Brent:
I looked up "random:definition" in Google - lots of "anything goes" - "hap
hazardous".
I was reluctant, because in my mother tongue there is no equivalent of
'random', we say
the German "exbeliebig" variation - "whatever you LIKE". (tetszoeleges,
akarmilyen).
Most advanced countries use 'random' nowadays, if you are right - in the
sense of the
topically restricted version. Pseudo-random?
Russell wrote the book on it - alas, I missed it so far.

Useful predictions? useful for what? for the limited topical application in
our present and conservative(?) science application like QM? I try to
include more than 'yesterday's inventory'.

I would not like to refer to Pat Robertson as science-discussion potentate.

Your closing par still abides within our presently known inventory, even in
the hypothetical ones.\

I visualize the 'rest of the world' - the unknown at present, in which
algorithmic may not be the only acceptable base. Or: an "algorithmic" would
be expanded into domains beyond our present imagination.  As e.g. the
universal machine of Bruno MAY work in ways un-followable for us today and
you may call it 'it's algorithm'. It is all included into 'everything'.

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:

>  On 2/13/2011 3:29 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Since the Honored Listers refrain from signing their remarks, it is hard to
> decipher to whom I write: Brent, Stathis, maybe others who just barged in?
>
> So I go topical. First: randomness in the mind.
> I am functionally against the term because it would eliminate all
> logical consequence
>
>
> Not really.  QM makes stochastic predictions, yet it is extremely good at
> making useful predictions.  I think there is a misconception that
> random="anything goes".
>
>
>  and order what we instigated for the world by establishing "physial law"
> (models) and the like. Randomness arises from the unknown parts 'joining'
> our models yet influencing the outcome we observe.
> We can ONLY think in models - trhat is how our mind CAN work and formulate
> our topicla models from ingredients *we know*. Of course our knowledge is
> *partial* and all those topics are connected to more than our *yesterday's
> inventory* (= our mini-solipsistic worldview-content).
>
> Then: algorithmic.
> The way our 'scientific' thinking operates. Especially since we have those
> embryonic tools called: computers (*our *Turing machines) based on
> algorithmic interactions. The example of Zeuss' anger is ridiculous, it was
> included just to make the point.
>
>
> I don't think it's so ridiculous since in fact people have reasoned like
> that in the past (and some still do, e.g. Pat Robertson).  But it was to
> make the point that some kinds of reasoning don't lend themselves to useful
> application because they lack predictive power.
>
>
>  There may be other ways
> of non-algorithmic reasoning which are not so preposterous (however even in
> those cases it is not excluded to invent in the future new algorithmic ways
> we can apply either).
>
>
> Sure.  There's reasoning by analolgy, simple curve-fitting extrapolation,
> gut feeling,...  It's just that we'd like to have a way of making precise
> predictions that every can agree are the predictions - and that implies an
> algorithm.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> As a non-physicist, I would rather keep out from the lengthy vernacular
> discussions of the possible and not-so-possible pseudo-consequences of
> thought-experimental oddities.
> (Starting with the really ingenious EPR). D. Bohm I highly appreciate as a
> philosopher.
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com>wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meeker<meeke...@dslextreme.com>
>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Physical laws aren't "out there".  They are models we invent.  So of
>>>>>> course
>>>>>> we like to invent algorithmic ones because they are more usable.
>>>>>>  People
>>>>>> used to invent non-algorithmic ones, like "Zeus does that when he's
>>>>>> angry."
>>>>>> but they were hard to apply.  QM is entirely algorithmic since it
>>>>>> includes
>>>>>> inherent randomness.  However this is probably not important for the
>>>>>> function of brains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did you mean to say QM is *not* entirely algorithmic?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If randomness is
>>>>> important in the brain it is then a further step to show that true
>>>>> randomness, rather than pseudorandomness, is necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Of course any finite amount of true randomness can be reproduced by
>>>> pseudorandomness, so the challenge to show true randomness is a mug's
>>>> game.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's a bit simplistic. The nett result of EPR/Bell/Aspect is either-
>>> indeterminism-or-nonlocal-hidden-variable. If NLHV's can be disproved,
>>> that proves indeterminism
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> But I don't see any way to disprove NLHVs.  Within non-relativistic QM
>> Bohm showed that a NLHV interpretation is equivalent to standard QM.
>>  Goldstein et al claim to be able to extend this to relativistic QFT,
>> although I haven't read their papers.
>>
>> Everett's MWI a deterministic theory.  Do you regard it as having NLHVs
>> since it exists in Hilbert space?
>>
>> I think it comes down to which model you want to apply - at least until
>> there is some further guidance from experiment.
>>
>> From a purely mathematical viewpoint, there is no way to show that a
>> finite string of symbols is truly random.  All experimental results are
>> finite - hence my "simplistic" comment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to