What is the deepest/most impactful statement that you have ever seen?

[PeroK]

This one: There is no evidence for randomness at all in the real world. Randomness is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in.

Whoever wrote that must have cleaned up at the bookmaker's!

 

[Mayhem]

"Life imitates art far more than art imitates life." Oscar Wilde

 

[FlorianR]

Whoever wrote that must have cleaned up at the bookmaker's!

Actually no. Because it has a balancing counterpart that says: There is no evidence for determinism at all in the real world. determinism is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in...

 

[PeroK]

Actually no. Because it has a balancing counterpart that says: There is no evidence for determinism at all in the real world. determinism is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in...

That's called hedging one's bets!

 

[renormalize]

This one: There is no evidence for randomness at all in the real world. Randomness is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in.

Actually no. Because it has a balancing counterpart that says: There is no evidence for determinism at all in the real world. determinism is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in...

What is the point of these statements other than vacuous wordplay?

 

[FlorianR]

Not wordplay at all. If you can think of one thing, that I can guess absolutely nothing about... I could not define a single aspect of it... Then you will have proved that randomness exists (but you can't). If you can setup a single experiment that you could absolutely guarantee the exact outcome off (100% sure). Then you would have proved determinism, (but you can't). You can only pick something that I could say few things about, but never nothing.. And you can setup an experiment and be 99.99% sure of the result, but never a 100%.

 

[symbolipoint]

What is the point of these statements other than vacuous wordplay?

Not wordplay at all. If you can think of one thing, that I can guess absolutely nothing about... I could not define a single aspect of it... Then you will have proved that randomness exists (but you can't). If you can setup a single experiment that you could absolutely guarantee the exact outcome off (100% sure). Then you would have proved determinism, (but you can't). You can only pick something that I could say few things about, but never nothing.. And you can setup an experiment and be 99.99% sure of the result, but never a 100%.

The topic title is unfocused, so the cooperative results are as seen, collection of many statements. Not really a bad topic. Expect a variety!

 

[jtbell]

42.

 

[Gavran]

This one: There is no evidence for randomness at all in the real world. Randomness is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in.

There is no problem with this post in the same way as there is no problem with the famous Albert Einstein’s quote “God does not play dice with the universe”.

 

[PeroK]

There is no problem with this post in the same way as there is no problem with the famous Albert Einstein’s quote “God does not play dice with the universe”.

Except that Einstein admits the randomness of dice! If there were no evidence of randomness, then a die would not even appear to be random.

It's like saying there is no evidence of variable weather. The length of each day and the seasons are predictable. The weather is not. That is evidence of randomness. Not proof, but evidence. Variable weather is not a construct of the human mind.

It seems to me that rationalism is in retreat even on PF. On the general threads we are proving to be unable to think in a rational, scientific way.

I'd also point out that Einstein had no business claiming to know the mind of God. If Einstein or anyone really knows the mind of God, then who is to argue with them?

 

[javisot]

There is no problem with this post in the same way as there is no problem with the famous Albert Einstein’s quote “God does not play dice with the universe”.

It's true that macroscopically, randomness can be understood as a lack of information, for example, the outcome of a coin toss. You simply don't know all the information involved (which exists) and it will determine the outcome.

But not everything is the macroscopic regime. When we look at the universe in sufficient detail, it seems that randomness takes on a fundamental character.



"Of course it's a product of your imagination, Harry, but that doesn't mean it isn't real."

Albus Dumbledore

 

[FlorianR]

Except that Einstein admits the randomness of dice! If there were no evidence of randomness, then a die would not even appear to be random.

It's like saying there is no evidence of variable weather. The length of each day and the seasons are predictable. The weather is not. That is evidence of randomness. Not proof, but evidence. Variable weather is not a construct of the human mind.

It seems to me that rationalism is in retreat even on PF. On the general threads we are proving to be unable to think in a rational, scientific way.

I'd also point out that Einstein had no business claiming to know the mind of God. If Einstein or anyone really knows the mind of God, then who is to argue with them?

You are conflating a lack of predictability by humans with randomness. Just because we cannot predict the outcome of a dice or coin-toss, doesn't make it random. A coin toss will always be either heads or tails (and in rare cases stay on it's side). A dice toss will always result in a number between 1 and 6. When I say that Randomness doesn't exist. I'm talking about something much more fundamental. Essentially, when something is "random" it means that we can predict NOTHING about it. And this is actually impossible. There is no "random" set that anybody can create. There is no way to create a random number either. Because the only way for anything to be truly random, is for it to have no past! Nothing to limit it's randomness. Nothing to shape it's probability. Since there can be absolutely nothing without a past (Nothing that is not shaped by what came before), nothing can be random. Nobody in history has ever created a random set or a random number, or a random outcome to anything. Therefor like I said: There is no evidence for randomness at all in the real world. Randomness is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in.

 

[PeroK]

You are conflating a lack of predictability by humans with randomness.

You are conflating evidence with a conclusion. I never said a coin toss was random. I said it was evidence of randomness. Whether it's truly random is a conclusion based on assessing the evidence.

The point of science is to weigh the evidence. Whereas, you want to start with the conlusion and then dismiss all evidence to the contrary.

 

[PeroK]

When I say that Randomness doesn't exist. I'm talking about something much more fundamental. Essentially, when something is "random" it means that we can predict NOTHING about it. And this is actually impossible. There is no "random" set that anybody can create. There is no way to create a random number either. Because the only way for anything to be truly random, is for it to have no past! Nothing to limit it's randomness. Nothing to shape it's probability. Since there can be absolutely nothing without a past (Nothing that is not shaped by what came before), nothing can be random. Nobody in history has ever created a random set or a random number, or a random outcome to anything. Therefor like I said: There is no evidence for randomness at all in the real world. Randomness is a made-up idea. It can exist in our minds as a concept, but it does not actually exist in the physical world we live in.

This is a science forum. It's not a philosophy forum. Science is based on empircal evidence; not a priori intellectual arguments.

You believe nothing is random because nothing can be random because you say nothing can be random. Okay, I understand your argument and I reject it. Things are not necessarily the case because you, using your infallible intellect, believe them to be the case.

 

[FlorianR]

A coin toss is neither random, nor evidence of randomness. Like I said: Nobody in history has ever produced any evidence for the existence of randomness. The burden of proof is not on the person who says something doesn't exist. It's on the person(s) who claim(s) it exists. People have conflated unpredictability by humans, with randomness. Essentially conflating very low probabilities of predictability with "randomness". But actual randomness is something altogether different (0% predictability). It has been an assumption that it exists, but it has never actually been proven to exist. Really :)! All you would need to do is: Create a random set, A random number, or any experiment that will yield a random result. But nobody has ever done this, and nobody ever will, because it is actually impossible. I will go a step further and say that, in actuality, instead of randomness and determinism (Which both do not exist in reality), there are two other, very different, but clearly definable extremes which do exist, and which I would be happy to prove for you. It's easy to do, and I will stack those two against randomness and determinism any day of the week.

 

[FlorianR]

This is a science forum. It's not a philosophy forum. Science is based on empircal evidence; not a priori intellectual arguments.

You believe nothing is random because nothing can be random because you say nothing can be random. Okay, I understand your argument and I reject it. Things are not necessarily the case because you, using your infallible intellect, believe them to be the case.

If randomness exists or not, is not a philosophical question. It is a science question. And it is a provable statement.

 

[Dale]

If you would like to have a technical discussion about randomness, please do so in the technical section and not in the general discussion section.

As is always the case, all posts in the technical sections must be consistent with the professional scientific literature. There are differences of opinion in the literature on this topic, so debate is possible but must be kept within the bounds of the professional scientific literature.