Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Spider

Does Randomness Really Exist?

Recommended Posts

sometimes I feel as if Spider forgets everything I have told him 10 times already lol.

 

See my previous reply.

 

Also, you haven't responded to my question in post # 37 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU CAN STILL HAVE PATTERNS WHEN THINGS ARE RANDOM!!!!

 

For example:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjRucbyz7vTAhUJxxQKHUllDPsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.thingswedontknow.com%2F2015%2F02%2Fhow-big-are-atoms.html&psig=AFQjCNFtvZIw1jln3FDAfM34baWPePlxsw&ust=1493072820180095

 

What do we see: Probability distribution of how far an electron is found from its nucleus.

Cause: Measurement of electron position

Effect: Electron "adopts"/is found at a certain position

Is there a pattern?: Very clearly yes there is a pattern.

 

Causes lead to effects, some effects are more likely than others. Over 10000000000 iterations, more likely events will occur more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU CAN STILL HAVE PATTERNS WHEN THINGS ARE RANDOM!!!!

 

For example:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjRucbyz7vTAhUJxxQKHUllDPsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.thingswedontknow.com%2F2015%2F02%2Fhow-big-are-atoms.html&psig=AFQjCNFtvZIw1jln3FDAfM34baWPePlxsw&ust=1493072820180095

 

What do we see: Probability distribution of how far an electron is found from its nucleus.

Cause: Measurement of electron position

Effect: Electron "adopts"/is found at a certain position

Is there a pattern?: Very clearly yes there is a pattern.

 

Causes lead to effects, some effects are more likely than others. Over 10000000000 iterations, more likely events will occur more often.

 

Patterns are not the same as probability distributions. Patterns exist in nature; they are observable. Probability distributions express our degree of certainty (based on the observable).

 

Edit: Causes and effects are also patterns, because they exist in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2017 at 6:35 PM, superman said:

 

Thanks, I'll look at that.
 
But I was more curious to see your answer to this (from post # 37):
 
Quote
If you knew all the initial conditions of the entire universe AND you had a 100% complete and flawless method of predicting things, would you still fail to predict a single event with 100 percent certainty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea you could, but QM says it is fundamentally/theoretically impossible to know all the initial condition and have a 100% flawless method of predicting the outcomes of single events

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patterns are not the same as probability distributions. Patterns exist in nature; they are observable. Probability distributions express our degree of certainty (based on the observable).

 

Edit: Causes and effects are also patterns, because they exist in nature.

 

An ensemble of outcomes follow probability distributions. The pattern of outcomes you see in an ensemble is a direct map of their probability distribution.

 

Ie, Prob distributions are the patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea you could, but QM says it is fundamentally/theoretically impossible to know all the initial condition and have a 100% flawless method of predicting the outcomes of single events

 

So likewise QM says that it is fundamentally/theoretically impossible to know whether single events are truly random or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ensemble of outcomes follow probability distributions. The pattern of outcomes you see in an ensemble is a direct map of their probability distribution.

 

Ie, Prob distributions are the patterns.

 

Probability distributions are models or representation of the patterns in different outcomes. However, patterns could infinitely surpass probability distributions because the latter cannot describe all the patterns that truly exist in reality, and that's the difference. Probability is epistemic and patterns are ontological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So likewise QM says that it is fundamentally/theoretically impossible to know whether single events are truly random or not.

 

not really.

 

You said if you knew everything 100% then could you predict everything 100% - yes.

 

However, one of the axioms of QM is that you can never know anything 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2017 at 7:20 PM, Spider said:

Probability distributions are models or representation of the patterns in different outcomes. However, patterns could infinitely surpass probability distributions because the latter cannot describe all the patterns that truly exist in reality, and that's the difference. Probability is epistemic and patterns are ontological.

 

Look man, I'm done with this. I keep telling you the same thing. I mean I don't even know what you are talking about anymore - I showed you can have cause and effect with random systems and now you are picking apart definitions. It's not even a rebuttal of any of my points anymore. Be a bit more open and don't let your beliefs dictate your understanding so much.

 

 

Don't listen to reply, listen to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2017 at 7:25 PM, superman said:

not really.

 

You said if you knew everything 100% then could you predict everything 100% - yes.

 

However, one of the axioms of QM is that you can never know anything 100%.

 

Well the point of my question (here it is again):
 
On 4/23/2017 at 5:00 AM, Spider said:

If you knew all the initial conditions of the entire universe AND you had a 100% complete and flawless method of predicting things, would you still fail to predict a single event with 100 percent certainty?

 
was that in order for you be 100% sure that ALL the initial conditions of a single event is being taken into account, you have to know all the initial conditions of the entire universe, given that your prediction methods are completely flawless too. And if you fulfilled these two, then you said yes you could predict what would happen. So, you, by saying "yea you could," unconsciously admitted that there are possibly other variables that are missing that would have enabled you to predict correctly if you had known them, which is congruent with the hidden variable theory.
 
#GOTCHA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also I didn't see the word fail in ur original comment.

 

If you have 100% flawless method and know every initial condition you can predict everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×