|
Members in Shoutbox
None.
Shoutbox Search
Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper /me > Marks as action Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
|
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
[2018-10-29. : 6:34 pm]  NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: you can't predict the outcome therefore they're random I can't, but I could[2018-10-29. : 6:32 pm] NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: a century from now we might find some subatomic process which explains how to predict the decay sure. thats always a possibility. But as I've said, ultimate truth is unnatainable, so I wouldn't try to. Just go with whatever seems to be solid for now. After all when we askl "are switches random" (or just pseudorandom) we don't want to know if in a distant future starcraft might be categorized differently. We want an answer that applies to the here and now.[2018-10-29. : 6:31 pm] Vrael -- now for me it might fall into the "non-random & predictable" category, (or it might not, theres still plenty of research to be done there)[2018-10-29. : 6:31 pm] Vrael -- a year ago I would have assumed that was random, or maybe it fell into the "non-random non-predictable" category[2018-10-29. : 6:31 pm] Vrael -- just recently I read a paper which sheds light on young's double slit experiment, apparently the degree of quantum entanglement controls the particle/wave duality nature of a photon[2018-10-29. : 6:30 pm] NudeRaider -- particle movement in a gas or fluid is chaotic, meaning it's deterministic in theory, but not actually, because quantum randomness. Which is why in the LHC they repeat a certain experiment like a million times, aggregate the measurements and see if there are statistical deviations.[2018-10-29. : 6:29 pm] Vrael -- or we might not, just saying over time our understanding of randomness has evolved[2018-10-29. : 6:29 pm] Vrael -- a century from now we might find some subatomic process which explains how to predict the decay[2018-10-29. : 6:28 pm] Vrael -- now we have the capability to simulate that, meaning at that level its deterministic[2018-10-29. : 6:28 pm] Vrael -- well, a century ago we might have believed that 'hard evidence' for randomness might have been particle interactions in a gas[2018-10-29. : 6:27 pm] Vrael -- sorry, I wasn't referring to evidence for predictability or randomness, I was referring to the process of sampling a statistical distribution in order to determine if two variables are disjoint or dependent[2018-10-29. : 6:27 pm] NudeRaider -- We live in a solar system that is super stable, and only in such stable environment life even has a chance to produce complex beings as we are.[2018-10-29. : 6:26 pm] Vrael -- like, you want to measure those things at a universal scale, ideally you'd pop a few universes into a box, shake it up, and watch to see whats possible[2018-10-29. : 6:25 pm] Vrael -- but who has some hard evidence for the nature of predictability vs. randomness? as you said its such a philosophical topic, I think, exactly because that kind of evidence is hard to come by[2018-10-29. : 6:24 pm] Vrael -- GPS systems actually have to correct for it or they'd be off by like 100 meters[2018-10-29. : 6:24 pm] Vrael -- GR for example, you can send a satellite up into orbit and measure the time differences based on the gravitational field difference[2018-10-29. : 6:24 pm] NudeRaider -- oh, so the continuum assumption is a hard requirement? Ya, then it only works in large scales.[2018-10-29. : 6:23 pm] Vrael -- NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Vrael Nobody in science is sure about anything ever. (Refer to my signature) you can only take your best guess and try to falsify it to the best of your ability. if you find a flaw, you falsified your theory. If you don't you still haven't proven you were correct. ya I gotcha, I'm just saying for a lot of things we have a reasonable amount of evidence[2018-10-29. : 6:23 pm] Vrael -- but that could simply be a limit of our mathematical modelling and not an actual aspect of the universe[2018-10-29. : 6:22 pm] Vrael -- if you have some distance D, between which two energy levels exist, and you take some delta < D, then at some point + delta, it isn't possible for the quanta of energy to exist there[2018-10-29. : 6:22 pm] NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: though I don't know if anyone is really sure about that Nobody in science is sure about anything ever. (Refer to my signature) you can only take your best guess and try to falsify it to the best of your ability. if you find a flaw, you falsified your theory. If you don't you still haven't proven you were correct.[2018-10-29. : 6:21 pm] Vrael -- well, if your energy levels are quantized over distances, that means you're essentially working in discrete spaces and therefore the continuum assumption for isentropy is broken[2018-10-29. : 6:21 pm] NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: ACHTSHUALLY - on the quantum scale I believe they assume things are quantized, therefore non-isentropic why can't quantized states be non-ideal (which I hope I'm rewording correctly?)[2018-10-29. : 6:20 pm] Vrael -- does the universe exist on a planck-length grid? or are we just not smart enough to get below that distance[2018-10-29. : 6:20 pm] NudeRaider -- it actually does. It sheds light on everything. You can assume everything works the same everywhere.[2018-10-29. : 6:19 pm] Vrael -- ACHTSHUALLY - on the quantum scale I believe they assume things are quantized, therefore non-isentropic[2018-10-29. : 6:19 pm] Vrael -- still, observing billion-year-old light from gazillions of miles away doesn't really shed much evidence on whether randomness and predictability are disjoint[2018-10-29. : 6:18 pm] NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: so isentropic is only a good assumption on the largest scale and on the smallest scale[2018-10-29. : 6:17 pm] NudeRaider -- VraelVrael shouted: funny enough, astrophysicists intentionally assume that, though they would call the universe "isentropic" ya that's what I refer to[2018-10-29. : 6:16 pm] Vrael -- the observable universe actually has more of a sponge-like structure, with dense filaments and empty voids[2018-10-29. : 6:16 pm] NudeRaider -- and we can observe a lot. We can't observe every nook and cranny but we can take samples of pretty far spots and looks like they're all representative[2018-10-29. : 6:15 pm] Vrael -- funny enough, astrophysicists intentionally assume that, though they would call the universe "isentropic"[2018-10-29. : 6:15 pm] NudeRaider -- and it's really an assumption you'll have a hard time to get around, considering is has been proven by everything we can observe.[2018-10-29. : 6:14 pm] NudeRaider -- basically one big assumption beats it all: The universe is the same everywhere.[2018-10-29. : 6:13 pm] Vrael -- considering we've experienced less than 1 percent of 1 universe, not a lot of evidence to go on without some other pretty big assumptions[2018-10-29. : 6:13 pm] NudeRaider -- you'd potentially make a good conspiracy theorist: "(free will?)[2018-10-29. : 6:13 pm] Vrael -- yeah it's still a bit out there, I mean any time you make an assumption that the universe behaves a certain way, that's an awfully hard claim to prove or disprove[2018-10-29. : 6:12 pm] NudeRaider -- ya, interesting idea. and slightly less philosophic with that concretization  [2018-10-29. : 6:11 pm] Vrael -- I think in general we assume they are not disjoint though, and so we only consider the possibilities of random & not predictable, and not-random and predictable[2018-10-29. : 6:08 pm] Vrael -- VraelVrael shouted: This: "Although I could imagine it's not necessarily automatically random then." NudeRaiderNudeRaider shouted: Vrael what are you saying? Either I can predict an action based on the current state or I can't. There is no third. Everything that cannot be accurately and reliably predicted is automatically non-deterministic. Although I could imagine it's not necessarily automatically random then. Right now I can't think of anything else it could be, but as you've said who knows if there isn't something we haven't observed or understood yet. However since we don't even have a hint of that yet, I'd put that into the philosophical category and would not like to discuss it at the moment. also more concretely I'm saying predictability and randomness are disjoint, so really you have 4 cases with those 2 attributions: R/P(impossible?), R/NP (typical randomness), NR/P(deterministic), and NR/NP(free will?)[2018-10-29. : 6:04 pm] Vrael -- allow me to rephrase: "I think the anger of democrats and the disappointment of certain Trump supporters provides a significant chance of Trump not being re-elected."[2018-10-29. : 6:03 pm] Vrael -- This: "Although I could imagine it's not necessarily automatically random then." |
Members Online: Zycorax
Zycorax