True Randomness

Who says it emerged randomly?

>>8372822
Lawrence Krauss

>>8372817
Well it's not like randomness is prohibitive of any specific pattern.

>>8372817

we can't even comprehend true randomness

>>8372826
Yes it is. By definition.

>>8372834
not if the pattern arises randomly

>>8372836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Read the first line.

the probability of a functioning recursive system emerging from random arrangement decreases exponentially as the complexity of the system increases
that being said, arbitrarily high numbers are still trumped by infinity, so basically you can feel safe being an atheist so long as you believe in either the multiverse, an infinitely large universe, or an infinitely old universe

>>8372842
Patterns are in the eye of the beholder.

>>8372817
Nothing is random in real life and there's no such thing as chaos. There's also no such thing as god either.

>>8372864
>Nothing is random in real life

What is quantum physics

>>8372864
do tell
is schrodinger's cat alive or dead?

>>8372842
That's not TRUE randomness. If you keep reading, you will find that that is pseudorandomness.

>>8372864
>there's no such thing as chaos
That's what Einstein wanted to believe. For a while, all we had to go on was QM to try and counter his belief. But now we have actual, experimental evidence (courtesy of the LHC) that suggests he was probably wrong.

>>8372827
As mathematical apes, how could we possibly "comprehend" randomness?

All my life, I have been trying to find the most important, the most ordered "thing". Are you telling me I wasted my life?

>>8373078
I'm saying this is actually the most important thing, and that's what you were looking for.

>>8372817
I struggle with the concept of randomness as a matter of principle but the most plausible interpretations of QM involve genuine randomness so I'm a bit torn. Still, I try to be scientific and the evidence suggests randomness, so I'll assume its true until better evidence comes along

creation doesnt work like that especially with what we know about matter in general

>>8372817
not possible to a have a truly random outcome

>>8372817
>Encoding that with jpeg
Utterly moronic.

>>8372892
To be random, a system merely needs to be complex enough to not be worth solving.

How do we make distinction between true randomness and pseudo randomness that is complex enough to appear true?

>>8373771
>implying true randomness could ever exist
every system has initial parameters

>>8372817
>our ordered universe
L0Lno
Lrn2universe fgt pls

>>8373849
It can't exist in a closed system such as our universe, sure.

>>8372817
>Do you believe it is possible for our ordered universe to have randomly emerged from this crap?

Let's assume the whatever came before our universe operates on a similar timeline (i.e. infinity or as close to infinity as possible)

Now let's assume there's no thing in that 'whatever'.

If there's no thing, there's no universal laws. Nothing is related to anything else because nothing exists.

So given that there is nothing, no laws, and infinite time, I believe it's possible if not evidenced that out of nothing came something

You have no law that restricts nothing from becoming something and you have sufficient time (infinity or as close to) to enable this random event to occur

Yes.

The definition of true randomness is "something without causality". Something that just pops out, for absolutely no logical reason, in an illogical quantity and shape with no outside laws applied to it.

As you've probably already realized, every single bit of information in our Universe is physically impossible to be random because it has a logical cause - the Universe. If you were an omnipotent all-knowing being that can observe without interference, you'd be able to predict every single movement of every bit inside with a 100% accuracy.

However, the only thing that *supposedly* doesn't have a cause is the Universe itself, therefor, it is in fact truly random. It popped out of nothing for literally no reason, was not bound to any laws and contains arbitrary quantities. Everything ever since contains defined quantities, pops according to laws and has the Big Bang as the starting point of its event chain.

>>8372864
>There's also no such thing as god either.

What evidence do you have to make the statement "the universe has no creator" more likely than "the universe has a creator"

>>8373936
>closed system such as our universe
[citation needed]

>>8374128
Not that guy but the Universe cannot be an open system. If it was, then, by definition, the system next to it is also the Universe

>>8374119
QM and retrocausality effectively get rid of the "unmoved mover" issue.

That's not exactly "evidence" but it does seem to make it more likely that nothing came "before".