Why Reality Is Probably Not Random

A New Kind of Science - Stephen Wolfram
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU

Telos34 (A new YouTuber, this 19 year old Christian packs a punch)
http://www.youtube.com/user/Telos34

Category:

Education

Tags:

• cellular
• automata
• double
• slit
• experiment
• bayesian
• probability

[Kreadus005]

Pi in base pi is 1. Its the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This doesn't really convince me of anything profound...

Now, get these finite automata to model nuclear decay and we'll talk.

[Kreadus005]

Say you had something we would call true randomness.

And lets say you had some automata state machine, as you say, that could indefinitely produce the same results.

Given only the output, could you ever come to the conclusion of which one was random and which one was produced by the automata?

I don't find the idea of an algorithm producing the same digits (base ten numerical system) via an algorithm to be particularly compelling.

[feedtherich]

I'm not aware of true randomness being embraced by the 'atheist community'. Just because are unable to determine where the next photon will land, doesn't make it random. Anytime you can apply concrete probability, you eliminate randomness. Flipping a coin or rolling dice do not yield random results, they merely rely on factors that are difficult to control and/or measure. Likewise, while we can never measure the exact velocity and position of anything, it doesn't mean it's not determined.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

3. Your justification for "it is most likely that what we are seeing at the quantum level is not actually randomness" is noting that stochastic processes can be modeled deterministically. That isn't a justification. That's a generic mathematical observation that says absolutely nothing about what is "most likely" happening in nature

4. QM *is* the precedent for saying that nature isn't deterministic. Experiments show it's absurdly accurate, and it asserts that nature isn't deterministic

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

1. Long before cellular automata, it was known that deterministic processes can produce seemingly random results. Entire math fields study this (dynamic systems, ergodic/chaos theory, fractals, etc). It's old news

2. Bayesian theory is about how evidence bears on HYPOTHESIS probability. Had you argued that the "evidence" of cellular automata INCREASES the probability that "QM is deterministic", you would've been wrong, but at least would've used "Bayesian sense of probability" correctly

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Now your main point:

"Because of this evidential basis, I think it is justified in saying that through a Bayesian sense of probability it is most likely that what we are seeing at the quantum level is not actually randomness - we actually have no precedent for that yet"

There are many confusions there.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Some preliminaries:

- What's amazing about the double slit experiment is it applies to matter (electrons). Light (photons) was long known to be wave-like, and light's wave-particle duality (which began QM) was known decades before than for electrons.

- There's a recently discovered formula (google: Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe) allowing the calculation of a digit of pi (base 16) without 1st calculating all its prior digits. This surprised people - it had been suspected that this couldn't be done.

[Telos34]

Actually there are 119 of them now lol, crazy. Thank you for the kind words my friend, I certainly hope I can live up to your recommendation.

[AutodidacticPhd]

@jericomovie "a model to unite biology and physics"

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya; You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[bayesianconspiracy]

@jericomovie

(cont)

To be honest, you'd be better to ask a computer scientist or engineer about this. I'm just a lowly EE with a side interest in probability. But I think if the principle of computational equivalence had implications for whether QM was truly stochastic or not, Wolfram would be the first to tell you. He is not shy of publicity as you may have cleverly deduced. =)