/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12069247
>What is the nature of "randomness"?
This is a paradox.

>>12069249
Explain. Do you mean that defining the nature of randomness requires randomness, thus can't be precisely defined?

Randomness is a box of rain that never becomes mist even though it wants to so so hard

>>12069247
randomness as commonly used is implicitly defined as an open and thus unpredictable system. It is an expression of limited knowledge of initial conditions or governing laws or of inadequate processing power. But the Reality at large is a closed system, and thus has no true randomness. Randomness is thus subjective and is a function of bounded cognition

>>12069288
quantum indeterminacy or quantum randomness is actually not random at all. The collapse of the wavefunction is internally determined, follows from a global utility function inherent in reality. The correct term is inherent generativity or self-determinacy. Reality is an inherently generative, self-determining system.

>>12069293
not science, fuck off

>>12069288
Nope, there is no reason why reality MUST be deterministic

>>12069247
Both.

Randomness is relative, and if we can't find a pattern, then its random.

Also we already established that Laplace's demon cannot exist, "muh determinism" fags fuck off, randomness is real.

>>12069566
I am inclined to believe in predetermines because the notion that the universe could be random is absurd, unless the many world interpretation is true.

>>12069673
>evolved to brain just to claim that universe does the thinking for it

>>12069561
not deterministic as in externally determined, but self-deterministic as in internally determined, yes. Let's say for argument's sake that reality was random, and that randomness is the opposite of determinism. Then reality would be determined randomly. But it would still be determined by itself. Reality has no real external part. Thus we have a contradiction. So bingo bango, reality MUST be self-deterministic. Plebs owned

>>12069247
Probably the latter.

>>12069351
it is math, science, and philosophy. But I don't fault you for not understanding it, with your vacuous skull cavity

Randomness is an illusion. Look at a dice. It's the favorite example of probability theory. However if you knew all of its initial conditions you could exactly compute its trajectory. Suddenly the dice isn't random anymore. Its alleged randomness is the result of initial conditions which we can choose by power of our free will. If anyone had the computational power and necessary precision, he could throw exactly the number on the dice he wants to throw. Same applies to the quantum level. What we label as randomness is in fact the manifestation of free will.

>>12069991
Humans inherently aren't random, so are you implying that there's no free will?

>>12070033
Humans have free will and so do elementary particles. Our free will is the sum of the free will of all the particles in our body. The human body is no consistent physical object but a combined and highly complex quantum mechanical wave function constantly collapsing and decollapsing in smallest time frames

>>12070061
Just because something acts probabilistically doesn't mean there's free will

>>12069991
>What we label as randomness is in fact the manifestation of free will
exactly. The free will of the reality we inhabit, a reality closed under definition and determinacy (self-determinacy)