5 ms·

I'm probably very wrong, but I still feel there is some undiscovered science when it comes to RNG and the fallacy of the maturity of chances ( Gambler's Fallacy

I'm probably very wrong, but I still feel there is some undiscovered science when it comes to RNG and the fallacy of the maturity of chances ( Gambler's Fallacy ). Einstein believed the universe was deterministic. Just because it appears to us that there is no correlation between independent events ( the roll of a dice ), does not mean that there isn't some underlaying variable that we are unable to measure or perceive which is affecting the outcome of the roles.

abritinthebay 9y ago
There almost certainly is but you can’t collect the data. At some point quantum effects will come into play too. Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit.
- boyce 9y ago
  Had the pleasure of meeting Alain Aspect once who would definitely have, at that time at least, argued the opposite.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Well he’d be coming at it from the quantum angle, which I agree makes it more complex. However I did add that as a major caveat.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  > Theoretically all physical processes are predictable If you count a radioactive decay event as a physical process, then this is not so.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    I don’t. Radioactive decay is practically the very definition of the quantum effects I mentioned.
    - MereInterest 9y ago
      Seems a rather odd definition to make, then. Radioactive decay has large-scale effects, such as determining The elemental composition of the universe. Quantum effects govern the entirety of the universe, so I'm not sure why you would want such a large exception to your generalization. I would go the other route. Nothing can be predicted, except statistically.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        It's only odd if you're worrying about it outside of the context that the parent comment was talking about. Which I wasn't. You clearly are. Yes, quantum stuff exists. At the scales the OP was talking about though they are mostly insignificant therefore I hand-waved them because they were not relevant to the discussion.
        MereInterest 9y ago
        As far as I could tell, the thread started from the mention that Einstein believed that the universe is deterministic, which set the context of the thread. This argument is traditionally seen in context of quantum effects, and whether or not there exist hidden variables.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        At the level of discussion in advanced physics, yes. But that’s also because that’s where the really interesting work is. It’s quite a different scope of conversation
    - CryptoFascist 9y ago
      Not counting radioactive decay as a physical process because you've chosen to define physical processes as deterministic is some intriguing mental gymnastics.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
- plus 9y ago
  This could maybe, possibly be true if it were possible to have complete knowledge about the (quantum) state of the universe, but that is impossible. The uncertainty principle isn't a hypothesis, it's not even really a theory, it's a direct mathematical consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics. I want to be clear that my point is not merely a technical one. I'm not just saying "it's technically impossible to have complete knowledge," I'm saying that it is physically, mathematically impossible. The laws of physics do not allow it. One might argue "maybe it's not possible, but if we did know the complete quantum state of the universe, the universe would be deterministic and we could predict everything," but this is equivalent to saying "if the laws of physics were different, then the universe would be deterministic." Edit: To the distinction you make between "physical" and "quantum" processes: There is no distinction. Quantum effects do diminish in magnitude with increasing size, but they never truly go away. You can predict the motion of macroscopic objects with what may seem to be an arbitrarily high degree of certainty, but in truth you can never have 100% complete knowledge of even macroscopic properties. I still disagree with your claim that the universe is deterministic in any way, even if you conveniently exclude systems for which quantum effects are substantial.
tylerhou 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
- guscost 9y ago
  Bell's inequality suggests that reality must be either non-deterministic or non-local. To the GP: You still aren't "due" for a win, that's silly.
boyce 9y ago
I'm not sure there's much belief in hidden variables at the moment
godelski 9y ago
We can actually measure randomness though. RNG isn't usually truly random, it is usually pseudo-random. But if you'd like to get true randoms you need to look at events that are true random events. Something like particle decay or photon entanglement. You can also go to https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ to get extremely random numbers. I note that it is not necessarily true random because there are factors that can influence those numbers (they discuss this).
plus 9y ago
Einstein, as everyone knows, was one of the most intelligent and insightful theoretical scientists ever born. His work on the photoelectric effect, which posited that the frequencies of light emitted by a material are quantized, rather than continuous, is what won him the Nobel prize. His thinking influenced the great thinkers behind the formulation of quantum physics as we understand it today: Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Planck, etc. But nobody, not even Einstein, has been able to come up with a way to describe the physical basis from which the laws of quantum mechanics (which we know to be true based on many, many years of experiments which have failed to falsify them) can be arrived at. Contrast this to a topic for which Einstein is better known, relativity. The mathematical framework describing the effects of special relativity had already been partially discovered by Lorentz, but we credit Einstein for its discovery. Why? Because he postulated two simple rules from which these laws can be derived: 1) The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and 2) the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial reference frames. How about general relativity? A similar idea, that a person inside of an elevator should not be able to tell the difference between sitting stationary on Earth and accelerating through space at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. Einstein had opinions on the physical basis for the laws of quantum mechanics. But they were not necessarily the most popular opinion at the time, and definitely not today. As tylerhou posted in another comment, tests of Bell's theorem more or less disprove the existence of local hidden variables, meaning local quantities that behave deterministically but not measurable. It is still possible that there are nonlocal hidden variables, but this is not a popular opinion these days for a variety of reasons. I would also like to point out that the various "interpretations" of quantum mechanics (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, pilot wave theory, etc) frequently fail to address what the nature of physical reality, i.e. what is the starting point, what is the axiom, what is "real". Are wave functions real? Do they actually exist, or are they merely convenient mathematical tools that can be used to describe reality? Are pilot waves real? Are density matrices real? Are Greens functions real? Are quasiparticles real? (n.b., most of these things are described as complex-valued quantities ;) )
- gpawl 9y ago
  > the various "interpretations" of quantum mechanics frequently fail to address what the nature of physical reality No, they ALWAYS fail to address it, That's why they are called "interpretations", not "models". > Do they actually exist This question is completely outside of the realm of science.

abritinthebay 9y ago

There almost certainly is but you can’t collect the data. At some point quantum effects will come into play too. Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit.

boyce 9y ago
Had the pleasure of meeting Alain Aspect once who would definitely have, at that time at least, argued the opposite.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Well he’d be coming at it from the quantum angle, which I agree makes it more complex. However I did add that as a major caveat.
robotresearcher 9y ago
> Theoretically all physical processes are predictable If you count a radioactive decay event as a physical process, then this is not so.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  I don’t. Radioactive decay is practically the very definition of the quantum effects I mentioned.
  - MereInterest 9y ago
    Seems a rather odd definition to make, then. Radioactive decay has large-scale effects, such as determining The elemental composition of the universe. Quantum effects govern the entirety of the universe, so I'm not sure why you would want such a large exception to your generalization. I would go the other route. Nothing can be predicted, except statistically.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      It's only odd if you're worrying about it outside of the context that the parent comment was talking about. Which I wasn't. You clearly are. Yes, quantum stuff exists. At the scales the OP was talking about though they are mostly insignificant therefore I hand-waved them because they were not relevant to the discussion.
      - MereInterest 9y ago
        As far as I could tell, the thread started from the mention that Einstein believed that the universe is deterministic, which set the context of the thread. This argument is traditionally seen in context of quantum effects, and whether or not there exist hidden variables.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        At the level of discussion in advanced physics, yes. But that’s also because that’s where the really interesting work is. It’s quite a different scope of conversation
  - CryptoFascist 9y ago
    Not counting radioactive decay as a physical process because you've chosen to define physical processes as deterministic is some intriguing mental gymnastics.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
plus 9y ago
This could maybe, possibly be true if it were possible to have complete knowledge about the (quantum) state of the universe, but that is impossible. The uncertainty principle isn't a hypothesis, it's not even really a theory, it's a direct mathematical consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics. I want to be clear that my point is not merely a technical one. I'm not just saying "it's technically impossible to have complete knowledge," I'm saying that it is physically, mathematically impossible. The laws of physics do not allow it. One might argue "maybe it's not possible, but if we did know the complete quantum state of the universe, the universe would be deterministic and we could predict everything," but this is equivalent to saying "if the laws of physics were different, then the universe would be deterministic." Edit: To the distinction you make between "physical" and "quantum" processes: There is no distinction. Quantum effects do diminish in magnitude with increasing size, but they never truly go away. You can predict the motion of macroscopic objects with what may seem to be an arbitrarily high degree of certainty, but in truth you can never have 100% complete knowledge of even macroscopic properties. I still disagree with your claim that the universe is deterministic in any way, even if you conveniently exclude systems for which quantum effects are substantial.

tylerhou 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

guscost 9y ago
Bell's inequality suggests that reality must be either non-deterministic or non-local. To the GP: You still aren't "due" for a win, that's silly.

boyce 9y ago

I'm not sure there's much belief in hidden variables at the moment

godelski 9y ago

We can actually measure randomness though. RNG isn't usually truly random, it is usually pseudo-random. But if you'd like to get true randoms you need to look at events that are true random events. Something like particle decay or photon entanglement. You can also go to https://www.random.org/ https://www.random.org/ to get extremely random numbers. I note that it is not necessarily true random because there are factors that can influence those numbers (they discuss this).

plus 9y ago

Einstein, as everyone knows, was one of the most intelligent and insightful theoretical scientists ever born. His work on the photoelectric effect, which posited that the frequencies of light emitted by a material are quantized, rather than continuous, is what won him the Nobel prize. His thinking influenced the great thinkers behind the formulation of quantum physics as we understand it today: Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Planck, etc. But nobody, not even Einstein, has been able to come up with a way to describe the physical basis from which the laws of quantum mechanics (which we know to be true based on many, many years of experiments which have failed to falsify them) can be arrived at. Contrast this to a topic for which Einstein is better known, relativity. The mathematical framework describing the effects of special relativity had already been partially discovered by Lorentz, but we credit Einstein for its discovery. Why? Because he postulated two simple rules from which these laws can be derived: 1) The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and 2) the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial reference frames. How about general relativity? A similar idea, that a person inside of an elevator should not be able to tell the difference between sitting stationary on Earth and accelerating through space at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2. Einstein had opinions on the physical basis for the laws of quantum mechanics. But they were not necessarily the most popular opinion at the time, and definitely not today. As tylerhou posted in another comment, tests of Bell's theorem more or less disprove the existence of local hidden variables, meaning local quantities that behave deterministically but not measurable. It is still possible that there are nonlocal hidden variables, but this is not a popular opinion these days for a variety of reasons. I would also like to point out that the various "interpretations" of quantum mechanics (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation, pilot wave theory, etc) frequently fail to address what the nature of physical reality, i.e. what is the starting point, what is the axiom, what is "real". Are wave functions real? Do they actually exist, or are they merely convenient mathematical tools that can be used to describe reality? Are pilot waves real? Are density matrices real? Are Greens functions real? Are quasiparticles real? (n.b., most of these things are described as complex-valued quantities ;) )

gpawl 9y ago
> the various "interpretations" of quantum mechanics frequently fail to address what the nature of physical reality No, they ALWAYS fail to address it, That's why they are called "interpretations", not "models". > Do they actually exist This question is completely outside of the realm of science.