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

Ah, yes, well, there's a lot of self-awareness going on in this thread. Elroch seems to be the only one trying not to get personal. 

that one guy never seemed2like2go2certain places...like where science can do as much damage as good. which izza alotta places !

and anyone who says...

there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in.

bzzzt...we hava answer alex for effect w/outta cause - yay !  

or better...

"The universe itself, in all its mind-boggling vastness and complexity, could simply have popped into existence without violating the known laws of nature,"

gotcha. totally u/s the how and why part now...thx ! 

or howbout this one...

there is nothing south of the south pole so there was nothing around before the big bang.

riiiiiihgt  . relieved to know there wuz someone around to know all this back then. whew !

what i luv about science is how anything that doesn’t make sense can be classed as random, and suddenly its solved!

science is pure magic.

ok, I know for a fact that quite a few of the people in this discussion have some understanding of quantum mechanics. Specifically that they know the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, which says that for a quantum object there is a relationship between the uncertainty in the position and the uncertainty in the momentum (and thus the velocity if the object has mass).

Specifically:

[uncertainty in position] * [uncertainty in velocity] >= some constant.

Basically if you reduce the uncertainty in one, you increase the uncertainty in the other and vice versa.

When you start with some information and try to predict where something will be in the future, the uncertainty comes in two parts. The first part is the uncertainty in the position you started with, and the second is the product of the time by the uncertainty in the velocity.

It turns out that whatever combination you start with, there is a minimum uncertainty for any length of time. For short times it is best to make the original position very accurate and not worry so much about the velocity (because it doesn't have time to matter much), and vice versa for long times.

If you take different options for what you might know about position and velocity to start with, the way the uncertainty in position changes over time for each looks like this:

The minimum uncertainty at any time is on the lowest line at that point.

And that is why Heisenberg's uncertainty relation means predictions get increasingly inaccurate over time.

And now I am off for a slightly delayed run.

Your post was worthwhile because you (partly) addressed points of fact in a way that allowed a constructive response. I would hope and expect my response makes sense to you.

Not sure if this is the article you referred to, but it might be interesting reading to some here:

RANDOM FOR WHOM? - Valerio Scarani

"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?

"Scientific status" is objective. "Liking" is subjective. One person can both recognise the scientific status of all valid interpretations and (independently) like them to different extents. Hope that clears it up."

no. its not clear at all. this can be an elementary statement to avoid the question, or it could be translated that you're 'liking' TR, but agree that its a disputed phenomena and not the absolute truth that you claimed it to be.

All interpretations that produce the same predictions have the same scientific validity. That's the absolute truth. They all have "machinery" that can't be tested, but scientists agree that what can't be tested can't be objectively disputed, so it lies in the realm of subjective choice.

I have pointed out more than once that Bell's experiments combined with causality imply the existence of "true randomness" as I defined it i.e. ALL interpretations of quantum mechanics imply the existence of true randomness as I defined it.

(Note statements are about concepts, not about phrases, so if anyone else wants to make a statement about "true randomness" they need to specify what they mean by it. This is necessary because the phrase does not have a standard meaning that is already agreed).

Actually that you deliberately obscure your depiction of your impression of the subject, you make logical errors, you lose focus easily and try to hide it within grand sounding statements and in reality you have zero interest in addressing criticisms but always deviate unless the criticisms are mistaken. I have come across such behaviour before. It is not uncommon in those who use social media.

You have made this personal. You're very childish. We will now savour the pleasure of your final comment because I can't be ars&d anymore. You blew it when you had everything to live for and your (w)hole life ahead of you.

Yeah, you're making terrific contributions on randomness. Not at all a series of vapid attacks...

You should find a slow read of the article I linked helpful (genuinely).

RANDOM FOR WHOM? - Valerio Scarani

(To be 100% serious, I have always tried to make things clearer, but sometimes I have felt there was a risk I had failed. My new post #1867 with a simple simulation explaining why Heisenberg's principle implies randomness was one where I feared this, but questions are very welcome if that is so. The prerequisites are only very elementary quantum mechanics).

He's certainly full of himself (as is usual these days) and rather boring but he and I seem to be on the same side. If you don't mind, I won't finish it because I have a feeling that he's not going to say anything unpredictable.

You do realise that your hostility arose because you wouldn't define randomness for Silver, you asked another person to, I did so, you promptly altered your definition to something else and I pointed it out, you ignored that entirely and I pointed out that you're playing ego games. Which you are. Now it's your bedtime. I've had quite enough of you for one week.

excellent. there are some problems associated with this too, but i wont bother with it now. in fact.. this calls for a round on me everyone ; )

Haha, beautiful sarcasm there!

You seem to have difficulty understanding honest comments made with positive intentions. It might be useful to work out why that is.

With all due respect, that is inaccurate. Just to be sure of the details, I have checked. (You can too).

#1785 Sillver1 prompted me for a definition of TR and claimed I hadn't given one (I presume an honest error).
#1786 I pointed out that I had (too much earlier for me to find). and stated I would provide it again if he could not get it from anyone else
#1794 Sillver1 asked me to provide it
#1800 I did so. I provided the same definition in different words.

In brief, the definition in both cases was:

A truly random event is one that remains unpredictable even given all of the information accessible to points in space-time not in the future of the event.

(This is the most demanding condition I could come up with and is what I described twice. I was much more verbose in both cases, trying to make the meaning clear. I don't know how successful I was).

I wish I had been able to word it so concisely originally. A search reveals it was Blaise Pascal who said:

“I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

Cool quote!

but the past, present and future are interwoven.

i thought science had caught up with this by now.

how disappointing.

Can you change today what you had for breakfast yesterday?

If you accept you can't, you know something about causality.

ok if you are happy with schoolboy sarcastic science, good for you.

you are unlikely to know what i was talking about then.

and it is something verifiable experientially besides being verified by quantum mechanics, all a bit beyond schoolboy and the pseudo sciences sadly.

no surprise there.

It's quite possible in the case of someone who hasn't been following the thread. Why you're so manipulative is anybody's guess. If and when there's an apology, I'll reconsider my opinion.