3 ms·

True randomness has the structure of randomness. You can measure and identify it. A random number generator will generate numbers at random. That's structure. I

by Retra 8y ago

True randomness has the structure of randomness. You can measure and identify it. A random number generator will generate numbers at random. That's structure. If you want to think about something without structure, think about what happens inside models that assume a contradiction. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness.... Oh, argument by meme. I would believe you if maybe you had an XKCD of it.

naasking 8y ago
> True randomness has the structure of randomness Stating it as a tautology doesn't make your sentence coherent. Randomness having structure would entail that it's compressible, but randomness is incompressible by definition. > Oh, argument by meme I have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed you to the book written by an eminent physicist explaining precisely why mathematics is unreasonably effective if mathematics were not somehow intrinsic to existence. This addresses not only your assertion that mathematics is not unreasonably effective, but it also supports my point that mathematics is in some way intrinsic.
- Retra 8y ago
  A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. The medium is not. And you can't have a signal without a medium, so there is always structure. Mathematicians study randomness, and what they study about it is the structure that it has. >I have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed you to the book written by an eminent physicist [...] You pointed me to a wikipedia article which contains right inside it reasonable people who disagree with that point of view. So read what you link.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. I said incompressible not incomprehensible. > Mathematicians study randomness, and what they study about it is the structure that it has. They study the structure of its distribution. That's not the kind of structure that's relevant to the question we're debating here, which is the structure of the process generating the output. True randomness would need infinite structure to describe its infinitely unpredictable output corresponding exactly to its output. Such a hypothesis should never be preferred over other hypotheses with more concise structure. Therefore, I continue to assert that I would take that bet, and further, that it's a very safe bet. > You pointed me to a wikipedia article which contains right inside it reasonable people who disagree with that point of view. So read what you link. Reasonable people whose arguments are unconvincing. You should read some more philosophy of mathematics. There's a reason why Platonism and other forms of mathematical realism are still predominant.

by Retra 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

> True randomness has the structure of randomness Stating it as a tautology doesn't make your sentence coherent. Randomness having structure would entail that it's compressible, but randomness is incompressible by definition. > Oh, argument by meme I have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed you to the book written by an eminent physicist explaining precisely why mathematics is unreasonably effective if mathematics were not somehow intrinsic to existence. This addresses not only your assertion that mathematics is not unreasonably effective, but it also supports my point that mathematics is in some way intrinsic.

Retra 8y ago
A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. The medium is not. And you can't have a signal without a medium, so there is always structure. Mathematicians study randomness, and what they study about it is the structure that it has. >I have no idea what you're talking about. I pointed you to the book written by an eminent physicist [...] You pointed me to a wikipedia article which contains right inside it reasonable people who disagree with that point of view. So read what you link.
- naasking 8y ago
  > A random signal is incomprehensible. The fact that the signal is random is not. I said incompressible not incomprehensible. > Mathematicians study randomness, and what they study about it is the structure that it has. They study the structure of its distribution. That's not the kind of structure that's relevant to the question we're debating here, which is the structure of the process generating the output. True randomness would need infinite structure to describe its infinitely unpredictable output corresponding exactly to its output. Such a hypothesis should never be preferred over other hypotheses with more concise structure. Therefore, I continue to assert that I would take that bet, and further, that it's a very safe bet. > You pointed me to a wikipedia article which contains right inside it reasonable people who disagree with that point of view. So read what you link. Reasonable people whose arguments are unconvincing. You should read some more philosophy of mathematics. There's a reason why Platonism and other forms of mathematical realism are still predominant.