In such a universe, the outcome of a million coin flips might just as well be 100/0 as 50/50 (500,000/500,000). So it would be like throwing a million-and-one-sided die, where throwing 500,000 would mean a 50/50 distribution. No need for keeping track of the sequential order of heads and/or tails!
I didn’t. I said ‘But’, meaning even that would not give us 50/50, but 0/0.
In the (super)atomic world, we only know relative or seeming randomness (unless it is to be explained by quantum tunneling or the like). Quantum probability is interpreted as actual randomness, like an ideal coin dropped in ideal conditions yet not landing and staying on its edge. I don’t think I could put it better than this:
“That a quantum of force determines and conducts itself in every particular case in one way and manner […] proves only that one and the same event is not another event as well.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 552, Kaufmann ed.)
Put differently, (\neg (\neg A)\iff A).
Experiences which have to be interpreted…
At this point in human history, yes. And even this does not touch the problem I have with the whole notion of “randomness”.
I see your point, but that just rearranges the order to a specific hard-illogical one. In chaos there is no reason to correlate a million throws to a million outcomes.
This disregards both the fact that electrons have no neutral edge, and that randomness as it is understood to work plays out in a context.
Which, if there is universal and perfect randomness, necessitates superposition and suggests fractal like orders.
So it is not that the coin lands on its edge, but lands on both sides at once, but not definitively.
No, not on its edge, on both sides.
Meaning both sides are effectively the case, cause to effects, rather than, as would be the case when it lands on its side, neither side would effectively be the case. This is why a coin fails as a metaphor.
So in pure isolated 50/50 there is no possibility of 0/0. Something has to be the case meaning both things have to be the case.
But then a quantum of force is seen to not determine and conduct itself in every particular case in one way and manner.
Tempted to write out the first pages of chapter 3 from Feynmanns book QED but it’s too long. Get it if you’re interested in quarks as well. Its a lot cleared than what AI has been able to give me.
First of all, since everything is interpretation, such an observation carries no weight.
But by your logic, if I throw a dice six times and I observe that it lands on a six once, then to state that it lands on six once is an interpretation. To be sure it is, and to say that it lands on six twice is also an interpretation. Still, there is a difference here in the type of interpretation.
Note that the consistencies of mathematics and physics as they have come to us since Euclid and Archimedes have never been refuted or contradicted, but only refined and added to. There is non-Euclidean math but it does not refute Euclid. There is QM but it does not refute Archimedes or Newton. (“Any acceptable physical theory must reproduce Newtonian mechanics in the appropriate limit.”)
No devices that have been built based on Newton have failed to work because of Planck. No buildings that have been built based on Euclid have collapsed because of Pointcarre.
You mean, like, odd outcomes (like 49/51) might be more likely there than even outcomes, to just name one possible oddity?
Yeah, that just makes no sense. Then it’s not like two sides, but some third thing.
But it’s not seen, but inferred.
Thanks.
Yeah, neither of those is the type of interpretation I mean. I’m not questioning the experienced results here. What I’m questioning is the inferred process.
To judge science on its effectiveness is a Machiavellian, modern thing, however. For me, this is not about coherence but about correspondence. And even and especially if we embrace Nietzsche’s “irrefutable errors of man”, randomness is not an answer.
You know what, I’m willing to accept the Copenhagen Interpretation now. God does not just play dice, he is dice—metaphorically speaking, of course. In other words, he’s a nihilist, a philosophical neutralist: it makes no difference to him whether it’s heads or tails!