God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora Hmmm Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Mario Dovalina on July 9, 2002 17:17:20 UTC

***Can you explain why my numbers are random and your numbers are not?***

Because you can't just take the numbers as a reality in and of themselves, with no emphasis on the source. (and anyway, I would suggest that your source is not random either)

What you're doing is the equivalent of taking two points on a quadratic graph, and saying that they came from a straight line rather than a parabola because that fits the accumulated data as well. Sure, a straight line fits the data, but only if you don't take the original source of those two points into consideration. Kind of see what I'm saying? You have to look at the bigger picture.

***It's simple. If the future is already set then your concept of time becomes meaningless and you have no way to explain why you remember the past but not the future.***

Why? If you put a model racecar on a track, it has no choice but to follow it, but that doesn't mean the car itself knows where it's going.

***Think of randomness as a mathematical function f(x1, x2, ..., xn), x1...n being your set of inputs and the result of the function as the output.***

If true randomness exists, I would not expect it to be expressable as a mathematical function (since, as you said, there is a set output for any set of inputs.) The universe would then be, essentially based on irrational principles. I don't think this neccesarily defies any law of physics, but I am not sure.

Personally I don't think the universe is random, but if it's not, the only other alternative I see is a set, preordained one.