>There are people on this board who believe that true

>inb4 "muh quantum mechanics"
This is a science beard. If you believe in the relativistic interpretation of quantum mechanics I shall redirect you to the /x/ board where you can discuss other popular exoteric beliefs with your fellow brainlets

>>8574595
get asscancer and die dumb frogshitter

true randomness is a funny phrase
randomness implies a scale of random, while true doesn't really fit on that scale

Would it be taken to be the most random?

>>8574689
"randomness" doesn't inherently imply a scale, just a quality, which might also be binary

>>8574689
Randomness is a concept that opposes determinism. When you flip a coin, it entirely depends on explicit physical factors from the speed of your finger to the turbulence in the air. Randomness is something that is not measurable or is implicit because they are vaguely non-physical and do not act upon action-reaction.

Sorta like god, spirits, divine intervention, etc...

>>8574595
How do you know particles don't disobey the laws while nobody is observing them?

>>8574695
binary is a funny phrase lol jk
but while binary can be used to mean 1 of 2, it can also represent a more or less infinite number of numbers

>>8574697
If you flip a coin and someone swallows it, is it still heads or tails?

File: Oliviero-toscani-01-960x600.jpg (78KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x600px

Randomness is a communication channel.

Define 'true randomness'

Now explain the mechanism behind this 'true randomness'

If there doesn't exist a polytime distinguisher with probability bounded away from 1/2, it's good fucking enough for me.

>>8574595
Define "true randomness" bruh

>>8576538
hi every1 im new!!!!!!! holds up spork my name is katy but u can call me t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m!!!!!!!! lol…as u can see im very random!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet random ppl like me _… im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!) i like 2 watch invader zim w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) its our favorite tv show!!! bcuz its SOOOO random!!!! shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lol…neways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!!
DOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- me bein random again _^ hehe…toodles!!!!!

love and waffles,

t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m

>>8574595
> dis nigga think he can predict when atoms decay

File: harry potter.jpg (32KB, 600x685px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x685px

>>8576592
>if my tiny brain can't predict a coinflip, its random

>>8574697
If you use a weaker definition of randomness it doesn't have to violate determinism. In this case, randomness is the result of a process with parameters that are inaccessible to us. In most cases this is already the case when rolling a dice or flipping a coin. Theoretically it is still possible in those cases though.

On extremely small scale, the parameters are no longer accessible experimentally, even in theory it is impossible to determine the parameters exactly without changing the parameters. The results are still deterministic, but the exact mechanisms are opaque to us.

>>8576601
> We have finally learned everything
> Get mocked by the other all-knowing beings for taking so long

>>8576586
/thread

True randomness exists relative to us and our ability to perceive the universe and thats all that matters. So if time is linear and everything is predetermined, it doesn't matter because we are incapable of viewing the entire line all at once. To us, everything truly is random because we're blind.

>>8576601
Relative to you, if you are literally incapable of perceiving what the final state will be prior to its occuring, yes it is.
Like for instance if you were a blind man and you stood in front of a machine that went BOOP after it flashed red, and BRAAP after it flashed blue, whether it went BOOP or BRAP would be entirely random to you unless they clearly followed an observable pattern.

>>8577335
end ureself

>>8577337
The flow of time is something humans are incapable of perceiving. We exist in the now and have some records of our own past, but we don't have the complete history of the universe's past so we can't completely predict the future for the universe or how the universe will effect us. Additionally we aren't aware of all the forces or rules of the universe. We currently have theories of how it works. Ergo, everything is random for us because we cannot perceive all.
Since all we can know is based on what we can percieve, all we can ever know is a random universe. It really doesn't matter if the thing is nonrandom to a higher being which exists outside of our universe because we aren't higher beings.

>>8577345
The absolute truth is not subjective and irrelevant to your puny capabilities of predicting things.

>>8577348
Whether or not the actual truth is subjective or objective is irrelevant to our ability to perceive all of time and the fact that we only have historical information concerning our own locally observable history, so we cannot regress the entire universe to predict the future.

>>8577357
you're just being a bitch now. something is not random simply because you are unable to predict its outcome. the existence of randomness would be true to a dumb person who isn't capable of predicting anything. This is not a case for science but for semantics. And only semantics are for bitches.

>>8577368
You're may be right, but at the end of the day we aren't gods. We can't perceive all, or regress all, therefore we cannot predict all or know all. Since we cannot do that, things are essentially random for us regardless of whether or not everything is following a specified trajectory through time.

>>8574595
the frog is right, just because we cannot calculate it doesn't mean it is random

>believing in non-locality

File: 1437796739798.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>8576586