![]() But, if you want to dismantle the consensus of true random, you will want to start with Bell's theorem. ![]() I've got a football game to watch and someone showing up shortly. There's more to respond to, but this is a pretty low-effort response. I don't think I have the capacity to disprove it and I am a fan of the scientific method. ![]() If we then accept some basic understanding - things like matter and energy being finite, as neither are created nor destroyed, we end up concluding a 'big bang' must have happened, or something quite similar - though there was no noise or anything they say. So, with that line of thinking, at some point the universe either didn't exist or it was REALLY small. If we reverse what we observe, the universe was smaller and smaller. I'll definitely root for you, as I don't really like the concept of true random. I'll root for you! You can make it your mission in life to disprove 'em. I suppose, but I don't know if anyone's gonna take you seriously - without a buttload of evidence, or something that explains the observed results better *and* makes better predictions. HOWEVER, this is where i feel spooked out thinking about all of this: does it really make any sense to say that our universe BEGAN at a certain point in time? Maybe it was always just here? According to aristotlian logic, that doesn't really make any sense but how could anyone possibly doubt the claim that our universe was always here using evidence? Whatever bell said about his theory came from a system of reasoning created by him. You can have truly random numbers just because math is an artificial system, but to me naturally random denies the chain of cause-and-effect. People came up with different theories that would seem wierd to us as to why those things happen before someone was able to repeat them in controlled conditions. That's just as certain as the fact that i'm going to die. However, i still don't agree that there are "truly random things" in the universe just because i know that if i put water inside of a loaf of bread and let it sit outside in the summer, it will get moldy very fast. I think all the current predictions of when the sun will kill mammalian life are just estimations though, a lot of folks in academic science believe that it will happen before it becomes a red giant, and i do see the power of empirical science.so on faith alone, i believe they are right. Yes, in math you can't make your postulates without proof to back it up, and in that sense it's a perfect system that can be used to estimate (or say for certain, based on if a mathematician has enough evidence to work with) distances of stars, and predict when the sun will stop working in the way we need it to in order to survive as a species.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |