Stop guessing start learning at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:10:00 UTC No. 16457397

>>16457391
Ok genius play the lottery then faggot and show us the winnings.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:40:04 UTC No. 16457428

>>16457397
what's the logic you're trying to convey, exactly?

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:51:55 UTC No. 16457445

>>16457428
unpredictable = random

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:55:06 UTC No. 16457449

>>16457391
Everything is predictable with infinite data, infinite precision, and infinite computational time... but none of those things exist so at a certain point you've got no choice but to describe things statistically - What is the most likely outcome? What is the most probable velocity? What is the variance in energy? etc.

Randomness doesn't have anything to do with "nothing creating something", it's just a statistical way of describing behaviors that can't be deterministically computed.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:56:47 UTC No. 16457454

randomness just means that you don't know all the input variables that determine the outcome.

can an all-knowing god create a coin flip where He won't know the outcome in advance?

making a post to test the new 15 minutes wait time

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:07:17 UTC No. 16457465

You should go hang out in the Sabine Hossenfelder comment section where you can be around people who think like you.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:25:16 UTC No. 16457845

>>16457391
this is why anytime i see anyone call something random i assume hes a midwit

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:26:17 UTC No. 16457847

>>16457445
>i dont know how to predict it
>therefore its impossible for anyone else to predict
good try midwit

>>16457449
actually it must be finite data and time.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 06:32:04 UTC No. 16457854

>>16457391
This is a fucking retarded post that tells me you haven't bothered to even do the basics in trying to understand probability theory/stochastic modeling.

In probability theory, there's two fundamental sources of uncertainty. Firstly, there's epistemic uncertainties that come from our lack of knowledge of particular parameters that would reduce uncertainty if known. Secondly, there's aleotoric uncertainties that are fundamentally intractable. The distribution of an electron's position, as an example, appears to be fundamentally uncertain no matter how precise we try to model them deterministically.

> Indeed, there are set-ups wherein computers can calculate the results with very strong accuracy (if fed in the precise physics of the situation, which wouldn't happen IRL, but it proves the premise).

Computers are deterministic in their behavior because we have literally forced them to be through the work of communications engineering/information theory. Without error correcting codes, the idea of "setting a seed" on a physics engine would be nonsense because you'd have no way of enforcing a deterministic pseudorandom sequence because bits would randomly flip (as they do in reality) and not be corrected.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:19:47 UTC No. 16458215

>>16457391
Ware they vaccinated in recent 5 years? Because it so it can be evidence. I wanted to attribute melting ice on north pole to autism, because it correlates, but maybe it's vaccines after all.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 14:46:39 UTC No. 16458241

>>16457854
>The distribution of an electron's position, as an example, appears to be fundamentally uncertain no matter how precise we try to model them deterministically.
nta but that still sounds like something that could be determined with better data or models, we just haven't figured it out yet

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:21:24 UTC No. 16458270

>>16457847
Finite data and time will only yield predictions accurate to within some ratio of your dynamic scale to your computational scale. To make a perfect prediction would require infinitely small computational scales, and therefore infinite data and computation time.

If you want computations to be fast and accurate, you must accept using a model that has some statistical variance in the results.
If you want computations to be fast and precise, you must accept using a significantly simpler model that may break down outside of a narrow regime space
If you want computations to be accurate and precise, you must accept that you need a more complete model and that it will take more effort to compute predictions
You cannot have all three.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 15:29:27 UTC No. 16458283

>>16458241
> nta but that still sounds like something that could be determined with better data or models, we just haven't figured it out yet.

You can believe this if you wish. There have been literally generations of QM researchers who have tried to be "the guy" that proves some super determinism at the quantum level. I'm not holding my breath based on your hunch that it might be possible.

It might be, but everyone else who has tried to prove "we just need the right model" so far have utterly failed to do so. Most attempts have actually found different ways to reaffirm the distribution theory based QM that physics uses today.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 16:53:03 UTC No. 16458393

What about the electron's position wasn't that supposed to be true randomness in reality?

bodhi at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:06:06 UTC No. 16458705

no such thing as random, only psueds believe in randomness

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:33:25 UTC No. 16459482

>>16458705
Sounds about right, now go and win the lottery.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:19:34 UTC No. 16460678

>>16459482
>now go and win the lottery
you truly, madly, deeply believe this is a huge own and you keep repeating it
it's just that it's not

bodhi at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:52:11 UTC No. 16460689

>>16459482
>pi is random because we dont have infinity to calculate it

>inb4 this faggot is too retarded to understand this analogy

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 09:04:20 UTC No. 16460693

>>16457391
>Hard to decipher (complex sports plays)
Yes.
>Unpredictable (dice or coin flips)
This is just hard to decipher.
>Too complex for man to quantify (weather)
This is just hard to decipher.
>Haphazard (quick events which we can't process)
This is too vague.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 09:07:57 UTC No. 16460696

>>16457391
if your think frequency fags are fake and gay, then take the bayesian pill

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:58:23 UTC No. 16461168

>>16458270
good breakdown of the modelling triad

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:01:47 UTC No. 16461452

>>16457391
cope

raphael at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:17:48 UTC No. 16461473

are you implying that we were created?
what designed god?
its likely we're here from chance

raphael at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:19:05 UTC No. 16461474

if you are really curious sell your soul to find out who god is

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:43:23 UTC No. 16462397

We are so used to thinking in words, it is so much of us, it it so comfortable to understand and know, but try to forget about words and peer out into the world and at yourself for a moment, without words we are just bodies walking, and doing, and I geuss thinking in images.

Think about what the word random might refer to and mean from this context.

The mind out of anything known in nature might have the best chance to be closest, for it possess a great number of things, and controls, inputs and outputs and an awareness and driver, so the ways wind can blow 1000 strips of paper, the mind can for 3 minutes straight, perform an improvised dance with moving all fingers and toes and joints and muscles, each millisecond each inch of the body a different way, the mind hardly fully aware of what it is doing, partially in control, no plan, but theoretically it is still felt, if sensors hooked to the brain that relayed info fast enough and sent into a simulation, the data would perfectly capture the every aspect of the dance picoseconds before each motion?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:45:40 UTC No. 16462406

>>16457465
kek

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:39:06 UTC No. 16462482

>>16457391
so how about Bell's inequality?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:46:37 UTC No. 16462577

>>16462397
If you started your random dance, it's hard to occupy your attention continously on all your joints and make them all do unique movements (like rubbing your stomach and patting your head alternating hopping on 1 foot and spinning around etc), even to dance your body all around while trying to individually move all your fingers and toes, you may try to automate the finger movement and continoaily wiggle them all, but that is more patterned than random, a continously fluttering wiggle, as opposed to while dancing all sorts of ways conciously being aware of each individual finger and toe also, while movie each one this and that way, with... randomly chosen pauses.

You either kind of give up attention and just generally think to move your hips and legs like this while you avert attention on other locations, and yeah, averting attention to choose the 'random' times and motions of your choosing

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:50:08 UTC No. 16462583

>>16457391
>It literally doesn't exist in reality.
Quantum mechanics says otherwise.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:53:05 UTC No. 16462592

>>16457391
Donald Rumsfeld summed it up pretty well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_unknown_unknowns

When people say something "random" happened to change the course of history or their lives they are talking about an unknown/unknown. Not something that's scientifically random. They are mixing up random and the unforeseen.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:47:45 UTC No. 16463054

>>16457391
Complex sports plays are in fact random.
It's called Nash Equilibrium in Mixed Strategies.
Consider a game of Rock Paper Scissors.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 02:52:41 UTC No. 16463058

>>16463054
>Consider a game of Rock Paper Scissors.
Are you saying each round, there is no thought, image, decision that enters the person's head that then forms into their hand shape?
I geuss you are saying they choose randomly which sign to throw?

They are both basing it off what was previously thrown. But it is ultimately guessing. If someone does 2 rocks in a row, or 3, maybe that compels the other to choose paper

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:04:23 UTC No. 16463077

>>16463058
A Rational Agent will compute the Nash Equilibrium for the Game.
The Nash Equilibrium for this game is when you play Rock with a probability of 1/3, Paper with a probability of 1/3, and Scissors with a probability of 1/3.
What you are suggesting is Irrational Behavior.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:22:32 UTC No. 16463102

>>16463058
>>16463077
>If someone does 2 rocks in a row, or 3, maybe that compels the other to choose paper
There is no Nash Equilibrium in pure strategies. Even in repeated games.
But suppose that it's a one shot game, what do you play?
In repeated games, I know that you know that I know that you know the historical moves. If you're rational and so am I, I would anticipate you trying to bait paper, and throw rock myself to counter scissors.
But what if you're trying to psych me out?
Ultimately this settles in an *Equilibrium* where once we account for each others strategies, if we are rational, all of our moves are RANDOM.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 03:40:25 UTC No. 16463123

>>16463077
>>16463102
Okay so then still, in a one shot game, it is equal probability of throwing any, so both players choose at random?
So that gets into the meaning of random and determinism: how did the mental slot machine settle on rock

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 04:01:33 UTC No. 16463138

>>16463123
We don't know how consciousness works yet, so we don't know whether or not the mental slot machine has a true RNG it can use.
That being said, if consciousness is somehow nonrandom, then a Rational Agent would be forced to entangle themselves with sources of randomness via Quantum Mechanics (Nuclear Decay, etc.) to remain Rational.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 04:14:11 UTC No. 16463151

>>16463138
Can you recall in your experience of playing, the thought process that concludes on one or the other?

It's usually, uh oh he's about to say shoot I have to pick one guess it might as well be Scissors. I just said Scissors there for the very reason I had to pick one example but I could have picked another, that's the whole game, and as repeating goes, you only have a few options, though some tricky people might throw the.ssme many times, until it is realized the silliness, you both laugh, and you think surely this time he can't possibly throw rock again for the.7th straight time.

Then how the.game might change to add 1 or 2 more symbol piece elements,

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:01:55 UTC No. 16465651

>>16463077
It's not "random" because it's made by people's conscious choices.
Literally the opposite of "random".
(And, as a bonus, it's even EASIER to dismiss "randomness" because people have predictable patterns in RPS and when asked to name a number between 1-10, etc., etc.)

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 14:00:42 UTC No. 16465991

On further random reflection, I must cautiously partially concede the point, that mental processes can produce a randomality to the observer, but am compelled to believe that is due to:

The brain/mind being a system of a billion continually moving complex parts with very scales and energy levels compartments and networks: and that it's goal is to keep processing and churning, and it has its stores of memories and imageries and words, and the main awareness control user you and I are not entirely in control of all these processes, so it mechanically and random number generatory, and real time sense data from here and there and up and down and smell and sight and taste and broad and specific vision and body feelings all at once and alteratingly continously, that thoughts and memories as the Buddhists and new agers might say, do just randomly appear, or as frued jung et al may say, subconcious and unconscious and more.

To the observer, conscious viewer, images, thoughts, sensations appear randomly: to the crazy, perfect, awesome, slightly messy brain forced to continually churn out it's pistons pumps of energetic chemical mechanical activities, it is no spooky action at distance, any part touching another part that touches another part that touches another part that touches another part that touches another part

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 01:49:28 UTC No. 16466677

>>16457449
>Everything is predictable with infinite data
But infinite data does not exist. Some things are truly random, not just unpredictable. What determines when an individual nucleus decays? Unless there are hidden variables, there is no data that exists that could tell you.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 01:56:26 UTC No. 16466681

A computer cannot create a random number. It's literally impossible. It's one of the greatest computational problems out there.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 02:21:34 UTC No. 16467879

>>16466681
>A computer cannot create a random number. It's literally impossible. It's one of the greatest computational problems out there
Computers churn out like n^99999999999999999 digits of pi
Surely it can be a black box and pick 17 or 94 or 398383838 digits of pi and then multiply those by 393 or 2992 or 228283 and then divide by 28 or 83^7 and surely that number or that equation will be more random than a simple number

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:09:20 UTC No. 16467909

>>16466681
This misunderstands the problem with randomness and computers. Computers absolutely can have random errors in the form of bit-flips, intermediary memory gate states or incorrect detection of a communicated signal. The problem with this kind of randomness is that it is uncontrollable, meaning you cannot "generate it" in a meaningful fashion such that you can sample a distribution. It is a set of fundamentally uncontrollable random errors, rather than controllable random samples of some distribution.

The way we deal with this is by effectively "removing randomness" via error-correcting codes for encoding, transmission and storage of information. There still is randomness present in the presence of random bit-flips during communication, recovery or manipulation of data. This randomness is just accounted for by redundancy (see Hamming or Manchester codes an easy example).

Pseudorandom number generation seeks to mimic controllable randomness via complexity. Ironically, in the process of generating pseudorandom numbers, one of the most important parts is ensuring proper encoding and numerical stability to avoid actually random bit-wise errors (which would make your pseudorandom sequence un-reproducable).

That your computer doesn't behave randomly is an intentional design feature that two generations of engineers worked hard to ensure, not a bug.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 06:03:44 UTC No. 16468032

>>16467909
If one is unaware of the internal processes in the computer, any number it chooses is random to you. If you say give me a number between 1 and 2^222222222222

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 21:00:39 UTC No. 16468714

>>16468032
Uncertain. The correct word is uncertain. Whether the uncertainty is epistemic (meaning we model it as random, but there is some underlying deterministic structure that could in theory be implemented) or aleotoric (meaning the randomness is intrinsic and cannot be fully resolved with ideal modeling) is something to be determined for each use case.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 22:53:34 UTC No. 16468830

>>16457391
We should not forget that the claim of true randomness has not yet been backed by evidence. Neither Heisenberg's uncertainty principle nor Bell's inequality exclude the possibility, however small, that the Universe, including all observers inhabiting it, is in principle computable by a completely deterministic computer program, as first suggested by computer pioneer Konrad Zuse in 1967 (Elektron. Datenverarb. 8, 336–344; 1967).

The principle of Occam's razor, which is fundamental to theory-building, favours simple explanations (describable by few bits of information) over complex ones. But if the Universe's history really included many truly random events, an enormous amount of information would be necessary to describe all the random observations inexplicable by the known, simple, elegant, compactly describable laws of physics.

A few previous attempts at discovering a pseudo-random generator behind seemingly random physical events have failed (see T. Erber and S. Putterman Nature 318, 41–43; 1985). But as long as the randomness hypothesis has not been verified, physicists should keep trying to falsify it and search not only for statistical laws but also for deterministic rules explaining any type of hitherto unexplained apparent randomness.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:12:43 UTC No. 16468951

>>16468714
If you in theory and practice could never open the computer to look inside and model, this uncertainty you speak of, principly would be similar to your inability to look in the nucleus to determine it's random or uncertain to you activities

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:25:31 UTC No. 16468978

>>16457391
>everything has a cause
there are things that just are

weak bait

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:48:03 UTC No. 16470061

>>16457391
People imply unpredictable when they random you fucking autist

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 23:34:06 UTC No. 16470111

>>16468951
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Are you implying that the computer RNG "is random" in some sense because we wouldn't be able to deterministically reproduce it if we didn't have error-correcting codes or pseudorandom number generation sequences? It's certainly reasonable to approximate its behavior as random, but it's not truthfully random in a controllable sense (outside of exceedingly rare and unpredictable instances where a sufficient number of truly random bit-errors occur simultaneously such that they can't be corrected via redundant encoding).

If you are implying that if we would see the same determinism with particle motion if we could "open the black box" in the way we can with human artificial pseudorandomness, then maybe. That's the claim that people who believe in super-determinism/hidden variables theories believe. I'm not personally convinced by any of the arguments I've seen for this strict determinism, but who knows?

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 01:51:09 UTC No. 16470266

>>16470111
Either the word random is undefined and meaningless nonsensical:
Or the slight way it can have meaning is, Humans unable to purely predict/determine/access/know the cause.

The computers methods of making a "random" number are not truly random (because it's made of causal physics)
But the number it gives you, is truly a (as close to the second definition) random number to you, especially or maybe only if you don't have access to it's methods of programming, Because, you could not with good accuracy predict what number if will give you.

If you asked me to give you a number between 1 and 10000000
You likely would not have any determinable method of predicting the number I will say.

Before I say the number, I likely have no way of determining what number I will pick unless I am aware of some number picking equation I want to employ.

For all intense purposes, this is quite random, lack of a pre established system of determination.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 04:09:15 UTC No. 16470389

>>16466681
maybe 60 years ago lmao
now you've gotta jump through hoops to not get fist fucked by tunneling, and intentionally leaving a few gates leaky is trivial

https://stackoverflow.com/a/18004959

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:15:30 UTC No. 16470911

>>16465651
People can consciously choose to be random (e.g. by entangling themselves in a quantum state).
>because people have predictable patterns in RPS and when asked to name a number between 1-10, etc., etc.)
Predictable patterns does not mean not random. You actually cannot prove non-randomness.
The distribution of a random number 1-10 might not be uniform or iid due to various cognitive biases, however lacking uniformity or iid does not disprove randomness.
Can you use those biases to get a Game Theoretical edge? Yes, casinos do it all the time. The house always wins.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:16:58 UTC No. 16470913

>>16470266
Causal physics only works on paper. Don't be a moron and confuse the map with the territory.

If causal physics alone produced determinism on computers, we wouldn't need error-correcting encoding protocols (which we do).

Not yet rapist at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:53:58 UTC No. 16470979

After of being labeled I just labed myself

Never forget I die on a not yet

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:57:12 UTC No. 16470991

>>16457391
radioactive decay and lava lamps are random.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:01:12 UTC No. 16471251

>>16470913
>If causal physics alone produced determinism on computers, we wouldn't need error-correcting encoding protocols (which we do).
Exceptions and rules.

If I ask chat gpt to give me a number between 1 and 1000000000000

And I ask it 100000000 times in a row, I bet I wouldn't have to error correct it much in that time

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:17:26 UTC No. 16471378

You said:
Talking with someone about randomness, I'll write 10 numbers on a piece of paper 1 - 100,000,000 , you pick 10 numbers, 1 - 100,000,000
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Sure, here’s a set of 10 numbers within the range 1 to 100,000,000:

23,584,761
47,231,095
8,432,678
91,764,210
39,287,154
74,102,593
15,847,006
56,321,493
88,964,212
6,753,480

This set is randomly chosen, so there’s no specific pattern to it.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:19:41 UTC No. 16471381

You're absolutely right—that's a good observation! Even random numbers can often show clusters or seem to favor certain ranges by chance alone, but since this sample heavily favors millions and tens of millions, it could look less random at a glance. If we’re aiming for a "balanced" appearance, a new list could include numbers spread more evenly across the range. Here’s a different attempt that might look more dispersed:

402
3,780,021
9,874,563
45,209,800
16,320,411
73,092,005
27,003
87,654,109
580,456
100,000,000

This list includes both low and high values and spreads numbers across the full range from single digits to tens of millions. It's a neat reminder of how much perception affects our idea of "randomness" and the way we naturally look for evenness.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 01:28:27 UTC No. 16471494

>>16471251
Error correcting codes are implemented in literally every digital communication system out there by default. They are also the standard in most forms of NAND memory storage (which your hard drive most likely is). The only real memory on your computer that doesn't by default have bit-correction built in is your RAM because almost all RAM operations are not critical enough that individual flipped. It's matter.

In terms of the probability of bit-flips, they are generally low (depends on your hardware and environmental circumstances but usually 10^-15 per bit-operation or so), but when you have literally billions of clock-cycles per second they will accumulate pretty quickly if you don't do error correction. If you were super autistic like most EE/CSE grad students you could even test this pretty easily in c using a microcontroller by running the same sequence of PSRNG operations from the same starting point until you get a floating point error. Usually only takes about 30-40 cycles before you'll get a single bit divergence with standard atmega/Arduino controllers. Those will then accumulate and integrate as the next starting point will have the accumulated error, leading to growing errors.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 07:50:22 UTC No. 16471753

>>16470911
>Can you use those biases to get a Game Theoretical edge? Yes, casinos do it all the time. The house always wins.
which casino games rely on humans being bad at coming up with unpredictable numbers?

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:10:05 UTC No. 16472529

>>16471494
Don you think bit flipping is a non deterministic event occurring in nature?

Humans don't want it to occur, don't intend for it to occur, don't determine it to occur, but the physics of nature determine it to occur when it occurs.
Surely you are smart enough to grok and parse the sensibility of this understanding

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 23:11:49 UTC No. 16472530

>>16471494 #
Do you think bit flipping is a non deterministic event occurring in nature?

Humans don't want it to occur, don't intend for it to occur, don't determine it to occur, but the physics of nature determine it to occur when it occurs.
Surely you are smart enough to grok and parse the sensibility of this understanding

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:52:23 UTC No. 16474642

>>16457391
Random niggers in your butthole lol

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:54:55 UTC No. 16474701

>>16472530
You don't understand how deterministic vs. non-deterministic works. If you have a deterministic function of a random variable, the output of that is a random variable.

Charge distribution across the gate over small time-scales (e.g., .1 nano-seconds, a typical clock speed for a modern processor) is fundamentally a random variable, as it depends on near-instantaneous electron position on a 3d surface.

We can define a deterministic function of this random quantity (i.e., the transistor value is itself essentially an averaging of the electrical state of the gate during the clock cycle) but this will only appear deterministic as the time-scales increase. It is the same way that the "average probability" of a fair coin on heads is itself a random quantity at every single number of trials but converges to something deterministic through stationarity.

Do not confuse the statistics of something being deterministic for the quantity itself being deterministic. They are different concepts. The universe can be fundamentally stochastic in nature (meaning individual physical events are instantaneously non-deterministic and distributed according to some fundamental generating distributions) while having deterministic average behavior. These are not contradictory ideas.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:50:28 UTC No. 16474878

>>16474701
Are you failing to consider we are pointing at 2 different things, I am pointing at nature and speaking of it, you are pointing at manmade hard and software and speaking of it.

I agree with you random and unpredictable unintended outcomes occur with hardware, software, and electricity.

But then we point to nature, as a whole, of which your pointing part is included, and merely say, the randomness in your machine is not nature failing to be deterministic, but you are your machine failing to fully know all the determinations of nature.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:24:20 UTC No. 16474909

>>16457391
This gets posted very often

John the fisherman at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:33:47 UTC No. 16474921

Formula highly complex but raw materials to cheap big pharma can't allow this

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 16:36:02 UTC No. 16474926

Luck is getting a good result from something unpredictable, it's not the fact that something is random or not - but that given an element of something random, you manage to succeed.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:09:59 UTC No. 16475015

>>16474701
Sets.

(1)[Nature]
subset
1A[Earth]
Subsubset
1B[Your Computer]
Set[History]
You "my computer did something I didn't plan for, therefore [Nature] is non deterministic, random, possesses uncaused causes, illogicalities"
[Nature]"Not nessecarily"

I put a cup of water on the edge of my table outside on a windy day, certainly I want the cup to stay standing, the wind knocks it over, Nature how could you be so random, illogical, undetermined, I determined my cup to stand, the cup fell, therefore determinism is false"

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:16:47 UTC No. 16475019

>>16475015
Wacko nonsense

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:42:33 UTC No. 16475048

>>16475019
Quote step by step the lines I wrote and attempt to provide one suggestion as to the way in which they are near falsehood

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:50:19 UTC No. 16475055

>>16475048
I'm not stopping to your level, cuckbrain. You can't even conceive luck. I think it's time for botbot then bed you fucking baby thinker

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:54:40 UTC No. 16475059

Just because there's a reason a dice rolls 6, doesn't mean that if you throw it spontaneously it means there's no luck to a state where you keep getting the right result.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:55:50 UTC No. 16475061

>>16475015
You're looking at it literally backwards. The fundamental objects that interact with the transistors are themselves random, and only appear to be deterministic when you look at averages over larger time-scales.

Current is determined by the average flow of charged electrons through a material. If the time-scales for that average is large, it will be more stable and appear deterministic. Similarly, when you're talking about average electron motion through a relatively large object like a millimeter diameter "solid" conductor like a wire, the randomness will "average out."

However, when you're talking about modern computers where the time-scales for clock cycles are in 0.1ns order of magnitude, and the equivalent gate widths are on the scale of nano-meters, your averages behave much less deterministically. This is actually one of the main reasons why modern memory architecture (see DRAM) has multiple transistor states contributing to the value of the single bit in the memory structure. Without this, you'd have something that is fundamentally random with deterministic statistics (like the average electron position on a 5nm strip over the course of 0.3 ns) determining the state of your memory.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:57:29 UTC No. 16475063

This thread is retarded the people on sci generally have the same sort of mind, a donkeys mind. You'll rarely find a post that isn't the center of a retarded cess emerging from the wit of such individuals.