Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Quantum Quack said: ↑

Quote:Randomness:
Can a system be constructed that is truly random in nature?
If you can not prove randomness is possible then everything must by default be determined. ~is the challenge.

I am not and I am. A square becomes circle because of the point-by-point singularity and infinity rolled up into Planck diameter.

The I am that is God, good and love.

I am God consciousness. I therefore am God, consciousness, good and love.

I am also pure awareness. All things hence become one and the existence of existential and other concepts are merged by their opposites defined by "I" and non-"I" to create objects of specific level and cognitive priority. Thought and concepts are truly non-conceptual and imperceptible as the non-separation of GOd is the one reality in existence and of existence (the real universe). It is this non-separation that conception causes, we can conceive only nothing before we can perceive something.

I don't think a truly random system can be created. There's levels of indeterminacy to be sure, like rolling a dice or shuffling cards or spinning a roulette wheel. But even these processes rely in a set sequence of events occurring in order to happen. It only seems random because we cannot predict the outcome. It is interwoven with probabilities and chances. But it isn't a totally random process. Physical causation still reigns supreme.

Either many (most) quantum 'things' are random or quantum theory has been barking up the wrong tree for the last 100 years.

(Jul 29, 2023 07:28 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Randomness:
Can a system be constructed that is truly random in nature?
If you can not prove randomness is possible then everything must by default be determined. ~is the challenge.

At best one can probably only clarify what randomness is, in a general sense (though individual disciplines may each have their own specific meanings for a term, varying from one practice to another).

Unmitigated or absolute randomness would consist of not following any pattern, rule, etc. Or not being a member of such things -- being a full-fledged anomaly. Something that lacked predictability in terms of falling out of calculations, even if all the starting conditions could be perfectly known.

In theory, a sequence of changes or differences could merely seem to be temporarily random due to it requiring centuries, millennia, etc to repeat -- to demonstrate there indeed is a pattern or conforming to a principle. Even if the events aren't caused by anything discernable (one way that starting conditions become irrelevant), there's still the possibility that the sequence could be adhering to a scheme or template.

If you declare and could prove that _X_ is random, it would still be classifiable as random when it and your "proclaiming/proving it is random" both become part of the past. Due to it still not adhering to a pattern in the past, either.

If you could travel to the future and back to the present or past, you would know that _X_ specific random event or value is going to happen because you encountered it there. But that's not a form of predictability that falls out of formulaic inference -- it's just the result of brutely observing random _X_ occur ahead of time. A form of cheating, in a sense.

The last two above have to do with how randomness (if it was the case) applies no matter what your philosophical view of time is (presentism, GBU, SBU, eternalism).

But establishing randomness with certitude (not simply referencing or appealing to a dogma or the decree of a system) -- would arguably be quite a feat. The verifying of randomness beyond all doubt in the everyday concrete world versus the abstract affairs of mathematics.

I think all O is trying to say is that the Big Guy can create anything he wants. Kind of like God creating something even s/he or it can’t lift. Go perfect or go random….no problem …. All is possible.