= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Romashka comments on Open Thread May 16 - May 22, 2016 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (121)
I don't understand what that means. It sounds like something I would call "noise" (="variation which I do not care about") which is a quite a different concept from "random".
There is also "true" randomness, e.g. radioactive decay, which doesn't seem to be related to whatever I might care about. And if you put yourself into the paws of Schrodinger's cat, you might care a great deal about that trigger which breaks the poison vial, but does that make it not random?
As you yourself point out that's entirely circular and, besides, I have no idea what "idealized randomness" is.
You're basically talking about randomness as that which lies beyond the limits of (current) knowledge. Didn't you just come back to randomness meaning "unpredictable"?
Wouldn't idealized randomness mean utter lack of causality?
Well, there is what is usually called quantum randomness. While many common kinds of randomness represent just lack of knowledge, contemporary physics says that quantum randomness (e.g. how much time will pass before a particular unstable atom decays) is different because it is impossible in principle to predict it. You can probably call it "utter lack of causality".
As to "idealized", I don't know. Depending on which framework you pick, the notions of "idealized randomness" might well differ.