To spell it out, because I think you've gone so far off-beam that you may not get what I'm saying, let's consider the history of a random event.
Before it happens, it's a possibility.
As it happens, it's an event.
After it happens, it's data. It doesn't stop having been a random event just because it's fixed as having happened, if it is part of a sequence that cannot be predicted, which we have already agreed is what we're discussing.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Back in the day my best friend 'Glenn Bo' and I caught Lover Boy live in Monterey.
An ocean front club at night time with limited seating. We had the best buds, suds, and seating. So many things I could say about my friend.
I recall the time(s) his girlfriend committed suicide, he crashed his truck at night going north on hwy 17 to a strip club.. lol And then he screwed us by a day in going to the Super Tramp concert. lol..
Random song on Pandora played initiates a total recall.
Before it happens they say itsa possibility. but for some events, like elroch typing out this entire thread on a typewriter ? safe to say its impossible. unless-unless u remove the finite elements of time & space. then i guess he'd probably end up doing it (when he hadda 80 ft beard). but u cant, right ? so on that, there is stuff that just wont be happening*.
azzit happens itsa event. right.
after it happens its data. right.
and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)
and what follows interpretation is feeling. now. how u feel is ultimately drawn from ur own personal philosophies (not2be confuzed w/experiences). i believe this may be @ the <3 of confirmation bias & poor occams brain. and im not convinced CB can be avoided. after all, were only human, right ?
* name the most random-unusual event EVER that no one ever thought coulda possibly happened. rule: human consciousness reqd @ time of event. lets see how smart u are. warning: teensie tricky.
such as (excuse me for being outrageous) the original topic.
when i read this i totally lost it...hilarious !...a sincere thanx 
. made my morning !
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
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?
[snip for focus]
<<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?
Not I can't. I think it should be clear that I am informally referring to the belief states about the observation, which are all the Bayesian viewpoint deals with.
Given that, this is a correct description of the way randomness applies to real events in the real world (this forum being about randomness in the real world). Intuitively, for a coin toss, a belief state for this coin toss before it has occurred should incorporate randomness, a belief state for it after it has occurred can have no randomness. It's the simplest example of Bayesian inference (you get the result, you know the result whereas the prior was uncertain).
You might also think of it as the way the Copenhagen interpretation deals with change in information over time. My sketch definition merely took care to adapt this to the actual relativistic world.
If there is some point I have missed please do clarify.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
"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..
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.
==============================================================
thats fine for a baseline. so lets test it against MW. are there any events in MW that lack the entirety of information?
"We had the best buds, suds, and seating."
suds? some fancy pants.. : )
"so on that, there is stuff that just wont be happening"
ouch 
I think it should be clear that I am informally referring to the belief states about the observation, which are all the Bayesian viewpoint deals with.>>>
It's part of a random sequence whether it's a past, present or future event, if it is indeed a random sequence. Any other interpretation alters it only by hindsight, so it's mistaken.
i feel life is wonderful . just hadta get that one out.
...and wouldnt it be yucky if it was even so much as subconsciously predictable ?
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Before it happens they say itsa possibility. but for some events, like elroch typing out this entire thread on a typewriter ? safe to say its impossible. unless-unless u remove the finite elements of time & space. then i guess he'd probably end up doing it (when he hadda 80 ft beard). but u cant, right ? so on that, there is stuff that just wont be happening*.
azzit happens itsa event. right.
after it happens its data. right.
and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)
and what follows interpretation is feeling. now. how u feel is ultimately drawn from ur own personal philosophies (not2be confuzed w/experiences). i believe this may be @ the <3 of confirmation bias & poor occams brain. and im not convinced CB can be avoided. after all, were only human, right ? name the most random-unusual event EVER that no one ever thought coulda possibly happened. rule: human consciousness reqd @ time of event. lets see how smart u are. warning: teensie tricky.
I'm vewy vewy vewy bwite. Weally tewifically bwite> Now what was that you wanted? Name the most wandom event that no-ne thought could happen.
Weally, dear, one doesn't need to be bwight to do that .... merely cweative.
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
"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..
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.
==============================================================
thats fine for a baseline. so lets test it against MW. are there any events in MW that lack the entirety of information?
You don't need to go to the MWI to have the entirety of information on all events. Just include all points in space-time and everything is determined. This is why the definition above talks about the information available in a region of space-time that does not include the results of the event of interest.
In MWI you can happily say "I am going to now measure the polarisation of a photon. It will be vertical in one branch and horizontal in another", then do the experiment, find the result was vertical and say "see I was right", but there is nothing more impressive about this. The MWI proponent was no better able to predict the result of the experiment that would be observed. Indeed he cannot even prove that there is a second branch of the multiverse in which the result was different: this is a purely speculative claim without any way of testing it. Positing something additional that cannot in any way be checked to exist and claiming this changes the nature of physics is a misunderstanding of what the science of physics does. It deals with observations in the real world and models that allow us to predict those observations.
"You don't need to go to the MWI to have the entirety of information on all events. Just include all points in space-time and everything is determined. This is why the definition above talks about the information available in a region of space-time that does not include the event of interest."
not sure what you mean by 'everything is predetermined'. for face value it seem like determinism, but that isnt your pov. or is it?
and im not sure how regions that does not include the event itself relate to TR. won't they fall under ordinary randomness?
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(Optimissed wrote)
before it happens it's a possibility
<<azzit happens itsa event. right.
after it happens its data. right.
and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)
and what follows interpretation is feeling.>>
Yes maybe, whatever, but this is where Elroch and Silver have lost us. Elroch's being inconsistent in what he says and obviously trying to impress by spouting jargon and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed. These weren't random events because they could have been predicted. That's my interpretation. So, I suppose interpretation is partly a product of assumed knowledge, partly context and partly emotion, feelings or whatever, but now you're claiming that "feeling" is ....
"how u feel is ultimately drawn from ur own personal philosophies (not2be confuzed w/experiences)."
Why? It makes as much sense to say that personal philosophies (I don't know what they are really) are drawn from how you feel about interpretations you've made.
<<i believe this may be @ the <3 of confirmation bias & poor occams brain. and im not convinced CB can be avoided. after all, were only human, right ?>>
So you're saying that "personal philosophies" influence us less than confirmation bias and the principle of parsimony of hypotheses or unknowns and that confirmation bias can't be avoided.
All I know is that Elroch and Silver have lost their orbit, are not in communication with each other, have lost communication with Earth and might not land for some time, during which we can talk amongst ourselves and then try to help them get back on course, maybe? It comes from both of them trying to be cleverer than they are.
hello
Optimissed wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
(Optimissed wrote)
before it happens it's a possibility
<<azzit happens itsa event. right.
after it happens its data. right.
and after that its interpretation (this is where it gets interesting e/o)
and what follows interpretation is feeling.>>
Yes maybe, whatever, but this is where Elroch and Silver have lost us. Elroch's being inconsistent in what he says
No, I don't believe so. You need to provide a clear example.
and obviously trying to impress by spouting jargon
Definitely not trying. If that is an incidental effect, so be it. If there is any "jargon" (terminology) that hasn't been explained, it is because I assumed a term would be familiar to those those most likely to read the post. If anyone can't understand a term after googling it, please ask.
and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed.
That amounts to trolling Sillver1, and thus likely to disrupt this discussion further. Why?
[I got bored after that, so I'll skip it]
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
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.>>
And that's no good, sorry. You're using the key-word "random" to define itself. In other words, define a blue bicycle? A blue bicycle is a bicycle that is not not-blue.