Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Do yo know what we call much far off objects in physics, we call the object at infinity. If you don't understand you just shouldn't talk anything about it
that 'object' is u. ::/
Lol
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
opti.. listen to mustang.. if we go by elroch definition.. it just like changing the title to..
“Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.”
think thats cool? its like he dont want the Q. "does TR exist" to be asked in the first place. funny! : )
Randomness is uncertainty in predictions. That's the definition. This discussion is mostly about carts leading horses by disagreeing about what concept the phrase "true randomness" should apply to. But this should surely be agreed: true randomness has to be based on randomness.
It's worth pondering how misguided it would be to have a discussion about what squidleplook should mean, but until there is an agreed definition of "true randomness", this discussion is exactly as misguided.
sure. its about time we clean this up. but you need to help and clue me in first..
do you understand the philosophical concept of TR? can you explain the philosophical problem with TR in few words? .. to let me know we're on the same page.
I aborted it on #2347
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1965
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
opti.. listen to mustang.. if we go by elroch definition.. it just like changing the title to..
“Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.”
think thats cool? its like he dont want the Q. "does TR exist" to be asked in the first place. funny! : )
Randomness is uncertainty in predictions. That's the definition. This discussion is mostly about carts leading horses by disagreeing about what concept the phrase "true randomness" should apply to. But this should surely be agreed: true randomness has to be based on randomness.
It's worth pondering how misguided it would be to have a discussion about what squidleplook should mean, but until there is an agreed definition of "true randomness", this discussion is exactly as misguided.
sure. its about time we clean this up. but you need to help and clue me in first..
do you understand the philosophical concept of TR? can you explain the philosophical problem with TR in few words? .. to let me know we're on the same page.
I defined a criterion for the most extreme form of randomness possible in the real world.
I believe you have a notion in mind that true randomness is randomness that is not merely "apparent randomness", where apparent randomness is something which appears to be random but is in fact predictable with some more information.
It's worth also being well aware of a real world issue I brought up - that what is random from one point of view may not be to another. This is what led to my suggested definition. Sometimes, this is left implicit, because a single point of view is assumed when analysing randomness. However Bayesian analysis does involve changing beliefs (probabilities) as more evidence is available. This can correspond to different points of view for the same real world event. (Note that in the extreme, evidence can remove all the randomness from a belief, so it is possible to have one viewpoint from which an event is random and one from which it is not. Examples are easy to find).
[Note that as the term "true randomness" does not have a formal agreed definition, you can find some different uses of the phrase via a google search. However, very prominent is the true randomness that is provided by noise based on quantum processes]. The top item on a search right now is some work by physicists that generates true randomness using quantum entanglement (the basis of the argument I have presented that shows true randomness exists).
Vibhansh_Alok wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
The numbers all sound spot on. Chances are good the aliens will confirm such speculation.
Just wondering- if there were only 1x10 to the 20th water sources and not the 30th as predicted, does this lower the chances life exists on other planets? Just when do the odds become low enough to exclude possibility? If large numbers in probabilistic form indicate certainty of other life, very low probabilistic numbers mean what ?
What if you subtract 2 from infinity. It doesn't makes any difference so to make significance. I said earth's nothing but a micro dot. Now tell me is it not possible to have another dot of same kind in centillions of such dots?. That what expectancy of life says. There are trillion places where biochemical can form up like on earth. We don't claim aliens because we have not seen them for serious. But probability claims trillions of them. Suppose you went for fishing in a sea. Now there's a region having large coral reef bed. You took your boat there and caught thousands of fishes there. Because coral reefs are home to many fishes. Now you go ahead search for other spots but you couldn't find reefs in your 100 km journey. You get disappointed and declared that there's no fish in the sea except the one area where you found them in thousands. This is the situation we are in now we are not capable of searching the whole universe and the area searched have no sign of life except on earth. But this doesn't means we declare that life exists only on earth. We can't simply avoid the rest 99.999999999999% space. There's a good or say better chance of having similar coral reef in that sea with even more fishes. As we search more we filter more of 99.99999....% space. Mathematics says nothings uneven but physics says unevenness increases only if we magnify our scale... Believe me we are not alone and believe me maybe they're also trying to find us at the same time instant we are trying......
Finally somone who made me understand these stuffs. But what do you mean by unevenness?
Optimissed wrote:
Vibhansh_Alok wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Do yo know what we call much far off objects in physics, we call the object at infinity. If you don't understand you just shouldn't talk anything about it
that 'object' is u. ::/
Lol
I understand but I've basically give up hope there's anyone here whose ego will let them participate openly. So apparently it's about point scoring.
Do you want me to argue with these ghosts and ghostess?
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1968
Gotta love it -
Abstract thought (mathematics) being presented as proof something exists in the real world.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1969
What are the thresholds if maths represent reality?
At what point is certainty reached? What number? To make things simple- if but a few worlds were as ours the chances of life occurring would be slim - maybe uncertain or even doubtful or whatever you want to label it.
Doesn’t matter to reality which is quite different than anyone here suspects. I can tell stuff happens by independent origination and happens/exists completely independent of probability theory.
The theory is an abstract tool to be used as such. It does not provide empirical evidence.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1970
Must be quite enlightening going through life always calculating the odds of something happening. I mean if I were really good at it, wouldn’t my life expediency be greatly increased ? The odds would say so.
In reality this is all so typical of the discussion level. Very much the same stuff - the thinking that we should expect with absolute certainty the fact that life exists on other worlds - get this because the numbers are so large the certainty is 1.
Reminding us randomness is defined by our ability to make prediction !
All grand ideas. Quite irrefutable as much of it is based on its own definitions. The concept can explain Anything ! From the beginning of life to the beginning of the universe ... one grand theory all bound up in this idea that randomness exists. And please do your best to figure this out. Because randomness does not exist- It does not mean things are determined.
Neither term is descriptive of observed phenomenon.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1971
Definitions are important. Without them, what we write would mean exactly nothing.
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
opti.. listen to mustang.. if we go by elroch definition.. it just like changing the title to..
“Random sequences as defined by our ability to predict them.”
think thats cool? its like he dont want the Q. "does TR exist" to be asked in the first place. funny! : )
Randomness is uncertainty in predictions. That's the definition. This discussion is mostly about carts leading horses by disagreeing about what concept the phrase "true randomness" should apply to. But this should surely be agreed: true randomness has to be based on randomness.
It's worth pondering how misguided it would be to have a discussion about what squidleplook should mean, but until there is an agreed definition of "true randomness", this discussion is exactly as misguided.
sure. its about time we clean this up. but you need to help and clue me in first..
do you understand the philosophical concept of TR? can you explain the philosophical problem with TR in few words? .. to let me know we're on the same page.
I defined a criterion for the most extreme form of randomness possible in the real world.
I believe you have a notion in mind that true randomness is randomness that is not merely "apparent randomness", where apparent randomness is something which appears to be random but is in fact predictable with some more information.
It's worth also being well aware of a real world issue I brought up - that what is random from one point of view may not be to another. This is what led to my suggested definition. Sometimes, this is left implicit, because a single point of view is assumed when analysing randomness. However Bayesian analysis does involve changing beliefs (probabilities) as more evidence is a available. This can correspond to different points of view for the same real world event. (Note that in the extreme, evidence can remove all the randomness from a belief, so it is possible to have one viewpoint from which an event is random and one from which it is not. Examples are easy to find).
[Note that as the term "true randomness" does not have a formal agreed definition, you can find some different uses of the phrase via a google search. However, very prominent is the true randomness that is provided by noise based on quantum processes]. The top item on a search right now is some work by physicists that generates true randomness using quantum entanglement (the basis of the argument I have presented that shows true randomness exists).
not sure what to say. i asked you about the philosophical problem with TR and i cant find nothing in your comment about it. i already know what you think in terms of physics, but i dont know where you stand on the philosophy side of things. thats what we need to talk about in order for this to be constructive.
i would start with determinism. heres a good definition you posted yourself..
elroch:"Determinism only has one relevant meaning: all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."
its just a standard definition for D in philosophy.. but very different than the one you suggest. do you see the difference?
last time we talked about it you started to yell at me.. lol better to chose happiness.. learned it from you 
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1974
Heisenberg's famous 'uncertainty principle' is theoretically traceable to the fact that we are limited to using atoms and fields as ways of getting observations, and that those involve waves that necessarily interact with the thing you wish to measure before you succeed at taking a measurement. Attempts to correct for the aspects of those waves you cannot determine would involve another set of waves, and another set of values impossible to fix. This does not presume any basic underlying randomness of the universe, only effects that can never be measured or known. There are deterministic models of this inequality, although they have undesirable qualities of their own. - copied
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1975
I looked up the benefits of having a degree and found this -
It prepares you, both intellectually and socially, for your career and your adult life.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1976
MustangMate wrote:
Heisenberg's famous 'uncertainty principle' is theoretically traceable to the fact that we are limited to using atoms and fields as ways of getting observations, and that those involve waves that necessarily interact with the thing you wish to measure before you succeed at taking a measurement. Attempts to correct for the aspects of those waves you cannot determine would involve another set of waves, and another set of values impossible to fix. This does not presume any basic underlying randomness of the universe, only effects that can never be measured or known. There are deterministic models of this inequality, although they have undesirable qualities of their own. - copied
The guy who wrote that on philosophy stack exchange appears not to have understand the key facts about quantum mechanics I have mentioned several times. There are no deterministic models that produce the empirically tested behaviour of quantum mechanical systems. Entanglement is the property that such models cannot deal with.
elroch, avoiding my questions doesnt help any. lets try to be productive and get this over with.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1978
Optimissed wrote:
Ah. In this case, a degree in philosophy is very different .... like a Diploma in Counselling. It can change you as a person and change the way you think, because it's necessary to understand arguments and discussions rather than merely remember them. I would have thought that might mean something even to you.
Do you ever stop ?
Jun 9, 2020
0
#1979
Randomness is more of a tendency than a perfect fact.
Entropy and quantum uncertainty tend towards randomness, but the seeds of their origins remain in any such chaos. For example, the cosmic background radiation appears both chaotic and fractal, i.e. it looks the same on every level and it looks random. Nevertheless, clever and careful observations have revealed subtle hints of the original order.
Jun 10, 2020
0
#1980
Sillver1 wrote:
elroch, avoiding my questions doesnt help any. lets try to be productive and get this over with.
I believe what you are referring to is the vague question about "the philosophical concept of true randomness". Not only do I find this vague, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy only has one reference to this phrase and that is in an article partly about religion. The article fails to clarify what the term means: in my opinion there is an ambiguity whether zero agents or one agent is able to predict the events in question.
If the former, it is necessary that the agent concerned is itself bound by space-time (if the agent had access to future information, prediction is trivial). If the latter it would be necessary for there to be a convoluted "quantum conspiracy" by which the exact observations that are made appear to be freely made, but are in truth predetermined in order to fabricate the appearance of true randomness (in my sense) in quantum behaviour.
If that is not clear, it should suffice to say "true randomness" is not an established term in philosophy. If you want to refer to some such concept, you need to define it.
I’m open to “other worlds”
Just not outside our own.
Perhaps other worlds exist, but only within the one we see.
what makes you think that other U's share the same structure as us?