consciousness precedes real time

[scruffy]

Wuwei already explained "random" to you, it is when a preceding event has no influence over a subsequent event.

FALSE.

As I already explained, there are MANY random generators with memory. A cursory examination of Wikipedia will show you how wrong you are.

As he also explained, chaotic systems are often predictable to an extent, in the short term, that is a preceding event does influence a subsequent event and therefore such a system is not to be described as random. I'm paraphrasing him here but I think that's the gist of what he explained to you.

HORSESHIT.

You're trying to contradict the greatest mathematicians who ever lived.

Sorry but you're not that.

If you dispute this then say why and cite meaningful sources.

$50 an hour, for you.

Otherwise, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and stop revealing yourself to be an ignoramus.

 

[scruffy]

Here's a starting point for your dumb ass.

Non Markovian generators were studied in detail by John von Neumann in the 40's and early 50's for the Manhattan Project. He came up with algorithmic Monte Carlo methods, even though he didn't call them that.

Non Markovian Monte Carlo is used every day by scientists all over the world, in dozens of different fields. Here are a couple of examples from quantum computation and telephone networks.

Non-Markovian random unitary qubit dynamics

We compare two approaches to non-Markovian quantum evolution: one based on the concept of divisible maps and the other one based on distinguishability of quantum states. The former concept is fully characterized in terms of local generator whereas it is in general not true for the latter one. A...

arxiv.org

Non-Markovian random walks characterize network robustness to nonlocal cascades

Localized perturbations in a real-world network have the potential to trigger cascade failures at the whole system level, hindering its operations and functions. Standard approaches analytically tackling this problem are mostly based either on static descriptions, such as percolation, or on...

arxiv.org

Quantum dephasing induced by non-Markovian random telegraph noise - Scientific Reports

We theoretically study the dynamical dephasing of a quantum two level system interacting with an environment which exhibits non-Markovian random telegraph fluctuations. The time evolution of the conditional probability of the environmental noise is governed by a generalized master equation...

www.nature.com

You take it from here. Don't say I never gave you nuthin.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a starting point for your dumb ass.

Non Markovian generators were studied in detail by John von Neumann in the 40's and early 50's for the Manhattan Project. He came up with algorithmic Monte Carlo methods, even though he didn't call them that.

Non Markovian Monte Carlo is used every day by scientists all over the world, in dozens of different fields. Here are a couple of examples from quantum computation and telephone networks.

Non-Markovian random unitary qubit dynamics

We compare two approaches to non-Markovian quantum evolution: one based on the concept of divisible maps and the other one based on distinguishability of quantum states. The former concept is fully characterized in terms of local generator whereas it is in general not true for the latter one. A...

arxiv.org

Non-Markovian random walks characterize network robustness to nonlocal cascades

Localized perturbations in a real-world network have the potential to trigger cascade failures at the whole system level, hindering its operations and functions. Standard approaches analytically tackling this problem are mostly based either on static descriptions, such as percolation, or on...

arxiv.org

Quantum dephasing induced by non-Markovian random telegraph noise - Scientific Reports

We theoretically study the dynamical dephasing of a quantum two level system interacting with an environment which exhibits non-Markovian random telegraph fluctuations. The time evolution of the conditional probability of the environmental noise is governed by a generalized master equation...

www.nature.com

You take it from here. Don't say I never gave you nuthin.

You're no Von Neumann, just another internet "science" crank.

 

[scruffy]

You're no Von Neumann, just another internet "science" crank.

Who just proved your stupid ass wrong.

Go away. You're just a troll.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Who just proved your stupid ass wrong.

Go away. You're just a troll.

The real trolls are those who call everyone else a troll just because they have the wherewithal to rebut crank posts.

 

[ding]

Who just proved your stupid ass wrong.

Go away. You're just a troll.

What name did you use to post under here?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Go away. You're just a troll.

Can you not see? you are the first to throw tantrums and call people names during a science discussion? I ask pointed questions, I expose fallacies and stick to the science, but you call people names and throw hissy fits - that tells us something.

 

[scruffy]

I ask pointed questions, I expose fallacies and stick to the science,

No, you don't. You insist you're right long after people have proven you wrong, and you're too lazy to do the research on your own. You've convinced yourself of things that simply aren't true, and to continue deluding yourself you play stupid games with semantics and try to draw others into them. You should learn from the people who know more than you, just as I've learned from your examples of lambda and languages without reserved words. If you give me a word or a concept I'm unfamiliar with I'll go do the research myself, and try to form a more educated opinion than the one I currently have. This is how scientists work together, someone will tell you something they know and others will point them to areas they should check out, to supplement and expand their knowledge and their models. I wouldn't last two seconds at a science conference if my purpose was to prove myself right. People go to conferences to try to prove themselves WRONG, and if no one can do it then they publish a paper to get a wider audience. You have to have a thick skin to be a scientist, but not a thick head.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, you don't. You insist you're right long after people have proven you wrong, and you're too lazy to do the research on your own. You've convinced yourself of things that simply aren't true, and to continue deluding yourself you play stupid games with semantics and try to draw others into them. You should learn from the people who know more than you, just as I've learned from your examples of lambda and languages without reserved words. If you give me a word or a concept I'm unfamiliar with I'll go do the research myself, and try to form a more educated opinion than the one I currently have. This is how scientists work together, someone will tell you something they know and others will point them to areas they should check out, to supplement and expand their knowledge and their models. I wouldn't last two seconds at a science conference if my purpose was to prove myself right. People go to conferences to try to prove themselves WRONG, and if no one can do it then they publish a paper to get a wider audience. You have to have a thick skin to be a scientist, but not a thick head.

None of this matters anymore, you asserted that chaotic systems have random behavior, and insisted I was in error when I disagreed, despite showing you several basic sources. Anyone remotely knowledgeable in this area stopped listening right there.

Others more knowledgeable than I also tried to get you to listen, but you rejected and disparaged them, there's no controversy either, this is routine mathematics.

Anyone interested in this question will find the same kind of answers, they are not the same, yet you expect me to dismiss all of these and instead listen to your ramblings? No, ain't doing that, you're a crank and that's all there is to it.

 

[scruffy]

None of this matters anymore, you asserted that chaotic systems have random behavior, and insisted I was in error when I disagreed, despite showing you several basic sources. Anyone remotely knowledgeable in this area stopped listening right there.

Horseshit. YOU stopped listening because YOU thought you already knew the answer, and YOU refused to look at the actual evidence even after I showed it to you multiple times.

Others more knowledgeable than I also tried to get you to listen, but you rejected and disparaged them, there's no controversy either, this is routine mathematics.

View attachment 1003449

Now you're being a total moron again.

You're citing a highly flawed AI as authoritative math, which it is certainly not. Google AI lies a lot, it just repeats the bullshit it finds on the internet.

I told you to go to the SOURCE. I cited names like Hausdorff, Borel, and Kolmogorov, ALL of which say you're wrong and Google is full of shit.

I provided you with multiple examples of current technology and current research that all say you're wrong and Google is full of shit.

And here you are AGAIN, trying to use Google as an authoritative source.

This kind of stupidity can't be corrected. No one will ever listen to you EVER if you insist on behaving this way.

Anyone interested in this question will find the same kind of answers, they are not the same, yet you expect me to dismiss all of these and instead listen to your ramblings? No, ain't doing that, you're a crank and that's all there is to it.

No, I expect you to go read the MATH.

Assertions from Google, and misuse of vocabulary by both you and Google, do not constitute proof.

MATH constitutes proof. You should go learn some. Do what I told you. READ. Go read the articles I posted for you, where actual scientists are using these concepts to create real technology that actually works. If the concepts were false they couldn't do that.

You're stumbling all over yourself trying to prove yourself right. It won't work. You're not smarter than math. You can't disprove the math. You can TRY, but good luck to you sir.

 

[scruffy]

Which takes us back to the beginning.

You don't know what randomness means. You think it's a "thing". You said it was "behavior". But it's not. Not at all. It has a precise mathematical definition, and you should learn what it is so you stop abusing language.

A random variable is an OBSERVATION. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a "thing". It doesn't speak to the "properties" or "behavior" of any system. It only speaks to YOU, while you're looking at it.

Randomness MEANS uncertainty. To YOU, the observer. That's all it means. It means YOU can not predict an outcome.

The generator of the outcome that you're observing, can be stationary, non stationary, linear, nonlinear, fractal, chaotic or anything else. If YOU can't predict it, it's random.

Math tells us HOW MUCH you can't predict it. There are MEASURES of your uncertainty. There are many such measures, many types and sizes of yardsticks.

Math also tells us how much you can INFER about the generator by observing it, but it does NOT tell us anything about the underlying mechanisms. That's Kolmogorov's Second Law, you can't see behind the veil, you can INFER but you can not define.

Precision in language is important. Look here, Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia will tell you straight up:

randomness is the apparent or actual lack of definite pattern or predictability in information.[1][2] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable

You see? That's it, that's all. It doesn't say anything about the generator, it only says YOU can't predict it.

It doesn't say there's no memory, nor does it define generators or distributions. All it says is YOU can't predict it.

We can INFER distributions by making enough observations, and in some cases we discover the distributions obey equations. What we OBSERVE though, are moments. To the extent we can map moments to equations, we can INFER mechanisms.

If you try to step outside of these bounds you're violating the math. Chaos says nothing about randomness one way or the other. Randomness is an OBSERVATION, not a system behavior. System behaviors generate outcomes, which you then observe, and if you can't predict them, they're random. End of story.

To say that a distribution "predicts" randomness is completely false. It's an abuse of both math and language. Distributions define EXPECTATIONS, which is not at all equivalent to random variables. Shannon and von Neumann both defined the level of "surprise" which is the difference between your expectation and the measured outcome. Renyi took it a step further, he studied the yardstick and came up with some relationships between the measurements and the levels of surprise.

Do NOT abuse math and language by equating the observation with the system. They're not the same thing.

 

[scruffy]

Let me explain this as simple as I can.

You have a pair of dice. You roll them. You get an outcome. You look at the outcome, you say "aha! 7".

THAT is a random variable.

If you roll enough times, you can plot a graph of outcomes vs frequency. That is moments, mean, variance, and so on. It is a STATISTICAL distribution.

So now, you want to figure out what those observations/moments mean, so you go back and calculate the combinatorics and plot another graph, of all the different possible outcomes and the number of ways they can be achieved. That's a PROBABILITY distribution. It's not the same as the plot of your actual outcomes, it's something different. ASSuming it's the same, is an ASSumption on your part. Because you've left out all the outcomes you ASSume will never happen, like a die landing on its edge and therefore being indeterminate.

Whenever you consider those two graphs to be equivalent, you're making ASSumptions based on YOUR expectations. A probability distribution is a "definite" set of expectations, which is something entirely different from the expectations you arrive at by observation, which have CONFIDENCE LEVELS attached to them.

If you built your distribution from combinatorics, there are no confidence levels, you're always 100% confident that the distribution is accurate.
Whereas, if you build moments from outcomes, you become increasingly confident with the number of observations. After 5 rolls of the dice, you haven't yet covered all the possibilities, so you can't be very confident. After 500 rolls, maybe you become confident that these outcomes are the only ones you're going to see.

Imagine the surprise when one of the dies crumbles in front of you before it lands. Oops, that wasn't expected. So you have just proven you're ASSumption wrong. The calculated distribution no longer matches the observed distribution. You suffered a RANDOM crumbling of the dice. The RANDOM outcome is what you observed. It's not the same as the expectation you calculated. It's not even in the set that you ASSumed gave you all your possible outcomes.

The RANDOM variable is the observation. You could not predict it from any system behavior. You ASSumed the dice were a closed system, and they're obviously not. There is NO modification of your generator (combinatorics) that would give you the observed outcome. Your ASSumption of a deterministic generator has completely failed.

Which would never happen if the random variable was the system itself. The outcome you observed, was not even in the state space of the generator, and yet you observed it.

This exact same thing happens with phase changes in physical systems, chaotic and otherwise. It happens at critical points, and many other times. Your probabilities go out the window, even though your observations are intact.

Do you understand? The RANDOM variable is what you observe. Everything else is an ASSumption. The relationship between your generator and your observations is an assumption, a model. It only works "most of the time. "Nearly" always. "Almost" always

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Horseshit. YOU stopped listening because YOU thought you already knew the answer, and YOU refused to look at the actual evidence even after I showed it to you multiple times.



Now you're being a total moron again.

You're citing a highly flawed AI as authoritative math, which it is certainly not. Google AI lies a lot, it just repeats the bullshit it finds on the internet.

I told you to go to the SOURCE. I cited names like Hausdorff, Borel, and Kolmogorov, ALL of which say you're wrong and Google is full of shit.

I provided you with multiple examples of current technology and current research that all say you're wrong and Google is full of shit.

And here you are AGAIN, trying to use Google as an authoritative source.

This kind of stupidity can't be corrected. No one will ever listen to you EVER if you insist on behaving this way.


No, I expect you to go read the MATH.

I no longer give a f**k what you expect.

 

[scruffy]

I no longer give a f**k what you expect.

Likewise. It is clearly counterproductive to expect anything meaningful from you.

 

[scruffy]

The trolls have destroyed my beautiful thread.

That's what they do, that's why their trolls.

I'll say this: beware of any college course titled "Probability and Statistics". It means the professor doesn't understand the subject matter. Because it puts the cart before the horse.

Read my OP. "Past outcomes are used to predict future behavior".

If you understand the subject matter of this thread, which is information geometry, you'll see how clever our brains are.

The Second Law of probability says you can't see behind the veil. Any "generator" is only a model, nothing more. Mathematicians usually build their models from combinatorics, which the physicists call "microstates". But our brains don't care, we build the model DIRECTLY by matching distributions from a library.

This is something the physicists can't do, and the quantum computing types haven't latched onto yet. But our bodies do it in a number of different ways, the immune system being a prime example. Immune memory lasts a lifetime, just like brain memories. In fact there is a growing body of evidence that Alzheimer's is an auto-immune disorder.

The brain's library of available distributions links to the observation of outcomes by "back propagation", which is a basic mechanism in neural networks. Back propagation is the way correlations are learned, it's essential for example for learning to speak and read, and it's also essential for the proper development of synaptic connections in the visual system (which, once they're learned, become imprinted and hard wired).

The clue for information theory is brains play sequences forward AND backward. Reversibility is crucial for proper memory formation. Recall suffers if the backward pathway is inhibited.

Engineers will understand that phases can be represented in terms of complex numbers. This is how our brains do it too. We extract the complex dimension and map it into the library of available distributions. In this way, playing a sequence backward or forward becomes as simple as using an inhibitory neuron instead of an excitatory one.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The trolls have destroyed my beautiful thread.

That's because you use the forum as a platform for broadcasting, rather than interaction.

 

[scruffy]

That's your excuse?

lol

 

[ding]

That's your excuse?

lol

What name did you use to post under here?

 

[scruffy]

What name did you use to post under here?

lol

"How to keep a troll guessing"

I'm Scruffy. I've always been Scruffy.

Have you ever been anyone else?

I don't change identities, don't feel the need to hide like that.

I've been Scruffy for darn near 60 years now. Go ask the people of Guatemala who Scruffy is. Most of them know about me. That was... oh... 1980's sometime.

Scruffy is my name, given to me by my father who was also Scruffy. Scruffy's lineage goes back 720 traceable years, and more untraceable ones before that. We don't like trolls. We shoot them. And feed the remains to the pigs. Trolls and tyrants, suffer the same fate where I come from.

 

[ding]

lol

"How to keep a troll guessing"

I'm Scruffy. I've always been Scruffy.

Have you ever been anyone else?

I don't change identities, don't feel the need to hide like that.

I've been Scruffy for darn near 60 years now. Go ask the people of Guatemala who Scruffy is. Most of them know about me. That was... oh... 1980's sometime.

Scruffy is my name, given to me by my father who was also Scruffy. Scruffy's lineage goes back 720 traceable years, and more untraceable ones before that. We don't like trolls. We shoot them. And feed the remains to the pigs. Trolls and tyrants, suffer the same fate where I come from.

I'm surprised you haven't shot yourself. And I don't believe you either.