GENIUS FORUMS

Hi David ,

This is another post trying to question your views in wisdom of the
infinte.

You say that there is no constrained randomness and question why the
"random" happenings of QM only produce certain types of results and
not "elephants" for example.

In another thread i put ideas to promote this by question if
something was random if the sample space contained 1 element or even
0 elements.

I now realise that randomness is not a case of the results you get but a
case of the *method* used to get the results, after all if you throw
a dice 5 times and you get {1;2;3;4;5} in that order the mechanism
used to get these numbers is what determines if the above sequence
is a random sequence.

Two identical sequences could be different in that 1 is random while
the other is orderd.

So we can imagine a "randomness engine" distorting what material
(sample space) we give it to create something new.

It seems impossible to distinguish between true randomness and indeterminableness from the point of view of an observer, theorist or calculator. A case could be made for Occam's razor here, as not to introduce a complex entity as a mystical power of randomness when the simple assumption of a further yet unspecified complex of causes would be sufficient. Randomness then remains a description of behavior, of distribution only, which might very well work for current models which not account for descriptions of further causes.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It seems impossible to distinguish between true randomness and indeterminableness from the point of view of an observer, theorist or calculator. A case could be made for Occam's razor here, as not to introduce a complex entity as a mystical power of randomness when the simple assumption of a further yet unspecified complex of causes would be sufficient. Randomness then remains a description of behavior, of distribution only, which might very well work for current models which not account for descriptions of further causes.

I would think Occams razor would favour the *randomness* conclusion since the spirit of occams razor basically says if it looks random and acts random then it probably is .

You also say:"simple assumption " then "complex of causes "

Is it simple or complex?

Surely 1 "cause" , randomness is simpler than "a complex of causes".


Quote
-----
mystical power of randomness
-----

Other true facts that seemed mystical at first have moved from philosophy to science on an empirical basis.And now are considerd as they are , facts.

E.g. the wave particle duality of matter as well as the action at a distance of the four fundamental forces.
It could be argued that science can only propgress if it accepts formaly mystical happenings as its facts.