The edge of space

[infamous]

Hmmm. I didn't put it very well. My thought was that chaos theory looks for patterns or structure in SEEMINGLY random numbers.

 

I don't think that nothingness is possible, thus I agree that quantum fluctiations have a cause. All of space is filled with energy of many kinds. I would think it likely that occasionally an area of space would have enough energy to materialize a particle.

l

Absolutely Bobby, the energy density of free space has the capacity to generate virtual particles. I tend to believe that with the passage of time, the fabric of space/time developes irregularities in it's uniform structure giving rise to virtual particle formation. When we fully understand the structure of space/time, we wil be able to define and predict the formation of these irregularities.

[sinewave]

Show me the proof that "They will remain random and thus unpredictalbe."

 

 

lol Are you kidding me?

 

How much rain will fall on Sept 23rd 2005, where you live? And what will be the precise height of the highest wave striking the shoreline at Bondi Beach (or any other), between 10:36:00 am and 10:36:05 am, on that same day?

 

QED

 

Do you not realise this can never be predicted in a cosmos such as ours? Do you comprehend that observed quantum uncertainty precludes it, even if you did know exactly what the electron or virtual-particle dynamically and physically actually are?

 

On the contrary, you must show otherwise in order to refute please.

[sinewave]

Originally Posted by sinewave

... the actions of each molecule of water is beyond our ability to predict, but that doesn't mean it isn't predictable.

 

 

I suggest you read Heisenberg if you believe that.

[infamous]

lol Are you kidding me?

 

.

Not at all sinewave, you make a statement you claim as fact, now you need to provide proof. That is the scientific method, by the way.

[sinewave]

Not at all sinewave, you make a statement you claim as fact, now you need to provide proof. That is the scientific method, by the way.

 

 

Again, if you don not think so, then refute Heisenberg. If you can't, then you are out of luck mate. The cosmos logically can have no 'edge', and the math can not deal with it.

 

That is thus far, to the best of current understanding and observation, the implied.

 

We are in a flat cosmos at the largest scale and a random cosmos at the smallest scale.

 

Both imply no edge, and both observations grow ever stronger with further and much more detailed observations at both scales.

 

That is the scientific result, like it or lump it.

 

If you claim other to this, then it is for you to establish it.

 

(PS: if you didn’t follow, then read the initial post I made once more, I’m not interested in your beliefs or speculations about neo-determinism here)

[emessay]

The edge of SPACE, is it meant the edge of TIME, why do we have to think about it far beyond the end?

[infamous]

Again, if you don not think so, then refute Heisenberg. If you can't, then you are out of luck mate.

I'm not trying to refute Heisenberg, what I'm refuting is your presumed ability to predict the future when you say; "They will remain random".

 

John Stewart Mill Quote: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[EWright]

:eek: How dare this discussion go on without my input! :hihi: (Sorry, relatively busy week).

 

So show me in what way the random number generators that determine the hands delt in online poker are not random, and therefore predictable, and I will share my wealth with you.

 

As for infinity in an infinite space, can an infinite number of half-distances not exists between any two points?

 

I wasn't of the understanding that the Heisenburg uncertainty principle applied to water molecules :Alien: ?

[Buffy]

So show me in what way the random number generators that determine the hands delt in online poker are not random, and therefore predictable, and I will share my wealth with you.

Actually all computer algorithms for random number generation are predictable, that's why they're called "pseudo-random" if you know the seed and the algorithm and the processor, you can predict exactly what number's they'll spit out. Normally programmers use tricks like timing keypresses to create the seed for the algorithm, but that's still predictable. The only way to get truly random numbers is to provide the system with continuous input from a naturally occuring random process, such as measuring the decay of a radioactive substance (e.g. time gamma rays hitting a detector), and some experiments that are susceptible to pseudo-random number anomalies actually use such gizmos...

 

Randomly,

Buffy

[EWright]

Actually all computer algorithms for random number generation are predictable, that's why they're called "pseudo-random" if you know the seed and the algorithm and the processor, you can predict exactly what number's they'll spit out. Normally programmers use tricks like timing keypresses to create the seed for the algorithm, but that's still predictable. The only way to get truly random numbers is to provide the system with continuous input from a naturally occuring random process, such as measuring the decay of a radioactive substance (e.g. time gamma rays hitting a detector), and some experiments that are susceptible to pseudo-random number anomalies actually use such gizmos...

 

Randomly,

Buffy

 

So within the context of one's own home, with no prior knowledge of these factors, are the outcomes predictable?

[Buffy]

... with no prior knowledge of these factors, are the outcomes predictable?

Huh? You can't predict anything without the knowledge of the factors!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[sinewave]

:eek: How dare this discussion go on without my input! :hihi: (Sorry, relatively busy week).

 

So show me in what way the random number generators that determine the hands delt in online poker are not random, and therefore predictable, and I will share my wealth with you.

 

 

The are not random number generators, they are pseudo-random number generators.

 

Any mathematical algorithm is limited (finite) and pseudo-random number generators are prefixed with “pseudo” to denote that, i.e., they are not genuinely random at all, they produce an illusion of random number production. In other words, the number pattern they produce will eventually begin to repeat itself exactly when enough iterations have occurred, and once this has occurred the illusion of randomness disappears, because they then become 100% predictable.

 

(much as any cipher suddenly becomes readable, if you have enough timely CPU cycles to crack it)

 

It takes a very large number of iterations before they repeat their particular pattern though, depending on the algorithm's design.

 

Actual randomness never repeats a predictable pattern at any point though, and that's the difference between what the casino does, and what the cosmos is. Pseudo-random always ultimately repeats exactly, but true randomness never will.

 

One is predictable at some point, while the other never is.

 

 

As for infinity in an infinite space, can an infinite number of half-distances not exists between any two points?

 

 

Of course, but a random infinity does not come with absolute reference points for any such measurement, so you’re out of luck with that approach. :eek:

 

 

I wasn't of the understanding that the Heisenburg uncertainty principle applied to water molecules :Alien: ?

 

 

I wasn't referring to the molecules, but to the NET wave’s exact peak and trough position in location and time dynamics. Likewise, for the observed small-scale wave background in space. It is the similar overprinting interaction of multiple wave-forms, constructively and destructively interacting, in 3-D, with differing frequencies, which makes prediction of the state of a wave particle thus affected, impossible to predict with certainty.

 

Quantum entities NET behaviour can be ‘predicted’ in statistical terms, but never in exact terms.

 

Same for the weather, statistical prediction gives us a weather trend forecast but can not give us an exact prediction.

 

Same for the waves on the oceans surface, statistical wave hight predictions (~ +/- 40%) are standard fare in high-seas forecasts, but exact conditions can not be predicted, due to chaotic effects of wave interactions with wind currents tides benthic topography and whether a sparrow fart from a tree-limb in the Congo basin will trigger an Atlantic basin Hurricane.

 

Has that been made clear enough now?

[Bobby]

:eek: How dare this discussion go on without my input! :hihi: (Sorry, relatively busy week).

 

So show me in what way the random number generators that determine the hands delt in online poker are not random, and therefore predictable, and I will share my wealth with you.

 

As for infinity in an infinite space, can an infinite number of half-distances not exists between any two points?

 

I wasn't of the understanding that the Heisenburg uncertainty principle applied to water molecules :Alien: ?

 

 

From my experience with PokerStars and JetSet, I have serious doubts about their randomness. However, all random number generators start with what is called a seed. A seed is, essentially, the first number to generate. Succeeding numbers are based on some programmable entity such as time, number of hands played, etc. The other somewhat random consideration is the computer code. Two programmers seldom write the same code to solve a specific problem.

 

With the understanding that you are using the word distance in its usual context, an infinite number of half-distances do not exist between two points.

[sinewave]

I'm not trying to refute Heisenberg, what I'm refuting is your presumed ability to predict the future when you say; "They will remain random".

 

John Stewart Mill Quote: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

 

Bah! Enough nonsense. Let me know when you can put all weather forcasters out of a job. There's no prospect of weather forcasting becoming and exactly determinate service at any time.

 

If you don't understand the dynamic reasons for this, that's not my problem.

[sinewave]

I will reiterate:

 

A random space implies no edge.

 

A random no-edge space implies our limited logical quantitative tools can never describe that totality.

 

The quantitative approach can only produce locally limited though detail and accurate descriptive models of dynamics.

 

Any attempt to apply a quantitative model to the totality of a cosmos with is observably genuinely random, will in all cases produce a detailed self-referential cosmological mythos.

 

It doesn’t matter what theoretical basis you utilise, you will always get a delusional product.

[pgrmdave]

Actual randomness never repeats a predictable pattern at any point though, and that's the difference between what the casino does, and what the cosmos is. Pseudo-random always ultimately repeats exactly, but true randomness never will.

 

But, there is a difference between pridictibility and repeating. If I knew all the factors, then I could predict it perfectly. If I don't, then I can't predict at all. That is why we can't predict online poker hands, or the weather, with 100% accuracy. Not because they aren't predictable systems, but because we can't know all of the factors.

[Buffy]

Not because they aren't predictable systems, but because we can't know all of the factors.

It all depends on the meaning of "can't know". In fact if you give me the pseudo random algorithm and the processor and the seeds fed to it, I can indeed exactly predict the outcome of the online poker game. Now the owners of the site won't LET me know, but that's different than CAN'T know.

 

Weather is a natural system subject to uncertainty and will act randomly and is not strictly predictable. Some postulate that either Heisenberg is wrong or that quantum uncertainty does not propagate to macroscopic scales (I don't myself), but one of these would have to be true in order to make weather prediction possible (where's linda when you need her?)...

 

Cheers,

Buffy