One of the first things one learns about computers is that, irritatingly, they can’t generate truly random numbers, but can, based on a seed number, generate a series of numbers that satisfies what randomness would look like.
These are called “pseudorandom numbers.”
But isn’t randomness just a way of describing the behavior of things we don’t understand? the causality at work?
And then, if we did understand the underlying causality, wouldn’t the randomness simply disappear?
I conclude that there’s no such thing as randomness. Randomness isn’t real.
This topic was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by Unseen.
But isn’t randomness just a way of describing the behavior of things we don’t understand?
They say quantum level probabilities are purely random, but I’d like for them to find something non-random underneath someday in order to be able to explain it. So yeah, maybe we just don’t understand that yet.
Also, one could, in theory, trace back the paths of every particle known if one wanted to explain one path and velocity that seems at first to be totally random, but such a calculation could require longer than the age of the universe to determine, so is there not some practical point at which we can be allowed to just say “screw it, it’s random”?