WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Mine is that there is no such thing as a truly "random" event. I disagree on the randomness aspect. Non-thermodynamically speaking H(X) = E[i(X)] In fact your coin toss example is perfectly applicable here too , provided it's a fair coin that can be used in a Bernoulli Trial. As a side note all measures are human-made because our mind is incapable of thinking without measuring sticks. Think of anything that's based on human studies and you'll find there are scales and levels on which they are measured because that's how our minds work. Take away those systems and it's still random. It's not measuring systems, those are made by us mostly to measure uncertainty and they themselves are uncertain when we get to much smaller or larger levels. It's why Quantum Science today is in a state of flux. Note: I'm not discussing religion here, but you just brought up all my years of studying Engineering and Maths from nearly 10 years ago. Bah I remember wasting so much time on Theory of Computation and Algorithm Analyses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Mine is that there is no such thing as a truly "random" event. I disagree on the randomness aspect. Non-thermodynamically speaking H(X) = E[i(X)] In fact your coin toss example is perfectly applicable here too , provided it's a fair coin that can be used in a Bernoulli Trial. As a side note all measures are human-made because our mind is incapable of thinking without measuring sticks. Think of anything that's based on human studies and you'll find there are scales and levels on which they are measured because that's how our minds work. Take away those systems and it's still random. It's not measuring systems, those are made by us mostly to measure uncertainty and they themselves are uncertain when we get to much smaller or larger levels. It's why Quantum Science today is in a state of flux. Note: I'm not discussing religion here, but you just brought up all my years of studying Engineering and Maths from nearly 10 years ago. Bah I remember wasting so much time on Theory of Computation and Algorithm Analyses. Is that entropy? I didn't study Physics past A level, or maths beyond GCSE, so that's a bit beyond me (other than vaguely recognising it). I like the idea that we change randomness into predictability by our nature to measure stuff, the whole observing an atom thing is awesome... Like I said, if there is a proof that anything that is supposedly random is random, then cool. I love being challenged and getting stuff wrong just means I've got an opportunity to learn. "Believing" that what appears random at the moment is not truly random is just that, a belief. I've got no evidence to base it on as I simply don't know enough, I have to choose one way or the other. Once I've learned a bit more, then maybe that belief will change. That's kind of my point about the religion vs. atheism thing. Religion can't (or at least technically shouldn't) change. It is in the past. I look forward so my beliefs change (or at least can change) with everything I learn. Being an atheist is great, it gives me a huge amount of excitement for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'm sorry if I didn't mention. But yeah it's Entropy. Not universal but informational or rather statistical. But glad you recognised it. The thing is though, we are juggling a lot of uncertainty in qscience today. Mostly with the Higgs-boson particle though since it is a hypothesis and I'm willing to bet that that hypothesis will be broken just like Dalton's indivisable atom theory in the past. There's also the issue with dark matter and current theory on anti-matter is bs(sometimes I wish I took up research) most of that should be in an another thread. I think we have to face that currently the most predictable thing is unpredictability and randomness. Thing with science and particularly particles is that to study one thing leaves us in the dark about the other despite them being related. Mostly because of how we measure things. Most q scientists have been going on in circles about their proofs because currently the heart of quantum science rests on the higgs boson particle and when the question is asked what if it doesn't exist. All they say is that it has to even though it may very well not. We've heard that false logic before. Entropy is now in common domain but the theory of life as a projection still isn't. I'd actually like to discuss this further and outside the context of religion. I'm currently on an iphone on a train Is it possible to create a thread to discuss this shifting these posts there? Cause I feel it's derailing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Pipe up if you want a better or more appropriate thread title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Cheers Deano! Also thanks WTF for the comments Agreed there is a lot of uncertainty, it's part of why I find the subject so interesting. Part of me wishes I'd carried on with physics rather than going in to Law (I do love the law though so I'm happy with the decision). Would like to hear more on your thoughts on life as a projection, if you have an opinion on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I accept that there is true randomness in the universe (the decay of radioactive isotopes, etc) because the maths say its random. If someone were to discover new maths that explain the randomness as actually being deterministic, however, then I would no longer accept it as random. As for the Higgs boson, the reason they say it has to exist is because the Standard Model theory of quantum mechanics predicts that it would exist, and that theory is the most wildly successful scientific theory of all time. It has yet to make a prediction that was disproved. Granted the Higgs boson could be the first thing that the Standard Model got wrong, and then the theory would have to be refined, but a theory with as much evidentiary support as the SM is not going to be abandoned lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 You have to admit though, that basing more theories on a hypothetical particle which has yet to be found is building sandcastles in air. Not to mention the H-B particles can't really explain where the extra mass comes in radioactive nuclear decay. I've actually had the pleasure of arguing this point with a few scientists. They admit that the decay while releasing energy and two particles of matter also has to create new particles but from where? Ether (kidding of course with the ether bit). The Quarks don't add up quite literally. If the standard model actually predicts that we have quarks and we've actually found quarks where do these particles actually fit. They're currently not willing to abandon the theory because it fits. It's quite similar to why they weren't willing to change the atomic table for a while. There's plenty of challenges to the standard model including the discrepancies with gravity. Not to mention I do take issue with the definition of Anti-Matter as per the standard model. Currently the whole negative nucleus and positive satellite theory is just rubbish. it's just a way of trying to explain the purpose of anti-proton, positron etc. Here's where I've got the issue, true anti-matter isn't based on the charge of the subatomic particle but the true nature of the particle. For anti-matter to truly exist it needs to be a consistent source of stable instability. Or rather if we want to consider the base anti-matter atom, it has to be a stable state where it consistently gives out energy. Matter doesn't give out energy, it absorbs energy. Anti-matter must be reverse of that nature.[ I have spoken to a few people about it. Honestly it was something I'd want to do a paper on at some point in my life. I used to be interested in this a lot during my high school and university years. I never got into the field but I do have some of my written work and theories on it...] Anti-matter needs to be something that consistently gives out energy, yet is stable. It's not negative matter, that's looking at it a bit too simplistically. What they have is negative matter, not anti-matter. Currently anti-matter are like irrational numbers or negative integers but anti-matter should be more like imaginary numbers/vectors. Currently we do have Quantum computers and not everything in q-Physics is wrong, just certain things need more proof outside of the reliance on H-B. While we're on the subject of H-B, it ultimately does lead some scientists back to proving that the universe is more mathematical in nature. Well if they base a physics particle concept on mathematical laws, and create more laws that apply maths than particle physics of course it will be mathematical. I'm of the belief that at some point the unified field theory can still be achieved. It's just that while the universe has a certain mathematical beauty it also has a biological beauty. Dark matter is the other bone of contention. I mean really it's called Dark Matter because it's just obtuse. Speaking of randomness being deterministic or indeterministic, I guess we could have our answer if we were to replicate the Planck Epoch or if we were to reach the end state. Life as projection or rather the universe as a holographic projection would pretty much make most of my above points invalid. In fact it would make a lot of current theories a bit redundant and all because of some noise where it wasn't expected. The whole thing about the concept is that it could open up what the 4th dimension truly is, change our existing concepts of time because if it truly a projection then it will have a definitive end and the extension of the beginning and end would be on wherefrom did this project emanate and if the original source of the projection still exists. Not to mention if this a projection of a projection. All the information of this universe therefore could actually exist in a singular object. It's almost like if you want to use Marvel to exemplify having Galactus' universe and our universe exist at the same time except Galactus exists in ours too and therefore the coded information from that universe exists within ours and we could use it to have better understand. Only thing is - we have no idea what it is. It still won't explain the quark anomaly directly, we'd need more information. It won't explain existence either directly. But it will explain the plane of our existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I accept that there is true randomness in the universe (the decay of radioactive isotopes, etc) because the maths say its random. If someone were to discover new maths that explain the randomness as actually being deterministic, however, then I would no longer accept it as random. I don't know the maths well enough to make a determination, my gut says nothing is truly random, I get the distinct feeling I need to read up on this more. Overall, I have the same attitude as you, I'll follow the weight of evidence. If someone wants to take some time to explain a proof for randomness, I'll gladly listen. As for the Higgs boson, the reason they say it has to exist is because the Standard Model theory of quantum mechanics predicts that it would exist, and that theory is the most wildly successful scientific theory of all time. It has yet to make a prediction that was disproved. Granted the Higgs boson could be the first thing that the Standard Model got wrong, and then the theory would have to be refined, but a theory with as much evidentiary support as the SM is not going to be abandoned lightly. I'm a believer in Higgs Bosons, but, much like yourself, I'm not gonna continue to believe in them if the evidence tilts against them. Like you said though, it's gonna take a lot to shake the SM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Speaking of randomness have you guys read the old novel Flatland. Mostly to speak of dimensions. Or have you read gk chesterton's man who was Thursday? Though TN probably should've read that . While the principles are for anarchy. Disorder and randomness in an open state can be studied from it. Regardless it's humorous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Speaking of randomness have you guys read the old novel Flatland. Mostly to speak of dimensions. Or have you read gk chesterton's man who was Thursday? Though TN probably should've read that . While the principles are for anarchy. Disorder and randomness in an open state can be studied from it. Regardless it's humorous. Flatland is amazing. It was one of the inspirations for the guy who wrote the novels which provided my user name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigawings Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Mine is that there is no such thing as a truly "random" event. I disagree on the randomness aspect. Non-thermodynamically speaking H(X) = E[i(X)] In fact your coin toss example is perfectly applicable here too , provided it's a fair coin that can be used in a Bernoulli Trial. As a side note all measures are human-made because our mind is incapable of thinking without measuring sticks. Think of anything that's based on human studies and you'll find there are scales and levels on which they are measured because that's how our minds work. Take away those systems and it's still random. It's not measuring systems, those are made by us mostly to measure uncertainty and they themselves are uncertain when we get to much smaller or larger levels. It's why Quantum Science today is in a state of flux. Note: I'm not discussing religion here, but you just brought up all my years of studying Engineering and Maths from nearly 10 years ago. Bah I remember wasting so much time on Theory of Computation and Algorithm Analyses. Sometimes I can see where the birds are, they flew away years ago, hunted down by a speaking eye, before I can speak my mind much further, the great giant molasses creature appear in front of me and start telling me how lucky I am for being teeth, yes, teeth, just like a canyon in our backyard during our vodka hours! So be it, maybe I could manage to stay in my place, but sometimes the loneliness is making me sing some Johnny Cash songs, and not in a flight of dancer way, but more like a flying mule. I cried and I cried, but she kept telling me that when the house is two, I can still swim in my neighbour swimming pool, but I don't want to, do you see how he fill his pool? by asking Marcus, our local treasurer to sing his beloved ballad, The Penguin Alpha. I laugh at them, maybe this place is just like home, oh wait, I'm home, home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home..... I'm so happy I can eat fried rice again. I love you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.