As it stands, you have provided what scientists define as random, which of course is a scientific opinion, not a fact of randomness. There is no such thing as an observation of randomness. There are observations, and then there is a projection of the concept, a human concept upon those natural happenings. Random is only a mental construct, a concept which is descriptive observed facts, not a fact itself. Scientific instruments and raw observation don't prove randomness, they only provide the events at points in a time line. It is the mental projection of random or order which is the human creation, a product of mind and thought, and as such it is not immutable. This has been proven over and over again by scientists, as they took observations, labeled and concluded them as random because they could not find a pattern, then later discovered that there was actually a deeper understanding of the relationship of the events which destroyed their belief that the events were random. There is no "force of random." There is only what naturally happens to be observed, and man's ability or inability to understand the deepest patterns and programming of nature as he moves to deeper and deeper levels. At every new level he claims "Eureka! Now I know!" only to be made a fool by those who go even deeper into the reality than he could imagine.
I have responded to your "proof" of randomness. It is not a proof of causation, it is just a concept projected onto natural behavior which is conclusive and conceptual in its scope and purpose, not factual in nature. If you want to say it is an inference, fine. But an inference is not a fact, it is an opinion formed in the mind, not observed by the senses. Those inferences are often invalidated as observation deepens.
The introduction of how clueless scientists are about the nature of a thought is illustrative of how limited our scientific understanding is, and how limited one field of study is. Physics is limited completely to the physical phenomena, as it depends upon physical measurements. Since we all know life is more than physical, i.e. our thoughts are not physical, then it is unreasonable to exclude these other areas of existence when trying to grasp the workings of the universe. It simply cannot be known, as we cannot even measure the properties of a human thought physically, yet human thought is the foundation of all of our understanding of the physical world. To claim one has an understanding of the physical world, yet has no clue of how their mind can even reach that situation, or exclude the concept that the physical world is a product of thought of a creator is creating rules of a game solely for the purpose of being able to win the silly game. Such games are not searches for truth, as they exclude the very important field upon which all these games are constructed, the mental field of play.
You will discuss thought after I have "proved" the uncertainty principle false.
No offense, but that sounds a wee bit childish. I doubt the Einstein would have been so stubborn...
You have embraced a concept that cannot be falsified, which of course is only possible by application of thought, by the use of something non physical...and you don't want to discuss the very tools, i.e. the mental field and the nature of thoughts and concepts.
Okay.
I see that like someone who doesn't want to discuss math, who uses math in order to arrive at their proofs.
Oh, and before the universe appeared, did the principles of mathematics exist?
There's a question I am confident will not be answered, as even though it is essential to have an understanding of the origin of math if anyone is to broach the subject of creation of the universe, the fact that math is not physical...no one can measure the physical properties of a numeric value, we all know that the physical world is somehow intimately related to mathematical concepts.
However, if someone is content to begin and end their world view with the physical measurements of the physical senses alone, then what can be done?
It is like that trash-bag in the wind. The bag is both inflated by and then contains within it the power of the wind, the wind gives it shape but the shape is also defined by the physical limits of the trash-bag, and what is within the confines of the trash-bag can be known and examined from withing the trash-bag...but what is outside of the trash-bag cannot be known while living only inside the narrow boundaries of the trash-bag. Assumptions are made, theories are generated, a sense of comfort and control and provided to those who are locked into the confines and borders of the trash bag.
Then what happens is science advances, knowledge deepens, and that shreds the trash-bag so that the wind keeps on blowing as before, and the concepts and ideas are blown away...
Quote from kjkent1:
So, let's see. As it stands, I've provided scientific proof of randomness, and you've provided an argument from incredulity.
And, now, as a diversion, you want me to discuss "thought," since you can't respond to my proof of randomness with anything other than nonsensical ravings.
I'll be happy to discuss "thought" scientifically, right after you prove the uncertainty principle false. You started this particular argument, so let's see you put your money where you mouth is.
