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.

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.