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

Have you any knowledge of quantum mechanics? I ask because that is a vague claim that makes no sense. Also note that you have just learnt of the existence of Scarani from me, while I have plenty of experience of what he has said in person as well as in his book on quantum mechanics.

By contrast, since you chose to take a misguided trollish potshot, as well as getting the best results I am aware of on Scarani's course, I studied quantum mechanics as part of getting a first in maths from Cambridge and have studied it since then out of interest (I particularly like Paul Dirac's work on relativistic quantum mechanics, which led to quantum field theory).

There is no doubt that Scarani would agree (as would any competent physicist that the prediction of even such a thing as the future motion of one (small) object is fundamentally impossible because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which itself is a result of unbreakable theorems in Fourier Theory).

The real world consists entirely of quantum objects. Not only does this mean that their behaviour has randomness that has no known way of being removed (from Heisenberg), but the verification of the violation of Bell's inequality in experiments shows that this randomness cannot be removed without a violation of causality. Causality is one of the the most fundamental (some would say the most fundamental) known principles about how the real world behaves.

Causation does not "exist" , but the events denoted by the term causation do occur, e.g water does boil when heated, acorns grow to Oaks. Causation only " exists" as a part of the grammar of language, as a useful linguistic convention and convenience.

Causation and randomness are abstract ideas, a minds construct to help make sense of it. Neither one exists but in the realm of the mind. 

But we don't know that.

Good posts, guys! I hope that won't put you off.

To be frank, I feel a discussion about causality would have the potential to be a lot more productive than some of this one!

The meaning and nature of causality seems subtle to me. Much of the fundamental physics that governs our world is believed to be perfectly time reversible (gravity, electromagnetism and classical quantum mechanics - with the exception of dealing with the collapse of the wave function).  But the real world that is almost all governed by those time-symmetric laws is extremely non-time symmetric. No plant ever shone yellow light towards the Sun, resulting in a cascade of photons into its centre that eventually breaks apart a helium nucleus and produces protons. The reverse process occurs all the time.

Hawking dealt with 3 independent arrows of time in his most popular book. The arrow of entropy seems the most important (and in a way the most elusive). An odd way to put it is that if you divide up the possible (micro)states of a system into a big and a small subset, you are more likely to end up in the big one.

@MustangMate is right that both causation and randomness are abstractions. Not real world entities but aspects of the behaviour of those entities. He describes good examples of real world causation. Implicitly these examples rely on the notion that we can have two scenarios, one where some cause exists and another where it does not and compare the outcomes.  We know that acorns "cause" oaks, because of looking at examples where acorns turn into oaks (to be precise, a lack of acorns always results in a lack of oaks - we wouldn't claim every acorn leads to an oak).

Still trying to be in charge.

MustangMate is both right and also wrong. Causality is both real and ideal (abstract or in our minds). So is randomness.

After all, no-one in their RIGHT mind would say that causality isn't real. However, humans try to isolate it and in doing so, they adopt a false picture of causality. Same with randomness. Again, you are confusing our *idea* of something we hold as an abstraction with the reality that the abstraction is meant to depict.

quite true... the cause and the effect are one.

now...he is henery the cat he is

henery the cat he is - he is

he got pregnant little tabby next door

shes had babies 7x's before

& every one wuzza henery

she wouldnt date a willie or a chris

hes her 8th old tom hes henery

Henery the Cat...he is !

ah

That's one of the best things you've ever put here. Never heard that version.

Projecting your unconstructive mindset on to me is revealing. I think quite differently, being naturally motivated by the pleasure of understanding and the wish to share that. Again, I can see how this notion might genuinely not occur to you.

Elroch, when we first started to discuss various things, you came over like a pompous old man who was generally irritating and nauseating. I say that irrespective of the fact that I'm probably ten or fifteen years older than you. Since then, I think we reached a new understanding for a while and we seemed to be getting along fine. But evidently your emotional composure is so fragile that it only took a small disagreement to put you back to being mr Pompous again.

I note that although the others were definitely trolling you and making merry at your expense, you're very happy with that and your sole motivation is to try it on with me. Why? Because you know I'm at least as clever as you are and have a better mind in many respects, and you're rumbled.

You talk rubbish a lot of the time and your main motivation is your ego and controlling threads like this. You have consistently failed to even understand arguments that reveal that there are other perfectly valid approaches, to many things .... which may be different from whatever you happen to have learned. You don't really think well .... you just regurgitate in a semi-scrambled form. You are the one who needs to try to improve his understanding. I suggest you drop physics for the time being because you ought to accept that "causality" and "randomness" are not terms that only have true meaning to physicists.

By the way, you've now called everybody a troll who's still talking to you. There's a conclusion to be drawn.

hopefully it won’t have to be spelled out in black and white.

ah Goddess!

i tried Hennery, but some people might have mistook me for farm fowl. would you be interested in going to the cinema some night ? i promise i am a reformed king.

it make a lot of sense, but lets cut right to the chase. you keep changing your story in effort to fit the data into your belief system or whatever, and its tiring to follow.
for example.. i have no idea where you stand on interpretations anymore. first you were a fan, happily claimed that TR and MW coexist. but then you learned that it was absurd to do so. now you seem to pretend it never happened and you reject all other interpretations? just like opti predicted. lol
but this doesn't work either. because it equal to saying that your interpretation is superior and absolute and all others are obsolete? and claim to be objective? how does that work?
you see.. opti and lola have the luxury to reject whatever they want because they dont pretend to be objective. but if you claim both objectivity and cherry picking at the same time.. kindof having the cake and eating it too, isnt it?

as for valerio.. i only glanced at one of his articles. but it doesn't change anything. you make him sound like your guru or something. its understood to everyone that his conclusions are his subjective interpretation and philosophy, not some sort of the absolute truth you believe it to be. laters..

wait.. nobody is after you. its all just cause and effect of your behavior.

these graphics made my yesterday : )

 i promise i am a reformed king.

i can change that