Randomness does not exist at the quantum level.

Randomness does not exist at the quantum level. That is my hypothesis. Since the universe is finite with a finite number of things, it is computable and may be analogous to a computer program or simulation. Computers can't generate truly random numbers. They utilize pseudo random number generators that use equations to generate numbers that "seem" random. If the universe is analogous to a computer program things like radioactive decay are governed by equations that seem to turn on events according to probabilities such as half life. 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.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

That's sorta the whole question... or at least one of the biggies... random or not?

I'm willing to extend congratulations to you for figuring out something that has a myriad of factors and figuring out the correct outcome like you have... I am not so decisive. Or perhaps it's because I'm not that smart... but it would be dandy if you could offer your thought process on how you know randomness doesn't occur.

I don't necessarily disagree, either... just genuinely curious how you decided.

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.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

Basically, hidden variables.

a reply to: Adaluncatif

The Dirac Relativistic Quantum Wave Equation shows that we are parallel to another mirrored form of matter. The event horizon is a curtain between, or our reality of symmetry breaking. Volution is the circling around a center (event horizon) of the veil between. In Latin, e means out of, or what we experience as evolution. Without involution, we cannot emerge from the whirlwind of the veil. Matter is held by invariance and symmetry that is not directly observed. Within the veil of the torus, we are translational symmetry as the weak force borrows from the future to repay the past. This quantum tunneling effect of entanglement shows us that we are not here in the past, but in the future riding the wave back. Like a DVD paying, the story is written in the past. We are in the future arriving at the conclusion of the experience. Time has an end, just like any good movie. We are characters in the story. The veil we use as a screen will be rolled up like a scroll when the production is over.

Entanglement to that veil is impenetrable until the hologram is parted to our perception.

Then these guys are selling vaporware :

True RANDOM NUMBER Generator Exploiting QUANTUM PHYSICS

a reply to: Adaluncatif

link

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:

a reply to: johnb

One might suggest that the Quantum Randomness argument is an argument for quitters. "If you truly knew everything about the atom, you would have known when it would decay. Therefore, your confidence that you knew everything about it was clearly faulty."

"Fundamental" and "irreducible", therefore, become synonyms for "I give up, and I'm not digging any deeper."

(I'm allergic to absolutes.)

a reply to: Adaluncatif

Stop comparing standard computer science to the universe. Computer science is mostly based on binary code. 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. Therefore your point about random number algorithms doesn't apply, since those are based on binary code.

The Universe/Multiverse is infinite. Even if there is a known boundary on an item, which has not been determined in a multiverse situation, there is infinite channels within. We all contain infinity within as well. All things are infinite within and without them and potentially could be utilized by Higher Ups.

And in a sense that is just one aspect of it.

But I tend to agree there is nothing random occurring.

Think of the universe as a Tree, As the tree sheds leaves. These leaves decompose. The leaves decay until we don't see leaves because it has seeped into the soil.

The roots turn this back into energy. The Tree is governed by Time tho, It will not all grow at once.

So during this time the tree grows.

If we take from the tree, It will grow back. Just as long as we don't take more than the tree can grow it will continue to thrive.

This anology applies to the universe. Tho In the anology itself, The tree has unlimited or infinit abundance. But this abundance is limited by time. Tho the potential is there to grow infinitely, what gauges it's growth is time. The leaves are constantly falling, Well energy is being utilized and renewed into matter.

The analogy is supposed to be Literal in that sense.

What im trying to say is, what im trying to say is what is out there will not always exist, But new growth will always replace it.

And as long as we don't take more than what the new growth can sustain. Then the tree will remain in tact. When the tree is not in tact then life is in disorder.

The only way such a scenario could happen is if we consumed whole constellations just for materials to produce artificial structures and machines.

We could throw our own galaxy off balance if we removed to much matter from it. but the possibility of that is near impossible. Godlike technology would need to fall into the wrong hands for something like that to be unleashed.

But if that happened we wouldn't be here right now experiencing the milky-way as we do.



Black Energy and black matter are what make up space. There would be no space without it.
There is no such thing as nothing, Nothing is an illusion. Everything is something. Just not in the same place at the same time. Existing at the same time.

it has nothing to do with dimensions in the sense you think of it. It has to do with the fact of the tree. And that the energy moving through the tree to become the leaves are always in a constant state of motion. The tree is the black hole. And the stars are the leaves. The jet streams are the trunks of the black hole which are drawing in the nutrients needed to keep the roots healthy so that more leaves can grow. As the roots rely on falling leaves, and the decomposing nature of mass to break it down into its elementary nutrients.

From these micro particles, The transfer of energy occurs, Overtime the power of the tree converts the nutrients into leaves again. It sounds repetitive because it's supposed to be. But since the energy can't become leaves all at once. It only happens over time. Which is why there is no such thing as nothing, Everything exists. But not at the same time. Because somethings have been broken down into their elementary parts, are being processed through the trunk and are awaiting their arrival at creation of the leaf.

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?

If you have a perfect model for the probability field and predict all interaction with the field then randomness do not exists because you know the field and can predict every change on the quantum level.

At current human science is not there yet (at least not to the public knowledge). Most of humanity do not seem to be able to get that the synchronicity that Carl Jung talks about is in fact a quantum phenomenon and that all interactions are quantum phenomenon and the standard thinking that the standard model physics give a truth full answer of "what is" is wrong. The standard model physics is a simplification and will never give perfect predictions in different probability fields since it does not factor the probability fields that in fact decide where all particles can exist (like in the interference probability pattern that emerge form the double slit experiment).

Namaste

a reply to: Adaluncatif

And God doesn't throw the dice. The randomness is nothing other than unbroken superposition. When something (and according to the Copenhagen school it doesn't matter what it is when not observed) shows up at a certain location/time it has been shaken out if its superposition by for example a force field.
Thus the double slit experiment which nowadays is being done with molecules!

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?

Sometimes it is possible for people to intent->manifest changes in the probability field (with only their bodies). Pushing energy to create synchronicity to achieve telepathy for instance and since the change in the probability field will decide where the particles will be on a quantum scale the matter (particles) will follow the change made in the probability field.

As with all information do not take my word for it. Test it and verify it yourself with experiments.
Namaste

a reply to: Adaluncatif

Computers can't generate truly random numbers.

That is true to some degree but maybe they will come up with a seed that is not based on the machines MAC address or time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

You are on the ball.

Also we have been using one form of OO or another like MVC for far too long and it is time we moved to something better and it needs to include something like thread at its core to deal with parall processing without us programers having to hook it all up.

a reply to: VirusGuard

The seed value has nothing to do with the randomness of the sequence. Now, if you could come up with a truly random value for the seed then, well, why would you bother to use it as a seed in the first place?

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.

Stuff exists! (There is only possibly; Stuff and non stuff. Only stuff exists. Yes if real space, real non stuff distance exists between stuff, this can alter 'energy').

Stuff cannot be created or destroyed only transformed!

Therefore stuff has always existed and always will!

Therefore the quantity of stuff that exists in total is an exact quantity!

Exact quantity is what finite means!

Reality can not be anything other than tautological. It at all times equals a 1:1 relationship to itself. This statement cannot be anything other than obvious and duh worthy.

The biggest mystery in/of reality is consciousness. Because it utilizes pseudo illogic to function and be 'free' (from the harsh causality of all that is not mind). I say pseudo, because everything is logic, as I said everything equals itself at all times, and it transforms, causally, but the mind has free will, that is the very idea of the mind, a will, so the mind uses causal mechanisms to simulate symbolic non causality, randomness, unreason, and illogic, and this is how the mind escapes having no will of its own, as if it could not produce unreasonable simulations or nonsense, the mind could only be forced 100% by all nature other than itself, which is how we refer to clusters of material that do not have mind.

a reply to: ImaFungi

How does this incoherent rant relate to anything I have said?