Randomness is a state of disorder characterized by lack of predictability. In mathematics, randomness is used for various applications including statistical analysis to substitute for parts of a process that can’t be controlled for some reason, but typically because it’s outside the scope of the test. Another use of randomness is to demonstrate a lack of bias for any particular outcome, such as for the roll of a die. It’s also used in sociological applications for studying populations; in order to have scientifically reliable data, a sample has to be chosen randomly. This is done through some algorithm using ‘random variate generation’ in order to estimate a selection without any bias or pattern. So, it seems reasonable to believe that randomness does in fact exist in everyday situations and governs a large portion of our reality – how could it not, when it’s used so frequently? The truth is that randomness is either limited to extremely small interactions, or is completely nonexistent.
   First, it’s worth discussing the validity of random number generation and random – or stochastic – processes. If for all intents and purposes it’s possible to create a string of numbers with no discernable pattern, how can we not call it ‘true randomness’? And that’s really what this discussion comes down to: the almost-semantic debate of true randomness. The reason such modeling isn’t truly random is because at its foundation, the algorithms used to generate the string of numbers is predictable, if someone were able to deeply understand how it works. Unfortunately, ignorance doesn’t justify any conclusions. The same goes for any other classical example: if a machine were built to perfectly simulate a random dice roll, the designer would likely know how to predict the outcome. The inverse is also true; if someone could control the roll of a die, they could accurately throw the same number every time.
   However, it may not be easy to accept that knowing the mechanisms of a process will allow you to know its outcome; it could be extremely complex to learn, and so it might be said that because it’s so difficult to understand that it is functionally random. The problem that exists there is a statistical tool called ‘probability distributions’, which show that any supposedly random process will follow a pattern over time; a roll of a die may seem to randomly result in any of the six numbers, but over time it’s observable that each outcome has exactly the same probability of happening: one sixth. This is applied to complex systems across the world in innumerable applications, and is much simpler than trying to predict individual data points.
   It may seem obvious that no true randomness exists, and that all interactions happen according to the predictable patterns. This is firmly in line with Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction; in other words, everything is caused by something, and the two events are observable. But what if some reactions didn’t operate according to Newton’s Laws? Newton thought in terms of classical physics, which applies to just about everything that every human will ever do, but some aspects of reality don’t follow classical physics – at the quantum level, classical mechanics breaks down. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, in layman’s terms, is that certain quantum properties of particles, momentum and position, can’t be known simultaneously. This isn’t just a lack of understanding how particles work, this is actually crucial to the current model of quantum mechanics. Randomness is inherent and necessary according to what has been observed on a quantum level. Similarly, radioactive decay happens randomly (as it’s also on a quantum level), though it does conform to a probability distribution, which is how radioactivity can be mapped and predicted.
 

Influence of video games on mass shootings?

just retcon everything and start afresh with Destiny 2

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 24, 2014, 11:02:14 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on November 24, 2014, 10:56:43 AM

Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 24, 2014, 10:52:22 AM

The president chooses the Chair and the board, so ultimately he's more powerful. In practice the president can act on his authority without needing the approval of a board.

Just seems like an unnecessary regression to be honest, especially given the reciprocal power of the Chair to influence presidential elections.

If I give you a gun out of a line-up of people, I may have bestowed that power upon you but, ultimately, it still leaves you in a position of more power relative to me.

If I know who you're going to shoot, does holding the gun (and subsequently the responsibility and blame) still feel like you're wielding more power?

What? I'm giving you a gun, not shooting anybody.

Ex post facto, you're more powerful than I in that situation.

- An expanding universe and a model that shows us we should be contracting. According to a physical model of the Universe, we should be contracting not expanding. But yet here we are, expanding. The mathematics simply don't work.

- Life from non-life. According to evolution, life arose from a "hot mix of chemical goop". But there's no evidence for it and the process cannot be recreated in a lab. As a means of damage control, scientists then claimed that life came from somewhere else in the galaxy. But that still leaves the question as to how that strain of life came to be. Is there just a never ending cycle of strains of life that come from another planet?

- Consciousness and free will, a contradiction to evolution. How are you to act upon instinct, survive, and reproduce if you're not being told you have to? Scientists claim that consciousness is explainable through biological processes, and that its purpose is to give humans the illusion that we operate under free will. But there's still no purpose in evolving towards free will if our biology dictates us to act the way they want us to act and not the way we act through free will. And if consciousness is simply an illusion, who is this illusion being relayed to? Another consciousness?

- The four fundamental forces. There's no reason why or how the fundamental forces exist, and in fact we can only measure their effect, but the particles that should make up these forces don't seem to exist. We invent names like the Graviton to make it seem like they exist, but they have as little evidence for them as dark matter.