+ Register

[Archie]

A few well-known theoretical physicists have begun in earnest to "successfully undermine" the natural randomness of quantum mechanics.  Their idea is to work with physics at the "planck's constant" level to view everything on up as a fatalistic game of checkers instead of as the odd movements of a chess game.

At that level, the pieces of the universe are immune from the rest of physics, eg, the quantum mechanical laws.  (Beginning to sound like that post of mine which you tossed like a salad?)

Anyway, of course not.  Some things seem to cause or perpetuate themselves, eg, the idiocy found exclusively on gambling boards, but every effect had a cause.  Another reason that the universe is infinite and infinitely dimensional... not conveniently of only what we think we can explain.

You may now return to your life of self-generated peace and harmony within a "reality" within the real reality, which of course goes beyond even such a game of checkers.  (I love these two minute replies.  But, Vic needs to get rid of those ugly green arrows at the right.  And, that funny tiny print that pops up in the editors window, perhaps like that underline stuff.  Also, takes a lot of time on the gambling boards to save each post in the expectation that it's going to be quickly but permanently removed, lol.  What's with the double spacing with paragraphs?)

Lex

[Bayes]

That clinches it. 

   
• incoherent rambling (to quote the Wiz - nice one Mike)
• quantum mechanics and high-falutin' physics brought in at the drop of a hat
• passive-aggressive behaviour (often without the passive)
• inappropriate and excessive use of inverted commas

I was only 90% sure that Archie is Garnabby, now I'm 99.99% sure. 


What I don't get is why members believe that creating an alias is going to fool anyone.


"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

[Priyanka]

Bayes, did you accidentally deleted Sam's topic Its not there anymore. Another causeless effect[smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley][smiley]aes/vicious.png[/smiley]

[Turner]

Garnaby....you talk in riddles mate. Complete bonkers

[TwoCatSam]

Yanks

I deleted it myself.

Until Victor cleans this forum up a bit, I find very little need to post anything. 

Sam

[Priyanka]

Yanks

I deleted it myself.

Until Victor cleans this forum up a bit, I find very little need to post anything. 

Sam

Sure Sam. But it is a very interesting thought process and I was hoping to listen more on what people have to say. This is the exact thought process behind me starting the random thoughts thread. Vic, you better listen to Sam [smiley]aes/vampire.png[/smiley]


The very definition of random is "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard". This very explanation says that random does not do anything on purpose. Is it the weakness of random? I am inclined towards the opinion that this is the strength of randomness.

Several important techniques in science are based on this strength of purposelessness (is it a word?) to the core. Funnily enough they are named based on gambling heavens. Eg. Monte carlo method - Not another roulette system, but name given to a set of algorithms relying on random samplings. Another example is las vegas algorithm

Trying to predict random and finding its weaknesses is not new. Our life is random. For ages we have tried predicting the future/fate/randomness through divination techniques. In India, I have seen people throwing dice even now to tell what is one's fate. In other places it is common to draw a tarot card to predict random fate.

Also, there is a significant difference between randomness and unpredictability. If you carefully observe the explanation again, you can figure out that it never talks about unpredictability. Random implies a certain state of uncertainity which is very  different from unpredictability. People who believe in this theory feel that there is a weakness and try to attack it using expected value algorithms. There is another section that believes there is no randomness and only unpredictability. Then comes the concept of true randomness generated by roulette wheels and pseudo randomness from RNG to confuse it even further. 

Randomness is a ocean or probably infinite times bigger. It is easy to play around with words. But it is very difficult to grasp the concept and even after nearly two and half decades of my existance I don't know what it means. that's why this blabbering and random thought. What looks like random to me might not look random to you. Simple example - Chinese language might look random to me with classic regularities in between,but not for chinese.

Monty hall problem summarizes the relationship of this indirectly to how we play roulette. Three doors. Two having goats and one having car. Objective is to win the car by predicting the door when opened contains the car. All doors are closed. You predict one. A different door opens with a goat in it. You are being asked to reconsider your options. Will switching give you a benefit? Well its still being discussed for ages. Same applies for this discussion as well. This will be discussed for ages and zillions of years to come!

[VLS]

"Cleaning up" == issue bans, right?

[Bayes]

What looks like random to me might not look random to you. Simple example - Chinese language might look random to me with classic regularities in between,but not for chinese.

There's your answer. Randomness isn't some mystical property inherent in an object. If it were, then it wouldn't be possible that "what looks random to me might not look random to you", the randomness would shoot out like light rays from a bulb and you would just passively absorb it. Random simply means that you have no knowledge of how a result came about. That may be because the possible number of ways the result could occur are simply too numerous for us to grasp (as is the case with roulette). You eliminate randomness by gaining more knowledge.


Suppose you were to film a roulette spin using a camera with a very fast shutter speed, then play back the film in slow motion. At what point would you be able to predict the final resting place of the ball? in other words, when would the outcome become non-random? that's the basis of advantage play. The result becomes less random to the extent that you eliminate some of those possible ways in which the result can occur, so in a sense, you're not predicting anything, only eliminating. That's visual ballistics, but bias does the same thing in a different way (or you could combine the two). So with a biased wheel, again you have eliminated (or at least, lessened the chance of) some particular "paths" to the outcome. This is knowledge you may have but someone else might not, so the result is random to them but not to you.


And it simply makes no sense to talk about an effect without a cause. We may not know the cause, or it may be too complex to penetrate, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[esoito]

I've now locked this because:

1  It's served its purpose -- Sam's original thread has been restored and is active

2  This thread started to degenerate into kindergarten behaviour -- I removed some of the offending posts yesterday