## Solve for x

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

### Solve for x

No, wait. I think I figured out how to solve a longstanding problem.

People often ask if we are just a simulation.

I think I can solve for x.

If we are in a simulation, random numbers wouldn't be truly random because they're generated by machine.

The universe allows for true randomness it seems, so I would suggest this is no simulation.
It just seems so obvious.

There you go. Product test it. See if you can pull it apart!

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

Is a string of random numbers truly random if they are a part of an infinite solution to Pi?
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 521
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Solve for x

Event Horizon » December 17th, 2018, 8:38 pm wrote:No, wait. I think I figured out how to solve a longstanding problem.

People often ask if we are just a simulation.

I think I can solve for x.

If we are in a simulation, random numbers wouldn't be truly random because they're generated by machine.

The universe allows for true randomness it seems, so I would suggest this is no simulation.
It just seems so obvious.

There you go. Product test it. See if you can pull it apart!

If it seems random, it may be an illusion. Because it SEEMS.

There is no math or any other test for randomness.

The solution for x requires knowledge, not just appearance, that the universe is random.

To see if the universe is indeed truly random, you would need to test that, not just look at its appearance.

But testing randomness is not possible.

Therefore -- alas -- the solution for x is contingent on still undiscovered unknowns.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

Computer generated randomness is not truly random because its the product of a logic based system. Pseudorandomness. As the universe allows for true randomness, it would suggest that it is not generated mechanically.
Swap out randomness for entropy if it helps.
In a simulation there would be restraints on how random things are, but we dont see that.
We can solve for unknowns. Lorentz transformations are a good example of solving for an unknown constant, so I'm not really inclined to agree.
Testing randomness is easy actually, we use it in statistics and to test other things. Creating randomness is harder.
We can calculate for entropy using the laws of thermodynamics (and/or probability theory I think).

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

Event Horizon » December 18th, 2018, 10:49 am wrote:Computer generated randomness is not truly random because its the product of a logic based system. Pseudorandomness. As the universe allows for true randomness, it would suggest that it is not generated mechanically.
Swap out randomness for entropy if it helps.
In a simulation there would be restraints on how random things are, but we dont see that.
We can solve for unknowns. Lorentz transformations are a good example of solving for an unknown constant, so I'm not really inclined to agree.
Testing randomness is easy actually, we use it in statistics and to test other things. Creating randomness is harder.
We can calculate for entropy using the laws of thermodynamics (and/or probability theory I think).

Your theory for solving for x DEPENDS on a the randomness of the universe.

Entropy is a phenomenon on the macrophysical level that states that energy differences equalize over time.

I don't know if substituting entropy for randomness helps. Because in the computer stimulation and in real life you have entropy, whereas your proof hinges on the computer stimulation having pseudorandomness, and in the real world, we have real randomness, which is a key portion of the theory.

Again: it is not possible to test for randomness. Testing for randomness is not hard. It is not easy. It is impossible. The number of times you say that, won't alter the reality of not being able to test for randomness.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

I hear what you say about the randomness testing in inferential statistics. Chi squared test, I think it's called. I have to research what I am saying. I know that a string of numbers, in any number system, can't be tested for randomness.

Done. Here's what I found out in three minutes of immersion in my own thoughts:

If you apply the Chi-squared test to pseudo-random generated sample, or apply any other randomness-testing statistical utility, it will show it is random. While it is not; it is just pseudo-random. So the statistical analysis tests show a false positive, so to speak. Therefore they can't be trusted for showing a true positive. Therefore you can't test for randomness, since your measuring tool can't differentiate between pseudo-random sets and truly random sets.

Back to square one.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

I did two more hours of thinking to come up with a proof that there is no such thing as a test that will identify a finite series of random numbers.

A series of random numbers, by definition, are either unrepresented by a function, or else coincide with a function's values by chance.

If they coincide by the values of a function, then it is not possible to tell random from ordered (ordered as in following the function's rules). So they may be random, but we don't know if this is a random series, or a non-random series; our test is insufficient to tell us that.

If the series of random numbers, however, do not follow a function, then they are random. However, any finite series of numbers can be represented and described by an exponential function of n-1 terms maximum, if the series contains n terms.

Since all series of finite terms can be shown to follow a function, this test also fails to tell the random from the ordered.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

Interesting... and
Perhaps...but
Pseudorandomness is not infinite though, it can only exist as a construct and limited by its system. artificial. I'm not sure the same rules apply.
I only recently visited this particular problem, and yeah, I was forced to do stats at uni. It was hard to grasp but just immense as a tool. Chi squared and binomial distribution were two of them certainly.
A machine cannot produce perfect randomness that I know of. I'm not even sure quantum computing will be able to, but it will be interesting finding out.

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

Everyone loves to hate statistics, it seems. I loved it! Much like you, very much like you, I loved it as a tool, but hated the doing of it. The number crunching... I am not good a calculations.

It is a wonderful, mystical, perfectly rigorous, glorious part of math.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018
 Event Horizon liked this post

### Re: Solve for x

Randomness is a fallacy, it does not exist. To be truly random requires that no laws, no charges, no powers, etc...not even math can effect it. Consider the definition.

"the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability."

To say that something is unpredictable is to admit we are simply ignorant of any pattern or underlying organization, things or events only APPEAR random to us but the entire universe is driven by math, patterns, geometry, etc...

"Evolution" has introduced this term into the scientific psyche as if randomness is some kind of principle or law, but more truly randomness is like darkness, it is not a thing, it is an illusionary experience we have at the limits of our senses.

We might say even Evolutionists no longer use this word as it is indefensible.

Brent696
Member

Posts: 227
Joined: 12 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

Putting scare quotes around the word evolution shows nothing more than the profound depths of your superficial shallowness.

It is also obvious that you have no idea what the word “random” means in an evolutionary context.
davidm
Member

Posts: 468
Joined: 05 Feb 2011

### Re: Solve for x

Not convinced really. Surely randomness is random whether we observe it or not. Take Pi, we did not create the number Pi, we merely discovered it and its gloriously random in its way.
What I mean to say is there is a measurable difference between true randomness and pseudorandomness as i understand it. Patterns arise in pseudorandom output that are a product of how they are generated. They tend not to occur in unregulated systems as much or persist for as long.
We dont see anyone questioning entropy, how is randomness any different?
Indefensible? No way. Very defensible. Thats why I want to test this theory to destruction and see what fundamental particles fly out!

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

There are forces that direct entropy, it is not random. (Previous quotes emphasized evolution as a noun)

Brent696
Member

Posts: 227
Joined: 12 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

There is a direct link of chemical changes in DNA structure and the structure of the biological being that develops differently from another, which did not have that DNA change.

To us, the connection is random. We can't predict what a chemical change will effect in biological change. We can only do that by testing.

So to us the change on one level is known, yet this change does not help us at all to know what the other change will be.

This is a problem mankind faces with chemistry. Chemical changes have always been dumbfounding in the changes they bring about in physical properties of matter. There is no surefire way of predicting what a compound's physical properties will be before testing them, after a chemical change.

Sure we, as a species of knowers, know by now what property changes can be expected from a myriad of chemical changes. But we know it only because we have tested them, and recorded them.

However, the N number of elements, especially with the chemical versatility of the Carbon atom, can combine in so many different ways, that man can't even predict how many ways there are.

To get back to the point: there is no randomness in evolution, inasmuch an identical change in two identical DNA strands produces the same effect of biological change; but there is randomness that before trying, humans won't know what the changes in chemistry will affect as changes in biology.

So, in effect, randomness in this sense, only applies as a feature of human perception.

That's A.

B. is that the changes brought about in DNA molecules are changes not randomly produced, but directed by chemical and physical environments, and all changes follow the laws that direct chemical changes. We know, for instance, that gamma rays and x rays promote changes in DNA, and likely the same changes in one DNA as in another DNA. This is the theoretical basis of nuclear therapy to treat cancer.

------------------

Does randomness exist? There are perceptive relationships in which they do. For instance, if a thousand monks, one each on a different planet, throw a six-sided die, then the face values of the dice will appear in a random order. Why? Because though there is a connection between worlds, and by worlds I mean habitable planets, the connection is so weak and so ineffectual, that a dice-throw on Alpha Centaur will not be affected in any material way by a dice-throw on planet RPG2945/ab49.

There are other ways of finding randomness. For instance, in astrology. The astrologers insist that the effect of planetary movements in our solar system affects futures and personality of a person who is born at a certain location at a certain time. Yet to the scientist observer, the people's personality and future are so random, compared to even the most rigorous astrological predictions, that the connection between predicted personality/future of a person by astrologers, and the real, actual events and personalities, are considered completely randomly distributed.

Thus, randomness exists when one takes events of System A, and connects these events to System B, while systems A and B have no real connection in their causative processes.

Some deny that it is possible to have two systems in one universe that are completely detached from each other. Some others claim that such two systems' coexistence is possible. I can't decide that.

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

Plain and simple, if randomness exists then science is an illusion. Astrology I won't touch other than to say a reflection of consciousness or the psyche would be involved and such has not been coded to sciences satisfaction but as with dice, what appears random is not. Gravity, friction, the force of the throw, the position in the hand, and other factors determine the outcome. If one could perfectly duplicate all factors, so would the dice always reach the same outcome. (I brought up evolution only by way of suggesting that, in its early years, it cemented in our culture the idea that randomness works like a universal principle but it is not)

Science, by it's very supposition, demands that the universe is ordered and not random in any sense.

Brent696
Member

Posts: 227
Joined: 12 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

My friend, we know randomness exists. We can measure and even predict it. The examples you give are ordered things, science..astrology. There is order and there is disorder, and we can measure the difference.

The universe is not a closed system as far as I know. its infinite. ie. it's unlimited. so, again, no. your challenge is unproven!
And no. I don't believe randomness and "determinism" are mutually exclusive either. the infinite universe can allow for anything given infinite time. So sayeth the math apparently, but it is a curious thing. Why are some things random, and others ordered? If we could find that out, x may equal a Nobel Prize!

Disorder can be encapsulated within order, but not the other way around so much I think. I would like to invite a mod or specialist to stop by and tell me if i'm chatting shit or not. I think my thinking is good, but everyone always thinks that.

It seems to me that random things can be organised, and ordered things randomized. its the "Way of the world" as people euphemistically call it I think.

Seasons greetings by the way.

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

Event Horizon » December 20th, 2018, 3:38 pm

My friend, we know randomness exists. We can measure and even predict it.

There is order and there is disorder, and we can measure the difference.

The universe is not a closed system as far as I know. its infinite. ie. it's unlimited. so, again, no. your challenge is unproven!

Disorder can be encapsulated within order, but not the other way around so much I think

It seems to me that random things can be organised, and ordered things randomized.

First I should point out the burden of proof lies with those who would say that true randomness does exist. You have also appealed to the external as well as the internal, i.e. Randomness exists because the universe is infinite and disorder (randomness) can be encapsulated within order.

Lets break the universe down into its fundamentally lowest dichotomy, (and I have spoken of this before), but looking at the metaphors we can see we can think about the nature of light and dark, or sound and silence, or heat and 0 Kelvin, truth and lies, knowledge and ignorance, fundamentally the universe breaks down into the polarized differentiation between Something and Nothing.

Light, sound, knowledge, all may represent order, likewise darkness, silence, and ignorance might represent disorder or randomness. So the question arises "if darkness, silence, and ignorance exist, then why should not randomness" Randomness does not exist, within the universe at least, because true darkness, true silence, and true ignorance do not exist.

The matrix of the universe is always in motion, always moving, in the depths of space particles (energy packets) are popping in and out, we might not see it but there is light, there is heat, there in sound (waves), there is order as such particles are doing what their nature demands. You are sitting there in the middle of nowhere, knowing only the fabric or matrix of reality, all of it is vibrating, even when a planet or star passes you see right through it as you notice the points of light (atoms) that make them up and aware also of the expansive space in between such atom or even particles. The energy might be more localized in the stars, more dense, but across the entire fabric of the universe there is energy, energy with inherent information as it vibrates accordingly.

IF, everything stopped, no movement, no atoms, no subatomic particle, no vibration, no heat, no light, then the entirety of the universe would dissolve into "Nothing" and that Nothing would be Infinite as it would truly be boundless. But as long as there are quantum fields, so the universe as we know it will be sitting on top, and ORDER, or what physicists might call information will be the rule of the day.

Now a word about infinity, a true infinity is by definition, boundless, Things cannot exist simultaneously, not any kind of multiplicity, within that which is truly infinite. I know of two things that are infinite, first the infinity or 0, from which all of this universe and its multiplicity of finite "things" has arisen, and beyond this universe an Infinity of 1, which would be conceived of as diving Being, or that which existed infinitely before such a finite universe could be pushed into existence. This infinity of 1, boundless and distinct, 1 and only 1, is simply that which IS, before even that which only appears to be (finite things) could seem to exist.

Scientists have pretty much come to recognize a flat universe, and there are "Theories" posited that this would allow for an infinite spreading of space/time, but the manifold theories are still quite strong and more likely. Yet Randomness cannot appeal to infinity, as if all things are possible, because in any true infinite, there is no multiplicity, we can't say all things are possible because there are no "things" unless it is all one thing.

Counting, math, shapes, geometry, all exist as part of a finite universe, all demand boundaries to exist, math uses theoretical infinities but in REALity, infinity cannot coexist on the same plane as finitude. Likewise randomness (no math) cannot exist simultaneously with a structured and finite universe.

Just for references sake,

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/there-is-no-randomness-only-chaos-and-complexity-c92f6dccd7ab

"""Randomness is an abstract concept like infinity that exists only in concept and has no physical basis. True randomness is in fact achieved only with maximum entropy, which perhaps only exists when time is at infinity (the same as the venerated Central Limit Theory). In short, never.""""

""""Q: Do physicists really believe in true randomness?
Posted on December 15, 2009 by The Physicist
Physicist: With very few exceptions, yes. What we normally call “random” is not truly random, but only appears so. The randomness is a reflection of our ignorance about the thing being observed, rather than something inherent to it.""""

The latter site goes on in order to try to prove randomness, but only as they deify and encapsulate ignorance. Here is their conclusion

""""Therefore, the result of an experiment only exists if the experiment is actually done.

Therefore, you can’t predict the result of the experiment before it’s done.

Therefore, true randomness exists.""""

Without an ignorant observer, their argument falls apart,

I agree with you Event that randomness does exist in a way, but outside the bounds of this universe, ultimately it is the nothingness, the Infinity 0, that might contain all possibilities as is might be conceived of as pure potential, but in order to see that potential, in order for some "things" to exist, there must be an "ordering", an infusion of information, and so it is this universe has come into existence, but we all live on the upper side of that structuring and not beneath it.

Hope you'll be/are having a good holiday too.

brent

Brent696
Member

Posts: 227
Joined: 12 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

When you have random units becoming entangled with each other, you can get remarkably ordered structure. That's what Ramsey's theorem is about.

You can also have ordered structures decay in weirdly random ways, like a chunk of radioisotope in which a beta decay occurs. There is no causal scheme by which we could know which atom will emit the next beta particle, but that doesn't mean it is uncaused. It just means that quantum physical events are not causal in the classical mechanical way, but arise from a cloud of probabilities.

Random is an umbrella term for a range of events that are not classically determinable and happen in a way that can't be traced back to defined antecedent events.

TheVat

Posts: 6936
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: Solve for x

I don't know if randomness exists, or how to find out if something is random or not. But many definitions to describe it are extant.

In statistical analysis a random series of numbers are the die surfaces that turn up Heavenward in a series of throws.

In the old days of giant phone books, the last two numbers in telephone numbers used to be considered random.

That's all I can tell.

The second digit of seconds at a time a goal is scored in hockey is supposed to be random. Same with soccer.

Lottery numbers drawn are random.

Hairloss occurs randomly. (Nobody knows which strand of hair is going to go next.)

-1-
Member

Posts: 219
Joined: 21 Jul 2018

### Re: Solve for x

Lottery numbers are drawn from a closed pool of potential numbers. That makes the lottery numbers contrived randomness, which is different to natural born randomness. The probability of any given number turning up is lower in an unregulated open pool than a closed one by some orders of magnitude i think.

The point is, our reality dosen't exhibit contrived randomness in the way a generated reality would ; but at the same time, the universe allows for contrived randomness, which is very useful. This is not a simulation.

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.

### Re: Solve for x

If there is no further argument, I will consider this matter solved. X=Natural, ie not a simulation. But before I bury this, I invite anyone else to have a last crack at breaking the logic.

Event Horizon
Member

Posts: 403
Joined: 05 Mar 2018
Location: England somewhere.