if this shocks ur conscious. but ur not fooling ur subconscious any. it's known all along (darn 
).
oh ! and just so u dont get any myopic ideas ?...there's lotsa diff versions of 'luvfest' study happening. trust me. every typa field u can thinka hazzit going on. culinary arts, animal husbandry, chess...
Random digression #0U812
(Everything in quotation marks.) 
What's the best way to avoid the "maybe's" and the "no's?" To be able to sense when to disqualify a prospect. See, the best salespeople in the world usually don't have the best sales skills--they have the best qualifying skills, quickly moving on from non-responsive prospects and spending the bulk of their time with only highly qualified prospects. They are really "great managers of time."
What allows these "superstars" to be so successful is they have rigidly defined the "ideal prospect" and as soon as they identify a trait that is outside of that definition they politely disengage and move onto the next prospect.
"What's the best way to avoid the "maybe's" and the "no's?"
the best way is too read the situation correctly. heres a quote i like.. think you will too.
"Even with what we believe are logical decisions, the very point of choice is arguably always based on emotion.
This finding has enormous implications for negotiation professionals. People who believe they can build a case for their side using logic alone are doomed to be poor negotiators"
"there's lotsa diff versions of 'luvfest' study" consummate love is far ahead of the competition.
Jun 8, 2020
0
#1898
Love is a better term than most !
Epistimec terms are born out of response. A rejection response to the idea of ID. A reason remains to be found. That things happened by chance works rather handily, explanations easy to come by which require little thought.
The real problem is not that people have differing views but rather the assumptions they make. Assumptions made about people are trivial. The real errors are in the assumptions made about nature. So ingrained as to be believed as truth.
Jun 8, 2020
0
#1899
MustangMate wrote:
Random. probable, chance, cause, determined, predictable
These terms are Epistemic
They relate to how much information we have. They do not address the question and provide little insight. I can say in one breath that both determinism and randomness are wrong because they are the wrong terms to describe nature.
But being able to say it doesn't mean there is any sense in it. Before the 20th century, it was not known that the Universe was not deterministic, and the deterministic models of nature had been tremendously successful (notably Newton's theory of gravitation and Maxwell's unifying theory of electrodynamics).
Since the early 20th century, a new deterministic model - general relativity - has replaced Newton's version for greatest precision and generality (Newton's model is still very useful for most purposes) , but no deterministic model can ever explain quantum behaviour. This is an objective discovery, with high, persistent confidence, that randomness is a verified characteristic of natural behaviour.
You still don't believe that, but that is likely because you do not understand the reasoning that led to that scientific conclusion.
wudduya get when u cross a helicopter with a rhinoceros ?
(iknow old & dum)