/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10501319
anything quantum mechanical. take for example the decay of a radioactive isotope. when it decays is inherently random according to quantum physics

>>10501319
L.p.>>10501319
>the outcome of "random" processes, such as a dice roll, are only unpredictable because we don't know the precise variables (the dice's spin, air density, throwing speed, etc.), then they are only random in the sense that we don't have a way of predicting the outcome, not in the sense that the outcome is actually physically unpredictable at all.
You're forgetting about uncertainty. You can't know the momentum and location of constituent particles at the same time.
Also, the starbucks logo is a mermaid with two tails, go look up their original logo where you can see her body.

>>10501337
>>10501338
brainlets

>>10501319
Fact is we don't know. I would say that most physicists believe in determinism, but would also agree it's a very profound question that may or may not be able to be resolved.

>>10501319
>Is anything in the universe TRULY random?

The behavior of women and of kittens.

>>10501338
>>10501337
I know that quantum mechanics is probabilistc and whatnot, but de we know that for sure? I mean there's the heisenberg uncertainty principle, but how can we be certain that these events aren't causal after all and we just haven't figured out what it is that causes them?

>>10501319
It doesn't matter what we tell you, the Cuckenhagen brainlets will see soon this thread and since they outnumber
us, you'll believe them.

Basically, the true answer is we still don't know, do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

>>10501537
bell inequality tests basically rule out local hidden variables as a possible explanation

>>10501392
You fell for a meme, dude (or you may be autistic). Women, in truth, are simple machines. Once you get their mindset, their supposedly unpredictable reactions are totally predictable.

>Is anything in the universe TRULY random?

Being so stupid that you care about this. What went wrong in your life?

>>10501319
Consciousness

>>10501319
the universe itself... the forever time

creative thought, transcendental thought

>>10501691
merging canada, america and mexico is counted as a transcendental thought

>>10501664
This.

>>10501646
bahahaha

bell's inequality tests literally were made to prove the existence of non-local hidden variables. read anything written by bell about it.

it's not your fault, what you think is what everybody else thinks and what they teach in school. and it's so fucking funny.

>>10501691
mighty spiritual of you but something being unimaginably complex or chaotic does not make it random.

>>10501830
based
Error: You are banned.

>>10501319
>Is anything in the universe TRULY random?
yes
> such as a dice roll
no these are not random

>>10501856
what is then. not necessarily disagreeing btw.

>>10501859
humans. free will.
not science or math.
I know.

>>10501875
how is it free will if it's random?

>>10501882
it's random because nobody knows what you will choose before you do. not even you.
the result is a binary tree for each person. Each choice spawns 2 different choices. good vs evil.
and every choice affects you and the world around you. and the combination of all the people's choices are what makes society.
I guess an omniscient being could know all the possible results from all the combinations, but he doesn't know which one will actually come to pass.
it's just my theory. I don't really know. most likely I'm wrong.

>>10501830
>bell's inequality tests literally were made to prove the existence of non-local hidden variables.
>A scientific experiment is conducted in an attempt to confirm a theory rather than falsify it
nigga what

>>10501913
>>10501875
Prove free will exists. And no, you feeling like your choices are free isn't evidence that they are actually free.

>>10501923
prove you or anything exists. and no, your feeling that something exists isn't evidence that it actually does.

>>10501916
>he thinks bell's inequality test is an actual experiment

>>10501913
>the result is a binary tree for each person. Each choice spawns 2 different choices. good vs evil.
are you religious?

>>10501938
I try to, but I fail miserably at it.

>>10501913
This explains how it's random. I was asking how it can be free will, given it's random. A randomly traversed binary tree does not sound like free will to me.

>>10501935
>I have a lambo
>Prove it
>Oh yeah well prove anything exists at all
I can't. But guess what, "you can't no nuffin" isn't a good argument. Pointing out that it's technically impossible to be 100% certain of anything is a worthless red herring. Quit wasting my time with meaningless diversion tactics just because you can't support your own assertions.

>>10501945
actually now that I think of it, the whole problem of randomness and free will may be solved if you separate the knower from the doer.
if the knower never acts, and the actor never truly knows, then you have randomness and also free will for the actor.
maybe this is god's greatest gift to humanity. sacrificing his free will for our own.

>>10501953
well if you can't prove you exist, then obviously anything you say is meaningless.
But guess what, "you can't either" isn't a good argument. Quit wasting my time with meaningless diversion tactics just because you can't support your own assertions.

>>10501956
This is true, and is one of the 2 main things people don't get about free will. The other thing, which you seem to have not gotten yet, is that this equally true given determinism instead of randomness.

>>10501964
yes but determinism would imply that humans know nothing at all.
but they do know some things, just not everything or even most of it.
if you know nothing than you are just a robot.
if you know everything, you are just a passive spectator.
but if you only know some things, then randomness is possible and so is free will.

Everything has a bias

>>10501974
>yes but determinism would imply that humans know nothing at all
eh???

if anything wouldn't randomness imply that??

The universe is deterministic, and the most efficient program that computes its entire history is short and fast, which means there is little room for true randomness, which is very expensive to compute. What looks random must be pseudorandom, like the decimal expansion of Pi, which is computable by a short program. Many physicists disagree, but Einstein was right: no dice. There is no physical evidence to the contrary http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/randomness.html.. For example, Bell’s theorem does not contradict this. And any efficient search in program space for the solution to a sufficiently complex problem will create many deterministic universes like ours as a by-product. Think about this. More here http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html and here http://www.kurzweilai.net/in-the-beginning-was-the-code

No. Besides on the Quantum level everything can be traced back to a particle at the beginning of the universe bumping 2 degrees left instead of 3 or something equally miniscule. I have an IQ of 124 and this board makes me feel like like an utter retard but even this is basic shit by general standards.

Random doesn't exist. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. The concept of "random" is impossible to accomplish in any way.

>>10502325
*markov chains out the window*

>>10501937
it is tho. look up Alain Aspect

>>10502120
yes, but how a given measurement gets channeled into one of the possible branches is random. determinism is only true if you consider extant multiple branches of the multiverse, but empirically we only observe one, and “which one” we observe is random

>>10501319
Yes. Read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence

And all the brainlets ITT (i.e. every other poster) should just delete their posts

>>10501664
>Didn't even attempt to make a case for kittens.

>>10501923
>Prove free will exists.
I was going to, but decided against it.

>>10502561
Ah yes, the famous Aspect inequality which we were most clearly talking about

>>10502602
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence
>an algorithmically random sequence (or random sequence) is an infinite sequence of binary digits that appears
>infinite sequence
>in the universe
damn bro, deleting right now. fuckign idiot

>>10502325
enlighten us, oh omniscient one.

>>10502572
>multiverse
holy brainlet. stay off duh weed and reddit my guy.

>>10503815
>holy brainlet. stay off duh weed and reddit my guy.
actually no, the many worlds and consistent histories interpretations of quantum mechanics are taken seriously by many physicists, take for example murray gell-mann

>>10503827
>take for example murray gell-mann
ok
>Murray Gell-Mann's published work explicitly rejects the existence of simultaneous parallel universes.
rofl

Also if you use an appeal to authority for any argument regarding interpretations of QM you're a certified dumbass and don't understand the discussion at all.

>>10503851
you just don’t understand consistent histories. read anything he wrote, preferably his book, and you’ll see how consistent histories works. plus you were the one who brought up that the many-worlds multiverse is reddit-tier; it’s not

>>10503879
consistent histories is different than many worlds you blithering moron, sounds like you don't know how it works. you were talking about many worlds so stop bringing up consistent histories.
>it’s not
it is.

>>10503887
both are modern interpretations that are taken seriously. in both interpretations, what i said is true; the way one history or multiverse branch gets selected as the one that is actually observed is random. the nitpicking about whether or not there is “just one universe of multiple branches/histories” is just an irrelevant semantic quibble

>>10503897
>what i said is true; the way one history or multiverse branch gets selected as the one that is actually observed is random
You literally said yourself that it isn't random in multiverse theory, are you alright?

>>10503912
no i never said that. which branch/history we observe is random in both interpretations is what i’ve said all along. maybe you’re confusing one of my posts with another anon’s?

At a certain point (particularly quantum) there's no way to account for variables since actual measurement affects the result.

If we had a way to measure those variables without affecting the results, it would imply we are measuring with something which in turn won't be able to measure itself.

This problem will always persist. It's as if the incompleteness theorems permeates reality itself.

>>10503928
>which branch/history we observe
It's not what we observe. It's what actually is. Which you said was deterministic for MWI. What we observe could never be comprehensively determined by us anyways so that's irrelevant and not the topic of this thread.

Either way, there is no proof for consistent histories. There is no proof for multiverse. So using them as an argument to the OP is flat out misleading and unscientific.

>>10503952
sure, in many worlds and in consistent histories, the wave function evolves deterministically. however the OP’s question is “is anything fundamentally random” and indeed in both those interpretations, which outcome you see when you make a measurement is still random nonetheless. i hope you don’t believe that actual measurements that hopefully you’ve done in the lab don’t count as “what actually is”.

and that’s just how quantum physics works, it doesn’t depend on interpretation. even in copenhagen, the outcomes of measurements are random. all the interpretations agree on this (well, maybe not nonsense ones like superdeterminism) because it’s an empirical fact that all interpretations need to account for

>>10503964
...so you agree that we don't know if anything is fundamentally random, then?

It depends on which of these quantum theories are correct.

Look at the "deterministic" tab. If it says "yes" then nothing in the universe is random. If it says "no" then the universe contains truly random elements. If it says "agnostic" then it could go both ways.

Basically we can't answer your question since we aren't sure which of these theories are actually correct. The two biggest competing ones are the Copenhagen Interpretation (true random exists) which is considered to be the correct one by 70% of physicists and de Borglie-Bohm theory (Random doesn't exist) which is considered to be correct by 22% of physicists.

/sci/ tends to be 50/50 on these two theories with schizos and sci-fi fans usually opting for the many-worlds or many-minds theories which are basically just joke theories.

>>10503975
“know” is a dangerous word in science, but anyhow if you believe in QM then the outcomes of measurements are fundamentally random regardless of interpretation

>>10503976
that wikipedia table is not accurate, for one. for another, to claim that pilot wave theory is taken seriously at all by more than a fringe group of modern physicists is ridiculous. it’s basically debunked. in high-energy theory, many worlds and consistent histories type interpretations are the mainstream; you can’t really do early-universe cosmology (or quantum cosmology in general) using copenhagen (since obviously there was nobody around to be the observer for e.g. the inflationary era). in other words your information is either made up, the poll was carried out in bumblefuck physics departments, or sorely out of date. t. physics PhD

>>10503996
The fact that you implied copenhagen needs observers is enough for the majority of the board to realize you're a liar that knows absolutely nothing about basic physics.

The reason why pilot-wave is gaining ground again is because it is the only quantum theory out there that is compatible with M-Theory (leading string theory). I personally am a proponent of copenhagen because of how elegant the mathematics. Which is usually a good indication of being at the right side of things. However on the other side M-Theory is only a thing because of convenient and elegant that math is as well so it's still a bit of a draw.

I recommend you actually learn a bit about copenhagen before larping as a PhD holder though, because this is embarrassing even for /sci/ larp standards. Every physics bachelors student should know at least the basics of how waveform collapse happens in copenhagen and why it's not due to individual observation. e.g. "Causal" vs "intrinsic"

>>10504018
well historically “copenhagen” refers to the Neil’s Bohr group way back when, and for sure his interpretation and philosophy (e.g. complementarity) has some weird and no-longer-taken-seriously crap about observers. fine, there are more modern versions of copenhagen, and in fact consistent histories is just that

>The reason why pilot-wave is gaining ground again is because it is the only quantum theory out there that is compatible with M-Theory (leading string theory).
this sounds like bullshit to me, or at least a claim made by a really shitty theorist.

>>10503996
why are you so obsessed with observation? That's not the point of the thread as has been stated multiple times. Observation is not "fundamental" rofl so stop treating it as such.

>t. physics PhD
If so, which I doubt, you wasted 10 years because you really don't know shit about physics and can't even use basic logic or stay on topic in a discussion.

>>10504043
measurements are pretty important and real things in physics. fundamental or not, their outcomes are random. this answers OP’s question whereas whatever crap you are trying to grope at is irrelevant

>>10504207
>fundamental or not, their outcomes are random. this answers OP’s question
>Is anything in the universe TRULY random
You are one stupid fucking larper

>>10501319
omg /sci/ for real 2 times now in 1 day within a hour i have shit and 2 times it smelled like coffee and when i wipe its orange but the log is brown. this shits not funny any more /sci/ .help me

im going to ask /x/ for help but i will be back

>>10501319
me im so random x3 wafflezz

>>10501386
>I would say that most physicists believe in determinism
lmao do you even know any actual physicists?

>>10501319
Yes, the universe is fundamentally stochastic

>>10504276
You can never really prove any system is fundamentally stochastic, you can always propose some bullshit hidden variables that make it 《really deterministic》, even though nobody can see those variables and the outcomes are still unpredictable.

Hidden variable theories are just a result of a mental prejudice for determinism, there's no actual evidence for them

>>10506260
note that this anon is explicitly arguing in favor of _nonlocal_ hidden variables (not even local ones, since bell's inequality tests rule them out):
>>10501830
and for laymen this translates to the idea that quantum randomness in say a certain particle isn't because of some unknown thing inside that particle, but rather some unknown thing that lives all throughout the universe (like e.g. the cosmological constant, except not measurable). so in the case of that particular determinism brainlet, it's the ultimate case of pic related