On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
<cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
> Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013 11:30 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way?
>>>
>>>
>>> It couldn't.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither
>> random nor deterministic?
>
> Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions 
> about random events.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, what Stathis said. I can add that in cellular automata totally 
> deterministic rules give rise to randomness. Maybe Read Wolfram's stuff?

No deterministic CA can give rise to randomness, only complexity. Rule
110, for example, can be used as a pseudo-random number generator, but
this is not randomness in the "which slit is the photon going to go
through" sense, because it is always possible to predict a future
state based on the current state given enough computational power.
With true randomness, there is no such possible computation.

>
> And ....
>
> 'Matter', the word, the concept, is grounded  in (presupposes) a scientific 
> observer that dreamt up the regularity called 'quantum mechanics'. QM 
> supplies nothing about the real nature (the actual building blocks) of 
> reality. It merely supplies how it appears, to us, inside the system being 
> described, observing it from within, built of the same stuff. E.g. I can 
> claim there's no such thing as 'atoms' and be 100% right, because that 
> concept is actually "the natural world behaves atom-ly when we look at it, in 
> circumstances where its atom-like behaviour results". With QM get to be 
> predictive. We get no explanation of why it is that way. Same in everything 
> else, BTW. Not just QM.
>
> Anyway you all heard this stuff from me before....
>
> Cheers
> Colin
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

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


Reply via email to