Random Numbers and "Chaos Theory"

[Churchwork]

We can't create randomness. Computer models can't generate random numbers. It is always deterministic. The generator produces a pseudo-random number. If you are professional and know it is not a real random number then it can be predicted. There is therefore no such thing as chance.

"The lot is cast into the law, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prob. 16.33).

Albert Einstein said the same thing, "God does not play dice."

Do you know why God does not play dice? (If He did, He'd win.)

[DD_8630]

We can't create randomness. Computer models can't generate random numbers. It is always deterministic. The generator produces a pseudo-random number. If you are professional and know it is not a real random number then it can be predicted. There is therefore no such thing as chance.

Quantum mechanics would beg to differ.

[Churchwork]

Not at all. Overassuming is the problem.

[DD_8630]

Not at all.

Have a look at Einstein's photoelectric effect. Electrons are emmitted even though their energy level is below their binding energy.

Overassuming is the problem.

What does quantum mechanics 'overassume'?

[Churchwork]

Quantum mechanics doesn't overassume anything.

[DD_8630]

Quantum mechanics would beg to differ.

Not at all. Overassuming is the problem.

What does quantum mechanics 'overassume'?

Quantum mechanics doesn't overassume anything.

You appear to contradict yourself. Does, or does not, quantum mechanics disagree with your conclusion that truely random systems do not exist?

[Churchwork]

There is no contradiction. There is no true random system. Everything is deterministic. Free-choice is deterministic by God, but not by us.

An example could help you here. If you shuffle a deck of cards, the reason a certain card comes out first is because of the shuffle. It was not random.

Praise the Lord!

[DD_8630]

There is no contradiction. There is no true random system. Everything is deterministic.

As I said, quantum mechanics begs to differ. Radioactive particles, for instance, are truely random in their decay time.

An example could help you here. If you shuffle a deck of cards, the reason a certain card comes out first is because of the shuffle. It was not random.

No. This assumes the universe runs classically (i.e., according to Classical Mechanics). Einstein's photoelectric effect refutes this. Try again.

[Churchwork]

As I said, quantum mechanics does not agree with you; nothing in quantum mechanics says something happens all by itself or that anything is random. This is merely your mistaken assumption.

Einstein's photoelectric effect does not refute this. Again, you misread something.

[DD_8630]

As I said, quantum mechanics does not agree with you; nothing in quantum mechanics says something happens all by itself or that anything is random. This is merely your mistaken assumption.

On the contrary, this is one of the founding features of quantum mechanics. As a theoretical phyicist, I have had extensive training and experiance in quantum mechanics. While some areas are exceedingly difficult, we are simply talking of the basic posits of quantum mechanics, and this spontaneity is a direct result of them.

Indeed, I would like to see your explanation of radioactive decay that doesn't involve such spontaneity.

Einstein's photoelectric effect does not refute this.

My point was that the effect disproves classical mechanics. Nevertheless, the explanation for the effect requires the same probabilistic spontaneity.