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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
