Sep 10, 2025 09:10 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 10, 2025 09:17 PM by C C.)
Note that an authentic "random" event would simply mean that it does not conform to any pattern or cause that would allow it to have been predictable beforehand. The classification of "random" has no dependence upon the future not existing, which is a fallacy that Hossenfelder indulges (playfully?) in when she briefly references the block universe.
For instance, if a team of scientists on September 10, 2025 declares that _X_ is "random", then _X_ still retains that status fifty years from now when "today" is in the past from that retrospective POV, with five decades ahead of it. In that fixed past, the scientists are still declaring _X_ is random because it defies predictability, and that pronouncement remains applicable for that reason. (In GBU, the past literally exists with a limited "future" ahead of it -- from a past moment's POV -- while diplomatically humoring presentism, too.)
Now obviously an invincible validation of something being random (not adhering to any formula, algorithm, pattern, etc) could require ideal circumstances that may not exist in this world. That's more or less what Hossenfelder seems to venture to when dismissing this paper later on in the video. Also, probability mathematics can at least corral an unruly event to a general area -- just not a specific, 100% reliable prediction singing hymns to robust determinism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
SABINE HOSSENFELDER
https://youtu.be/9uk7foUtrzY
VIDEO EXCERPTS: Proving true randomness would be a big deal, both because of its fundamental, indeed existential, relevance as well as its practical use. On the fundamental side, it’d demonstrate that the past really does not determine the present. It would mean that the block universe is wrong, that the future is open, and your fate wasn’t fixed by the Big Bang. [...] That sounds very technical, but leaving aside all this jargon, you might wonder, but how do they know that the quantum process is unpredictable? How could you possibly rule out that there wasn’t a way to predict it, that you just didn’t know about. Yes, you are raising a very good point. The answer is: They can’t know it’s unpredictable. Their claim is just wrong...
RESEARCH PAPER: Traceable random numbers from a non-local quantum advantage
Did these physicists just prove true randomness? ... https://youtu.be/9uk7foUtrzY
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/9uk7foUtrzY
For instance, if a team of scientists on September 10, 2025 declares that _X_ is "random", then _X_ still retains that status fifty years from now when "today" is in the past from that retrospective POV, with five decades ahead of it. In that fixed past, the scientists are still declaring _X_ is random because it defies predictability, and that pronouncement remains applicable for that reason. (In GBU, the past literally exists with a limited "future" ahead of it -- from a past moment's POV -- while diplomatically humoring presentism, too.)
Now obviously an invincible validation of something being random (not adhering to any formula, algorithm, pattern, etc) could require ideal circumstances that may not exist in this world. That's more or less what Hossenfelder seems to venture to when dismissing this paper later on in the video. Also, probability mathematics can at least corral an unruly event to a general area -- just not a specific, 100% reliable prediction singing hymns to robust determinism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
SABINE HOSSENFELDER
https://youtu.be/9uk7foUtrzY
VIDEO EXCERPTS: Proving true randomness would be a big deal, both because of its fundamental, indeed existential, relevance as well as its practical use. On the fundamental side, it’d demonstrate that the past really does not determine the present. It would mean that the block universe is wrong, that the future is open, and your fate wasn’t fixed by the Big Bang. [...] That sounds very technical, but leaving aside all this jargon, you might wonder, but how do they know that the quantum process is unpredictable? How could you possibly rule out that there wasn’t a way to predict it, that you just didn’t know about. Yes, you are raising a very good point. The answer is: They can’t know it’s unpredictable. Their claim is just wrong...
RESEARCH PAPER: Traceable random numbers from a non-local quantum advantage
Did these physicists just prove true randomness? ... https://youtu.be/9uk7foUtrzY