/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2818991

Nothing is random.

Random even as just a concept is absurd.

Randomness is only what humans are not capable of predicting before the result occurs

How can we ever tell the difference?

Your answer lies in the Uncertainty Principle.

The answer to both your questions is maybe, but it's not certain.

In quantum mechanics, the outcomes of many measurements are truly random.

Every atom knows the position of every other atom no matter where it is in the cosmos.

randomness is an outdated concept created in an attempt to understand something we may never grasp.

If nothing is random, does that mean that "fate" exists in one way or another?

If all events are caused from a past event, does that mean that the first event determines the last event, however indirectly?

Does this mean that there is no spontaneous thought, and therefore we do not have true free will?

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

As far as we know randomness exists. Some fucktards like to say things like "lol humans can nevah know!!111" (which is fucking dumb) or appeal to universal hidden variables (which is less dumb, but still pretty annoying), but as I said, as far as we know, it does.

sage because this is obviously a troll thread.

>>2819031
Lol bro, relax and be positive.

>>2819026
>Every atom knows

Atoms are conscious now?

coin flipping is not random, it's physics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAxEzxHkqyY

>>2819037

2/10 because I'm replying to clear up my layman's terms

>>2819041
then how to predict it?
oh right you can't

>>2819049
diaconis built a machine that could predict.

Random is an abstract human construct with no basis in the real world, a monkey's attempt to quantify events that are controlled, directed or predetermined by other occurrences unmeasurable by humans.

RULES MOTHERFUCKER, EVERYTHING HAS THEM.

EVERYTHING.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THEM OR EXPERIENCE THEM ON A PERSONAL LEVEL DOESN'T MEAN THEY DO NOT EXIST.

at small scale, things can be random. (e.g. which slit did the electron go through?)
at large scale, I don't know of any random events.

if nothing is random then go win a lottery you faggets.

>>2819059

Of course...but they're still "random" in a practical sense.

>>2819029
I'd greatly appreciate it if some people could answer these questions.

>>2819071

>On /SCI/
>Can't spell faggot.
>Confirmed for twelve year old.

>>2819071
just because something isn't random it doesn't mean a human has enough knowledge to predict the outcome.
if the lottery chooses the winner by balls in a thingy, physics determines the winner deterministically.

also... related
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/joan-ginther-wins-texas-l_n_645520.html

The fact is we need the theory of statistics and probability to make predictions about events that are too complicated for deterministic solutions. Whether the event was ACTUALLY deterministic or not is irrelevant to the scientist making a measurement.

>>2819059
>According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.
also
> Bell's theorem would suggest that local hidden variables are impossible.

That is, true random exist according to contemporary physics.

TL;DR You're wrong.

It's a possibility.

>>2819059
I was just passing by sir and I saw your post.

Not moments ago I made this, just for you.

There doesn't exist something that is random. Things may seem so but everything is like planned, but not by anyone. Unless these extremely strange theories are true there isn't randomness and things seem random only because it's impossible to predict them.

If you go to your computers desktop, shut your eyes, shake your mouse all over an then click an "random" icon, there isn't anything random, it was 100% sure you would have picked that icon but it's impossible to predict that. You used your brain so send signals to your muscles to move the mouse and every signal had something behind it. There isn't a randomizer in your brain to do that.

>there could be hidden rules!
>alright, show me some proof
>NO YOU prove me wrong!

And once again...

>>2819093
fag

>>2819029
If you know the position, velocity, and laws of physics for a meteor and its surroundings, you can determine its destiny forever. it's deterministic.

at smaller distances, Heisenberg uncertainty comes into effect, you can't know the position and velocity of a particle precisely. The more you know about one, the less you know about the other.

the position and velocity of earth at this moment is dependent on where it was last moment.

I don't know to what extent this applies to human consciousness. Even if our mind process is deterministic, there are too many variables to predict the future of what someone will do beyond a few seconds.
Studies have shown the brain knows what it will do 3 seconds before it does it.

>>2819088

Thank you.
:3

>>2819093
Okay, Mr. fourteen year-old pseudo-intellectual.
Take some higher math courses and get back to me.

>>2819051
yeah he built a machine that tosses coin at non-random. when a human does it, its random.

Yes, because quantum physics. This is technically true for big things (coins) too because big things are made from small things although quantum physics don't really apply; for things like that, the outcome is more or less determined, but since humans are unable to predict coins by looking at them and the distribution is roughly 50-50 we call that random.

>>2819100
I've always wanted to do something like measuring projection of magnetic moment of an electron in singlet state, and if it's up, go on killing spree. Bring microscopic indetermenism to the macro level, so to say.

>>2819001
DUDE DON'T SAY SHIT LIKE THAT WHEN I'M HIGH

>>2819109
Fuck no. You could calculate the side that it would land on if you had the time and tools of the required accuracy to do so.

>>2819114
Schrodinger's Russian Roulette?

>>2819108
I have thought this from a philosophical view, not mathematic. If you really think for example time travel, it will sound impossible if we dont go to 11 dimension space etc...
Example:
If one builds a time machine, goes 10 mins back in time and destroys the machine, how can he used it then to travel in time in the first place?
There are thousand other examples like this.

This thread is making me question free will now. Are we truly free or are the molecular movements and chemical reactions all predetermined from the beginning?

>>2819196

Does it matter?

>>2819196
I think we have free will in most of the situations but there is always some factors that influence our decisions. Even the most randomly made choise has something that made us choose it.

But basically it's just chemical reactions and stuff like that if the mind isn't something we can't observe like god would be if he was real.

>>2819196
Welcome to the age of 12.

>>2819219
Pic related
>>2819206
In my perspective that would be significant because that would justify all actions, and render anxiety/regret meaningless.

Oh god. The old determinism debate again.

Firstly, decide whether or not it matters to you whether or not things are actually indeterminate or practically indeterminate.

Secondly, I have a suggestion for something truly random - whether or not matter, or antimatter, was dominant following the big bang. I know that we call whatever won matter, but it's clearly distinct from its counterpart, and either, in theory, could've dominated. I suggest that which one would dominate is, in fact, truly random.

>>2819250

If we talk about determination here, then all the anxiety and regret is predetermined as well.

And 'justification'?
I thought we're long beyond any objective concept 'justifying' actions, hence calling them good or bad.

>>2819252
I think it matters because it makes us realize how unintelligent/unaware we really are and how intelligent/aware we could become; especially through the aid of technology.

>>2819273
I mean, decide which you care about. Actual determinism is still up for debate but practical determinism is out of the window via the uncertainty principle.

>>2819268
Yes, all anxiety would be predetermined. Though by being aware that it was predetermined makes it less...painful to me.

By justification I didn't mean to imply good or bad, just that everything was meant to happen and is happening as it should. To be free of blame, because, to me, history would've determined that action to occur.

>>2818991
the same reason u cant explain the unexplainable.

>>2819314
Hasn't that been the goal of science all along? To explain what WAS unexplainable?

>>2819083

This. All of our current scientific understanding is simply an understanding of models that are consistent with observation. These models are not Truth with a capital 'T', but are merely best guesses or useful approximations.

For now, any question of whether or not we live in a deterministic world is moot. What is not is the fact that models with built in randomness perform extremely well in predicting physical phenomena.

You can decide what that means to you, but ultimately (for now) it boils down to a question of faith.

Of course, worrying about this stuff is barely a step above those first philosophical steps when you seriously have to consider embracing solipsism.

Everything is predetermined, therefore everything is not predetermined. Everything you do seems to be random, but its not up to you to decide on what is actually a random act or just a predetermined one being put in motion, since the day you were born. There is not one living being in the physical realm that knows which statement is correct, Determinism or Free-will? My guess would be Free-will because there isn't anyone beside yourself to determine what happens next...

>>2819411
Your post makes as much sense as no.

>>2819411
>My guess would be Free-will because there isn't anyone beside yourself to determine what happens next...
What determined you to exist? Not yourself. What determines your personality and behaviors? I assume that your environment determines those, but must now do research.

>>2819420
How does it not make sense?
Have you heard of neuroplasticity? Our minds have the power to actively change the way the matter in our brain is arranged, the neurons, we can actually adjust the matter, it changes size, more activity is active at different times when put under a PET scan.. Is this not solid evidence of Free-will? My point was, who else is there besides you hearing the thoughts in your head, nobody. Is it me or is this you determining what you will do next? Free-will.

>>2819480
Your environment, has HUGE impact on your actions. At the very least it determines whether or not you have "free will". You could've been born a sex slave that had your limbs removed, making you unable to choose anything.

>>2819463
My parents determined me to exist, the moment of conception...

>>2819480
God you're shallow minded. Are you in anyway insinuating that our mind, and thus our will, isn't composed purely of atoms and their interactions? If you agree that everything that makes us alive and conscious can be described in terms of a particular arrangement of atoms and energies, then what determined that arrangement and energy? Surely interaction with other atoms and energies, unless you wish to imply that atoms are themselves free-willed and can make conscious decisions.

If not, then everything we are is a result of a chain of atom-level causality, dating back to the very origin of the universe. Everything you are, every thought you think, every synapse that fires, were all determined from the initial configuration of the beginning of the universe.

Where is your free will now?

>>2819536
Doesn't their DNA and the way they raised you determine the way you behave now?

relevant and awesome

I'm in the determinist camp, but in a debate a while back, one of the counterpoints threw me for a loop:
-if we live in a deterministic universe, free will is illusory
-by that logic, consciousness is also an illusion

I was blamed for using faulty reductionism (which I think is bullshit), but I have yet to come up with a refutation for the consciousness thing. How do you say it's an illusion when you can physically EXPERIENCE consciousness?

Thoughts?

>>2819613
Sure is shitty philosophy in here. Illusion is a conscious construct. It implies deception, a divorcement from reality - neither of which can exist in a deterministic universe.

Experiences are just as deterministic as the rest of it. In fact, the whole debate about determinism was pre-determined.

For that matter, experience is about as subjective as it gets anyway so whoever threw you with that argument must've been laughing his inner head off at how easy it is to undo someone with pseudo-philosophical bullshit.

>>2819613
I don't really understand how that makes consciousness an illusion, but I do agree that it could be. Our human perception is basically just a limited and niche interpretation based upon our human senses that helps us survive.

>>2819657
I'm pretty sure we are "deceived" by our senses, instincts, and ego.

Bumping to increase the chances of gaining something else out of this thread

BUMP LOL

>>2818991
>Is anything truly random
Maybe. Thus far, quantum theory is likely either true random or non-local.

>>2819613

you should read "I am a strange loop" by douglas hofstadter.

I haven't finished it yet, but it's incredibly interesting so far.

>>2821191
For a better description than I can possibly hope to do, wiki Bell Inequalities and Bell's Theorem.

initial position of the quarter + physical laws governing movement = outcome of coin flip. There's nothing "random" about it.

No one can know the answer
is the butterfly effect legit?
no one knows these thigs

>>2821216
Please learn some quantum theory.

>>2821191
>>2821209
I remember my quantum phys professor (elec engineer here) saying that there have been experiments to prove that quantum physics is truly random. Sorry I do not remember what they were. At my university they have a real random number generator that is nearing 1GHz or something crazy i think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation

"We are somebodies who move freely about and think what we choose. Puppets are not like that. They have nothing in their heads. They are unreal. When they are in motion, we know they are moved by an outside force. When they speak, their voices come from elsewhere. Their orders come from somewhere behind and beyond them. And were they ever to become aware of that fact, they would collapse at the horror of it all, as would we." - Thomas Ligotti

Everything can be figured out mathematically. Even your actions.

/thread

I have wondered this as well. do we live in a deterministic universe?

>>2822094
NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS
THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS PROBABLY NOT
BELL'S THEOREM RULES OUT LOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES
NOBODY CAN RULE OUT NONLOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES
SO NOBODY REALLY KNOWS
TL;DR NOBODY KNOWS
GO AWAY

>>2822041
>>2819540
>>2819411
>>2819420
>>2819100
>>2819088
>>2819075
>>2819051
>>2818998
>>2818996

Everything can be figured out mathematically. Even your actions.

Even the outcomes of threads. the "before anyone says this" after someone says something is cause and effect. thats what this work is made out of. and any event can be predicted. if it cant, then that must mean that something that breaks the laws of physics is occuring. Is conscousness breaking the laws of physics? because you sure think so if you think our actions arnt predicted mathematically based on every possible factor in the universe.

/thread

>>2819100

This is not really correct. Look up chaos. We never know everything perfectly - not even physical laws (like gravity).

Randomness is a concept wherein a result can take on a number of values, and we don't know what that value is. However, we do have tools to deal with randomness - they are called statistics.

In the double-slit experiment, the particle chooses its destination randomly, but averaged over many particles, we know the likely outcome.

EVERYTHING CANNOT BE FIGURED OUT MATHEMATICALLY

Chaos means that solutions are extremely sensitive to initial data, meaning we might be able to pinpoint the position of an object down to 1% (which is pretty good scientifically), but the results we predict are drastically different than the actual results because of chaos.

There is no such thing as perfect information. Down to the molecular level, the uncertainty principle tells us that we cannot precisely know a particle's position and momentum, and anyway our descriptions of physical laws are imperfect (e.g. theory of relativity), so how can we predict behaviors at times far in the future? We can't.

>>2818996
You know what's really absurd?

Absurdity itself.

There may not be randomness......

but there is chaos (if you know what i mean).

chaos is merely a lack of grasp and understanding

>>2822811
You are confusing chaos with disorder.