This discussion centers on the existence of true randomness, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and its implications for predictability. Participants explore the philosophical and scientific dimensions of randomness, referencing Bell's theorem and quantum random number generators like IronBridge from CQC. They argue that while quantum effects, such as radioactive decay, may introduce true randomness, the challenge lies in whether all necessary information for prediction exists or is simply unknown. The conversation highlights the distinction between causality and predictability, emphasizing that randomness often reflects our ignorance rather than a lack of underlying physical processes.
PREREQUISITESStudents and professionals in computer science, physics, and philosophy, particularly those interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and randomness, as well as anyone exploring the implications of predictability in complex systems.
No, but to me it suggests that it wouldn't be unreasonable to act on the basis that those phenomena are fundamentally deterministic at some level of awareness (unless doing so made one miserable.)BWV said:Does the fact that a deterministic model describes a system to the level of precision that we care about make the underlying phenomena deterministic to any arbitrary level of precision (which TRVE determinism would imply)?