If you are religious... Read this

Read this in a newspaper yesterday :

Quote:

---

A 24 year old Widow was found 14 days after her death in her home after suffering an annurism in her sleep.

In the other room it was discovered that her 2 daughters (4 and 3) had died from starvation not being able to provide for themselves.

---

What I want to know is what sort of God would either allow or conceive of allowing 2 innocent young children to die horribly from startvation after already taking away their father (car accident a year earlier) and then their mother?

What kind of a depraved and SICK deity would allow that kind of attrocity to occur in their world to someone who never did anything wrong to anyone?

And if anyone says "There was a reason" or "They were called to heaven" or "They were needed elsewhere" then I will swear pure venomous fire at those people until their ears drop off from sheer heat friction. :mad:

since you dont believe what i believe
i will not say a word

i must say VERY VERY VERY GOOD point
just matter of how look at the situation and how you take the message in

which you supposedly recently read. Specifically Romans9:11. Here's another fish: http://inthebeginning.net/cgi-bin/En...Search=Romans9

When you begin to ask, "What kind of God...?", then your mind should be instantiating the class "God" which your mind's constructor is assigning certain attributes to begin to fathom how different by "several orders of magnitude" this God object must be from a human object or any human class. If you have enough brain cells or available RAM to use for this process, a flag MUST be triggered that brings to your attention the fact that you must be quite insignificant in comparison to this God object. In fact, your infinityHandler() should spawn to protect you from that which you cannot compute/measure/comprehend, just before you realize, Who am I, to question God?.

You should learn that from Romans9, but Job and Job38 say it best in my opinion.
http://inthebeginning.net/cgi-bin/En...ToSearch=Job38

You will begin to understand when the program you write turns around and asks you, "Why have you made me thus?". Recall will and free will before you attempt a reply to that one.

kovan
How is that a very good point if you believe in a god? We all know that you are really an atheist.

its a very good point because if your a TRUE BELIEVER you will take to account that this does happen

how you interpert the event determines your belief in God

Gen things its CRUEl there for his belief in god is 0

and quit calling me athiest
i am a monothiest your a polythiest since you believe in 3 forms of God

3 forms of the same God. As explained over and over again.

Gen-X,

I don'tknow if it's the same case, but in a town in South Australia (can't remember which one) a woman was found dead with her 2 kids (2 and about 11 months) also dead. Her hubby in this case was actually alive but in prison for something.

This was in the papers yesterday or the day before

- gaffa

Before I say anything else I would like to say that I have nothing but sympathy for the unfortunates involved, it is indeed a very sad story.

I don't have any real kind of explanation for this, but I am responding as I was asked to in another thread. It does seem to point to a discompassionate God in some ways. However I don't think that you can assume this was an entirely negative act. Before you start flaming me for saying that I would like to say that this is a possible explanation, it is not necessarily my opinion. Perhaps some action one of those involved in would have made in their lives would have led to a worse event.

As I said I don't really have an explanation. I'm not sure if it needs one *Shrugs*

Some would ask why a perfect God would create a universe that is filled with so much that is evil, but they have missed the greater conunudrum. Why would a perfect God create a universe at all?

Sister Miriam Godwinson

Gen-X
Why are you so vindictive about religion? It makes me wonder if you were abused by some religious fanatic. I am an atheist, but I do not start arguments with believers or make unprovoked attacks on their beliefs.

Religious people do not pay attention to logic or evidence. Faith is supposed be refuted by neither evidence nor logic. Many religious people believe that anybody can have faith if given evidence. The true test is faith in spite of what seems to be evidence to the contrary. If god wanted to, he could refute any such evidence (their belief, not mine)..

Why not crusade against the tele-evangelists, many (if not all) of whom are charlatans making big bucks by scamming the faithful?

You have faith in a deterministic classical universe, ignoring evidence to the contrary. I would expect you to be able to sympathize with those who have faith in other beliefs.

A man is sitting in his living room on a rainy day watching TV. A news flash come on warning that the nearby river is about to over-run its banks and major flooding is imminent.
The man, being a man of faith, thinks to himself "God will protect me."

Shortly afterwards there's a hard knock on the door. The man answers and it's a policeman. "The river has overflowed and we need to evacuate the town!". The man says "I am a man of faith. God will protect me." and shuts the door.

Water starts to rise around the man's house. The man has to climb to the roof. A boat comes by and the man in the boat calls to the man on the roof "I'll get as close as I can then you can jump to my boat!". The man on the roof responds "I am a man of faith. God will protect me."

The water continues to rise. A helicopter comes over head and the pilot shouts "I'll drop a ladder and take you to safety!" The man responds "I am a man of faith. God will protect me."

The man is washed off the roof and drowns.

When he gets to heaven he demands an appearance with God. He asks God how He could take his life when he was so faithfull and good. "Why didn't You protect me?"

God replies "I sent you a newsflash, a policeman, a boat, and a helicopter. What else would you have me do?"

VVB

*sigh*

Again you are flawed but I am sure you will not have the integrity to admit it :(

Quote:

---

If you have enough brain cells or available RAM to use for this process, a flag MUST be triggered that brings to your attention the fact that you must be quite insignificant in comparison to this God object

---

If we are so insignificant then why did God send his ONLY son to die for OUR sins.... That doesn't sound like an insignificance to us... Or did you just conveniently forget that because it didn't fit in?

I thought someone like you would reply with "we cannot understand"... That is what makes it safe for you doesn't it? That you cannot understand? God writes a Bible that tells us what we need to know and yet he doesn't tell us this and we come up with answers like yours that by their very nature are flawed from the core out.

Harry

Harry, notice how one of my "pre-programmed" answers was "There was a reason". I know you do not have an explaination to offer but saying *maybe* it was for the best is just another convenient way for your brain to be able to cope with such a horrible event and STILL have faith. Can't you see that? Why must you ALWAYS explain something away so you can keep your faith?

Arbiter

Exactly. Pity you can't convience the rest of this ;)

Guv

Perhaps you may see it as vindictive... I understand the way I come across is sarcastic and aggressive, but vindictive?

No I haven't been abused... If I had then it would explain and invalidate everything I say because the SOURCE of what I say comes from an event not because it is what I see as evidence.

Why do I bother? I keep asking myself the same thing... One thing I abhore more than anything else is blindeness... and religious blindeness to me is far more dangerous than a lot of things in this world. I used to work in a place where every sunday a group of people would stand on the corner of a street and wail how everyone was going to go to hell. Every time I have seen or met people who have been "touched" by religion it has come with the same ignorant furvor that makes me wary.

Religion in itself is a crutch for those incapable of functioning without it and that makes it incredibly dangerous as people will do anything to make themselves survive, religion only makes them think they are righteous in doing it.

Quote:

---

You have faith in a deterministic classical universe, ignoring evidence to the contrary

---

Actually I have no "faith" in that at all... As for ignoring the evidence I would say YOU are ignoring the evidence that I have shown you. I listened to your arguments about the "randomness" of the universe and replied with evidence showing it is NOT random... I even then intimated the possibility that perhaps randomness is a by-product of a large number of deterministic events.

Where did you get the idea I had "faith" in any of that?

There is nothing I believe for the sake of simply believing it... I might assign a credibility rating based on the validity of previous information from a designated source... or I may apply a feasibility factor to information based on its appearance of logic... but to believe it is true for no reason is beyond my capability as a human being.

Lets not get into this faith/belief argument again... we already worked out that religious people (and perhaps a few other people) get the 2 confused. :D

Gen-X:

Well you bloody well asked me to reply. I don't have an explanation, I am well aware of what you said and I was concious at the time of writing that you would find it a pretty useless post, but since you asked me I gave my vague opinion.

Will you PLEASE quit telling me that I 'might lose my faith'? I don't have any blinking faith to lose.

Further to that point, YES OF COURSE I CAN SEE THAT! I AM NOT STUPID! I fully expected you to some up with this response and I don't know why I bothered responding. The fact is that I don't have an explanation, and you're asking for one.

I don't automatically equate the God of any particular religious text with the one I personally call God. So I don't really have much of an opinion on the ethics God works by.

Right then, bring on some of that venomous fire ;)


Arbiter:

That is an interesting question.

is always out of context. I get a kick out of you using the term though ;)

Consider the ant that is unaware that an intelligence is guiding the boot that is about to crush him. The ant raises its "fist" in defiance asking, "How dare that boot attempt to occupy the same space at the same time as I?" What kind of boot would do such a thing?

Try to grasp the relation of the boot to the ant. From the ant's point of view, "if it had enough RAM and processor power" it should first perceive its insignificance in this great universe.

That the intelligence behind the boot instead demonstrates compassion to the insignificant ant; offers it eternal life and the title, "heir", and unfathomable significance in eternity is not something initiated or deserved by the ant.

There is an order of events (and a general order anyway) that you are conveniently missing (or perhaps you truly don't know; so that is why I post).

Harry

No venom here, I had hoped to provide an impoteous for you to think about the nature of your "God" but I guess I was wrong :(

VVB

Why did you ignore your contradiction of us being insignificant?

You attack Kovan claiming he wont answer your questions yet you completely overlook when you are blatantly WRONG in the same manner.

As you consider him to be "insincere" for doing that I have to assume the same of you.

I wont even comment on the continuation of your "drivel" until you show some sincerity :)

Gen-X Claiming you presented evidence in some post does not make it so.

Quote:

---

. I listened to your arguments about the "randomness" of the universe and replied with evidence showing it is NOT random... I even then intimated the possibility that perhaps randomness is a by-product of a large number of deterministic events.

---

You have never presented any evidence, merely speculations like the one after the three dots above or some rambling talk about how dice throws are deterministic without anything to back up that claim. I doubt that you have the foggiest idea of what would be involved in predicting dice throws, yet you pretend that you do. You talk about dumb statements made by some physicists a hundred years ago, and then say that like them, modern physicists do not know what they are talking about. Then you claim that the future will provide deterministic explanations for Quantum randomness. That kind of argument iss eveidence? You ignore real evidence like radioactive decay and other quantum phenomena which clearly behave like statistical not deterministic processes.

Why are you afraid to admit that your belief in a classical deterministic universe is based on faith? Perhaps you just do not have enough understanding of modern physics and logic to realize that you have no evidence, only a cherished opinion.

Guv

Quote:

---

Gen-X Claiming you presented evidence in some post does not make it so.

---

Neither does pointing the finger at something and saying "See, its random". You forget (and quite frequently) that simply because you cannot find something does NOT mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

You ignore real evidence like radioactive decay and other quantum phenomena which clearly behave like statistical not deterministic processes.

---

Oh I love this... YOUR evidence is right and mine is wrong. You don't present evidence either... you simply point the finger at something saying "THERE IT IS!" and I refute it by explaining what you are pointing at.

All I am saying is that there are only 4 forces in the universe... scientists have proved this. Where in this equation does randomness occur? You cannot show me randomness, you cannot say where it comes from or what causes it... you merely point at something that does not have a pattern and say... "It MUST be random".

Quote:

---

Why are you afraid to admit that your belief in a classical deterministic universe is based on faith?

---

Who ever said I was afraid? Don't confuse what you perceive as fear with what I call pure frustration at your lack of an ability to understand where I am coming from.

Somehow I have the feeling you are going to keep on believing what you want regardless how much evidence I give you to the contrary... Seeing as you have already made your mind up about my "fear of faith" there isn't anything I can do to convince you.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you just do not have enough understanding of modern physics and logic to realize that you have no evidence, only a cherished opinion.

---

And perhaps I have a greater understanding of modern physics and can see something you are unable to?


As for it being a cherished opinion you only prove how little you know about me or why I believe in the things I do.... the fact you would even consider this simply shows your ignorance and uninterest in knowing what is TRUE rather than what you want to be true... Something I do a lot of... Welcome to the club ;)

I have NEVER EVER said that a random universe was NOT possible (if you bothered reading you would have even seen me postulate where randomness might occur)... But you wouldn't let a little "FACT" like that get in your way to believe what you want now would you.

Gen-x Some of the things you say are interesting. For example.

Quote:

---

I listened to your arguments about the "randomness" of the universe and replied with evidence showing it is NOT random

---

In conjunction with various posts claiming that the universe is deterministic the above would lead one to believe that you think the universe is provably deterministic. Then you say the following.

Quote:

---

I have NEVER EVER said that a random universe was NOT possible (if you bothered reading you would have even seen me postulate where randomness might occur)...

---

The above seems to suggest that you do not have a lot of faith in your own "evidence."

Quote:

---

Oh I love this... YOUR evidence is right and mine is wrong. You don't present evidence either... you simply point the finger at something saying "THERE IT IS!" and I refute it by explaining what you are pointing at.

---

I never said my evidence is right and yours is wrong. I said that I presented evidence and you did not. I still claim that you have presented no evidence, while I have mentioned radioactive decay as a process which follows statistical laws, and is therefore evidence of a random process. I did more than point my finger at radioactive decay and say there it is. Furthermore, you never explained radioactive decay.

Quote:

---

All I am saying is that there are only 4 forces in the universe... scientists have proved this. Where in this equation does randomness occur? You cannot show me randomness, you cannot say where it comes from or what causes it... you merely point at something that does not have a pattern and say... "It MUST be random".

---

If I knew enough to be able to describe in detail why the experts consider the 3 Quantum forces to result in random behavior, you would not understand (The 4th force, gravity, is considered deterministic). When I mentioned radioactive decay as a statistical (Id est: random) process, it amounted to more than pointing at something which does not have a pattern and saying it must be random. It is a process which behaves in a manner consistent with statistical mathematics rather than deterministic math. Contrary to your claim, I can show you randomness (I did exactly that when I mentioned radioactive decay). I suspect that it might be in the very nature of a random process that it is impossible to say "where it comes from or what causes it." On this issue, I do not know enough to even begin to describe where it comes from or what causes it. By the way, can you tell me how the four forces lead to a deterministic universe? I doubt it, because they do not.

Quote:

---

And perhaps I have a greater understanding of modern physics and can see something you are unable to?

---

I strongly suspect that my knowledge of modern physics is a lot better than yours, but am willing to admit that my knowledge is no where near the expert level. However, I did post a quote for you and Sam in which a real expert in the field stated that modern physics considers the universe
to be governed by statistical laws, not deterministic ones. I am sure your understanding of modern physics pales in comparison to the real experts, who happen to disagree with your classical views.

Guv

Quote:

---

Gen-x Some of the things you say are interesting.

---

As do you. Go back and read what I said, do a word search on "random" in a post that has my name in it and THEN come back and discuss... If you are going to insulate yourself by looking at singular phrases and then making a global assessment of my "purpose" you will always come up confused.

Quote:

---

I said that I presented evidence and you did not

---

But you did NOT present evidence. You pointed to Radioactive Decay and gave a single article written by a single person who agreed with you. There is no evidence in that.

You say it follows "statistical laws" and that by that very nature it MUST be random..... Statistics has always been about "grouping" that which we cannot understand, it doesn't make it random.

TRUE random means it can move outside of the boundaries, when you have a finite number of discrete possibilities (which is what statistical laws is about... coming up with the boundaries of those discrete possiblities) you do not have something random.

Quote:

---

On this issue, I do not know enough to even begin to describe where it comes from or what causes it. By the way, can you tell me how the four forces lead to a deterministic universe? I doubt it, because they do not.

---

Yet you ask me to do the same in return. Well if you can't give me an answer and I cannot give you an answer I guess that means BOTH of us cannot be sure as to who is right or wrong. Or are you going to say that you are right even though you cannot explain its source and I am wrong BECAUSE I cannot explain the opposite?

Quote:

---

I am sure your understanding of modern physics pales in comparison to the real experts, who happen to disagree with your classical views

---

And I am sure there are another 100 "real experts" who disagree with this person and whose understanding of modern physics is far superior to his who doesn't agree with his pseudo-unclassical views.

BTW, my views are NOT classical.

From man's point of view, he should realize that he is insignificant in comparison to God.

From God's point of view, He makes us significant.

It is not man's place to say, "Why have you made me thus?". And you didn't read the verses even though I gave you specific "fish". I know I can't expect you to look it up (but I gave you what you asked for).

Don't worry, there are some that will remain insignificant (from a certain point of view), but even "vessels of destruction" have their significance.

Alot of people (even so-called Christians) fear this possibility of fact.

Gen-X

Quote:

---

And I am sure there are another 100 "real experts" who disagree with this person and whose understanding of modern physics is far superior to his who doesn't agree with his pseudo unclassical views.

---

You are sure there are 100? Name a few who have real credentials in Quantum Theory. I'll be surprised if you can name one. You continually make unsupported claims to back up your point of view. Do you really believe that will fool somebody? When you and Sam asked for a supporting opinion from an expert, I gave you one. furthermore, I gave you some keywords for use in an Internet search in case you wanted a second opinion. You have never supported any of your claims with evidence or citatioons.

Quote:

---

Yet you ask me to do the same in return. Well if you can't give me an answer and I cannot give you an answer I guess that means BOTH of us cannot be sure as to who is right or wrong.

---

When I asked if you could derive a deterministic universe from the 4 fundamental forces, I was trying to indicate that you have a naive view of what physics is all about. Your request that I show how the 4 forces lead to random processes, was a ridiculous copout. You are prone to copping out. Telling me to search past posts for something you said, was another copout.

In some ultimate sense, you can say that neither of us is right. In that sense there are no provable statements that can be made about the way the universe works. Mathematical theorems are not provable as ultimate truths. Math only proves that various theorems are consistent with the axioms of the system.

I now realize that you need some help with concepts of physics. When it comes to physics, you cannot ask for absolutely provable statements or laws. You can merely say that some physical process is currently considered consistent with a certain algorithm or mathematical discipline.

With our current state of knowledge, gravitational interactions are considered to be deterministic because such systems conform to deterministic differential equations. Anyone who disagrees with that statement is ignorant of modern physics. This does not mean that gravitational theory is provably deterministic. Perhaps some future development in Quantum Theory will indicate that quantum randomness affects gravitational interactions, making it non-deterministic. Am I being a logical physicist if I claim that gravitational interactions are random processes? Of course not, I am being stupid or acting on faith in a belief that all processes are random.

Now, certain processes (EG: radioactive decay) conform to statistical (Id Est: Random) mathematics and therefore are considered to be random or non-deterministic phenomena. Does that mean that the universe is provable random? Of course not. Perhaps some future physicist will provide a deterministic explanation (Frankly, I doubt it. I think quantum randomness in gravity is more likely that deterministic quantum phenomena). Are you being a logical physicist when you claim that all is deterministic? Of course not, you are being stupid or acting on faith in a belief that the universe is deterministic. Since I do not consider you stupid, I assume that you are ignorant of modern physics or that you are acting on faith. I suspect that just as religious people have faith in their beliefs, you have faith in yours. It could also be that you are ignorant concerning some concepts in modern physics (that's no crime, I am also ignorant of many concepts in modern physics).

Somewhat off the subject of our disagreement, I would like to point out that science is continually getting closer to a complete knowledge of how the universe works. We are unlikely to ever be able to claim that modern science knows everything and includes no errors Howwever, it is getting ever closer to a complete knowledge, leaving less and less room for doubt. I constantly see statements like "Our current theory conforms so well with experimental evidence that we know any future theory must include consistency with our current equations."

Gen-X
Are you still claiming that you have no faith or have you accepted that you have faith?

You seem to be stuck on this evidence thing again, but if you recall, you don't understand the definition of evidence or proof. All of which is tied to the type of faith that you have.

As voice of YodaRemember your failure at the cave...and your faith in the dictionary authors and brainwashed following of the consensus. Yes, the dreaded blind faith of ignorance that you supposedly despise. You must leave these things without the cave, lest your logic be greatly flawed.

Or rather, flawed it is, yes...hhmmm...judge you by not the same standard?

Guv

I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I understand perfectly about this...

The only point of contention I have with you is your use of "Statistical" to indicate "Randomness".

Frankly I don't see it.... Statistical does NOT imply randomness and the word "Random" itself implies simply that "WE DO NOT KNOW" rather than "IT CANNOT BE KNOWN".

THAT is the point I have been trying to make... you go off on this assumption that I am a "classical" thinker and you have to "teach" me when the whole time I was simply commenting on your correlation between 2 concepts that in truth while being connected are not indicative of each other purely by nature.

Yeah I know about the 100 guys... that is my sarcastic way of saying just because you found 1 person doesn't mean everyone thinks that way, appologies for exaggerating.

If I asked you to show 1 credible paper on "The Moon is made of Cheese" could you find one? No. Does that mean the moon is NOT made of cheese? You couldn't prove it. What you are left with is common sense and that would suggest that ANYTHING that is considered random is just an indication that it is an area we currently do not KNOW enough about to understand why it is happening.

You yourself said we are learning more every day... why then would YOU be so ignorant to think something like radioactive decay would not be worked out? That seems like a flaw in your thinking.

VVB

Are you STILL complaining that the dictionary is wrong? You read something that you don't like and immediately the rest of the world is wrong.

Seeing as you do not prescribe to the meaning of the word "faith" as the rest of the universe (excluding the God-given of course) could you please give us YOUR definition so that when you say I have "faith" I know what you are talking about.

I tell you that I don't have "faith" but then again I am using MY definition of the word... Either you use mine when talking to me... or I use yours when talking to you...

Either way, unless we can come to an agreement of the use of the word there isn't much point talking or arguing about it when language itself is the problem.

You call me an apple and I say I am not an apple I am an orange... If you always grew up being told an orange was an apple we are both right but because the WORD has different meanings to us we keep going on and on.

I would have thought that was obvious considering your penchant for wanting to read the original texts in Hebrew/Greek but obviously you don't understand english enough you spend so much time with everything else.

Quote:

---

the word "Random" itself implies simply that "WE DO NOT KNOW" rather than "IT CANNOT BE KNOWN".

---

On the contrary, random means 'no specific pattern', not that we don't know the pattern.

Harry

Don't be naive (and pedantic).

If I show you a line being drawn all over the screen you call it random (which by the way means "without purpose" among other things) because it has "no specific pattern".

Someone then tells you that there IS a pattern and shows you. Has it suddenly stopped being "random"?

Of course not... Random means "I cannot see a pattern and neither can anyone else"... it doesn't mean an ABSOLUTE TRUTH of one not actually being there.

So then, something random today may not be random tomorrow? I am speaking of the same object that has not changed, only our understanding/perception of the object has changed.

Please explain.

Or is this another definitions game?

This Thread has goten way off track. It originally brought up a question of theology. It has now digressed into a continuation of a discussion of the universe having either deterministic or statistical laws. I think I am responsible for the digression, for which I apologize.

Gen-X has started two other Threads more pertinent to the digression. As a non-evanglistic atheistic, I tend not to get involved in religious Threads. I only got involved to ccomment on what I considered vindictiveness. Goodbye to this thread, which I leave to the evangelistic atheistics and the religious Posters who want to discuss the original question.

So you would agree that the determination of what is "random" depends on whether your analysis can find a pattern?


So why then would anybody think ANYTHING is random when we are only just scratching the surface of how anything works?

Guv stated Radioactive Decay... obviously people have looked at it and are unable to find a pattern... That doesn't in itself make it random... it means we haven't found a pattern and thus CALL it random.

Why is this such a hard concept for you people to grasp? Science is supposed to learn from itself, correct its mistakes... not have people like this STICK to a concept because it fits their lovely little view of a universe that has randomness in it.

I agree with that first statement you make there, yes.

You have to question, though, whether it's a case of those researching it being 'unable to find a pattern' or whether there is actually no pattern. Why are you so sure that there is one? Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? You seem to just skim over this possibility whenever you mention patterns.

If hardcore statisticians which doctorates in God-knows-what who spend their lives researching this kind of thing say that they can tell whether a process is random or not then I am willing to accept that on the basis that although I don't understand the concepts involved fully, they probably do.

Where is the lovely little view you mentioned? I don't care particularly whether the universe is random or deterministic, except that I'd like to know the truth of it. My view of the universe will be more or less the same either way, it's not going to change my life drastically (as far as I can tell).

Harry

Quote:

---

Why are you so sure that there is one? Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

---

I never said there was ;)
All I was saying is that just because you don't find something doesn't mean it isn't there.

That is the WHOLE reason why Science works by DISPROOF rather than PROOF. You can never prove something to be true (unlike Maths which I think by its very nature is flawed when used as a proof for real world concepts) you can only disprove it.

Let me try to explain :

If I don't find a pattern I *might* find one tomorrow... So I cannot say that it is random. I *could* however claim it is random because someone cannot prove otherwise. Therefor it will last until someone proves it wrong and something new comes up.

The concept is easy to grasp but considering everything we have ever known or discovered has changed several times with each new level of understanding I find it hard to accept with any sense of logic that we have suddenly reached the END of that journey... it would seem STUPID to think we have reached a point where even our most brilliant minds are unable to discover something new.

How do you know that the discovery of new dimensions (ala string theory) wont provide the forces that CAUSE what we call randomness and thus make it deterministic again?

Or that research into the GUT will find an answer relating all 4 forces together and being able to provide answers to things we considered random?

I think you are all closing your eyes and discounting possiblities... for what reason I don't know.

Quote:

---

Where is the lovely little view you mentioned?

---

You and I might be different but for most people they have a view of the universe and wont let go of it.

If you read my earlier posts I actually said I thought the universe was random... that somewhere deep down in the core of quantum entities there was something that could not be quantified. I changed that view the more I read.

THEN, I came on the idea that if you take 2,000,000,000,000 deterministic events that interact on each other, it could be considered that the outcome would be "random" for all intention purposes... So I proposed that our universe was deterministic but at a macroscopic level was random for that which we would consider applicable.

Like you I don't care if its one way or the other... but I am not going to just blindly accept something because that person has a certificate in it and says so... especially when it flies in the face of what I consider logical and reasonable. If what they say has TRUTH in it then it should be obvious to display that truth.

So as you can see I have allowed my thoughts and ideas to evolve as new information has come to hand while certain other people (not you) just stick to their view, deny even hearing reason and like a dog with a bone wont let go.

I thought this was supposed to be a place we could openly discuss things, bring ideas that could be prodded to see if they hold water and all learn something from the experience...

All it seems like is a group of people not wanting to budge, refusing to even acknowledge when someone else has a point and wont change their ideas even when they are shown to not be as stable as they first thought.

*Sigh*
I might come across like a $*&@#$% but I truely prize truth and logic above all else, I get passionately frustrated when I "perceive" people to ignore those truths without explainations for the flaws I bring up (or sidestepping them by talking AROUND it).

I know what you've said about proof/disproof, it's been said over and over again. I am unsure as to your point with maths. Isn't it true that we could not have achieved anywhere near the level of understanding of the world around us without mathematics? (That's a genuine question.)

I think you really have to accept maths (assume it's valid) before you start to accept any ideas about the randomness or otherwise of the universe.

Do you know Fermat's Last Theorem? It's a theorem (theorem means proven theory I think) that states that, for a right-angled triangle, the length of the hypotenuse to a power X is equal to the sum of the lengths raised to the same power X of the other two sides, if and only if X = 2. This was a theorem which Fermat proved to himself, or that's what it says in his notes anyway - his proof was never found, and which had baffled mathematicians until a few years ago when some guy figured it all out and proved it. That may sound simple enough but to prove that A^X + B^X = C^X is untrue for any value of X other than 2 is no mean feat. You can't just start at 3 and work your way up because you've always got an infinite number of values of X left. Somehow he proved it (in fact he proved it using modern-day techniques that Fermat couldn't have used, so Fermat's own proof is still a mystery). Somehow he proved a lack of any other possibility, out of an infinite number of possibilities.

Now that is obviously all based on maths, but maths is so closely tied in with modern-day physics that I don't think you can really question its validity without questioning the validity of any physics we have ever known.

I understand your logic in saying "how do you know that you won't find a pattern?" because it has run through my own mind, and I think you've said it before a few times too. Perhaps, though, it is possible to know that there is no pattern, just as Fermat and his latter-day follower proved that no other combination would work for the Pythagorean theorem. I don't understand all the maths involved but I am open to the possibility that it can be proven that a process has no pattern.

Perhaps this will theory will come to change in the future, but it seems unusual for you not to entertain the possibility that it can be proven that something is random when so many people seem to have so much evidence. From the things you have said on this forum previously, I would have expected you to embrace the new ideas because the evidence backs them up (well I don't really understand quantum randomness so I'm assuming by the massive following QR has that it has a lot of supporting evidence) and carry on believing in it (this is what you have said you do when you find something with good evidence) until something more likely comes along.

I get the impression that you think you are providing some kind of evidence against randomness when you speak of huge numbers of microscopic deterministic events giving the illusion of randomness a la complexity theory, but this is ground that was covered back in Einstein's time. Remember Einstein's 'hidden variables'? He fought desperately against the idea of randomness, giving that famous quote "God does not play dice!" but his research, however biased, only served to strengthen the argument for randomness. I'm not saying that because Einstein couldn't disprove it nobody can, I'm just stressing how difficult some of the evidence must be to argue with if even a bitterly determined Einstein could only fuel the fires of quantum randomness.

Perhaps in time it will all be shown to be folly, but it seems unlikely that that will be happening any time soon, so we ought to go with the best guess. That seems to me to be randomness.

That's it I'm off my soapbox now :) Carry on.

u[]Harry[/u]

I don't question the effectiveness of Maths... I just question its use as the "PROOF" for something.

Look at the example you gave. They come up with theorums and equations and then they go out into the real world and see if they hold up. If they find the real-world doing something DIFFERENT to what they thought then they relise they made a mistake.

So maths doesn't PROVE it... its SUPPORTS the proof.

Do you understand what I mean here?

Fermat is a classical example of the fact you cannot actually PROVE something... but nobody has found an example that DISPROVES it and so it is held as truth.

Quote:

---

Perhaps, though, it is possible to know that there is no pattern, just as Fermat and his latter-day follower proved that no other combination would work for the Pythagorean theorem

---

I don't think we can compare common truths like triangles and the like with such advanced and high level concepts like Quantum Randomness.

"A triangle has 3 sides"

That statement will NEVER be invalid regardless how advanced we get. The universe appears to be broken up into different parts... those parts that we discover early, that are clear as a bell as to their truth and those parts that require peeling away several layers.

Take the atom for example. Our first "truth" was that it was like a ball of matter, the NEXT truth was that it had electrons around it... the NEXT truth was that there were actually protons & neutrons and the LAST truth we have come up with is that each of these are made up of Quarks.

Is the Quark the smallest particle in existance? We don't know that... to think that it MUST be simply because we have YET to find a smaller one would be as ignorant as people saying the atom was the smallest particle. We have proved to ourselves on more than one occasion that research and years of advancement allow us to see more clearly what we are looking at.

The one singular reason why I do not agree with randomness at all is that nobody can define what it is or what causes it. Our universe has been shown to follow some pretty precise and definate rules... even the Quantum universe. What is it that suddenly gives it the ability to deviate from determined courses? What causes it to suddenly change position or direction?

Until someone can pinpoint the source of this I couldn't in any good concience begin to believe that randomness exists. To even use the term "exists" means it can be identified... and yet all they "identify" with Quantum Randomness is their innability to work out what the pattern is... To me that is like saying nothing is in a room simply because its all dark.

I agree that the term randomness can be used... but only in the sense of its definition being "we cannot find a pattern" rather than "there is NO pattern". I thought human beings were supposed to learn from their mistakes... Are our modern day scientists just as egotistical as the old age ones in thinking that THEIR theory is the be-all-end-all of it all?

We haven't even begin to scratch the surface of so many concepts.... everything from anti-gravity to warp travel, quantum phase shifting, string theory etc, etc.... To think that we have found all the answers without even knowing all the factors that might go into it is like a scientist doing an experiment without a Control System.

A triangle is defined in a mathmatical way - it is a mathematical concept.

Quote:

---

Fermat is a classical example of the fact you cannot actually PROVE something... but nobody has found an example that DISPROVES it and so it is held as truth.

---

I wouldn't say it's a classic example of that. I mean, the point I was making was that you can prove the absence of something even when there are an infinite number of possibilities. In mathematics at least. Even the proofs we talk about are mathematical in pronciple though, the way you construct boolean algrebra and imply things given assumptions, it's all based on maths. Do you think, then, that Fermat might be wrong? This was not a simple proof - it took the guy who proved it 7 years to do so, and when he finally did he just cried. That's how hard it was. Not exactly a simple problem if it took a dedicated mathematician with all the tools of modern mathematics at his disposal that long. I wonder how long it took Fermat himself.

Quote:

---

The one singular reason why I do not agree with randomness at all is that nobody can define what it is or what causes it. Our universe has been shown to follow some pretty precise and definate rules... even the Quantum universe. What is it that suddenly gives it the ability to deviate from determined courses? What causes it to suddenly change position or direction?

---

You are assuming that the course is determined in the first place and then some other random event causes a deviation. Before proving that it is a predetermined event you are first assuming that the event is predeterministic. If you want to disprove that it is a random process through contradiction you must first assume it's random. The finer details of quantum processes is something I cannot go into because I don't have the knowledge - if you want to talk about individual situations discuss it with Guv or Sam.

I agree that there is a heck of a lot that we haven't gone into, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss any of our discoveries thus far simply because we might know better in the future. Perhaps we will decide the world IS flat after all (there is still a flat earth society), not likely I know but just because we can't guarantee nothing will change doesn't mean we shouldn't assume it's true.

Harry

Mathematics is OUR creation... its a language designed to better communicate things that normal language cannot. Yes we use maths and yes things are mathematical concepts but those concepts were taken from the real world in the beginning... and they apply to the real world.

A triangle is anything with 3 sides only... Maths didn't invent triangles... we just invented the word and applied it to a real world thing.

Once there was a large enough body of maths, some bright sparks too that body of maths and started expanding it into a lot of conceptual and theoretical higher level stuff (as far as my understanding goes). Of course some people saw similarities with the real world and hence they applied the maths there but the bottom line is that maths is a "tool" and not the proof/disproof itself.

No I don't think Fermat wrong.. but I won't be 100% sure he is right... that is what I have been trying to tell everyone when I say I DONT use "faith". If it sounds plausible, has no flaws, follows with reason what we already know and is not "mysterious" in the fact you cannot provide evidence either way (ie God) then I will give it credibility based on those factors.

Ok, Lets assume the universe is random. This means it does not have a purpose, it has no pattern and unless you can come up with another definition of random it means there would be NO order in the universe.

What makes SOME things deterministic and others random? (I wont use statistical because I disagree that makes it random at all as even statistics defines the deterministic boundaries of the object of their focus)

We keep talking about quantum probability and burrowing... yet it has never occured and nobody has ever seen it... in a universe as large as ours it could be said that a single event has never occured and possibly will never occur within this universes lifetime... Do you still then say "its possible"? How do you KNOW its possible if it has never and will never occur?

We know from the universe we have that the evidence shows items of order when multiplied generate chaos... but a multitude of chaotic items when combined do NOT form order... yet we see order in our universe everwhere.

Let us assume for the moment that a GUT exists. When there was one force the universe in whatever form it was functioned perfectly. Now if its existance was only as the result of the collapsing of the previous universe then it broke into the 4 forces and they began to interact with each other... As the interactions continued across billions upon billions of particles the collective effect was chaos.

To me this makes far much more sense than "The universe is random.. you can't see it, you can't touch it, you cannot even identify it... you see it by the abscence of its opposite and to quantify it is to mean it isn't what you thought it was in the first place".

That sounds like "God" Talk to me ;)

The reason macroscopic order comes from quantum randomness is that the processes follow statistical laws. This has been explained several times I'm sure. It's like the 3D bell-shaped surface representing a probability distribution, remember that?

Roll a dice once, you get a result. The chances of getting any result is 1/6, in practice there is no way of predicting the result, or for instance what proportion of rolls will be ones. So you might call it chaotic. Throw that dice a million times and you can predict to a high degree of accuracy how many ones will be rolled. Microscopically it's chaos, but macroscopically it's order. A universe with quantum randomness then is almost certainly ordered at a larger scale.

I thought that an example of electron tunneling had been observed/detected/whatever - is this wrong? It's something I heard by word-of-mouth some years ago so I may well be.

To be honest I think you give the evidence presented (not by me) too little credit. I think it's sensible to be conservative about such a new concept and ask a few questions of it, but you have fought quite hard against the very idea of it. It surprises me. To me, QR does sound plausible, I don't enough about it to know if it has any flaws, seems to follow with some reason given the concepts involved, and has some strong evidence for it. Doesn't that give it more credibility than "The universe is random.. you can't see it, you can't touch it, you cannot even identify it... you see it by the abscence of its opposite and to quantify it is to mean it isn't what you thought it was in the first place" ?

Harry

Quote:

---

Microscopically it's chaos, but macroscopically it's order

---

But Microscopically it is NOT chaos... That is the whole point.

We *could* show completely and deterministically every single factor that goes into the roll... *IF* we had the knowledge and capability. The fact we cannot determine torque, spin, weight distribution, effects of gravity and magnetic shift, absorption of the striking surface etc , etc is the only thing that makes us THINK its chaotic.

Imagine if I dropped a die from 0.05 cm away from the surface it was landing on and that this surface was highly absorbative. If the number on the top of the die was 6 then I could almost gaurantee the result would be 6 every time...

have I suddenly made it deterministic??? Of course not, I have just reduced the number of factors that go into deciding the result.

Quote:

---

I thought that an example of electron tunneling had been observed/detected/whatever - is this wrong?

---

They observed it happening with a few electrons. I don't think the thing moved more than a billionth of an inch. To then say its possible for an electron to tunnel from here to China simply because it can move 3x the width of itself is a bit far fetched and stretches the boundary of what is reasonable.

Quote:

---

To me, QR does sound plausible

---

What is it about it that makes it plausible? That even though only 4 forces exist there "appears" to be something extra that allows something to interact in ways BEYOND those 4 forces?

If you can state what makes it sound plausible I might be included to give it more credibility. So far the only plausibility given is that because they cannot find a pattern it makes it random!!!

Which funny enough is the exact same argument Christians use by saying that because we cannot prove god is NOT there, it means they are right in saying he is. We cannot prove randomness is NOT there... so does that mean it is?

If this is going to change to a discussion about randomness then let's not keep on about religion in it. For that reason I will not comment on the subject further.

Quote:

---

But Microscopically it is NOT chaos... That is the whole point.

---

Quote:

---

That even though only 4 forces exist there "appears" to be something extra that allows something to interact in ways BEYOND those 4 forces?

---

You keep coming back to this, assuming everything's deterministic. You can't do this if you're looking for something wrong with randomness, it will prove nothing.

Thankyou for the information about electron tunneling. Any idea when it was observed? It's a remarkable observation, how would you explain it without QR? It's remarkable that it tunneled at all, let alone to China.

What makes it seem plausible? Well it doesn't have any errors that I can see, and it seems like a believable explanation for some common phenomena. I don't dispute the possibility that the universe is predetermined as you are preaching, but QR seems like a better explanation, and has a lot of support from many many people who know more about it than I will ever know. I'm not just going with consensus though, it seems like a sensible theory.

Harry

Quote:

---

You can't do this if you're looking for something wrong with randomness, it will prove nothing

---

And what if that IS what is wrong with randomness? If you try to validate something and every time you try it reverts to the opposite doesn't that say something?

For example. I believe that if I hit an apple with a hammer it will be turned into apple sauce ;)

So now I try to prove it wont... Smash one with a hammer. SPLAT. Try it again.. SPLAT. Am I ever going to find out anything other than what I expected when that thing I expected is the most logical answer?

Every time I try to prove by contradiction the holes keep coming up and I keep repeating them... nobody can explain why they are not holes yet they still maintain that the universe is random. Does that make sense to you? That even though holes are pointed out and no answers given (besides the occasional "well what if") that you can still hold it to be true?

Quote:

---

It's a remarkable observation, how would you explain it without QR? It's remarkable that it tunneled at all, let alone to China

---

Why is it remarkable at all??? You could say its remarkable that 6 electrons that inhabit the outer shell of an oxygen atom change so that they are shared with the 2 electrons of 2 hydrogen atoms such that they form a specific shape where all electrons co-exist simultaneously in this highly structured pattern.... but again it isn't.

We have only looked at the quantum world for a short time in comparison to the rest of science... to wonder at anything it does is simply a lack of understanding.

People couldn't work out how it was possible for an electron to exist simultaneously in multiple places at once on a given atom... thinking it like a satelite that "orbited" instead. Now try to image that electron having a nearly infinitessimally small mass (if you can call it that) and having to only travel the tiniest distance (around a nucleus) and that it is doing this at the speed of light.

Now try and tell me that with those conditions it doesn't simultaneously exist in multiple places at once... its quite obvious really.

Quote:

---

Well it doesn't have any errors that I can see

---

I would say you are ignoring the errors already pointed out.

- No pattern does not mean it doesn't exist

- If randomness is an entity then what is it? what causes it? (So far there is NOTHING in our universe that does not have a cause... why suddenly does this?)

- Statistical entities are not random. You completely overlooked my example of the dice... Is this not evidence of you purposely ignoring errors???

Quote:

---

and it seems like a believable explanation for some common phenomena

---

And isn't that because you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of? Because you assume the universe is random to start with it is believable because it fits with what you already believe.

Now you said I am doing that... and to some extent I am... but I once thought it was random and evidence changed my mind. So that means while you currently seem unable to put your belief aside long enough to see the truth, I have done so already. Does that mean I am right? Nope... but it means I am capable of thinking differently to what I believe.

Quote:

---

but QR seems like a better explanation

---

In other words it FITS your belief.

That isn't evidence and it certainly isn't plausibility.

A Christian believes there is a God and so everything that happens and everything that is considered Plausible stems from this belief. If evidence can be used in such a way that supports that belief then they give it credibility.

Can't you see that?

Quote:

---

has a lot of support from many many people who know more about it than I will ever know

---

A billion people once thought the earth was flat... To agree with someone simply because the masses do is the WORST possible credibility for something... the ABSOLUTE WORST.


I struggle with understanding how you consider it "sensible" that there exists a force/influence or whatever you want to call it... that makes things obey outside of the laws that govern them and yet for all but a very small few concepts (Radioactive Decay etc) this occurs and that this is perfectly "sensible".

There isn't any sense in that as far as I can see.

And the thing you cannot dispute (that I wish you would stop ignoring for once) is that the LACK of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Simply because they cannot find a pattern to RadioActive Decay does NOT make it random.

Why you overlook this time and time again I can only fathom is the same reason why you would accept the existance of a God even without evidence.... because you seem to have this ability to accept the existance of something simply because they cannot prove otherwise.

It fits so perfectly its funny.

I am seriously beginning to wonder where this discussion is going. You KEEP coming back to a completely anal method of logic whereby you try to prove ¬random by first assuming ¬random. When are you going to wake up and see that you CANNOT prove any of your points when you make this assumption?!?!?

Look at your list of so-called 'evidence':

Quote:

---

- No pattern does not mean it doesn't exist

- If randomness is an entity then what is it? what causes it? (So far there is NOTHING in our universe that does not have a cause... why suddenly does this?)

- Statistical entities are not random. You completely overlooked my example of the dice... Is this not evidence of you purposely ignoring errors???

---

No pattern - we have been over this and it is my opinion that it can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty (certain enough for me to consider it true until someone proves otherwise) that a process is random ie. has no pattern.

Cause of randomness - You are AGAIN assuming that everything is predetermined, this is a useless point.

Dice rolls - I didn't exactly ignore your dice example I just said that you had made an error in the assumptions you based your logic on. I was trying to do you a favour by saying no more about it.

So where is your evidence? Is that it? Am I supposed to totally disregard what seems to me a perfectly plausible idea on the basis of those 3 useless bulletpoints?

Quote:

---

I struggle with understanding how you consider it "sensible" that there exists a force/influence or whatever you want to call it... that makes things obey outside of the laws that govern them and yet for all but a very small few concepts (Radioactive Decay etc) this occurs and that this is perfectly "sensible".

There isn't any sense in that as far as I can see

---

You're right there's absolutely no sense in what you said tehre because you have, once again, assumed that nothing is random in your quest to prove nothing is random. Well done! ¬Random => ¬Random, what a revelation, here have a Nobel Prize. Yes that's sarcasm and before you start whining about it you're no better.

Show me the holes and I will either concede that randomness is a stupid idea - and I will if you can provide some useful evidence against it - or tell you why I think they are not holes, or tell you that I don't understand the subject matter well enough to make a judgement on it.

Quote:

---

And isn't that because you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of? Because you assume the universe is random to start with it is believable because it fits with what you already believe

---

When I assume it's random I find no contradiction, so I cannot say it is wrong. When I assume it's predetermined there are some cases like radioactive decay that on the surface (yes on the surface because if it's a predeterminate process then we don't understand how, and all I can work with is what we know, not what-ifs) appear to contradict the idea of predeterminism.

Quote:

---

Now you said I am doing that... and to some extent I am... but I once thought it was random and evidence changed my mind. So that means while you currently seem unable to put your belief aside long enough to see the truth, I have done so already. Does that mean I am right? Nope... but it means I am capable of thinking differently to what I believe

---

Well in actual fact I made the exact opposite U-turn - before the subject of QR came up on this forum I believed that the universe was fundamentally predetermined, and that's what I told several people at the time, including I remember dvst8 (who we haven't seen around here in ages) who sounded sceptical about it. When the people who had researched QR such as Guv and Sam started posting on the topic I thought that what they said made a lot of sense, so I changed my view. This is not a matter of me trying to stick to my beliefs, it's nothing to do with that. It's a question of what do I see as more likely, and I say it's quantum randomness.

Quote:

---

Simply because they cannot find a pattern to RadioActive Decay does NOT make it random.

Why you overlook this time and time again I can only fathom is the same reason why you would accept the existance of a God even without evidence.... because you seem to have this ability to accept the existance of something simply because they cannot prove otherwise.

---

That foot of yours must be shot up pretty good now huh? I have always said that it's not a case of not finding a pattern it's a case of proving that there isn't one. I accept the possibility of error in the method used to prove this but I think it's more likely that the method works and it is actually random.

As a final point, will you PLEASE give up on the religion! This is no longer a religious discussion! Your religious analogies do nothing for your arguments, they only emphasise areas of hypocrisy and blindness in you that make up your bitter determination not to have your belief in a predetermined universe shaken. I am open to ideas! If a predetermined universe seems like a more likely situation at any point then I will reassess my beliefs. This is what you have always said you do, and I have a lot of respect for that aspect of your reasoning, but you don't seem to be practicing what you preach.

Quote:

---

No pattern - we have been over this and it is my opinion that it can be proven to a reasonable degree of certainty (certain enough for me to consider it true until someone proves otherwise) that a process is random ie. has no pattern.

---

Then prove it. If you said there is a reasonable degree in being able to do so... then prove it.

Quote:

---

Cause of randomness - You are AGAIN assuming that everything is predetermined, this is a useless point.

---

No I'm not. but just for you...

Lets say everything IS random. What makes it random then?

The fact that a die result shows an even distribution and a result of 2 6-sided die a Bell distribution shows order and lots of it. Even statistically speaking "Random" is when there is EQUAL possibility of every outcome.

Roll 2 6-sides dice and tell me the "Probability" of getting 5? It certainly isn't the same as 2.

Quote:

---

Dice rolls - I didn't exactly ignore your dice example I just said that you had made an error in the assumptions you based your logic on. I was trying to do you a favour by saying no more about it.

---

Yet you avoid the basis of it. You said a die was random, so I took a die and proved that I could only get a result of 6 making it deterministic.

I could then prove that the more factors I allow into the equation the more "random" it becomes.

If that is not proof of the fact that "Random" is the result of many deterministic factors I don't know what is...

Now who is STUCK with a flaw in their assumptions that the universe is Random to start with????

Quote:

---

So where is your evidence? Is that it? Am I supposed to totally disregard what seems to me a perfectly plausible idea on the basis of those 3 useless bulletpoints?

---

Your not "supposed" to do anything... You CHOOSE to continue to assume the world is random and ignore the evidence because of that fact.

Now you say I am doing the same... Your right... I certainly can be. In that case BOTH of us believe the answer simply because that is what we have chosen to believe.

Where does that leave us then?

The fact that a subject can generate such diversity shows that we haven't reached the conclusion of it... nobody argues on whether the earth is a sphere anymore which proves it has reached its final fruition.

Quote:

---

Show me the holes and I will either concede that randomness is a stupid idea

---

I already have but you keep assuming everything is random and prove random so Well done to you too. Random => Random.

Or are you going to try and tell me otherwise?

Show me proof that you are NOT using Random => Random

Quote:

---

When I assume it's random I find no contradiction

---

)(&^#^$&$^(@*^$(*&@#^%*&($^%(*&@#$@#$

You arrogant son of a motherless pig-farter!!!!

You ***** and whine about me assuming determinism and then you pull out this!!!!!

I do EXACTLY what you are doing here yet you condemn me for it and yet allow yourself the same thing...

Hypocritical Knee-Jerker!!!

If you are not even going to be fair about it then there is no point even discussing it... And your friends said I was a w**ker... Perhaps a mirror is in order pal

Quote:

---

I have always said that it's not a case of not finding a pattern it's a case of proving that there isn't one

---

For the love of EVERYTHING!!!! How can you PROVE something doesn't have a pattern when we don't know ALL the patterns that exist????

Thats like proving there isn't a pattern in the molecular weights of atoms before we discovered the Neutron... They said there wasn't a pattern because it failed in a few cases. They did all this maths to prove it wrong but suddenly someone discovered the Neutron and when plugging it into the equations it worked perfectly.

Explain to me why this situation is any different?

Are you this blindinly THICK and STUPID that you would accept proof of something when we haven't even collected all the possible data we can????

Quote:

---

I am open to ideas!

---

If you believe that then I have to wonder what planet you are on?

Its like I have to talk as if I am talking to a child to explain it to you but you keep on over looking the obvious.

Go to my post with the list of random numbers... tell me whether its random or not, you could put all the analysers in the universe on those numbers and I gaurantee the result would indicate they are random.

Why? Because nobody has the information that determines what their PATTERN is.

Perhaps there was a temporary glitch in my system, perhaps there was a temporary glitch in this site.

The last time I looked at this Thread, it seemed messed up. All the lines were extremely long.

I started a new thread about the universe not being deterministic, which avoids using the term "random." For some reason "random" causes the most incredible quibbling and all sorts of misunderstandings.

I often wonder about the attention span of some of you folks. I often see nonsequitors and arguments which seem to ignore critical issues clearly stated in previous posts.