*Shakes his head in dismay*

*Sigh*

I don't know if there's any hope for you Gen-X. You are just going back on things that have been said before and you're getting nowhere.


You know I haven't got the necessary knowledge to prove whether a process is random. I think that it is reasonable that it is possible as I said. I don't need to prove everything before I place some belief in it - I don't do a structural check before I get on a plane, I don't go and do my own meteorological studies to check up on the weatherman's predictions, I don't study the tensile strength of the steel cables holding up an elevator before I use it, but I place some belief in the prospect of them all being totally sound (except the weather).

Lets say everything IS random. What makes it random then?
The very fact that you are asking this shows clearly that you don't understand this subject. What do you mean 'what makes it random'? It's a fundamental ASSUMPTION that it's random, YOU CANNOT BLEEDING WELL ASK WHAT MAKES SOMETHING RANDOM WHEN YOU ARE ASSUMING IT'S RANDOM IN THE FIRST PLACE! And if you're not assuming it's random then what are you trying to prove? You certainly can't prove it's not random.

I think your definition of random is dodgy, random means 'no specific pattern' or at least it does in this case. The probablilities of different outcomes need not be equal.

You said a die was random
No I didn't, I said there was no practical way of predicting it's result when it's rolled. I was assuming that it was random for the purpose of this example. You're not very good with this logic malarkey are you? You keep trying to prove things you've already assumed and you keep missing the assumptions.

Incidentally, in the case you described (where the dice isn't actually rolled at all), under the QR theory it would be ordered at a macroscopics scale, which is the scale you are working on. It does nothing to even hint at a fault in QR.

You CHOOSE to continue to assume the world is random and ignore the evidence because of that fact.
Forgive my frankness but judging from your best efforts there is no evidence, only bullsh** and misunderstanding of the way to construct a proof.

you keep assuming everything is random and prove random so Well done to you too. Random => Random.
I haven't proved anything and if you were aware of anything to do with proofs you would have noticed. I have assumed QR=True and have found no contradictions. This is not proof in any way. The point of this thread (now at least) seems to be for you to try and disprove QR, and in order to do that we MUST first assume QR=True. To do anything else would be just plain stupid and a waste of time. You're always going on about no proof only disproof, and to do that you need a contradiction, and to get contradiction you need to first ASSUME that which is to be disproven.

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?
Essentially it's not. There was a hypothesis that the universe is predetermined and there were some problems, the theory didn't quite fit. So an alternative hypothesis, quantum randomness, is now offered which doesn't give the previous anomalies. That's not to say anomalies won't show up in the future of course. For the moment we go with the most accurate model we have. You guessed it, quantum randomness.

Before we continue this entirely pointless argument, because it has evidently now stopped being a discussion, pause for a moment to consider whether what you're saying actually makes any sense please. Also, try not to cover every single point that has been covered previously but hasn't been mentioned for a little while. It gets very tedious reading the same previously-refuted 'evidence' over and over again. You just seem to view it as people ignoring your 'evidence' but in actual fact it's been seen for the crap that it is It was reasonable to bring it up the first time but once was enough. Please stop wasting everyone's time with it. Thank you.