the magic behind randomness

NuclearVision wroteOh and john what do you think about what dna said? He put a proof that randomness exists, although it is untracable.

I am not convinced, yet I do agree that he has a point on the recreation on the world.

If you're going to create our world in a smaller prototype, and start off with the very same seed with what our current universe has started, you're going to end up the same place doing the same thing, our historical figures will still do the same mistakes, they will still exist, everything will happen the way it is happening right now.

My opinion on reality is that it's all going through a hole loop, nothing is actually "real" - and saying that our capability of recreating the Big Bang at a smaller scale proves that randomness doesn't exist at all.

I highly disagree with this though:

so when you are generating random numbers from radioactive decay you really use each variable once! its really Pure randomness.

Whatever is causing the radioactivity in such components is following a certain path, that can be extremely complex that humans cannot calculate it all at once, there's a certain physic behind it that is causing it to do that amount of the so called "decay".

Remember that everything we have discovered so far is "random" for us, but once we know how it actually "works", we'll be able to preset a calculus for it and explain it piece by piece... People in the past thought the winds' direction was random, the time it rains, it shines, or when there's a rainbow... But when time passes, our specie has discovered how all of them actually work, destroying the randomness of their existence.

EDIT: Might want to look in this wiki article.

NuclearVision wroteCould you answer the main question? Whats behind this randomness ? Who or what decided it?
Who decides when an atom decays? Who put the natural randomness of quantum aspects/ processes?

these questions cant have definitive answers this subject is very complicated and as i mentioned earlier is not that we technologically not advanced to know the answers its the fact that the uncertainty in a quantum system and its tendency to change state under any observation influence prevents us from being able to measure some of its properties, but it is known that the process is uncertain from multiple studies an observations.

who decides when an atom will decay? well in a simple way,we know the nucleons inside the atom are held together with the nuclear force which is strong enough to account for some mass in the atom(E=mc2 in a nutshell), so how would for example an alpha particle escape with this strong force acting like a barrier, well this alpha particle is thought of to be as a wave and its position can be anywhere in this wave its making and when this wave hits the barrier some of this wave will make it through although a very small part, but the alpha particle happens to be in this small part of the wave that passed the barrier so the alpha particle basically tunneled through the barrier without even interacting with it and it then will be expelled out due to energy from electromagnetic force, i don't think anyone will ever know when will the wave pass or when will an alpha particles happens to be there, never ever

Johnaudi wroteIf you're going to create our world in a smaller prototype, and start off with the very same seed with what our current universe has started, you're going to end up the same place doing the same thing, our historical figures will still do the same mistakes, they will still exist, everything will happen the way it is happening right now.

you are looking into it using classical simple theories, that was proved to be different than that around a century ago and your not taking into consideration any of the uncertainty aspects of the universe.

Johnaudi wroteI highly disagree with this though:
so when you are generating random numbers from radioactive decay you really use each variable once! its really Pure randomness.
Whatever is causing the radioactivity in such components is following a certain path, that can be extremely complex that humans cannot calculate it all at once, there's a certain physic behind it that is causing it to do that amount of the so called "decay".
Remember that everything we have discovered so far is "random" for us, but once we know how it actually "works", we'll be able to preset a calculus for it and explain it piece by piece... People in the past thought the winds' direction was random, the time it rains, it shines, or when there's a rainbow... But when time passes, our specie has discovered how all of them actually work, destroying the randomness of their existence.

i know how are you thinking of it, yes you are right only on the macro scale where physics can explain everything. but man i said it now about 5 times we not knowing the secrets in any quantum system is not because we lack the technology or knowledge to it! maybe we will make some discoveries about the quantum mechanics in the future but in my opinion there will never be any Certain laws of some aspects of quantum mechanics not now not in thousand years, until then i am sure that will will be using quantum mechanics everywhere may even teleport using some of its phenomena all that without even fully understanding it.
since1900's we haven't figured out anything significant about quantum mechanics more that they did back then, we only proved some of their theories possible.

the article you linked me to is a theory that was long debated about but was proven to be wrong and impossible Einstein was a major player in it but he was shitted on by his own quantum mechanics field that he discovered from previous work. although Einstein was super genius he couldn't comprehend that its possible for such "Magic" in quantum mechanics yet he was wrong, and i agree that Einstein was wrong about it.

back to the stubborn uranium atom you know two atoms of the same elements are exactly exactly exactly the same (its copy-paste as we say), then can you explain to me how they emit alpha particle at different time and we are not talking about difference in microseconds, seconds, or even days we are talking of a difference millions upon millions of years sometimes keep in mind that to eliminate any external energy both atoms are in complete vaccum no nothing around them.
can you think of how would it be possible???do u think we can discover an equation that will give out a certain time on when an atom will decay in total vaccum? don't you think this equation is impossible since every atom is the same? do u believe that we can create an equation similar to y=x+x will sometimes be 2x and sometimes x^10?
if you have any idea about how the so called decay that you made fun off(weirdly) could work other than that then i would hear it from you?
and to make it even harder to have any certain form or be calculable, If you are to observe that same Uranium atom during the study you are making do you know that it will have the tendency to never decay anymore??? just by looking at it it will cease from decaying. never mind that's another complicated topic.

tt400 wroteAlthough I wonder how this would hold up in a determined universe? So if we assume a creator exists, then perhaps even radioactive decay is not random at all, but merely an extension of the act of creation?
Further, if we assume the Big Bang is that creator, then that begs the question again. Were it not for Big Bang, would there be radioactive decay? So then again, is radioactive decay then truly random?

if it is not for the Big Bang we will have nothing, but it was the conditions INSIDE the Big bang that created everything, the big bang isn't one explosion the big bang is a process, anyway what i am trying to say is that the physics and quantum mechanics and all other forces was there from the 1st moment and in my opinion they are what shaped the Big Bang to the way it did that means it isn't inherited but its always there. so yea the process was there and not created.
btw the first radioactive atom wasn't created till after couple billion years after big bang.

these topics can't be discussed by writing i am getting tired and i am sure you are too from these long posts, am not gonna do it again promise lol.

NuclearVision wrote@tt400 why is randomness creator-bound? The creator could create randomness, i assume.

Perhaps a creator could, but would something then truly be random? Let's examine the precise definition of "random." When something is random, it's inexplicable, correct? We can't know how or why it came about because then we would be able to predict it, and anything you predict isn't random. In hindsight, we may point to x, y, and z and say these variables led up to the random result, but we wouldn't be able to say they explain the result. So in the case of radioactive decay, we understand the process and mechanics, but we cannot connect that understanding to the ultimate result of when an atom will decay. We may know how or why it decays, but in the end, we can't know how or why it decayed at time t.

If we throw a creator into the mix with the property of conscious creation, then the fundamental phenomena of randomness itself is inherently determined. No matter how inexplicable a final result is, that result never would have surfaced had the creator not created it or the conditions that preceded it. You could argue that the creator only creates the conditions and not the result, but this is simply indirect creation of the result. If the creator creates x and x leads to y (where y is a random result), x leading to y is a property or result of x, and x leading to y or y could never have happened were it not for x. Even if the properties or relations of x were unintended or even unknowable, they were still created along with x or as a result of x. If x was not created, by definition they (x leading to y or y) would not exist. In this way, the creator also created x leading to y and ultimately y.

DNA wroteanyway what i am trying to say is that the physics and quantum mechanics and all other forces was there from the 1st moment and in my opinion they are what shaped the Big Bang to the way it did that means it isn't inherited but its always there. so yea the process was there and not created.

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. The Big Bang happened over a period of time with properties being exhibited at different moments. Of course certain mechanics existed at the exact moment of the start of the Big Bang else nothing would have happened, but to argue that ALL properties existed is not entirely accurate, I think.

And there is no chance there are variables in quantum physics that won't know or understand yet that can affect if a radioactive particle will decay in 10 billion years or 100 billion years or not decay at all?

And I respect that I know less than many about quantum physics but the idea of irrationality and pure randomness is just weird to me.

@tt400 thanks bro, you have shown that too :)

@NuclearVision it would be much better if you spend your time investigating and learning about the rational part of reality, than to start thinking about the irrational part cause it won't be easy to understand by a human brain which is used to relate everything to a physical process, you started the thread arguing that randomness isn't random at all because your brain refuses the idea that irrational stuff exists, how come your saying that irrationality exists now, don't wonder about something that no one can give you other than speculations about,wonder about something you will reach a true understanding about after some time.

@hussam yes there are variables we haven't discovered yet, but discovering them wont change the fact about uncertainty, according to what our studies have shown uncertainty exists in this process (even if it was only measurement uncertainty it would still mean uncertain events for humans), there are lots of undiscovered things in the universe did we assume for once that everything is random no we didn't. my knowledge in this subject is not much more than you if you consider how complicated it is, man Einstein himself couldn't understand it, so its normal to sound weird for you or me Lmao,

anyway radioactive decay was mentioned as an example among others in my first post about random events but we ended up mainly talking about it. i just want to say that randomness isn't only at quantum level, all the examples mentioned previously have some form of randomness to it let it be uncertainty in when will decay happen or noise of certain electromagnetic event or true chaos like in a super sensitive roulette wheel or picking a certain ball out of hundreds of similar balls by a blind man.you need to accept the fact that all of them are random

yea i understand, but you were talking about the rational part of it, now you are asking about the irrational part, which is why i said so.

although some of what i said may have sounded irrational, but they are rational in reality, but arguing about something totally irrational is non sense as tt400 mentioned. Anyone could say anything and no one can argue about whether its true or not the whole argument will be irrelevant and doesn't make any sense or increase our understanding to the phenomena.