tetra
::sorry. all "intents and purposes" could also be: "for all we care about". for example: is the movement of pollen random, in so far as we care to find out about for the purpose of making predictions regarding it's movement?
I am not 100% sure about pollen motions, but in most cases the nature of such phenomena seems to be dualistic. We can spot some determinism and it gets manifested in the "shape" of the probability distribution (if the problem can be represented with a linear function). Different shapes for diffrent phenomena. Some are easier to predict than others. I think it's a pretty fair approach.
Claiming the existence of unobservable deterministic rules where the concept of randomness can be used and nicely modeled smacks of paranoia to me. (Now how's that for an ad hominem attack ;-).
Pole
does "randomness" exist?
by googlemagoogle 45 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Pole
-
Elsewhere
the exponentiality causes the function to terminate at "0"?
Actually it is the pure randomness that causes the function to terminate at 0. Non-random functions will tend to terminate at a number near but not equal to zero.
-
tetrapod.sapien
pole, he he,
i see what you are saying. and it makes sense. but it also seems like the approach to randomness on the atomic level (radioactive decay) is different from that of the macro level (pollen). am i talking trash here? i might be. my knowledge is limited here. just a fun discussion, is all.
regarding "unobservable deterministic rules", i don't think anyone has actually said that (may have to go back and look now). but more that there seem to always be more variables than models are often able to take into consideration. it's not that they are mysterious entities, but rather, just not accounted for. but then again, how could we ever "create" a model that took everything into consideration? we would never get anything done. so perhaps i am talking trash. lol,
TS
else,
Non-random functions will tend to terminate at a number near but not equal to zero.
ahh, i see. fascinating! TS
-
googlemagoogle
this is so fun. i's really arguable where the burden of proof is. but i think pole got it right, as in "the most popular theory got it right, as long as it's not proven wrong".
hmmm. BUT that's not good at all. "god" was the most popular theory for a long time and it has never been proven wrong i think...
so "randomness" is an "ultimate cause"? like "god"?
and "hidden variables" is a "unfalsifiable theory"? like "waiting on jehovah"? LOL
i can't help, but i really lean to the "hidden variables". because time has shown that unexplainable events could be explained later.
googlemagoogle of the "our lady IPU got lotsa hidden vars" class. -
Jeffro
There seems to be some confusion between 'unpredictable' and 'random' in this thread. Something can be unpredictable because there is insufficient information regarding all of the determining factors to accurately predict it, however this does not necessitate randomness.
-
Pole
Jeffro,
There seems to be some confusion between 'unpredictable' and 'random' in this thread. Something can be unpredictable because there is insufficient information regarding all of the determining factors to accurately predict it, however this does not necessitate randomness.
No confusion at all. Not all unpredictability is randomness, but randomness involves unpredictability. Unpredictability does not necessitate randomness, but randomness necessitates unpredictability. As simple as that. If you have a better definition of randomness than the ones suggested so far, feel free to share them!
Pole