consciousness precedes real time

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.
 
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.




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




You take it from here. Don't say I never gave you nuthin.
You're no Von Neumann, just another internet "science" crank.
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top