Is everything decided by luck?

yup

nobody knows, its 50/50>>8234884

If randomness truly exist in our universe, there should be external things that mess with the amount of matter and energy our the universe.
Because if our universe it's a "closed" system, everything can be predicted if you have all the variables.

>>8234904
>Because if our universe it's a "closed" system, everything can be predicted if you have all the variables.
Except that you can't have all the variables.
And even if you could, "Laplace's demon" just isn't compatible with the universe as we know it to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon
> Laplace's demon met its end with early 19th century developments of the concepts of irreversibility, entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics.
>In other words, Laplace's demon was based on the premise of reversibility and classical mechanics; however, Ulanowicz points out that
>many thermodynamic processes are irreversible, so that if thermodynamic quantities are taken to be purely physical then no such demon is possible
>as one could not reconstruct past positions and momenta from the current state.

"Early 19thy century".
Get with the program, Anon.

>>8234884
literally nothing is decided by luck

Idiot here. Isn't luck just a matter of understanding? A dice roll is seen as luck because obviously I can't consider all the variables and control my hand in a way that makes the dice roll the numbers I want. But a robot fed the right data could.

Can we even truly know if something is truly random or not? Like I remember some kind of quantum physics thing was truly random? Can we really know if we just don't fully understand it?

>>8234911
>"Early 19thy century".
>Get with the program, Anon.

dude i use a pentium 4 and didn't finish the highschool (in central america).

also i appreciate it so much, thanks for showing me that.
i learned a new thing today.

>>8234916
see >>8234911

>>8234922
>Like I remember some kind of quantum physics thing was truly random?

I think it's Schrodinger stuff.
One "thing" can be in 2 quantum states at the same time, until you look at the thing.
When you look at the thing it could be in only 1 of those 2 states.

>>8234926
>see post that is agreement with your statement
Well, thanks, I guess

>>8235423
Off by one, my fellow.

>>8234884
for you

>>8234884
>luck

Doesn't exist. The human mind just can't acquire nor comprehend all variables involved in the most complex system in existence.

>>8234933
Unless that thing is at a very specific point where it can be in 4 states at once whilst being observed.
These states are named: Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona.

>>8234884
Everything was decided by luck once, a long time ago