I Do you have an example of a truly random phenomenon?

[The_Baron]

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't. Let's take heads or tails as an example, if you had all of the data about the throwing of the coin you could tell on which side it will land.

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

 

[Dale]

What do you mean by “truly random”?

 

[The_Baron]

What do you mean by “truly random”?

I mean that if we had all of the data we could have on the phenomena, then even theortically it will still be random.

 

[Dale]

I mean that if we had all of the data we could have on the phenomena, then even theortically it will still be random.

That is circular.

And presumably “all of the data” would include quantum data, so the “not related to quantum physics” restriction in the OP becomes problematic.

The topic of randomness is difficult to pin down.

 

[NTuft]

Radiodecay? Or is that quantum because it's in Schrödinger's box

 

[Lord Jestocost]

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't. Let's take heads or tails as an example, if you had all of the data about the throwing of the coin you could tell on which side it will land.

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

A truly random phenomena means that an event occurring in space and time can in principle not be undone. Here is the essential difference between the views of classical and quantum physics.

 

[Nugatory]

I mean that if we had all of the data we could have on the phenomena, then even theoretically it will still be random.

If the dynamics of a system are accurately and completely described by a deterministic theory, then its phenomena will not be "truly random" as you mean that (unexpectedly slippery) term; only if the theory is complete (as far as we know) and non-deterministic can we get what you're looking for. At the moment quantum mechanics is the only candidate theory, so all examples of "true" randomness we can come up with will be quantum mechanical in origin.

But be aware that I am counting on that parenthesized note about slipperiness to do a lot of work hiding sloppy thinking. One of the more important caveats is that the apparent determinism of classical mechanics emerges (analogous to how the ideal gas law emerges from the statistical behavior of large numbers of atoms) from the collective behavior of enormous numbers of particles each governed by non-deterministic quantum mechanics. Thus, your quest for "true randomness" comes down to considering:
A completely random theory (using your definition) might, given some initial conditions, assign a probability of $1-10^{-500}$ to outcome A and a probability of $10^{-500}$ to outcome B. The outcomes predicted by this theory are indistinguishable in every way from the outcomes predicted by a non-deterministic theory in which for those initial conditions the probability of outcome A is one and outcome B zero; and that in turn is indistiguishable from a deterministic theory that predicts outcome A.
Thus it is not clear that the distinction between "true" randomness and the randomness that comes from incomplete information is meaningful.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A random process has an autocorrelation function of zero everywhere, except at one point (or value). Physics is all about measurement and I would like to know how one would know what that point is. So you could only discuss randomness in terms of 'random enough', I think.

 

[Filip Larsen]

Would "unpredictable events" based on deterministic chaotic motion count as an example of deterministic "true randomness"? For example, is the position of the particle within the Lorenz-attractor, e.g. is it in left or right branch, after a very long time truly random or not. For a practical (physical) system this is effectively unpredicable so does that make it truly random?

To me it sounds like the OP is not likely to let such "deterministic unpredictability" imply "true randomness" because unpredictability through chaos in a physical system in a sense is rooted at quantum randomness with deterministic chaos "just amplifying" this quantum randomness to macroscopic scale, but I thought I would mention it anyway.

 

[gentzen]

The theories of probability and randomness had their origin in gambling and games more general. A "truly random phenomena" in that context would be one producing outcomes that are completely unpredictable. And not just unpredictable for you and me, but for anybody, including the most omniscient opponent. But we need more, we actually need to "know" that our opponent cannot predict it, and if he could predict it nevertheless, then he has somehow cheated.

But the most omniscient opponent is a red herring. What is important are our actual opponents. A box with identical balls with numbers on them that get mixed extensively produces truly random phenomena, at least if we can ensure that our opponents have not manipulated things to their advantage. And the overall procedure must be such that also all other possibilities for manipulation (or cheating more generally) have been prevented. The successes of secret services in past wars indicate that this is extremely difficult to achieve.

 

[phinds]

A box with identical balls with numbers on them that get mixed extensively produces truly random phenomena

No, it is only random in the practical game-playing situation you describe. In physics theory it would just be a classical set of movements and would not be random.

 

[sophiecentaur]

A truly random process is no more obtainable in Physics than Infinity or Zero. Randomness is a mathematical concept and Maths is based on axioms. This discussion cannot get us anywhere useful.

 

[Baluncore]

What objection is there to two independently amplified Johnson white noise sources. Limit one to frequencies above 10 MHz, the other to frequencies below 10 kHz. Amplify, digitise and divide the data streams by two, to make them square with 50% duty cycle, then bring the streams together to use the slow one as a clock to sample the fast one. That will produce a stream of unpredictable bits.

 

[NTuft]

What objection is there to two independently amplified Johnson white noise sources. Limit one to frequencies above 10 MHz, the other to frequencies below 10 kHz. Amplify, digitise and divide the data streams by two, to make them square with 50% duty cycle, then bring the streams together to use the slow one as a clock to sample the fast one. That will produce a stream of unpredictable bits.

To quote an answer from a more knowledgeable person than myself on the topic, given to me from a question I posed as, "Can you generate a random number from a machine?"

This is in fact one of the tri[c]kiest jobs to do in computing.
An actual random number has some qualities that are impossible to emulate nowadays, and this numbers are needed in fields like cryptograpy.
In the analogic world, the ramdom signals generators where always based on quantum phenomena, like the tuneling of a diode for white noise generation. Even today the hardware random number generators are based on that phenomena.
Roger Penrose did a fantastic job stressing the limitations of the computational systems, a[nd] wrote a book about that "The Emperor new mind", among other issues.
...

Not sure that's all relevant, or that I can support the assertion, but that is the mostly complete answer. He seemed to be aware of something similar vis a vis white noise generators for randomness.

I want to also reiterate that I believe radioactive decay is considered stochastic (random?) at the individual atomic level. From the wikipedia on radioactive decay, we can see there are some applied methods that work from the premise that radioactive decay is random:

On the premise that radioactive decay is truly random (rather than merely chaotic), it has been used in hardware random-number generators. Because the process is not thought to vary significantly in mechanism over time, it is also a valuable tool in estimating the absolute ages of certain materials. For geological materials, the radioisotopes and some of their decay products become trapped when a rock solidifies, and can then later be used (subject to many well-known qualifications) to estimate the date of the solidification. These include checking the results of several simultaneous processes and their products against each other, within the same sample. In a similar fashion, and also subject to qualification, the rate of formation of carbon-14 in various eras, the date of formation of organic matter within a certain period related to the isotope's half-life may be estimated, because the carbon-14 becomes trapped when the organic matter grows and incorporates the new carbon-14 from the air. Thereafter, the amount of carbon-14 in organic matter decreases according to decay processes that may also be independently cross-checked by other means (such as checking the carbon-14 in individual tree rings, for example).

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

 

[Filip Larsen]

What objection is there to two independently amplified Johnson white noise sources. Limit one to frequencies above 10 MHz, the other to frequencies below 10 kHz. Amplify, digitise and divide the data streams by two, to make them square with 50% duty cycle, then bring the streams together to use the slow one as a clock to sample the fast one. That will produce a stream of unpredictable bits.

I guess no one would argue that such a bit stream in principle can have unpredictable bits in the sense that there would be no way for anyone, based on measurements of the state of the initial system, to produce a predicted stream that would stay correlated with the actual stream over time.

But I also guess that Johnson noise is a very clear example of "directly amplified" thermodynamic noise, i.e. quantum noise. I think it is an interesting question if it is possible to make an unpredictable system where the source of uncertainty is not quantum noise, not directly at least. Since classical deterministic theory makes everything predictable with perfect knowledge, its seem to follow rather directly that unpredictability of the dynamics of a closed system has to be introduced either as a lack of perfect knowledge (i.e. non-perfect measurements of the initial state), a lack of full dynamic determinism (i.e. part of the dynamic is a "truly" stochastic processes), or by the system not being fully closed after all (i.e. some external disturbances sneaking in).

By the way, when the last condition is relaxed (non-closed systems) you can also get phenomenons like undecidability in an otherwise fully deterministic (computational) system, but while undecidability do seem to lead to (a certain kind of) unpredictability it does so in a different way than a "true random" process would.

 

[PeroK]

No, it is only random in the practical game-playing situation you describe. In physics theory it would just be a classical set of movements and would not be random.

That assumes that in some sense classical physics provides an accurate description of the physical system.

That classical physics is not random does not imply that the system itself is not random.

For example, you may assume that infinitely precise positions and momenta are known for all objects in the system. That assumption may be true of the physical model, but is not necessarily true of the physical system.

I might argue that even theoretically the initial conditions cannot be indefinitely precisely known. And, therefore, the question of whether the system is random is not decided by the model that classical physics provides.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What objection is there to two independently amplified Johnson white noise sources. Limit one to frequencies above 10 MHz, the other to frequencies below 10 kHz. Amplify, digitise and divide the data streams by two, to make them square with 50% duty cycle, then bring the streams together to use the slow one as a clock to sample the fast one. That will produce a stream of unpredictable bits.

I don't think that gets you anywhere, in fact. Two deterministic processes can't generate randomness - although there may be practical reasons for using your system in some situations.

But we're just chasing our tails. If we are not allowed to use QM to introduce randomness then we are stuck with deterministic situations. But this is essentially an Engineering problem and, for Engineers, near enough is good enough. (And that doesn't imply sloppiness in any way.) Autocorrelation is the ultimate test for randomness and the sharper the spike, the better the randomness. Signal to noise ratio raises its head here.

 

[phinds]

That assumes that in some sense classical physics provides an accurate description of the physical system.

That classical physics is not random does not imply that the system itself is not random.

For example, you may assume that infinitely precise positions and momenta are known for all objects in the system. That assumption may be true of the physical model, but is not necessarily true of the physical system.

I might argue that even theoretically the initial conditions cannot be indefinitely precisely known. And, therefore, the question of whether the system is random is not decided by the model that classical physics provides.

I have no argument at all w/ what you are saying. My point was that in the kind of game of chance he's talking about, it was random in the sense that colloquial English defines random (e.g. "drawing a card at random" kind of thing). None of the players would have any possible way to determine the outcome in advance.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't.

I don't think any of us can.

That classical physics is not random does not imply that the system itself is not random.

In the context of classical physics it does. Classical Physics is not adequate to describe even the simplest phenomena to a 'satisfactory' level, once we scratch the surface so the answer to the OP is that we basically agree with him but that many classical based 'machines' have enough significant QM effects to treat them as behaving randomly.
The only truth about non random / random distinction is that a mathematical based attempt at a RN generator will have to be a Pseudo Random Number Generator.

Remember ERNIE? In those days (especially) they needed a non-digital source of randomness because computers were far too limited to have even a reasonably good PRNG. I wonder if a PRNS from Deep Blue would be 'distinguishable' from ERNIE's output.

 

[Dale]

A truly random phenomena means that an event occurring in space and time can in principle not be undone.

I have been thinking about this response and have decided that is a good one. If you think about it in phase space, an event that cannot be undone would be a place where the phase space lines converge such that two different initial states lead to a single final state. I think that a good definition of “truly random” would be the reverse of that. So one phase space line would diverge such that one initial state leads to two final states.

Then, Liouville’s theorem proves that classical physics forbids “truly random” systems.

Note: I am not aware if there is already literature on this topic

 

[Shane Kennedy]

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't. Let's take heads or tails as an example, if you had all of the data about the throwing of the coin you could tell on which side it will land.

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

Crumpling a sheet of paper. It is HUGELY complicated/impossible to mathematically model.

 

[Filip Larsen]

Note: I am not aware if there is already literature on this topic

Branches in state space sounds similar to symmetry breaking, and that at least has some literature. As I understand it symmetry breaking in an otherwise symmetric system is only considered to be a result of quantum effects (spontaneous or dynamical symmetry breaking) or, for in case of purely classical system, due to the system not being precisely symmetric after all.

 

[Jon Richfield]

As some folks point out, randomness is slippery because there are independent definitions. I refer you to the book by the late I. Prigogine: "The End of Certainty". Following its logic, you are left without practically no fully non-random events.

As I see it, the difference between random events and non-random events is information. An event/outcome is random to the extent that you lack information on the event. And it is random in terms of objective reality, to the extent that information existing in the universe does not exist, as opposed to the information that is available to you. If enough information exists to determine how your coin toss works, then the outcome might be random to you, but the universe would "know", and "determine" the outcome in advance.

But information is finite. Now, consider symmetry-breaking. Someone mentioned crumpling paper: a large part of its unpredictable nature is because it involves a lot of symmetry breaking, much of it only roughly, but some of it beyond any probable information available. Even the universe could not tell you exactly how it would crumple.

Let's choose a different form of symmetry breaking: the needle test. Imagine a horizontal rigid surface in a vacuum in neutral gravitational and electromagnetic fields. You have a device that tosses the needle so that at least sometimes that needle lands balanced on its tip. The game is to bet on which way it eventually will topple. Laplace does not forbid such a possibility, and offers no prediction.

The needle and surface offer no information to the universe about how that symmetry will break. To the extent that information on any bias exists, it will affect the direction and reduce the randomness accordingly, and affect the precision of the outcome..

If you happen not to like the needle, try the ball test: start with a rigid surface and vacuum as already described. Take a vertical, symmetrical stack of rigid, notionally perfect spheres of excellent coefficient of restitution, and drop them. As long as there is no information on any asymmetrical bias (not just your ignorance, and ignoring any quantum asymmetry, those balls, in obedience to F=ma, will bounce vertically for a long time till they stop and remain balanced. Right?

Wrong.
For that to happen there would have to be infinite information determining the symmetry of the system. It follows from the nature of the geometry of the balls. But we live in an observable universe that lacks capacity for infinite information.

It follows that, QM or no QM, there could not be a completely non-random system in our universe. And your personal capacity for information is a good deal smaller than that of the universe.

 

[Dale]

Is information finite classically?

 

[PeroK]

Is information finite classically?

A "typical" real number contains an infinite amount of information. There was a thread a couple of years ago about whether physics could be done using only the computable numbers. In any case, using a real continuum for position of a particle, say, creates a conundrum.

 

[James Demers]

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

There's plenty of randomness in the macroscopic world, where even perfect knowledge of initial conditions would be insufficient to predict the outcome of a measurement. (Set a buoy bobbing in the middle of the ocean, and its motions will be entirely unpredictable.) The inadequate knowledge of initial conditions, however, can still be traced to quantum effects: One cannot know the position and velocity of every atom in the ocean to arbitrary precision, so that the Heisenberg uncertainty eventually makes an appearance at the macroscopic level. I'd argue that even a difference in initial conditions of one Planck distance will eventually affect a macroscopic outcome.
Whether or not that meets your definition of "true" randomness depends on, well, your definition.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Is information finite classically?

It is physical, which forces it to be finite.

Mathematical infinities are formal fictions, and like every fiction, are finite.

Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point.
Same with every irrational etc etc

 

[Jon Richfield]

Whether or not that meets your definition of "true" randomness depends on, well, your definition.

There is not sufficient existing information to define such situations, Brownian motion etc, so any definition that excludes those aspects from "true" randomness, cannot be internally consistent.

 

[PeroK]

Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point.
Same with every irrational etc etc

It only takes a finite amount of information to identify $\sqrt 2$, for example. Mathematically that is completely defined by what I have written.. The infinite decimal expansion is not needed to identify the number.

 

[Dale]

It is physical, which forces it to be finite.

Mathematical infinities are formal fictions, and like every fiction, are finite.

Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point.
Same with every irrational etc etc

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion?

 

[votingmachine]

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't. Let's take heads or tails as an example, if you had all of the data about the throwing of the coin you could tell on which side it will land.

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

Weather.

 

[sysprog]

We don't know for certain that anything is truly random -- it may be that everything is causally determined precisely -- many things appear to be very reliably random from our perspective . . .

I tried to think of a truly random phenomena thatis not related to quantum physics, and i can't. Let's take heads or tails as an example, if you had all of the data about the throwing of the coin you could tell on which side it will land.

So does anyone know a random phenomena?

Weather.

Yeah -- random.org uses atmospheric noise -- you can get some random bytes here: https://www.random.org/bytes/

 

[Delta2]

I used to think that an electron's motion around a nucleus is a truly random event, since (and according to Copenhagen interpretation of the wave function) we can talk only with probabilities about whether an electron is at a specific location. But it turns out that these probabilities obey a deterministic law, i.e. Schrodinger equation.
I tend to think that the universe is not truly random (of course it isn't since at least macroscopically there appears to be some sort of deterministic laws and order) but it is neither fully deterministic either. It is ,SOMEHOW, something in between.

 

[Jon Richfield]

It only takes a finite amount of information to identify $\sqrt 2$, for example. Mathematically that is completely defined by what I have written.. The infinite decimal expansion is not needed to identify the number.

What I said was "Points are fictions, because it would take infinite information to identify any point".
If the point that you reckon is identified by $\sqrt 2$ because it has the notional coordinate value $\sqrt 2$ is defined, then you imply that there is no other point that can be confused with it. (Otherwise how could you support the claim that it is defined?)
OK, but mathematically there is no coordinate in the continuum that is not associated with exactly one point, no more, no less. (Unless you have a real surprise up someone's sleeve.)
Right?
OK again, now go back to your continuum line, and remove precisely the $\sqrt 2$ point.
Which two points had been on either side of it? Pray tell how would you distinguish them from $\sqrt 2$ without infinite information?
And then, for an encore, do the same for plain vanilla $2$ (if my notation is correct).
After which, demonstrate how you would display any item of infinite information in any finite universe.
Our numeric notation really comes down to a fiction; much as a map is not the territory, but just a caricature close enough for certain purposes.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing.

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion?

Show me a peer-reviewed reference to establish that
6798214808651328230664709384*460955058223172535940812848=
3133671502935506745060193180452403351940034608653365632

 

[sysprog]

@Jon Richfield You appear to me be attempting to assert limitation against the power of language to define the definable. Whatever the exact value of it is, the square root of two is definitely exactly that number which multplied by itself equals two (as @PeroK indicated), and to know what two is, you have have only to look at your hands, and count as high as almost any mammal can (almost any mammal can distinguish between one and more than one) until you get past one, and then stop. What will you do when the irrational number $\pi$ is perfectly precisely defined as that number which is equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter?

 

[Filip Larsen]

How do we know a physical system with a continuous state (e.g. the distance between two particles in the system) is in a state of exactly 2, and not one of the infinitely many other values that lies within an arbitrary small ball around 2?

 

[Jon Richfield]

@Jon Richfield You appear to me be attempting to assert limitation against the power of language to define the definable. Whatever the exact value of it is, the square root of two is definitely exactly that number which multplied by itself equals two (as @PeroK indicated), and to know what two is, you have have only to look at your hands, and count as high as almost any mammal can (almost any mammal can distinguish between one and more than one) until you get past one, and then stop. What will you do when the irrational number $\pi$ is perfectly precisely defined as that number which is equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter?

The examples you cite are OK in everyday utility, much as you can go to the grocer to buy "a kilo of butter" or "a litre of milk", but, like the map I mentioned, they are fictions. Would you show me an exact hand? And then undertake to show me that hand again? (Or two hands for that matter?) I hardly think so.

And how about showing me an exact circle? Fat chance! There is no such thing: no matter the precision of the equipment you draw it with, or indicate its position in space, it is a formal fiction, with, at one's most charitable, a fuzzy circumference with a poorly defined diameter, that is at all times greater than pi times an idealised diameter.

But two? Which two did you have in mind as defining the coordinate of a point on a notional line, which is what I specifically referred to? I was not speaking of an ordinal 2, which in its artificially conceived integer role of counting only represents a few or perhaps a few million (fat chance!) bits of information, but the value of a coordinate on a line. Not a segment of the line, please note, much less a fuzzy segment, but a point. Without that you simply have not defined the number, just a region with fuzzy boundaries limited by the information at your disposal. If you can discriminate the identity of two even to a precision of say, one googol bits, I would be impressed, though incredulous, but it would do nothing to dispel the vagueness of your identification of a particular point.

In the example(s) you gave, "the power of language to define the definable" is extremely limited, partly by the circularity of its definition; the notional ability of language in this case is not mathematical, but fictional, the pretense at defining the indefinable.

Try again your definition and demonstration of the existence of the number two as distinct from other numbers, not on toy examples of limited sets, such as hands or eggs of hens or of salmon, but points on the continuum.

Not in this universe, words or no words.

 

[sysprog]

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion?

Show me a peer-reviewed reference to establish that
6798214808651328230664709384*460955058223172535940812848=
3133671502935506745060193180452403351940034608653365632

There's no need for a peer-reviewed reference to establish correctness or incorrectness of that equation.

 

[Jon Richfield]

There's no need for a peer-reviewed reference to establish correctness or incorrectness of that equation.

Same for the amount of info required to distinguish a point.

Elementary.

 

[sysprog]

Same for the amount of info required to distinguish a point.

Elementary.

Disagree. You can fuss about the definition of a point. The answer to a multiplication of two finite integers is inarguable.

 

[Lord Jestocost]

I have been thinking about this response and have decided that is a good one.

My formulation is based on the following sentence in Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s book „THE NATURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD“ (which I highly recommend): „This follows at once if our fundamental contention is admitted that the introduction of randomness is the only thing which cannot be undone.“

 

[Jon Richfield]

Disagree. You can fuss about the definition of a point. The answer to a multiplication of two finite integers is inarguable.

You can no more (or less fuss about the definition of a point than about anything else; if your definition is not precise enough to distinguish it from every other point you don't have a point, just hand-waving.
Sort of like a high-school geometry problem that you try to solve by saying that the sketch looks sort of equilateral or right angled or something. A point has zero length. it has zero freedom in its coordinates. Anything else and it is not a point. Zero is zero. It is not less than zero. It is no more than zero, not by a kilometre, a light year, a Planck distance.
Zero.
Of course, you might insist that I am being too demanding, but then you are conceding the point that there is no point. Especially where there is fuss. Otherwise known as hand-waving.

 

[Delta2]

@Jon Richfield You are a new age sophist!

 

[Jon Richfield]

 

[Dale]

Sorry, but your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion?

Show me a peer-reviewed reference to establish that
6798214808651328230664709384*460955058223172535940812848=
3133671502935506745060193180452403351940034608653365632

@Jon Richfield this is an inappropriate response to a request for a reference. In this forum we require that everyone put aside their personal opinions and post only content that is consistent with the professional scientific literature. One way we ensure that is the case is by asking for and providing references when claims are made.

You have made some claims that I suspect are personal speculation, but I don’t know all of the scientific literature. So asking for references gives you an opportunity either to retract your claim or to educate me. This is not something we take lightly here.

To be clear, your claim that I question is

But information is finite.

Which is specifically in reference to

in terms of objective reality, to the extent that information existing in the universe does not exist, as opposed to the information that is available to you.

So the claim is not based on human information, but on information existing in the universe. I know of nothing classically which places a fundamental limit on information.

 

[PeroK]

Otherwise known as hand-waving.

On this thread I would say your hands are waving more frantically that anyone else's!

 

[Jon Richfield]

>this is an inappropriate response to a request for a reference.

It was entirely appropriate for the offensive context and tone of your demand, which I simply echoed. This subject matter is no more the stuff of peer review than 2K=mv^2; it is standard material available in various forms and contexts either in textbooks or online in the likes of Wikipedia articles on cosmology, astrophysics, information and thermodynamics. To suggest that I was no more than cramming my own conceptions and thumbsucks down other participants' throats (as expessed in "your personal opinion on the matter is unconvincing. Do you have an actual peer reviewed reference to support that assertion?") was downright insulting, and my response was at least as justifiable.

I don't know what you mean by classical in this context, given that thermodynamics dates back only some two centuries, and in any case, what is largely regarded as non-classical started more or less with relativity, QM, and arguably information theory, but none of them affected the relevant basic theories apart from the dismissal of caloric. One could have made a very similar case for the realities of the limits to information in terms of F=ma, if only they had been thinking in those terms in Newton's day. The main thing missing at that time was that there was no concept of observation boundaries or other limits to our meaningful access to verifiable observation. IOW, the implication was that the universe was effectively infinite, so that there would have been no logical limit to the info it could accommodate. Nowadays we are far cosier in our little 10-odd gigaparsec nook, so we have to do with what there is room for and material for.

If you are denying such received wisdom, stop and check out the idea of what constitutes information. Never mind the hard graft of digging for texts, ask yourself why we speak of BInary digiTs. You cannot store, transmit or process information in any form but matter, energy and their physical relationships. Don't blame me, lay it on the likes of Boltzmann, von Neumann, Shannon, Penrose... Hmmm even Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen and Bohr. Check out the current interest in the ratio between the information content of the surface area of a black hole and its surface area.

And you want me to go back and check out their peer reviews for you?

Work it out for yourself: ask yourself how many fermions and bosons there are in the observable universe: aleph-nul? Aleph-n? Ask yourself how many bits of info you can store and retrieve from each particle or quantum.

Then ask yourself how much info there is room for in our universe.

 

[Jon Richfield]

On this thread I would say your hands are waving more frantically that anyone else's!

Welll... suppose you give an example? What did I say that contradicts, or does not follow, from commonsense everyday transactions on the one hand, or formal mathematics or logic on the other?

I didn't invent, say, post-Galileo physics or maths, or astronomy, and I invoke nothing novel, nor predict nothing that is not generally refuted either. Are you going to pull a Dale on me and ask for peer reviews on Boltzmann for example? or of von Neumann's application of entropy to information?

Don't spare my feelings: point out my handwaving. Show how you can have information independent of matter/energy. And show how you can have an infinite-digit expansion of pi without an infinite amount of matter/energy, or an infinite brain to accommodate it, not to mention gravitational collapse. And work out how long it would take you to perform any operation (such as comparison) on a digit say one Gparsec down the line from where you are assimilating nearer digits.

 

[votingmachine]

We don't know for certain that anything is truly random -- it may be that everything is causally determined precisely -- many things appear to be very reliably random from our perspective . . .

How about this hypothetical. Say that you can count the air molecules in a volume of air. And you know the average. Say 1000. Wouldn't the over-under be a random event? (this supposes you can snapshot and add in all the fractional pieces at the edges).

These macro-level random things may all just be Shrodinger boxes. Deep down, depending on some butterfly-effect required precision that exceeds a QM randomness. I might be substituting air molecules for the balls-in-a-bag, mentioned in a previous comment.