BOUNDARIES OF RANDOMNESS - Michel Talagrand
As I have previously emphasized (in the relationship between philosophy, mathematics, & science) why there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics.
π That's because although mathematics initially is realistic, but in subsequent developments tend to be rational which is difficult to see its realistic value, thus also making it difficult to see its pragmatism, except through the help of physics.
- γ° That's why it was rejected by the Nobel Prize because rational but lacks pragmatic practical value
Now apparently there is a new development, where mathematicians must have a new paradigm so as not to tend to be rational, but also can convert rationality towards pragmatic practical benefits in life, so it deserves recognition. And that just happened with the ABEL PRIZE, an award involving the field of mathematics, which of course its mathematics must be more pragmatic.
And apparently this paradigm has been successfully brought forward by Michel Talagrand with his mathematical findings about randomness.
THIS IS INTERESTING BECAUSE BESIDES I HAVE ABSOLUTELY MENTIONED ABOUT "RANDOM"
- 1β£ {... π Link
- π5 𧩠Randomness is the uncertainty about the cause-effect relationship of a process/event
𧩠Random is not knowing about the process of the cause-effect relationship ...} - 2⣠... and that now (due to the pressure of quantum physics development, so there is a significant increase in the level of human thinking forced naturally to think axiomatically to realize absolute truth, which has brought) we are entering the era of absoluteness
π Apparently mathematical reasoning is also starting to be forced naturally to reveal new mathematical things that tend to open understanding of absoluteness. Through discoveries from Michel Talagrand. However, the discovery is in the realm of randomness & probability.
- π But his thinking starts to touch on clearer boundaries
Overview
The point is that although probabilistically, we can guess which side of the coin or dice will come out after calculating its probability value, but in reality, it still does not match the mathematical calculations, so it seems so random, coincidental, very random.
So any predictions made to predict the flow of water or other mechanics will end up with not quite clear conditions.
Physics Perspective
Once again physics is the forefront in pioneering this. For philosophy, I actually also have arguments about absoluteness about randomness, but there is no time to reveal except that "randomness is the uncertainty of understanding the cause-effect relationship, so the more we understand the cause-effect relationship, the random phenomenon will decrease.
In physics, the discovery of "Heisenberg uncertainty" has actually been acknowledged by scientists that its uncertainty is not total, but there are certain boundaries that reveal patterns of regularity.
Likewise in quantum physics, where the seemingly random electron trajectories actually have certain patterns that form electron trajectory clouds.
Mathematics Perspective
Similarly, what happens in mathematics through the work of Michel Talagrand about random conditions.
Talagrand proved that although random, random processes actually adhere to rules that can be mathematically modeled. For example, the end result of random processes usually will be distributed normally even though momentary changes are random.
In other words, Talagrand mathematically proves that:
- 1β£ There is no term "coincidence" in random processes
- 2β£ Although random, random processes have cause-effect relationships that can be modeled
- 3β£ The behavior of random processes, although complex, can be predicted through the framework of probability theory
So what is meant is that Talagrand provides a deeper scientific understanding that "random" does not mean without rules, but can be explained mathematically. This represents a major paradigm shift in understanding random processes.
