/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9885662]

Does randomness exist?

[Anonymous No.9885668]

>>9885662
yes

[Anonymous No.9885671]

>>9885662
Define randomness.
Define exist.

[Anonymous No.9885672]

>>9885662
... I have slightly different question to OP.
Does theist believe existence of randomness?

[Anonymous No.9885686]

>>9885662
Not for dice, since their outcome is determined by physical factors like mass distribution, friction, force, momentum etc etc.

But right now there is like a perfect randomness on quantum levels (unless disproven in future)

[Anonymous No.9885697]

Does there exist at the smallest scles a seemingly non deterministic world in which particles act randomly?
From our perspective, yes it seems that way.

[Anonymous No.9885762]

>>9885697
damn...

[Anonymous No.9885914]

>>9885662
Depending on your interpretation, at quantum levels there might. The act of getting information out of it makes it nonrandom though so I don’t think true randomness will ever really exist

[Anonymous No.9886808]

>entropy

[Anonymous No.9886813]

>>9885686
What's random about it

[Anonymous No.9886894]

>>9885662
Chaos exists but is deterministic. Everything that will ever happen is destined to happen, but it’s fundamentally impossible to actually predict it. You can only make approximate predictions based on approximate knowledge, but approximate predictions effect real outcomes in a way that creates non-predicted deviation from the approximate prediction.

Both chaos and constant exist. Things can be both summarized perfectly but impossible to break down comprehensively.

[SAGE No.9886934]

>>9885662
I will give you the most right answer on this post: we don't fucking know. Nobody does. Why the fuck the particles make a interference pattern and then doesn't when we measure it? the particle goes through both slits? it doesn't? is there a mechanism behind decayments? is it truly random? who measures the universe to make it collapse?
Nobody, not even the most smart physicists have the answer for this. We know the math, but not *why*.
Maybe the final question, the ultimate *how*, will remain unanswered forever. Maybe, it doesn't have an answer.

[Anonymous No.9886943]

>>9886934
>Nobody knows why particles can make an interference pattern

[Anonymous No.9886947]

>>9885662
Our quantum mechanical predictions depend on probabilistic formula
To assume from this that the natural world is truly random is an example of the reification fallacy

[SAGE No.9886948]

>>9886894
Where is your proof? is that even falsable?
You imply chaos exists, but it is still deterministic, we just don't know (or can't know) the reality behind it.
Hidden variables.
Preferably global hidden variables.
I think you're probably in the right way. Bell inequalities shown that, if all quantum interpretations and theories gives the same predictions as QM (including Bohmian mechanics), at least one of these must be wrong:
a: The universe is not deterministic.
b: Locality is violated.

The problem is BM gives the same predictions as QM but is still deterministic.
So, what we accept today is option b: Locality is violated. So, local hidden variables can't exist, but global ones can. And the universe maybe is deterministic.

Maybe if time travel is a reality we can prove if the universe is deterministic or not. If quantum randomness really exists.

[SAGE No.9886953]

>>9886943
lol he's literally right, these are called interpretations

[Anonymous No.9886962]

>>9886894
This seems to posit the observational frame of a physically impossible Laplace demon which has access to the super-accurate predictions that don't and can't ever physically exist though.

[Anonymous No.9886975]

>>9886962

[Anonymous No.9886982]

>>9885662
Eris sends regards.

FNORD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTA0DSfrGZ0

[Anonymous No.9886984]

>>9885671
Define define

[Anonymous No.9886986]

>>9886948
Black holes already violate a number of standard laws, most egregious of which is destruction of information. It would be easier to rectify this question if they violated locality instead of information.

[Anonymous No.9887004]

>>9886986
>the 'information' meme
It's a fucking black hole. What goes inside it is gone. 'Information', please, what a ridiculous abstraction

[Anonymous No.9887028]

>>9886975
Prove determinism has a physical meaning and is not just effective/heuristic if it's impossible in principle to ever formulate a model that captures it within the confines of this universe.

[Anonymous No.9887044]

>that guy who said information only exists as an abstract concept and doesn’t follow standard physical laws then deleted his post

What the fuck was his problem?

[Anonymous No.9887045]

>>9885697
What effect does this have on our world?

[Anonymous No.9887046]

>>9885686
>But right now there is like a perfect randomness on quantum levels (unless disproven in future)
Checkmate determinists.

[Anonymous No.9887054]

>>9887044
I accidentally included a picture
I'll admit I've never googled the idea, cause it sounds like a load of baloney to me

>why is it so hard to accept that something that falls into a black hole gets obliterated?
>'m-muh conservation of mass and energy' okay do you know what goes on inside a black hole? no? does anybody? okay so we're admitting our theories and concepts are incomplete? okay. fuck you whatever went in there is gone

[Anonymous No.9887100]

>>9885686
>p-perfect randomness e-exists on quantum levels
>it j-just a coincidence that it looks like a p-p-pilot w-wave

[Anonymous No.9887103]

>>9886894
>fundamentally impossible to actually predict
I'd like to see some evidence for this

[Anonymous No.9887111]

>>9887100
>d-d-determinism is the c-correct position to take because its never been experimentally proven, and such a thing is physically impossible to test anyways

[Anonymous No.9887114]

>>9887103
pi is a constant, can be summarized, but not broken down in to its components.

[Anonymous No.9887116]

>>9887100
What makes you think pilot wave theory resolves quantum randomness?

[Anonymous No.9887118]

*blocks you path*

[Anonymous No.9887128]

From our limited perspective and understanding, the chance is unavoidable.

In the absolute totality of things, a reality we might not be able to grasp, it cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.9887147]

>>9886894
will i ever get a gf

[Anonymous No.9887164]

>>9885662

[Anonymous No.9887228]

>>9885671
Do you need a dictionary?

[Anonymous No.9887313]

>>9887111
All evidence, in every scientific field, other than that of SOME of the current models in QM describe determinism in all systems. We're at a point were we are still investigating these (QM) models, trying to reach a better level of understanding of the nature of reality, at scales never before investigated.

I'm not claiming with certainty that determinism is correct in it's current (rigid and unfinished) form, however, to say that determinism doesn't exist or isn't an accurate description of 95% of observable reality would be foolish.

[Anonymous No.9887325]

>>9887114
>pi is a constant
not a regular one that can be defined, in full
>can be summarized
not accurately
>but not broken down in to its components
pi / x, r / 2 : c / 2; also:
>implying that this has anything to do with "determining" that reality has a "component" called "randomness" that is fundamentally impossible to calculate, forever.

[Anonymous No.9887329]

>>9887116
I don't believe it does, but the model is compelling with regards to the possible existence of other (currently) unknown variables.

[AnalDestructor29 No.9887544]

>>9885671
>Randomness
not following a clear or identifiable pattern
>Exist
in this context: be a natural property of a group of items or concepts

[Anonymous No.9888503]

ITT: brainlets

[Anonymous No.9888507]

>>9887313
>accurate description of 95% of observable reality
Determinism relates specifically to freewill, given that coherent quantum vibrations occur in all brain cells, it would be rather foolish to assume this is the case.

[Anonymous No.9888517]

Of course, we literally have a board dedicated to its study: >>>/b/

[Anonymous No.9888543]

>>9887118
>the motion mah dick makes walking into work everyday

[Anonymous No.9888551]

no , nothing is truly random

[Anonymous No.9888553]

>>9888551
citation required

[Anonymous No.9888562]

>>9887046
But the question then becomes:
>do quantum uncertainties have effects on the macro level?
Schrödinger's Cat is an experiment that shows that this is possible, but unless someone straps geiger-counters feeding quantum random integers to try to solve a password that sets off bombs, I doubt we'd be getting any of those butterfly ripples.

[Anonymous No.9888580]

>>9888562
The mere realization that quantum uncertainties exist has significantly changed the way humans behave so if humans have anything more than a trivial effect on the universe, it would prove indeed that it’s significant.

[Anonymous No.9888635]

Yes.
t. Brainlet

[Anonymous No.9889416]

Why the Fuck was this moved from /His???? just because autist started going on about quantum physics doesn't change the philosophical nature of the question and the implications on free will, the existence of god, and the human soul. Jezus Christ.

[Anonymous No.9889419]

>>9889416
and someone removed all my posts... is there nowhere on the internet people can have a free conversation?? Fuck this message board I'm making my own.

[Anonymous No.9889702]

>>9885662

try to hold your tongue still
then observe the motion of it
Does it seem to follow a predetermined path?

[Anonymous No.9889711]

>>9889702
That might have been one of the worst examples of true random that I have ever had the displeasure of stumbling across.

[Anonymous No.9889714]

>>9889711
then disprove it?

[Anonymous No.9889720]

>>9889714
Disprove what? I don't even know what your point was, and that right there is proof enough it was a terrible example.

[Anonymous No.9889725]

>>9889720
Disprove that your tongue motion is not random

[Anonymous No.9889741]

>>9886986
Technically, we don't know that they destroy it, so much as render it inaccessible.

[Anonymous No.9889757]

>>9889725
Because it's controlled by stimuli just like every other muscle in your body. Just because the stimuli is not conscious doesn't mean it's true random.

[Anonymous No.9889760]

>>9886986
It's not destroyed, it's simply converted into a state we can't recognize. The energy, matter and information are still there. It's just not something we recognize.

[Anonymous No.9889764]

>>9889757
>stimuli
where does it come from?

[Anonymous No.9889816]

>>9889764
Outside stimulus. Are you pretending to be stupid, or are you going to ask "Why, why, why, why" like a child and then go "CHAOS" at the end? I understand Chaos theory and true random, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it. "You can predict climate, but you can't predict weather more accurately than a couple of weeks in advance. Why? CHOAS." We could predict weather accurately down to the second if we had the sufficient technology. Everything happens for a reason. Objects at rest tend to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force. That simple rule states that from the very first indescribably small moment of time this universe came into existence this universe had to be enacted into motion. It was always deterministic. However, I also believe we as conscious beings are an exception to that. But that would be straying too far from /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9889840]

>>9887544
Yeah. digits of pi doesn't follow an identifiable pattern.

[Anonymous No.9889877]

>>9889764
you are retarded my dude

[Anonymous No.9889878]

>>9889816
>However, I also believe we as conscious beings are an exception to that.
OK you lost me there. Everything is determined including our brains, where consciousness is housed/originates

[Anonymous No.9889902]

>>9889816
I don't know if this tread was moved here and trimmed from /his or if it was removed from /his because u /Sci folks were going on about quantum physics which BTW is a mathematical construction to predict reality, and nowhere does it claim to be an actual model of reality. People who interpreted it as such have no proof but you look at what the progenitors of quantum physics say: max plank for instance who came up with quanta to describe how radiation behaves was adiment in asserting that it was simply a mathimatical "trick" to get the right answer rather then a descriptor of what actually happens. Heisenberg uncertainty principle likewise nowhere claims to be a descriptor of reality. Just because something is unknowable to us at our level of math and science does not make it truly indeterminate. The probability is a matter of convenience.

Regardless I'm going to post my spiel here because it's on topic and yes, questions of God and free will are intimately concerned with science and math as they can be proved and disproved with science and math.

[Anonymous No.9889905]

>>9889902
Or if it was a duplicate of the /his thread, ours which got removed because of people who misunderstand the place of math in relation to to reality.*

[Anonymous No.9889938]

>>9889905
... and insisted on quantum physics as an explanation when it is a mathematical model and not actual reality. For example, just because there are infinite numbers does not mean at all that time,matter or energy are infinite. Yet you can do equations in which they are or are assumed to be. Math is imposed symbolism upon reality. It is a beautiful thing because it is pure and has internally consistent truths but such truths should not be conflated with actual reality which the symbolism of math is sometimes imposed upon such as in physics.

[Anonymous No.9889951]

>>9885686
Sure it exists for dice, because physical factors are generated randomly each time

[Anonymous No.9889968]

Each time you encounter something you don’t understand at all, till the moment you gather at least one single information on how it works, that is randomness

[Anonymous No.9889975]

>>9886934
We will find and answer to those petty questions or if not us then advanced ai that we create will. And then we can move on to greater questions like how to stop the heat death of the universe, how to permentanly reverse entropy.

[Anonymous No.9889990]

Only brainlets care about determinism vs free will. What a pointless circle of an idea.

[Anonymous No.9890004]

*holdz up spork*

[Anonymous No.9890013]

>>9890004
Fuck.
I hate you so fucking much. Is it more spoon than fork? Fork than spoon? How the hell do I beigin to calculate this... HOW DOES IT WORK!?!
HOW DOES IT WORK!?!?!?!

https://youtu.be/Jm2D7ohWos0

[Anonymous No.9890043]

>multiverse + anthropic principle
What if all possible outcomes of an event exist as individual and separate universes but any one universe won't manifest itself unless it's observed by a conscious entity. We can only observe one outcome/one universe at a time so it appears random. But wouldn't that mean there are multiple copies of ourselves in each individual universe all observing different outcomes, or is there only 1 version of us and somehow we unknowingly choose which outcome and which universe to inhabit. If we exist on multiple universes and there were a way to connect all the versions of you together even momentarily I think you'd see even the most random even is highly ordered and structured. Alternatively, if there's only one version of us at a time unknowingly choosing which outcome/universe to inhabit then in this case randomness wouldn't exist either.

>in b4 anon thinks he's god
It's just thought, but it'd be more like infinite anons all being god in an infinite amount of separate universes all with infinite choices and decisions.

[Anonymous No.9890110]

>>9890043
>all possible outcomes
the only possible outcome occurs
prove me wrong you can't

[Anonymous No.9890123]

>>9889990
It may not seem important or relevant to an individual life. But the answer to it has massive implications for questions such as whether the universe is linear, cyclical, whether there is a God and if it has the potential for absolute knowledge. It has implications in politics, economics, psychology, physics, biology literally any field that is not an artifically imposed symbolism of math or language. (In terms of how they function and are understood, ofc they could have many applications in more areas if we had the answer.)

[Anonymous No.9890161]

>>9890123
It is both. To the determined, life becomes linear.
To the ones who search for free will, it becomes chaotic.
Like schrodingers cat, it either is or isn't. Alive or dead, good or evil, orderly or chaotic.

[Anonymous No.9890172]

>>9890123
Leave it to the philosopher. Not a measurable concept.