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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 2/11/2011 8:00 AM, 1Z wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2:03 am, Brent Meeker<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 2/9/2011 4:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Brent Meeker<[email protected]> >>>>> 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 [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
