4 ms·
Super interesting, thank you for the very informed and insightful comment. In the same line, from my perspective, randomness appears where the "limit of our me
by ta1234567890 7y ago
Super interesting, thank you for the very informed and insightful comment.
In the same line, from my perspective, randomness appears where the "limit of our measurement resolution" is. In other words, when your only way to measure something is to sample it, then the maximum resolution of your measurements is going to depend on the maximum speed/frequency at which you can sample the thing you are measuring. So in the end all our measurements will always be limited by whatever thing is the fastest that we can handle/operate/understand. Anything faster than that will appear to be random to us. And this is also pretty much the same as what the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem says about any wave/information.
Relating to the Kolgomorov randomness under the above, something would be random when we can't sample it fast enough to rebuild its waveform with perfect fidelity within the time frame that it appears to be random.
- fsh 7y agoNyquist-Shannon only deals with measurements of power spectral densities in sampled systems, not measurements in general. The resolution of measuring for instance the location of a particle in QM has nothing to do with Nyquist-Shannon and does not depend on any sampling frequency.
- ta1234567890 7y agoYou are correct. Now, why wouldn't it apply to any measurements? With some creativity I believe Nyquist-Shannon can be applied to all measurements. For example you could think of a single measurement as the equivalent of a sampling rate of 1 in the time period in which the measurement was made.