Does randomness exist

Yin and yang

Yang is prompted randomly
Yin acts randomly to prompt

Yes
*holds up spork*

Just because we can't predict things doesn't mean they are random. We previously thought many things were random before understanding them.

>Does randomness exist
Define: Randomness

This

define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness define randomness

Randomness is that you typed/copy-pasted: define randomness: the amount of times you did

Literally any game that incorporates rolling dice is Satanic. I better tell those sodomites at

perhaps, but there is still some 'sensible range of likelihood': most likely was only writing it once. And very unlikely I would have written it 100 times, not considering the word limit (could have made many multiple posts): but once I wrote it once solely above, and then when saw no response, ''''instinctually'''' was compelled...by myself... to..with thinking...hardly...choosing...to write multiple times, once I wrote multiple times it was likely I would not only write it twice, and then 3 times either would not have offered a worthy enough effect...so how did I choose the amount I did, and how random was it?

And how much has to do with sense of proportion, rhythm, tone, the mood I was in, my surroundings, etc.

>I don't know, and no-one else does either.
That's bullshit. Cause and effect is a fundamental principle of the universe and if you throw that out the window then you might as well just stop trying to further scientific understanding. Randomness doesn't exist at all outside of our limited perception.

all the potentials existed: within the limits and range.

I could have copy and pasted enough until the word count was taken up. And then done the same thing, 1, or 2, or 3, ....or 50 times.. etc.

All these possibilities were possible. Is simply ''''''choosing'''' one of them.....random?

No. Quantum mechanics is just STEMfags refusing to accept that they will forever lack the capacity to completely comprehend the universe. If you're not a strict determinist than you're a fag.

because I could have pressed copy paste 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 times: and have no good or bad reason to choose either (besides maybe...6 would require less effort?...but if my desire to do it all was grandiose of effect...would not the slight extra effort be worth the greater effect?) therefore whatever number I did settle on for whatever reason or non reason, could be nothing other then 'the conceptual occurrence which the word 'random' is used to point towards'

No, just a meta excuse for the incalculable.

But STEMfags know this. All practicing physicists readily acknowledge that quantum mechanics by itself tells us nothing about what the world is like. That's a job for philosophical interpretation of the math. It's just pop-scientists and the uneducated public (including would-be dissenters such as yourself} who seem to think physicists care about what their math "means"

Quantum mechanics is just "lol some essential variables in reality are impossible to understand with current science/math so lets just say that they are random"

>implying STEMshits aren't as fanatically religious as the most ardent evangelicals

brainlet maximus

They aren't. Who is a STEMfag in your mind? Ask any physicist and the answer you get will be largely the same. They are content to leave the philosophical problems, even within their own discipline, to the philosophers. That of course includes philosophically-inclined physicists. The science/philosophy division is a meme

>mfw he pretends to be stupid
>mfw he pretends to be making a stupid statement while stupid
>mfw his statement is absolutely and indubitably true

Truth is humans are literally just not intelligent enough to figure this out

I can see radio waves in the form of tetravalent layered graphs, I thought everyone was like this?...

That's his point, they appear random, so we describe them as random. That's sufficient for practical reasons, but not philosophical.

>retards butthurt that the universe doesn't conform to their preconceptions

induction says otherwise

...

this is more of a Veeky Forums thing really.

the everyday randomness you see e.g. dice rolling and card shuffling and the like. as you might know is not true randomness since if you would know the exact momentum, position, etc acting on it you'd know how the dice would land or which card is where. these are the effects you see in everyday objects on a macro scale, so in that sense, you will see very little actual randomness in day to day life.

true randomness does exist in quantum mechanics however. this is not just some mathematical trick like some of you seem to imply, unless quantum is proven wrong and replaced by some hidden variable theory.
Bohr argued that because molecular biology works on a scale where quantum mechanics is relevant, some quantum effects might be found back in nature. for example, it has been shown that quantum tunneling electrons in DNA can transfer a proton to the other base pair, causing genetic mutations. so in that sense, you could argue that true randomness exists, and that it does lead to changes on a macro scale.

You need to learn how physical models are constructed and how experimentation works. Nobody has ever observed true randomness or tunneling. There is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that asserts the world is truly random. The theory expresses itself in terms of mathematical probabilities, but these probabilities can be interpreted epistemically or ontologically. The theory does not provide us with a way of deciding between the two

i know how physical models are constructed and how experimentation works. a physical model does indeed not necessarily describe actual physical reality. however, as long as the model is accurate, it does give relations that are relevant in the real world. for a certain relation to not be true often implies another relation must be true, unless some very fundamental assumptions are thrown out the window.

For true randomness to not be true, it would in many cases require the atoms to already contain the information of what they're going to do. this is a valid alternative and its collectively called hidden variable theory, which i mentioned. hidden variable theory does have its own set of problems though, and most researchers are sticking to the quantum interpretation because of this. and yes, researchers have done experiments for which true randomness must be true (unless hidden variables yada yada), and yes, researchers did observe tunneling, and they're even making use of it in techniques like STM (scanning tunneling microscopy).

If randomness were to exist, there wouldn´t be a reason fot since its random, but since randomness can be determined by reason, the concept of randomness in itself collapses by the mere thought/try to understand it

>There is nothing in the formalism of quantum mechanics that asserts the world is truly random

Ummm... you are just incredible.

>The theory expresses itself in terms of mathematical probabilities

You literally just proved yourself wrong. Also, given the premise that quantum mechanics describes what we know to be closest to base reality, (e.i. quantum mechanics is not an abstraction of something non-quatum like a coin flip is), given that premise and given that quantum mechanics presents us with random probabilities as a description the universe, then we can say with certainty that the universe is random.

Is there a chance there is something underneath quantum mechanics that operates without randomness? Duh. But quantum mechanics as a science asserts itself as the most basic laws of the universe, and it also asserts that the universe is governed by random laws.

Only God knows.

but if your original request was answered when you asked it once: define randomness: you never would have asked the multiple times, does this take away from the fullness of the event as purely random?
only consciousness can approach being random, because it is one single thing full of many, with many things coming from many ways inner and out, and 1000 micro choices can be made a minute each with their own flowering root of a 100 looking of much more than both ways, the decisions come to fast to be made so some here and there tossed up to wind, and where they land they sprout and cause an uncertain happyness or dismay, because the algorithems of their programing is not formally known to them, and many are quasi invented on the fly, randomness means without cause, and everything is caused by something; the as shown, when there are many multiple options, and each viable, and no reason or force to choose one over the other, how can it not be called random which the person chooses? as I could have said ; define randomness; 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 times? if I choose 8 I would have done so randomly, 9, randomly, 3, randomly: 22, randomly... how would I have to have chosen an amount that would not make the choice random? If I chose my favorite number, or birthday? random, random? if as I was typing someone from out in the hall called to me? random? If the music stopped as I was typing and this caused me to hit send after that number? random?

...

>"Cause and effect is a fundamental principle of the universe"

Sure, at a certain scale. But why shouldn't it be an emergent property arising statistically from a large number of completely random events?
You're saying "if things are so, we can't understand the universe as we would like to, therefore they aren't so". That's the "reasoning" of a six-year-old.

Why *should* "cause and effect" happen the way you want it to, at very small scales?

There's no logical reason why it SHOULD, and certainly no evidence that it DOES.

In fact what evidence there is, rather points the other way. Subatomic events happen randomly, governed by statistical laws; there are no "hidden variables".

Your emotional reaction just goes to prove my point - this issue says something extremely profound about the type of universe we live in. The idea that something can be truly random is very hard to deal with.

>Why *should* "cause and effect" happen the way you want it to, at very small scales?
theres no such thing as "cause and effect happening the way you want it to", cause and effect is cause and effect and there is only one way it can occur: cause, and effect.

>Subatomic events happen randomly
What do you mean by this? What would it mean for them to happen unrandomly?

>governed by statistical laws
The reason you are incorrect is because you put the cart before the horse. Or maybe more apt, we are pointing to the moon and want to know and talk about the moon and you are mistaking the moon for a finger.

The horse is the universe, the universe operates via things, that interact via cause and effect.
Then comes man and his attempt to map the things and their interactions via cause and effect: listen to this part very very carefully: Man cannot perfectly completely accurately map out the totality details of things that exist and their cause and effects: Therefore man must place probabilities and statistics into his map: That does not mean probabilities and statistics exist in the universe: The unconcious universe can only unfold one way, the exact way it does: because there are only things that are govened by laws of cause and effect: momentum, spin, velocity, gravity, electro static, weak strong, etc. The billiard balls are all in motion: They are certain when they hit which way they will go: man is not: man needs the probability: the particles do not play dice. If you dont understand this you are more of a fool then you think. Which brings us: do you know how much you dont know? Yet you speak with such certainty?

Hidden variables are "the totality of information about substance and its details of form, weight, motion that exist in the universe that man is not privy to"

Is the definition, crux, of whether or not the universe can be considered to contain particle randomness or not: Whether or not God perfectly planned the path of every particle? Is that the only condition under which you would accept the notion that the activities are particles are not random? What is meant by 'subatomic events happen randomly'? What would it mean and entail and require for the statement 'subatomic events do not happen randomly' to be true? For intelligence to choose with objectively perfect purpose each subatomic event that can occur?

I am merely arguing against your use of the proposition random, in these cases: from the perspective of a scientist sitting back waving his hands saying 'we dont know whats going to happen when these million particles collide; therefore anything can happen, and what does happen is merely 1 case out of a million possible t1 to t2 to t3 to t5 ....6.8.9...1000 states:

What I mean to argue is that: the interaction of a million particles: the outcome, and spatiotemporal interaction over space and time (t1-t1000) is not random: no, anything cannot happen, no not even a range of different possibilities can happen: but only exactly one transference can occur, and it is the one exactly caused by the totality of particles and the totality of their motive details and the totality of the laws that absolutely force particles and their details to interact in an exact way.

You are exactly, completely incorrect. I had a quick look at the rest of the thread and this argument is going on elsewhere too; it's not worth repeating what's been said elsewhere.

I suspect you're trolling. If you're not, you just need to read more.

>reality hurts my feelings

You could not have made a statement more false. Quote something I said wrong fuckwit

I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. I WAS NOT WRONG. YOU WERE WRONG. I AM NOT WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG.

QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. QUOTE SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL.YOU FAIL.YOU FAIL.YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL.YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL. YOU FAIL.

SAY SOMETHING I SAID WRONG. YOU CANT. YOU LIED. YOU FAILED. YOUR DUMB. YOU LOSE. YOU SUCK. YOURE WRONG. YOU FAILED. YOU LIED. YOU TROLL. YOU FALSE. YOU FAKE. YOU WRONG. YOU FAKE. YOU DUMB. YOU LOST. YOU LIED. YOURE WRONG. YOURE WRONG. YOU CANNOT POINT TO A SINGLE THING I SAID WRONG. YOU LIED. YOU FAKED. YOU FALSED. YOURE FALSE. YOURE FALSE. YOURE FAKE. YOURE FALSE. YOURE FAKE. YOURE FALSE. YOU LIED. YOU LIED. YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS. YOU PROMOTED FALTY INFORMATION. YOU PROMOTED FALTY INFORMATION. FALTY INFORMATION. FALTY INFORMATION. YOU ARE FALTY INFORMATION. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. FALSE. WRONG. FALSE. WRONG. FAKE. WRONG. LIE. FALSE. WRONG. FAKE. LOSE. CHEAT. LIE. FAKE. FALSE. WRONG. PROVE ME WRONG. YOU CANT. YOURE WRONG. PRO TIP. YOURE WRONG. PRO TIP. YOURE WRONG. PRO TIP. YOURE WRONG.

The "hidden" variable. STEMfags eternally BTFO and condemned to the lake of fire.

excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me excuse me

>muh hidden variables

so this is the power of the anti-scientist...

Given the linear nature of our perception of time, we can only experience any given event once at its specific time of happening. Even if the event were random, it would still be indistinguishable from an entirely deterministic event. What has happened, in any case, might as well be what always will have happened.

The universe doesn't exist outsise of human perception. If we perceive randomness to exist, then it does.

*CLOSES EYES* "I CAN BE SURE I HAVE PERFECT REASON TO BE CONFIDENT I BELIEVE I HAVE FAITH I AM ABSOLUTELY RIGHT TO BE POSITIVE I AM CERTAIN THERE ARE NO VARIABLES! I CANT SEE ANY!"'
s-so..t-his...is science..
"BEFORE WE COLLIDED A MILLION PARTS RIGHT WHEN A MILLION PARTICLES WERE FIRED WE KNEW THEIR EXACT SHAPE, MASS, SPIN, CHARGE, AND THE AIR PRESSURE, THE PARTS OF AIR PER VOLUME, THE NEUTRINOS AND ALPHA PARTICLES LOCATIONS AND MOMENTUMS ENTERING THE TEST FACILITY, THE EFFECTS OF LOCAL GRAVITY, FOR EACH PARTICLE AND THE VIBRATIONS OF THE WALLS, AND HOW THE PLANETS REVOLUTION, FORWARD PATH, AND ROTATION PLAYED THEIR ROLE, AS EACH OF THE MILLION PARTICLES WERE FIRED WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE, HOW THEY WERE ROTATING AND HOW FAST, EACH PICOPICO SECOND, EACH PLANK LENGTH, WE KNEW EXACTLY WHERE EACH WAS: AND WE PLOTTED THESE INTO A SIMULATION, SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHERE EACH PARTICLE WOULD COLLIDE WITH EACH OTHER, AND WHERE THEY WOULD END UP ON THE FULLY DETECTORED WALL, THO LO AND BEHOLD, THE PARTICLES ENDED UP IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THEN OUR PREDICTION WHICH USED ABSOLUTELY COMPLETE AND TOTAL PERFECT KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, THEREFORE, THE PARTICLES MUST HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING WEIRD, AND RANDOM..AND THEN WE COVERED OUR EYES, SO THAT WE KNEW FOR CERTAIN THAT THE EARTH WAS ABSOLUTELY ENTIRELY FULL OF PURE NOTHING; BECAUSE WE CANNOT SEE WHAT IS AT THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, AND WHEN WE CANNOT SEE SOMETHING, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO BE SOMETHING THERE THAT IS HIDDEN TO US, BUT WE JUST MUST BE PROUD THAT WE KNOW, THERE IS ONLY NOTHING THERE, AND THAT THE UNIVERSE IS LIKE TOTALLY ACHTULLY RANDOM GUISEE XDDD"

Yeah, actually. That is my perception, yes.

Although I do play games with people from time to time, I do try to make sure the things we're doing take some sort of mental skill or physical skill or something, as opposed to pure chance.

@10634786

you seem upset

BY RANDOM YOU MEAN UNCAUSED

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

YOU ARE MOST WRONG

YOU SEEM INCORRECT; WHY WOULD THAT WHICH IS RIGHT NOT BE UPSET BY THAT WHICH IS WRONG

>For true randomness to not be true, it would in many cases require the atoms to already contain the information of what they're going to do. this is a valid alternative and its collectively called hidden variable theory, which i mentioned. hidden variable theory does have its own set of problems though, and most researchers are sticking to the quantum interpretation because of this. and yes, researchers have done experiments for which true randomness must be true

You don't necessarily need hidden variables for determinism to be true of quantum mechanics. Everettian QM is deterministic, for instance. And while local hidden variables were ruled out by Bell's Theorem, Kochen-Spacker, and PBR, non-local hidden variables, such as those in Bohmian Mechanics, are more than viable.

But this is all interpretation talk anyway, not physics. My point stands. The fact that quantum mechanics can be interpreted deterministically or indeterministically means there is nothing in the mathematics itself that tells us which is true. You can attempt to extract metaphysical conclusions from the empirical work done, but it's not physics and the physics itself won't give you an answer one way or the other. Sorry.

> Also, given the premise that quantum mechanics describes what we know to be closest to base reality,
>Is there a chance there is something underneath quantum mechanics that operates without randomness? Duh.

These two statements are mutually exclusive.

>But quantum mechanics as a science asserts itself as the most basic laws of the universe, and it also asserts that the universe is governed by random laws.

Quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about "the universe". It does not assert itself as the most basic laws of anything. You can attempt to derive some (meta)physical interpretation from the maths, but QM itself is just about the evolution of rays in Hilbert space. What's the physical significance? Ask physicists and prepare to get ten different answers

>ruled out by Bell's Theorem
not perfectly proven, nor understood; beam splitters, particle pairs, em field, em radiation creation and propagation, coupling, mirrors, earth motion, vacuum, 'detector' 'detector' 'signal', the meaning and existence as in and of itself of a photon, strong/weak/gravity force significance, spin, angular momentum, delayed choice, no theory as to what is actually occurring, no proposal of an actual understanding of the fundamental understanding of the actual physics

That's kind of my point. But a theorem is a theorem. It's true if it can be proven, and it has been proven. Not to mention experimentally verified numerous times. Local realism is definitively ruled out. What that actually means is anyone's guess.

>But a theorem is a theorem. It's true if it can be proven, and it has been proven. Not to mention experimentally verified numerous times. Local realism is definitively ruled out.
thats kind of my point. I dont believe it has been proven. I dont believe bells therom, or delayed choice, or action at a distance entanglment. I dont believe it has been appropriately verified no matter how many pieces of paper have how much ink written on it

hey reddit

underrated

no one in this thread has actually ever read a book

yes
now fuck off

their propositions include their belief they understood sufficiently the entire nature of all physical-energetic devices and mechanisms they use in the experiment, digital, hoses, vacuum tubes, mirrors, magnifiers, spliters, lazers, signals, detectors, the nature of detectors, the nature of detectors being made of atoms, moving atoms, radiating atoms, the entirety of it I dismiss on resulting in a coherent meaningful understanding of the proposed nature of 'entanglement'

No....it doesnt... see:

Alghudeaul glglgjs uuub 5 @%@ 6^@@1 696969
lsfjlks + slgdsg = , g88h8hh8g < 5j5j5j52oj

Physics is just a ton of concepts mashed together because they work good enough.

t. Physics fag

It's not a matter of what you believe, it's just what is. Bell's Theorem establishes that quantum mechanics allows for stronger-than-classical correlations than could be accounted for in any model that relies on classical notions of local causality. You could argue that such correlations don't warrant an explanation, but they are there, and they do exist.

I don't really understand your objection. Entanglement exists. it's the idea that entanglement leads to superluminal causation that is contentious. Nonlocality isn't the only way to interpret Bell, but there isn't any way to recover a classical metaphysics.

Yep. My original point was that quantum mechanics by itself doesn't really tell us anything about what the world is "really like". Bell's Theorem is different because it tells us something about the way nature is. It reveals something about the world that must be incorporated into any future theory, regardless of whether QM is that final theory or not.

Came to say this

Yeah. Works good enough.

Quantum mechanics, if you take it all the way, tells us that the world is ultimately random or semi random. Strict determinism is false. For example you have a particle in a box. You know all the state of the variables in the box, can you predict exactly the particles action? Determinism says yes, quantum mechanic says no. You run your experiment and you find you can't predict it. The determinism adherent would say there is an outside variable influencing your particle. Fine you make a bigger box and you take in more variables and you run the experiment again. And again you find you can't predict. So you make a bigger box again. You keep doing this until you have a box the size of the entire universe, would there still be an outside variable to influence our particle? No, so randomness must be an inherent property of the particle itself. Randomness is contained within not from outside.

>Bell's Theorem is different because it tells us something about the way nature is.
No it doesnt, it says only about the misunderstanding of the totality of the complete fundamental comprehension of the totality of fundamental materials and apparatuses used in that particular experiments to make noise and sparks and catch lightening in a bottle and toss it towards another and rattle it around and reflect it and let it hit a screen and say hey I told you; it is the sticking of a bent stick beneath a rumbling water and smacking broken golf balls off pots and pans and having a monkey with his ear to the eater draw a picture of the totality of sounds. And then definitively proudly declaratively exclaim that this completely says something perfectly coherently understandably comprehensively clear about a universal most fundamental truth about the purity of reality. It is aptly, a bunch of smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles. It has nothing to do with grasping, near fully grasping, and seeing, and witnessing, and knowing, and understanding, and comprehending, the true even partial nature of a fundamental particle, what and how it is, what and how and why it moves. And then to say this says something about what is the stuff of material, the most fundamental bits, in this, aptly, in a vacuum, tinkering and tandeming, and pankering and pandering. It tells us something about nature just as a cows farting against a fence tells us something about the sun (actually, that tells us much more, about how the suns energy might 'entangle' with the cows feed and its cycle of rain and shade and evaporation and vitamin d etc...but still not quite so fundamental)

>Strict determinism is false.
Strict determinism is absolutely true: Except, for Consciousness. Everything that is not conscious is absolutely 100% determined.

Conscious is: Self and not self determined. And play role in the determination of determined objects.

>You know all the state of the variables in the box, can you predict exactly the particles action? Determinism says yes, quantum mechanic says no.
This is the crux of the issue:
>You know all the state of the variables in the box
No. you dont, and you cant know if you do.

Hey retard, I just told you that there are deterministic interpretations that don't involve hidden variables. Many Worlds is deterministic because there are no unique outcomes to an experiment. And the non-local hidden variables that aren't ruled out, like in Bohmian Mechanics, has a special entity that ensures the trajectory of a particle is determined, like the pilot-wave. Hidden variables don't work the way you think they do

>No, so randomness
what definition of the term 'randomness' are you using here?

No, quantum mechanics makes it pretty clear that the universe is probabilistic. Things can be 99.999% likely but not 100%.
What you are talking about is probably relative randomness in that you don't need an event to be completely random only relatively random to an observer. For example free will. It doesn't matter if free will is ultimately random when relative random is enough. That is I have free will in that "you," or anyone else watching can't predict my actions and choice.

You're half-correct in that Bell's Theorem doesn't tell us much about the fundamental nature of the entities posited by quantum mechanics, but it does at least suggest something interesting about them. What it is is a no-go theorem, it puts a boundary constraint on how the world must be in order for quantum mechanics to be correct. It DOES tell us something about the way nature is. It tells us that locality, free will, and counterfactual definiteness (weak formulation of realism - essentially denies the ontic nature of the wave function) cannot all co-exist. As such, it must be incorporated into any future model of the world and is philosophically stronger than your average physical theory.

>No, quantum mechanics makes it pretty clear that the universe is probabilistic
quantum mechanics is not the universe. The map is not the territory. The use of statistics X to gauge reality are not the statistics A that are reality.

no, its all hocus pocus bunkus bogus. It is a clever gaff, a nefarious ruse.

flip a coin a coupe of times

t. Pseud that doesn't know shit about the foundations of matgematics. What you'resaying MIGHT be true of scientifoc theories which apply mathematics in describing some domain of emprical phenomenon (assuming youpresented you account in less anthropomorphic terms), but such anthropomorphic or relativist accounts of mathematics are hardly tenable in light of the nature of so-called "formal systems".

Are you actually retarded? The fact that we can't predict the outcome of a coin-flip simply due to practical limitations (because of course we could perfectly predict the outcome given sufficient computational power and a precise enough description of the physical system) doesn't entail real randomness. Epistemological limitations or igborance does not entail ontological undetermination, i.e. the fact that we are unsure of some fact does not entail that there is no fact of the matter.

What you have when you perform an experiment like this isn't a particle though. The quantum state is neither a particle nor a wave. What you're saying is ONLY true if the wavefunction is ontological, and ONLY if the universe itself isn't a wavefunction and so on and so on. There are a lot of quibbles and ways you can get out of it. And this is just interpretations we're talking about. The actual physics doesn't even regard any of this. You're just wrong

It's just a thought experiment where you try to find the source of randomness or rather the unpredictability of any representation you may have. The conclusion of the thought experiment is that randomness is an inherent property of all matter at the quantum level unless you believe there is something outside of the entire physical universe that causes your representation to be wrong. It's an argument for randomness and quantum mechanics over strict determinism. The universe is inherently probabilistic.

It's a stupid "thought experiment" that just flat-out ignores how quantum mechanics works. I suggest you do some serious reading on the issue that does not consist of youtube videos

It's a question about the accuracy of any representations in an inherently probabilistic universe shithead.

>mfw he pretends to be stupid
>mfw he pretends to be making a stupid statement while stupid
>mfw his statement is absolutely and indubitably true

If the entirety of the universe behaved probabilistically in the manner described by quantum mechanics, then there is a universal wavefunction and there are no unique outcome to any experiment performed, which makes the entire branching structure deterministic, as possible outcomes are always 100%. The "box" that is the entire universe becomes a giant deterministic machine

Again, this is a question about representations. I'm not against determinism, I'm against strict determinism. The universe is semi random. It is random enough that you can't predict, using any representation, with 100% accuracy all future event. But it is also not completely random in that you can't predict anything. All you can do is assign probability and even then those probabilities are 99.9% accurate. The issue here seems to be in deriving randomness from other axioms instead of accepting it as the main axiom not to mention explaining exactly what randomness means.

>It is random enough that you can't predict, using any representation, with 100% accuracy all future event.
why are you so dumb. why didnt you listen to what I said multiple times above. UNDER STAND UNDERSTAND UNDERSTAND ONCE AND FOR ALL, DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT.. STOP BEING DUMB

READ!

And how many times do I have to fucking tell you this is a question about representation? When you talk about determinism you are talking the accuracy of a given representation.
No representation will ever be the real thing because by definition, they are only representations. Go learn about language, go learn about symbols, go learn about mathematical formal systems, go learn about the brain. You are a goddamn fucking retard if you can't understand this major point about language, representations, and models.