> On 22 Jun 2019, at 13:06, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:20:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > "Good old classical chance" is just quantifying ignorance. At a fundamental > level there must be either inherent chance, QM, or determinism. > > Brent > > > That's true. > > Stochastic processes [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process>] are, primarily, > "approximate" models of phenomena that are extremely complex (too complex to > model), but still deterministic. > > It is assumed that only (possible) source of actual stochasticity is from > quantum events, but science news stories about how large molecules can > exhibit quantum behavior bleeds that randomness into the "macro" world. > > I think the only alternative to "true" randomness is the MWI, which > physicists like SeanCarroll like ("The Many-Worlds formulation of quantum > mechanics Is probably correct", June 30, 2014). Ironically, the word > "probably" is in his assertion. William James said aversion to randomness is > superstition.
There are many sort of randomness. Using Chuch-Turing thesis, there is the algorithmic notion of incompressibility, where a finite sequence is random if there is no algorithm much shorter than the sequence generating it, and infinite sequence are Random if almost all its initial segment are random. That is the most clear definition I know. Then, there is randomness due to ignorance of initial condition in chaotic setting, like the random coin, or the water drops in some setting. This is often consider as not a “true” randomness, but it has its role. Then there is quantum randomness, which with the MWI is arguably equivalent to some sort of first person indeterminacy on self-multiplication, restricted to a universal wave (written in any base). Again, this once can be considered purely subjective/first person. Then there is the comp randomness, which generalise the preceding one on arithmetic, indeed of the wave. Same remarks. I think that the trouble James would allude too, is when we argue for genuine 3p physical randomness, which invites the belief in events without a cause, which is close to magic. Bruno > > @philipthrift > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c4a2c00-647c-4759-a54e-ed186ce6703a%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c4a2c00-647c-4759-a54e-ed186ce6703a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D64E44C0-DAD9-4AFE-A5F4-1E5C5D4A6C15%40ulb.ac.be.
