On 28 Dec 2013, at 23:15, John Mikes wrote:

List:
Is there a 'well' acceptable definition for "R A N D O M"? (my non- Indo-European mothertongue has no word expressing the meaning - if I got it right. My 2nd mothertongue (German) calls it "exbeliebig" = kind of: whatever I like) My position as far as I got the right semantic meaning would be: non- explainable by circumstances leading to it, what is an agnostic marvel since in the next second I may learn HOW to explain and that would be the end of randomity.

Unless we have a explanation of what we cannot explain it. That is the case in the self-duplication. We can predict that, whoever copy I will feel to be, I will not being able to explain why I feel that one in particular, nor anyone can ever explain it. But this is a first person, subjective, but objectively real, type of randomness.


Then incompressibility is also useful to define an objective form of randomness, provable in some case.

Bruno




I accept one (nonscientific?) random-use: in math puzzles the "take any number" - however many of these are joking. I had some discussion with Russell and he was willing to molify his brisk 'random' into a 'conditional' random within the
circumstances of the topic.

John Mikes


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: Replying to Liz and Jason in a new topic as they raised the important topic of the source of randomness that deserves a separate topic.

As I explain in my book on Reality, all randomness is quantum. There simply is no true classical level randomness. There is plenty of non- computability which is often mistaken for randomness but all true randomness at the classical level percolates up from the quantum level.

At the fundamental computational level all computations are exact. However the way space can emerge and be dimensionalized from these computations is random which is the source of all randomness. This quantum level randomness can either be damped out or amplified up to the Classical level depending on the information structures involved.

To use Liz's example of how do computers generate random numbers, they don't in themselves. As Jason points out they draw on sources of (quantum) randomness from the environment, but the code the computer itself uses contains no randomness as the whole point of digital devices is to completely submerge any source of randomness because that would pollute the code and/or data.

Of course eventually everything, including computers, is subject to randomness and fails....

Edgar




--
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to