It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Quick aside: The difference between quantum randomness, which is absolute, and classical randomness, which basically means “very hard to predict”, is covered a bit in this older post. In a nutshell, up until the science of quantum mechanics came along it was assumed that if you (somehow) knew everything about an object at one moment, you would be able to perfectly predict how it behaved the next. However, it turns out that even if you know absolutely everything about a radioactive atom, for example, it’s still impossible to accurately predict when it will decay. This is called “fundamental”, “irreducible”, or “quantum” randomness. Back to the point:
Randomness does not exist at the quantum level.
If the equations that generate the pseudo randomness can be discovered we may be able to alter the outcome of equations and make things happen whenever we want them to, such as making all of the atoms in a radioactive mass never fission or fission all at once.
originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Adaluncatif
Randomness does not exist at the quantum level.
What about chaotic order that could be perceived as randomness?
Just a question as anything quantum is way above my pay grade and knowledge base.
If the equations that generate the pseudo randomness can be discovered we may be able to alter the outcome of equations and make things happen whenever we want them to, such as making all of the atoms in a radioactive mass never fission or fission all at once.
So we could become creators of reality?
Is that what you are saying or simply manipulate atoms and particles as we please with greater control than whats possible today?
Computers can't generate truly random numbers.
They are expanding into quantum computing, but that is all very cutting edge. Even if the universe was a simulation or a computer, it wouldn't be programmed using binary code. Binary code is too limited in scope
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Adaluncatif
There's a few issues with this hypothesis:
1) We don't know if the universe is finite or not.
2) I don't see how you can conclude that therefore it is "computable" (not even sure what you mean here).
3) Computers typically use algorithms to generate random numbers. Different algorithms have different degrees of randomness but they are not truly random. This doesn't mean that truly randomness does not exist in nature.
4) We know what the equations for pseudo-random number generators are. We made them. This does not in any way allow us to alter or stop radioactive decay.
In a nutshell, you seem to be making big leaps in conclusions based on questionable/faulty premises.