Doesn't seem to be working.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Elroch wrote:
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.>>
I don't *need to* and I think it's clear enough. For instance, you asked someone "who had been observant" to remind Silver of a definition and then you changed your mind and pretended that a completely different definition was in order. Trouble is, it didn't work because it was completely self-referential. You are also making the mistake of assuming that you have to provide examples of randomness from physics which you're more familiar with than we are. It would be a lot better to refer to examples without that obscurantist effect, since the idea is to discuss in a way where it's clear you aren't just making things up. The fact is, sometimes I'm impressed by your accuracy but at others, there's no doubt that you make logical errors. I've been noticing that for years, literally.
In a nutshell, you appear to be playing games.
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.
I think it's better to stop doing it.
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'm criticising both of you but mainly you. I had thought you had altered the way you relate to others but you have definitely reverted to attempting to control the agenda and I was pointing it out. I had been upset because Lola was really gunning for you and I thought it was over the top but then, I hadn't been reading all the comments. I definitely think you deserve criticism.
[I got bored after that, so I'll skip it]
I probably came up with some specific and well-focussed criticism at that point. I think you should accept that "randomness" is an English word rather than a Physics word.
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
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.>>
I don't *need to* and I think it's clear enough. For instance, you asked someone "who had been observant" to remind Silver of a definition and then you changed your mind and pretended that a completely different definition was in order.
The words were different, the definition was the exact same. I am surprised you did not see that.
Trouble is, it didn't work because it was completely self-referential.
Simply nonsense. Again, a surprising falsehood.
It was expressed in terms of independent concepts (such as space-time, an event with more than one outcome, information accessible from and prediction possible from specific points of view). I also pointed out the reliance on a simpler notion of randomness, and added something about that.
You are also making the mistake of assuming that you have to provide examples of randomness from physics
The topic is about randomness in the real world. Physics describes all of the fundamental behaviour of the real world.
which you're more familiar with than we are. It would be a lot better to refer to examples without that obscurantist effect, since the idea is to discuss in a way where it's clear you aren't just making things up. The fact is, sometimes I'm impressed by your accuracy but at others, there's no doubt that you make logical errors. I've been noticing that for years, literally.
Bear in mind the possibility that you yourself may be misunderstanding. This is not that unlikely. I am of course always willing to have what are believed to be errors in my reasoning pointed out, but as a Cambridge mathematician, it is uncommon for me to make errors of reasoning.
In a nutshell, you appear to be playing games.
Not in the slightest. Just trying to make the truth clearer in a non-competitive way.
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.
I think it's better to stop doing it.
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'm criticising both of you but mainly you. I had thought you had altered the way you relate to others but you have definitely reverted to attempting to control the agenda and I was pointing it out. I had been upset because Lola was really gunning for you and I thought it was over the top but then, I hadn't been reading all the comments. I definitely think you deserve criticism.
[I got bored after that, so I'll skip it]
I probably came up with some specific and well-focussed criticism at that point. I think you should accept that "randomness" is an English word rather than a Physics word.
The discussion would be both less unpleasant and more productive if everyone stuck to discussing the facts in a specific, clear way. (Generalisations and vague claims about what people have said are equally suboptimal).
In my opinion, you let your ego control you at a crucial time, when you had been the butt of quite a bit of scepticism and I tried to support you. Maybe it wasn't deliberate and you just can't help giving a bad impression and you really don't understand why people object but I'm far from the only one and I'm afraid I am very unimpressed. It may seem like nothing but it amounted to you trying to screw other people to regain control, and the control doesn't belong to you. I'm beginning to think Lola was right.
In fact, that criticism is understated. There is absolutely no doubt that you think you control this thread and yet, in my opinion, you have made a number of logical errors and when they are pointed out you actually refuse to answer by diverting the conversation.
toxic_ness_main wrote:
yeet
yert
Optimissed wrote:
In my opinion, you let your ego control you at a crucial time, when you had been the butt of quite a bit of scepticism and I tried to support you. Maybe it wasn't deliberate and you just can't help giving a bad impression and you really don't understand why people object but I'm far from the only one and I'm afraid I am very unimpressed. It may seem like nothing but it amounted to you trying to screw other people to regain control, and the control doesn't belong to you. I'm beginning to think Lola was right.
You have chosen to ignore my request to get back to discussing the facts in a productive manner for the sake of better understanding (my sole motivation from beginning to end). I don't have any interest in your pissing contest or your projection of this mindset, so bye!
"You have chosen to ignore my request to get back to discussing the facts in a productive manner for the sake of better understanding (my sole motivation from beginning to end)."
you'll never get a better understanding unless you'll make a sincere and objective effort to do so.
surprise me..
toxic_ness_main wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
toxic_ness_main wrote:
yeet
yert
yoit>>
yumple
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
In my opinion, you let your ego control you at a crucial time, when you had been the butt of quite a bit of scepticism and I tried to support you. Maybe it wasn't deliberate and you just can't help giving a bad impression and you really don't understand why people object but I'm far from the only one and I'm afraid I am very unimpressed. It may seem like nothing but it amounted to you trying to screw other people to regain control, and the control doesn't belong to you. I'm beginning to think Lola was right.
You have chosen to ignore my request to get back to discussing the facts in a productive manner for the sake of better understanding (my sole motivation from beginning to end). I don't have any interest in your pissing contest or your projection of this mindset, so bye!
We've all, in our differing ways, been trying to get you to respond in an intelligible and focussed manner but it turns out that you aren't interested and you're continually trying to project your inadequacies onto other people. I'm sorry it's come to this .... a couple of days ago I was feeling friendly and supportive towards you because you were being attacked. You have problems ... of that I'm sure.
I don't accept that your motive is to discuss the subject matter, except in a way that imposes your beliefs onto it. I accept that we all do that to an extent but I have noticed so many times where you alter your opinions, definitions and arguments, apparently where and how it suits you to do so, and there is a pattern to it. You may think you're doing it subtly.
As you know, I disagree with the conclusion that the Big Bang is the most likely universal origin scenario and I've given my reasons. Other physicists who are actually cosmologists have accepted them and seen them as important, whether or not they would apply the same weighting to them that I think is appropriate. Yet more have adopted your attitude. You never gave me a good reason for your ideas. Universal origins are absolutely fundamental to any discussion about the nature of randomness and you have made such a discussion impossible, again by imposing on it your preconceived beliefs.
The odds of being killed by a falling vending machine is 1 in 112 million!
I suspect it's smaller than that, unless you work in an environment where vending machines are common.
<<<but as a Cambridge mathematician, it is uncommon for me to make errors of reasoning.>>>
Argument from authority. Anyway, I think my son is as well-qualified as you (but St Andrews) and he hasn't noticed me making many mistakes in logic. Indeed, he thinks and has thought for a long time that I don't make mistakes and that many people arguing with me do., no matter what their apparent qualifications. But then, he's a dutiful (and highly talented) son.
I might point out that you accused various people, including Lola, of trolling. Then you made the same accusation against Silver and now it's me. I think that the explanation is that you are not arguing clearly and you constantly seem to change what you say and you ignore objections .... and it eventually starts to annoy people. Quite simply, I think you deliberately use obscurantism to cover a slight logical weakness and definite complacence.
I hadn't noticed you'd said that.
As Copi and Cohen point out, the fallacy is only there "when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand". For example, Prof. Valerio Scarani is an authority on randomness (as well as being a quantum physicist and well-regarded author with a specialist interest, he has taught an excellent course on this subject).
As another example it is not fallacious to accept the Big Bang Theory (i.e. that the Universe we see has arisen from the expansion of a very small, very hot, very uniform region) based on the fact that virtually every person working in the field of cosmology accepts this. Strongly believing otherwise based on say, a tiny fraction of peer-reviewed research that is generally not accepted or (worse) independent, untested feelings that have not passed peer review would be reckless.
(It would be far more reasonable to merely entertain the possibility that there is some bizarre explanation of the appearance of a Big Bang, while accepting that the standard explanation is likely correct. Belief is not a boolean phenomenon, which is why Bayesian probability theory exists).
Elroch wrote:
Uke8 wrote:
[snip]
4.Randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed
rather than something inherent to it.
[snip]
That's it.
KingAxelson wrote:
[snip]
"Does true randomness actually exist?"
[snip]
Yes, in quantum mechanics. Heisenburg's uncertainty principle shows that there is always unknowable information, and that means there are results of potential experiments which contain absolute randomness that can never be removed. (Relating to the previous part of this post, this entails that there is always some ignorance about future observations of a quantum system).
this comment alone tells me that you never even understood the topic. stop. maybe if valerio scarani was here he could explain it to you in a way that you understand. unfortunately hes not.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
opti: "and Silver's lapping it up like a kitten while pretending to be unimpressed."
elroch: That amounts to trolling Sillver1, and thus likely to disrupt this discussion further"
lol. actually it amounts to bwite sarcasm mixed with a healthy amount of truth : )