rolling dice is not random?

[Dale]

assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics

someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
random existence

the only empirical evidence of randomness in quantum physics is the
Casimir Effect, which does not create a true vacuum for virtual
particles, zero-point energy, etc. to be observed

things like Faraday Cages aren't true vacuums
even the apparatus introduces something else into a vacuum
things like neutrinos can enter the apparatus and attempted vacuum
probably more stuff from more scholarly people

treating something as random, or assuming it is effectively random, does
not make it random, secondly does not make randomness part of determinism

before you can address that something is random, you have to address
whether random exists

by deduction, if random exists then random does whatever

there is no inductive reasoning, if something appears random apply
statistically designed experiments with all the appropriate control
variables to something indescribable by statistics until you agree that
randomness cannot be described statistically or out of stubbornness
devote your life to the cause

note, all assumes logic, if illogic exists then random may do many
things, and many things may do many things

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect
to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
random existence

Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect
to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
random existence

Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.

Try not to be so stoooopid, jimp.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect
to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
random existence

Or get a bunch of people to try to throw dice the same way every time.

Try not to be so stoooopid, jimp.

OK, spamming shit head, explain in your own words what would be stupid
about a statistical study of people attempting to throw dice the same
way time and again.

Do you, spamming shit head, think humans are capable or incapable of
sufficient muscle control to make throwing dice non-random?

Here's your chance to actually DISCUSS something for once instead
of just copying the words of others, spamming shit head.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Probably - but who is assuming determinism?

What point are you actually trying to make here?

Sylvia.

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
What point are you actually trying to make here?
Sylvia.

maybe mutations can't be random

something random is untestable and not theory, not deductive because it
has no cause or link to the "whole" therefore not even hypothesis

not to say it doesn't happen, just to say that there are broader
explanations that are put aside when responding with some FAQs to a
creationist

for instance

a) God(s) did it
b) no, random mutations filtered by natural selection did it

there are many studies I have seen on talk.origins that attempt to
explain genetic variation, they would take a lot of studying for me, but
they aren't random, they fit with determinism

seems like there is a two tier set of FAQs for science, too bad the
dissemination isn't as good as it could be

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
What point are you actually trying to make here?
Sylvia.

maybe mutations can't be random

Every indication we have is that quantum mechanical processes are
random. That leaks into evolution by such processes as:

a) Cosmic rays arriving at random and impacting DNA molecules.

b) Radioactive decay in the environment and tissues surrounding DNA
molecules randomly emitting particles that interact with DNA.

c) Radioactive decay within DNA when it happens to contain an unstable
isotope of an atom.

d) Transcription errors when the wrong chemical reaction occurs because,
although it is unlikely, it is not impossible.

And who knows how many others.

Given the clear evidence that DNA dictates the form of a creature, it's
inevitable that these random changes to the DNA will cause mutations,
and it's equally inevitable that some of these mutations will be beneficial.

To bring God into the picture, you have to have Him either controlling
the quantum mechanical processes, or actively removing the beneficial
mutations in favour of specific changes He wants. That's a stretch,
given that it seems clear that things would happen the way they are even
in the absence of His intervention.

Sylvia

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Probably - but who is assuming determinism?
What point are you actually trying to make here?
Sylvia.

maybe mutations can't be random

Every indication we have is that quantum mechanical processes are
a) Cosmic rays arriving at random and impacting DNA molecules.
b) Radioactive decay in the environment and tissues surrounding DNA
molecules randomly emitting particles that interact with DNA.
c) Radioactive decay within DNA when it happens to contain an unstable
isotope of an atom.
d) Transcription errors when the wrong chemical reaction occurs because,
although it is unlikely, it is not impossible.
And who knows how many others.
Given the clear evidence that DNA dictates the form of a creature, it's
inevitable that these random changes to the DNA will cause mutations,
and it's equally inevitable that some of these mutations will be beneficial.
To bring God into the picture, you have to have Him either controlling
the quantum mechanical processes, or actively removing the beneficial
mutations in favour of specific changes He wants. That's a stretch,
given that it seems clear that things would happen the way they are even
in the absence of His intervention.
Sylvia

lots of good stuff, I would have to study to reply well

I'll resort to philosophy and put the full reply on the back-burner for
a short while

you can't put randomness in determinism, unless time is a continuum and
random things always existed and need no cause, random things have no cause

even cyclical debates would have to attribute past tense of random
nature to present, or they would fall into a cycle of last effect being
first cause and random objects have no cause

finite time binds the end to the beginning and a random object cannot be
bound to a beginning because it has no cause

it may be a question as to whether the reader is a determinist, your
assertions of random nature fall into the non-determinist category
except for the continuum time case

I at least believe in the psychological/sociological/psychiatric value
of what may just be metaphor/parable/etc. of spirituality, its faith, I
know it, but isn't empiricism the same? especially with no determinism?
if there are a bunch of random things happening there is nothing to say
the Sun won't rise tomorrow as it did today

[unknown]

<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> 
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

To us, nature seems semi-random;
some things are better known, others less so.

Fact is: What we want (water, air, sex, etc.)
has been programmed into us -- we're robots.

Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys;
Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by unknown
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that
the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that
prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.

That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in
principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the randomness.

Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that
at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter
of ignorance.

Sylvia.

[unknown]

<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> 

there is no underlying process about which we could,
in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to
look behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics].

Ignorance is ignorance, Sylvia,
no matter if the truth is attainable or not.

At ＜<A hRef='http://www.onbeing.org/program/einstein039s-god-einstein039s-ethics/extra/einstein-science-and-religion-1940/1986'
target=_blank>The 1940 Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, New York</A>＞,
Eintein said: ＜＜

When the number of factors coming into play in
a phenomenological complex is too large,
scientific method, in most cases, fails us.

One need only think of the weather, in which case,
prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.

Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with
a causal connection whose causal components are,
in the main, known to us.

Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of _exact_
prediction because of the variety of factors in operation,
not because of any lack of order in nature. ＞＞

Einstein convinced the world that atoms/photons exist,
thus ushering in the age of quantum mechanics.

Did he (the principle father of QM) get it wrong,
while you (a random Usenutter) got it right ? !
I think not.

The ensemble is more predictible than its members.

Consider the net monitary contribution of 999 people,
an ensemble, semi-randomly selected.

Most will be in the middle,
with a few outliers on either side.

This is the ensemble interpretation of quantum statistics,
endorced by Einstein, and it's far more _mature_ than
the "peek-a-boo" bullshit from Max Born (Copenhagen).

Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation

[Sylvia Else]

Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.

There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not
discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the
unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.

For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case
of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such thing.

This seems to be case with quantum mechanics. Our inability to predict
the outcome of a quantum interaction is not due to our failing to know
something about the internal state of the particles involved, but arises
because there is nothing there to know. The result is random, and that's
all that can be said about it.

Sylvia

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.

There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not
discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the
unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.
For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case
of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such thing.

aren't the prime numbers a set whose cardinality is countable?

Post by Sylvia Else
This seems to be case with quantum mechanics. Our inability to predict
the outcome of a quantum interaction is not due to our failing to know
something about the internal state of the particles involved, but arises
because there is nothing there to know. The result is random, and that's
all that can be said about it.

not knowing doesn't equate with a definition?

Post by Sylvia Else
Sylvia

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Sylvia_Else wrote: > there is no underlying process about which we
could, > in principle, have knowledge, and thereby be able to > look
behind the randomness [of quantum mechanics]. Ignorance is ignorance,
Sylvia, no matter if the truth is attainable or not.

There's a distinction between a truth that exists, but is not
discoverable, and a truth that is simply non-existent. Applying the
unqualified word "ignorance" in the latter case is rather unhelpful.
For example, we do not know the highest prime number. This is not a case
of ignorance - the reason we do not know it is that there is no such thing.

aren't the prime numbers a set whose cardinality is countable?

Yes, since they're a subset of the natural numbers, which are countable
by definition.

But being countable doesn't mean finite. That there is no highest prime
number was proved over two millennia ago (by Euclid, who was a pretty
bright lad).

Post by Dale
not knowing doesn't equate with a definition?

If by that you mean that not knowing is the definition of "ignorant". I
wouldn't agree. I would consider it limited to those situations where
the ignorant person could, at least in principle, otherwise know the
thing they're ignorant of.

Sylvia.

[unknown]

<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> 
Math is virtual, not real, Sylvia_Else.
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not real.

Physics, unlike math,
is about measuring_reality, as best we can.

In the double-slit experiment,
the more coherent the light source:

- The stronger the interference pattern.
- The more you know the momentum of its photons.
- The harder it is to know which slit
its photons might've been using.

"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
What we want (water, air, sex, etc.)
has been programmed into us -- we're robots.

Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys;
Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.

Did the principle father of QM (Einstein) get it wrong,
while you (a random Usenutter) got it right ? !
I think not.

The ensemble is more predictible than its members.

Consider the net monitary contribution of 999 people,
an ensemble, semi-randomly selected.

Most will be in the middle,
with a few outliers on either side.

This is the ensemble interpretation of quantum statistics,
endorced by Einstein, and it's far more _MATURE_ than
the "peek-a-boo" bullshit from Max Born (Copenhagen).

Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation

[benj]

Post by unknown
Math is virtual, not real, Sylvia_Else.
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not real.
Physics, unlike math,
is about measuring_reality, as best we can.
In the double-slit experiment,
- The stronger the interference pattern.
- The more you know the momentum of its photons.
- The harder it is to know which slit
its photons might've been using.
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
What we want (water, air, sex, etc.)
has been programmed into us -- we're robots.
Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys;
Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.
Did the principle father of QM (Einstein) get it wrong,
while you (a random Usenutter) got it right ? !
I think not.
The ensemble is more predictible than its members.
Consider the net monitary contribution of 999 people,
an ensemble, semi-randomly selected.
Most will be in the middle,
with a few outliers on either side.
This is the ensemble interpretation of quantum statistics,
endorced by Einstein, and it's far more _MATURE_ than
the "peek-a-boo" bullshit from Max Born (Copenhagen).
Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation

Rolf, if all of us pay no attention to your ramblings or those of
someone "else', does that mean you won't exist? Let us hope so.

Rolf you have no idea what "random" is or how to actually achieve it.
And your suggestion that random does not exist at all is wrong too.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[chrisv]

*plonk*

[Snit]

Post by unknown
 
Math is virtual, not real, Sylvia_Else.
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not real.

Scientific models are just that: models. They are useful or not. Even if
they are extremely useful it does not mean they are necessarily accurate.

This is true for Newton's laws and Quantum Mechanics.

Post by unknown
Physics, unlike math, is about measuring_reality, as best we can.
- The stronger the interference pattern.
- The more you know the momentum of its photons.
- The harder it is to know which slit
its photons might've been using.
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

I share that intuition but acknowledge it is just that: an intuition... and
it is an intuition about a world at a scale so different from what our
senses and perceptions are "designed" for that there is little reason to
think our intuition is of much value.

Does not mean intuition cannot lead to new studies - but to blindly trust it
is foolish.

Post by unknown
What we want (water, air, sex, etc.) has been programmed into us -- we're
robots.
Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; Einstein showed how "life" is
virtual, not real.

How do you figure Einstein showed this?

Post by unknown
Did the principle father of QM (Einstein) get it wrong, while you (a random
Usenutter) got it right ? !

Einstein was not the father of Quantum Mechanics but relativity (though he
also played a role in QM).

Post by unknown
I think not.

Therefore you do not exist. :)

Post by unknown
The ensemble is more predictible than its members.
Consider the net monitary contribution of 999 people,
an ensemble, semi-randomly selected.
Most will be in the middle,
with a few outliers on either side.
This is the ensemble interpretation of quantum statistics,
endorced by Einstein, and it's far more _MATURE_ than
the "peek-a-boo" bullshit from Max Born (Copenhagen).
Wikipedia.ORG/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation

--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?

* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:

* Mint KDE working with folders:

* Mint KDE creating files:

* Mint KDE help:

* Mint KDE general navigation:

* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?

* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:

* OS / Word Processor Comparison:

[unknown]

<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> 

Post by Snit

Post by unknown
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
What we want (water, air, sex, etc.)
has been programmed into us -- we're robots.
Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys;
Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.

How do you figure Einstein showed this?

Read what he wrote (it's extensive, and a good read).

In ＜<A hRef='http://www.onbeing.org/program/einstein039s-god-einstein039s-ethics/extra/einstein-world-i-see-it-1931/1990'
target=_blank>"The World As I See It", 1931</A>＞, Einstein said: ＜＜

In human freedom, in the philosophical sense,
I am definitely a disbeliever.

Everybody acts not only under external compulsion
but also in accordance with inner necessity.

Schopenhauer's saying, that
" A man can do as he will, but not will as he will. ",
has been an inspiration to me since my youth up,
and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience
in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'.

This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility
which so easily becomes paralyzing,
and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously;

it conduces to a view of life in which humor, above all, has its due place.
＞＞

At ＜<A hRef='http://www.onbeing.org/program/einstein039s-god-einstein039s-ethics/extra/einstein-science-and-religion-1940/1986'
target=_blank>The 1940 Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, New York</A>＞,
Eintein said: ＜＜

When the number of factors coming into play in
a phenomenological complex is too large,
scientific method, in most cases, fails us.

One need only think of the weather, in which case,
prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible.

Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with
a causal connection whose causal components are,
in the main, known to us.

Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of _exact_
prediction because of the variety of factors in operation,
not because of any lack of order in nature. ＞＞

Post by Snit

Post by unknown
Did the principle father of QM (Einstein) get it wrong,
while you (a random Usenutter) got it right ? !

Einstein was not the father of Quantum Mechanics
but relativity (though he also played a role in QM).

Einstein convinced the world that atoms/photons exist,
thus ushering in the age of quantum mechanics.

The more you study QM, the more you'll see it;
it's quite shocking, the role he played.

I could write a book on the topic.
To get a _TINY_ taste, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by unknown
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that
the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that
prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.
That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in
principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the randomness.
Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that
at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter
of ignorance.
Sylvia.

too often the term random is used

for instance, is zero-point energy testable? no, you would have to
observe it and introducing yourself or a Casimir apparatus inot the
environment cancels out the zero

quantum physics went led cosmology into philosophy when there was no
answer to Schroedinger's Cat besides his point, maybe consciousness is a
5th dimension

[Olrik]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by unknown
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

In the field of quantum mechanics there are good reasons to think that
the randomness is inherent, and that it is not lack of knowledge that
prevents us from knowing what will happen and when.
That is, there is no underlying process about which we could in
principle have knowledge, and thereby be able to look behind the randomness.
Since quantum randomness affects the world we perceive, that means that
at least some of the randomness we see in the world is not just a matter
of ignorance.
Sylvia.

too often the term random is used
for instance, is zero-point energy testable? no, you would have to
observe it and introducing yourself or a Casimir apparatus inot the
environment cancels out the zero
quantum physics went led cosmology into philosophy when there was no
answer to Schroedinger's Cat besides his point, maybe consciousness is a
5th dimension

Eat well. Go to church. Love you family and friends.

Leave the rest the fuck alone.

[The BORG]

There is nothing random in the Univierse.

Only atheists believe in randomness.

Post by unknown
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
To us, nature seems semi-random;
some things are better known, others less so.
Fact is: What we want (water, air, sex, etc.)
has been programmed into us -- we're robots.
Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys;
Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.
"Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. To us, nature seems semi-random; some things are better known, others less so. Fact is: What we want (water, air, sex, etc.) has been programmed into us -- we're robots. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; Einstein showed how "life" is virtual, not real.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by The BORG
There is nothing random in the Univierse.
Only atheists believe in randomness.

That seems somewhat plausible, but I think you need to expand a bit on
your reasoning.

Sylvia.

[b***@m.nu]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:47:50 -0400, Dale <***@dalekelly.org> wrote:


actually rolling dice is not a true random. since there is a limited
number of results that can be obtained and some of the results can be
obtained in more than one combination

[Dale]

Post by b***@m.nu
actually rolling dice is not a true random. since there is a limited
number of results that can be obtained and some of the results can be
obtained in more than one combination

neither is a random seed generation

[Dale]

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect
to roll dice they start in a particular position in the hand, they exit
the hand in a position, their path to the environment to the table
bounds them to cause and effect physics, their landing and final roll on
the table is bound by the environmental cause and effect physics
someone ought to construct a physical dice rolling/receiving apparatus
to prove the point, rolling dice is too often used as an excuse for
random existence

.
.> the only empirical evidence of randomness in quantum physics is the
.> Casimir Effect.
Radioactive decay.

Which slit a particle goes through

in the double slit experiment. The Schroedinger equation,
which gives only probabilities, not predictions. Quantum
physics if full of examples of randomness. I'm afraid I'm not seeing
how the Casimir effect is particularly an example.
.> which does not create a true vacuum for virtual
.> particles, zero-point energy, etc. to be observed
.> things like Faraday Cages aren't true vacuums
Faraday cages aren't supposed to be any kind of vacuum.
Instead they're metal containers which intercept incoming
radiation, generally lower frequency radiation, and shunt it
off to ground. Generally not solid but mesh, as the only
requirement is that the holes be small enough to block
wavelengths above a given frequency.

Post by Dale
even the apparatus introduces something else into a vacuum
things like neutrinos can enter the apparatus and attempted vacuum
probably more stuff from more scholarly people
treating something as random, or assuming it is effectively random, does
not make it random, secondly does not make randomness part of determinism
before you can address that something is random, you have to address
whether random exists
by deduction, if random exists then random does whatever

,> there is no inductive reasoning, if something appears random apply
,> statistically designed experiments with all the appropriate control
,> variables to something indescribable by statistics until you agree that
,> randomness cannot be described statistically or out of stubbornness
,> devote your life to the cause
That sort of thing has been done with radioactive decay. In fact
there are true random number generators based on radioactive
https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

Post by Dale
note, all assumes logic, if illogic exists then random may do many
things, and many things may do many things
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

I'll give a brief reply now and get back to you

choose one of the two, not both, randomness or determinism,

unless time is a continuum and random things need no cause to exist,
finite time binds the end to the beginning and random things have no
beginning/cause, cyclical time is sort of like finite because its last
effect is the first cause and no cause even a first can be the cause of
something random

I'm not a determinist, at least the concept of free will is around, I
might not have it, but a Supreme Being would, are concepts part of the
set of things that exist and what role do concepts play? if they only
play into valuable metaphors/parables why not be light on such?

[John Ritson]

In article <***@news.alt.net>, Dale <***@dalekelly.org>
writes
[snip]

Post by Dale
I'll give a brief reply now and get back to you
choose one of the two, not both, randomness or determinism,
unless time is a continuum and random things need no cause to exist,
finite time binds the end to the beginning and random things have no
beginning/cause, cyclical time is sort of like finite because its last
effect is the first cause and no cause even a first can be the cause of
something random
I'm not a determinist, at least the concept of free will is around, I
might not have it, but a Supreme Being would, are concepts part of the
set of things that exist and what role do concepts play? if they only
play into valuable metaphors/parables why not be light on such?

Randomness and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Consider an hourglass. Where on the pile any individual grain of sand
ends up is random, but the overall result is 'determined' as a cone of
precise shape that forms in a precise time.

[Dale]

Post by John Ritson
writes
[snip]

Post by Dale
I'll give a brief reply now and get back to you
choose one of the two, not both, randomness or determinism,
unless time is a continuum and random things need no cause to exist,
finite time binds the end to the beginning and random things have no
beginning/cause, cyclical time is sort of like finite because its last
effect is the first cause and no cause even a first can be the cause of
something random
I'm not a determinist, at least the concept of free will is around, I
might not have it, but a Supreme Being would, are concepts part of the
set of things that exist and what role do concepts play? if they only
play into valuable metaphors/parables why not be light on such?

Randomness and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Consider an hourglass. Where on the pile any individual grain of sand
ends up is random, but the overall result is 'determined' as a cone of
precise shape that forms in a precise time.

are you saying that physics didn't apply to the grain of sand before it
landed in place? or where it landed in place?

[John Ritson]

In article <***@news.alt.net>, Dale <***@dalekelly.org>
writes

Post by Dale

Post by John Ritson
writes
[snip]

Post by Dale
I'll give a brief reply now and get back to you
choose one of the two, not both, randomness or determinism,
unless time is a continuum and random things need no cause to exist,
finite time binds the end to the beginning and random things have no
beginning/cause, cyclical time is sort of like finite because its last
effect is the first cause and no cause even a first can be the cause of
something random
I'm not a determinist, at least the concept of free will is around, I
might not have it, but a Supreme Being would, are concepts part of the
set of things that exist and what role do concepts play? if they only
play into valuable metaphors/parables why not be light on such?

Randomness and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Consider an hourglass. Where on the pile any individual grain of sand
ends up is random, but the overall result is 'determined' as a cone of
precise shape that forms in a precise time.

are you saying that physics didn't apply to the grain of sand before it
landed in place? or where it landed in place?

The number of variables involved is so great that the final position of
the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.
How many times would you have to re-run the experiment to give the same
final position of every particular grain?
That's what we call random.

[Dale]

Post by John Ritson
The number of variables involved is so great that the final position of
the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.

so we have better things to day, we will just call it random for no
reason, I don't buy it, "pure" science came to a halt with
Schroedinger's Cat, they don't want to admit a dimension of
spirituality, so we have all these things that might not even be called
hypothesis, like string theory and M-theory, being called theory

science has left the scientific process behind

[John Ritson]

In article <***@news.alt.net>, Dale <***@dalekelly.org>
writes

Post by Dale

Post by John Ritson
The number of variables involved is so great that the final position of
the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.

so we have better things to day, we will just call it random for no
reason, I don't buy it, "pure" science came to a halt with
Schroedinger's Cat, they don't want to admit a dimension of
spirituality, so we have all these things that might not even be called
hypothesis, like string theory and M-theory, being called theory
science has left the scientific process behind

At last we get to the point everybody knew you were heading for. If you
can't understand something you put it into 'a dimension of
spirituality'. This is the old 'God of the Gaps' argument, but now you
have reduced your deity to an infinitesimal size, doomed to an eternity
of nudging sand grains into position or arranging the timing of
radioactive decay.

[Kadaitcha Man]

Post by John Ritson
writes

Post by Dale

Post by John Ritson
The number of variables involved is so great that the final position
of the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.

so we have better things to day, we will just call it random for no
reason, I don't buy it, "pure" science came to a halt with
Schroedinger's Cat, they don't want to admit a dimension of
spirituality, so we have all these things that might not even be called
hypothesis, like string theory and M-theory, being called theory
science has left the scientific process behind

At last we get to the point everybody knew you were heading for. If
you can't understand something you put it into 'a dimension of
spirituality'. This is the old 'God of the Gaps' argument, but now you
have reduced your deity to an infinitesimal size, doomed to an
eternity of nudging sand grains into position or arranging the timing
of radioactive decay.

Nice spin, but he's right.

[Sam Wormley]

Post by John Ritson
The number of variables involved is so great that the final position of
the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.

The number of variable is not the problem, but knowing the values
of the variables.

[R Kym Horsell]

Post by Sam Wormley

Post by John Ritson
The number of variables involved is so great that the final position of
the grain cannot be calculated in any reasonable time.

The number of variable is not the problem, but knowing the values
of the variables.

Yes, precise measurement can be an inherent problem.

But if people don't like that kind of stuff from QM then even if
all values are exactly known and there are only a small number of variables
you are still up against undecidability. Determinate systems involving
numbers have properties that can not be determined in a countable number of
steps. E.g. the halting problem or similar or Go:del's undecidability
theorems from "normal" arithmetic. (Of course, Pressburger arithmetic *is*
a possible fly in the ointment).

Interestingly, even "random algorithms" run up against the problem
of "too hard to decide".
Some years back it was hoped probabalistic techniques could solve
many of the "hard" problems, at least approximately. But it has turned out
there are also problems that "suck it and see" also can't solve
even approximately.

I haven't kept track of the status, but I think the
"half triple" Collatz problem is still unsolved.
(Start with a whole number. If it's even halve it; otherwise replace
it with triple + 1. Do you always get to 1 in the end?)

If physical processes in any way are analogous to normal operators on
normal numerical quantities then they are inherently nasty.
If the universe involves real numbers or continua then you are screwed
another \Aleph_1 times but at least a booked-out hotel will always have
enough room for you and your infinite number of friends. :)

--
Ninety percent of the time things turn out worse than you thought they would.
The other ten percent of the time you had no right to expect that much.
-- Augustine

[Hans Wussel]

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Yes, but if allow chaotic things to happen (e.g. small changes in the
initial state result in totally different outcome, see for example
double rod pendulum), then you have to believe that you can exactly
reproduce an initial state, but from what we observe it looks like this
is impossible.

[Dale]

Post by Hans Wussel

Post by Dale
assuming determinism means nothing is random, everything is bounded by
cause and effect

Yes, but if allow chaotic things to happen (e.g. small changes in the
initial state result in totally different outcome, see for example
double rod pendulum), then you have to believe that you can exactly
reproduce an initial state, but from what we observe it looks like this
is impossible.

agree with the value of treatment, I used to use random seed generation ...