{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Edited by Dark Turkey:
1/16/2014 9:57:56 PM
38
"Randomness does not exist."
Backstory: I'm taking this deductive logic course centered around a theory called Information Measurement Theory developed by the professor who heads a research group. I'm concerned this will turn out to be a pseudoscientific philosophy course, especially after today.
Topics discussed today about the theory were:
-Randomness does not exist
-It is not possible to control others
-It is not possible to influence others
-A person defines his/her environment, while simultaneously, the environment defines the person
-No person can know all information
So I ended up getting into an argument with the prof, the TA, and half of the class about randomness. I argued that randomness does exist, or at minimum, it's arrogant and naive to presume to know that the universe is deterministic. This seems especially true given their fifth theorem that no person can know all information.
Examples I cited were dice, queuing theory, radioactive decay, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Dice and queuing theory are not what one would call "truly random", in the sense that with enough information, one could deterministically predict the outcome with certainty. However, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is impossible to refute without finding some way to expand quantum mechanics to a universal scale. Wave function collapse caused by external mechanisms can only be prevented if nothing in existence is external to the system being observed.
So while it's possible that every event is deterministic, that would require knowledge of all things, which is directly contradictory to their fifth theorem.
Anyways, I'd like to hear what you think about this "theory" of theirs, the various theorems, and about randomness.
-
7 Replies[quote]-Randomness does not exist[/quote] It exists but it's not be as random as we think. All random number generators in computers have a system to come up with a number. And all randomness in nature is caused by something(s). [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory]There is always a method to the madness.[/url] [quote]-It is not possible to control others[/quote] False. You can't have 100% control over someone. People will always be unpredictable to some degree but you can definitely brainwash the shit out of someone. [quote]-It is not possible to influence others[/quote] [url=http://www.nndb.com/people/197/000025122/ahitler.jpg]About that...[/url] [quote]-A person defines his/her environment, while simultaneously, the environment defines the person[/quote] True but it's mostly the latter of the two. [quote]-No person can know all information[/quote] That's pretty obvious. Our brain has a limited space just like a hard drive does. We can't store every digit in [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grahams_number]Graham's number[/url] in our brain. If our brain could do that it would have to be so dense that it would create a black hole.
-
I say it's legit.
-
Edited by Ingy: 1/18/2014 5:33:26 AMFirst of all it wouldn't take knowledge of everything Just knowledge of what applies to the event (which is still a crap load of info) And second of all How is it not possible to control or influence someone I'm interested And the Big Bang Wasn't that the prime example of randomness?
-
12 RepliesWell, I do, so apricots. In all seriousness, I do believe in determinism.
-
Edited by Ad Hoc: 1/16/2014 12:09:34 AMIt's hard to say. Every particle was "assigned" mass, direction, velocity, etc, during the Big Bang. By the rules of Newtonian Physics, you could hypothetically determine their future states, even down to the thoughts, actions, etc, of human beings. However, with the advent of Quantum Mechanics, scientists discovered it isn't that simple (duh). The problem is, we just don't know enough about it. A lot of stuff might not be as unpredictable as we think.
-
2 RepliesDinosaurs. That's random. Move on with your life.
-
I agree that true randomness does exist. Rolling a dice isn't the best example; the outcome depends on how you roll it and is determined by basic laws of physics. But Quantum Physics is a great place to look, though it is up to debate whether it actually portrays true randomness. It could just seem random due to limited human understanding. However, I think if you go deep enough to the point of the most fundamental scale of the universe (maybe string theory?), to the point where everything can be represented in binary (like the "code" of the universe), there must be something which has no cause and is truly random. If everything has a cause, what could possibly cause existence (or a god, if you believe there to be a creator of the universe)? Then again, maybe I'm just talking out of my ass. :P
-
2 RepliesI bet you just ruined some huge assignment he had planned for the whole class to team up to try and prove it, only for them to realize that it is completely false, which would tie into some large lesson on scientific and mathematical rigor :) If that turns out to not be the case, then God help you.
-
Bell's Theorem directly contradicts such an assertion. In order for the Universe to be deterministic, there has to be a set of currently unknown, indirect, underlying laws/mechanics directing it. There is no good evidence of those mechanism at the present time. So, the impetus of assuming determinism based on those underlying mechanisms is on the people asserting it. Keeping in mind Bell proved that they can't exist with pure logic without those assumptions. The assumption that determinism is an underlying cause is a terrible theory, based on a level of pure analytical analysis. The possibility that they exist should be on the table, but the assumption they exist is absurd, in a logical sense. Its simply not good [b]applicable[/b] theory if it uses that sort of reasoning to apply axioms. Good job calling them on it OP. I don't know you, but I'm proud of you for thinking for yourself, and taking them to task.
-
Edited by Cicero J Faraday: 1/17/2014 1:19:45 AMYour logic skills impress me. In all seriousness, congratulations.
-
something something metaphysics something Dutchy does exist so yeah something yes something
-
1 ReplyTrying too hard
-
1 ReplyNintendo, it means leave luck to heaven.
-
5 Replies[quote]-No person can know all information[/quote] Oh they are wrong, so very wrong...
-
1 ReplyGreat, another one of [i]those [/i] guys
-
1 ReplyHeisenberg's uncertainty principle just concerns measurement rather than the intrinsic nature of a system. Our model of quantum mechanics doesn't state that anything is fundamentally random, just that we can't predict it.
-
Edited by magicmagininja: 1/16/2014 10:20:33 PM[url=http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/dota2.gamepedia.com/4/40/Ogmag_ability_multi_04.mp3]Chance/randomness Doesnt exist[/url]
-
1 ReplyI posting again to remind you that you still haven't made your case. You're just assuming that we should agree with you for some reason.
-
Edited by Obi Wan Stevobi: 1/16/2014 7:27:50 PM[quote] -Randomness does not exist[/quote] I agree. To suggest truly random things could happen would suggest that events can happen without cause. I don't believe this is possible, as it would pretty much undermine all of physics, math, and every type of science there is. Now, the cause and effect mechanics may be so complex we cannot determine a pattern, so it seems random to us, but just because we can't pinpoint a cause doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, the human brain. It is of such great complexity we may not know how a human will respond to a test. But not being able to map the complexity is not reason to think that their response isn't guided by electrons flowing from one neuron to the next millions of times. That would suggest that natural laws can fail. [quote]-It is not possible to control others -It is not possible to influence others[/quote] Nonsense. This assumes that there is no causality, which is not the case, ever. [quote]-A person defines his/her environment, while simultaneously, the environment defines the person[/quote] Obvious [quote]-No person can know all information[/quote] Obnoxiously obvious
-
6 Replies[quote]Wavefront collapse caused by external mechanisms can only be prevented if nothing in existence is external to the system being observed. [/quote]*Wave function collapse Actually it can be prevented by not measuring it with current methods. The only reason it collapses is because we measure it with photons which are on a similar scale so it causes significant disruption to the system when it interacts. If we were to find some way of measuring without messing things up like that then we'd be good, I doubt that will happen though. Point is that it's nothing to do with the fact that an observer exists, more to do with the fact that the only method of observation we have involves knocking the system into disarray.
-
2 Replies*holds up spork*
-
POTATO FLYING IN WALTER WHITE TOILET WHILE NYAN CAT GETS INTO A FISTFIGHT WITH MICHAEL JACKSON'S GHOST!
-
Rutabaga.
-
On another note, "It is not possible to control others" and "It is not possible to influence others" not only counteract each other but also make little in the way of any sense at all. Because, for one thing, you can gain control over people by influencing them. If these two statements were true, there would be no laws, there wouldn't be even be any new things created by people since everybody draws inspiration from somewhere therefore making that an influence. In terms to the theory on people and their environment, it is a true thing in some regards. It's a two way street. The environment a young child is placed in ultimately determines what they will do when they are older and have more power and access to change their environment.
-
Le xDDD im s[i]oooooo[/i] random tho :P </3 <3 just me being randum ;D hehe :O
-
What? I...[i]what?[/i]
