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.

[Churchwork]

There are no legitimate quantum mechanic scientists who claim something just happens all by itself.

All probabilities have causes. They don't just happen all by themselves. How silly.

[DD_8630]

There are no legitimate quantum mechanic scientists who claim something just happens all by itself.
Nonsense. Dirac, Feynman, Omnés, Mosca, etc, all accepted in their lifetimes the inherent instantaneous nature of probabilities.

There is no way to determine the position of an electron in an atom before you measure it, and indeed it exists in all possible positions before measurement. There is no causal relationship between the electron's measured position and anything in existance. Its position is, in the truest sense of the word, random.


All probabilities have causes. They don't just happen all by themselves. How silly.
No. So-called 'hidden variable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory)' theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics

[Churchwork]

They don't say probabilities happen all by themselves, for they don't deny a cause to that probability. In other words, just because we can't understand the root cause to many things because they are too small to the naked eye we don't shut our minds down and close up shop. We continue to investigate the reason. That is what scientists do. So it is wise you don't misrepresent others.

There is no such thing as randomness. It only appears random to the unknowing or one who lacks additional information. Don't think of it hidden variables, but rather, variables that God has not allowed man yet to see or possibly never to be able to see or understand. Whether local or non-local, the cause exists for trillions of things in nature have a cause, and we can't prove a single thing that is without a cause like the fairy tale of puff the magic dragon it happens all by itself. After all, there are some things God will never let us know; otherwise, He is not God. Noone can ever fully and completely understand God for only God can do that totally! But praise God, He does tell us the important things we need to know by His grace which is in His Word-the 66 books of the Bible.

Jhn 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) In the beginning was the Word (Jesus expressed in the 66 books of the Bible), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. Jhn 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jhn 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. Jhn 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. Jhn 1:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. Jhn 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light. Jhn 1:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world. Jhn 1:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. Jhn 1:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. Jhn 1:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Jhn 1:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (man's passions), nor of the will of man (man's plans), but of God. Jhn 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Praise the Lord!

[DD_8630]

They don't say probabilities happen all by themselves, for they don't deny a cause to that probability.
Read their respective works. They do just that.

Churchwork, what is your scientific training? I ask because you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the modern scientific consensus.


In other words, just because we can't understand the root cause to many things because they are too small to the naked eye we don't shut our minds down and close up shop. We continue to investigate the reason.
Indeed, and the result of such investigations is quantum relativity (the amalgamation of quantum mechanics (for the very small) and general relativity (for the very fast)).

The posits of quantum relativity directly lead to truely random behaviour (Eisberg & Resnick (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Molecules-Solids-Particles/dp/047187373X), pp377-384) (Tipler & Mosca (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Paul-Tipler/dp/1429202653), pp1024-1224).
Experimental evidence agrees 100% with the predictions of quantum relativity. No other mechanical theory comes close to this level of accuracy.
Therefore, since (2), (1).The two sources I cited are textbooks I have open in front of me. FYI.


That is what scientists do. So it is wise you don't misrepresent others.
Hypocrit. You have cited no quantum physicist that states what you claim. I have cited seven. To use the vernacular, put up, or shut up.


There is no such thing as randomness. It only appears random to the unknowing or one who lacks additional information. Don't think of it hidden variables, but rather, variables that God has not allowed man yet to see or possibly never to be able to see or understand.
No. Hidden variable theories are demonstratably false, and even in the general case lead to externally inconsistent predictions.

Quantum mechanical uncertainty is not solved by the introduction of (a) hidden variable(s). Try again.


Whether local or non-local, the cause exists for trillions of things in nature have a cause, and we can't prove a single thing that is without a cause like the fairy tale of puff the magic dragon it happens all by itself.
Once again, I cite the quantum mechanics. Pick up a textbook; you might be surprised what science has to offer.


After all, there are some things God will never let us know; otherwise, He is not God. Noone can ever fully and completely understand God for only God can do that totally! But praise God, He does tell us the important things we need to know by His grace which is in His Word-the 66 books of the Bible.

Jhn 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) In the beginning was the Word (Jesus expressed in the 66 books of the Bible), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. Jhn 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Jhn 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. Jhn 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. Jhn 1:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. Jhn 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light. Jhn 1:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world. Jhn 1:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not. Jhn 1:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not. Jhn 1:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Jhn 1:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (man's passions), nor of the will of man (man's plans), but of God. Jhn 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&translation=asv&x=10&y=4#) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.

Praise the Lord!
Forgive me if I don't.

[Churchwork]

Since in statistics nothing is truly random, but all statistical machines have causes so that you could actually predict it all, then it is true of quantum mechanics as well. I don't deny some propose something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon out of nowhere out of nothing, but I am comforted in the fact they can't prove it.

Random behavior is random to the seeing eye, but doesn't deny causation underneath it that is difficult for the eye or mind to discern.

Einstein and other who agree with him, do not claim true randomness nor that something can happen all by itself. You can put all Christian quantum physicists into that category as well. Hidden variables exist, since there are complicated things we human being simply can't figure out and we have no reason to suspect something in nature happens all by itself, for trillions of things have causes and we have no hard proof for something without a cause.

Your appeal to authority of textbook names doesn't help support your position. Proof is in the pudding as they say. So far the score is more than a trillion to one. You're playing the worse lottery every known to mankind and it is going to send you to hell in your overassuming excuse to reject what Jesus did for you on the cross.

[DD_8630]

Since in statistics nothing is truly random,
Since statistical mechanics is the mechanics of random processes, I beg to differ. Whether truely random systems exist or not is another question, but please try to know what you're talking about.


But all statistical machines have causes
Nope.


so that you could actually predict it all, then it is true of quantum mechanics as well.
On the contrary, you are explaining things in terms of classical mechanics. Since this has been refuted (see Einstein's photoelectric effect), your argument is moot.


I don't deny some propose something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon out of nowhere out of nothing, but I am comforted in the fact they can't prove it.
Then you are an idiot. No-one bothers with proof outside of mathematics and semantics.



Random behavior is random to the seeing eye, but doesn't deny causation underneath it that is difficult for the eye or mind to discern.
Once again, you show your complete lack of understanding about quantum mechanics. I ask you again: what is your physics training?



Einstein and other who agree with him, do not claim true randomness nor that something can happen all by itself.
And modern quantum physicists disagree with Einstein in that reality is fundamentally probabalistic.


Hidden variables exist,
Hidden variable explanations are demonstratably false as explanations for quantum mechanical uncertainity. They simply do not work. Pick up a textbook.


since there are complicated things we human being simply can't figure out and we have no reason to suspect something in nature happens all by itself, for trillions of things have causes and we have no hard proof for something without a cause.
On the contrary, we have much evidence to support the notion. From radioactive decay, to the photoelectric effect, to nuclear tunnelling, to discrete light spectra, to the Casimir effect.



Your appeal to authority of textbook names doesn't help support your position.
Of course it does. I, unlike you, cite my sources. I, unlike you, do not hide behind mere rhetoric to convey my point. I cite hard facts, I have an actual understanding of physics (including quantum mechanics). You, as you continue to demonstrate, do not.


Proof is in the pudding as they say. So far the score is more than a trillion to one. You're playing the worse lottery every known to mankind and it is going to send you to hell in your overassuming excuse to reject what Jesus did for you on the cross.
On the contrary, it is you that assume the whole Jesus fiasco. I have yet to see any evidence supporting such a notion, and believe me, I have been looking intently.

[Churchwork]

Statistics is a way to observe processes, but does not say they are without causes. Since we observe nothing that is without a cause in such processes, then all things have a cause.

Einstein's photoelectric does not say something happens all by itself without a cause. You misunderstood it.

There is no reason to call someone an idiot, so you deserve an infraction for name-calling. The point remains since nothing in nature happens all by itself in mathematics and physics, then accept this fact. If you can't prove it, then you are only assuming something happens all by itself to reject your uncreated Creator. Trillions of examples of causes would disagree with your assumption.

Quasi quantum physicists and pseudo scientists with fuzzy math can disagree with Einstein, but modern day Christian quantum physicists are in complete harmony with Einstein. Obviously, you don't understand quantum physics very well to assume something happens all by itself.

Nothing denies causation, either from radioactive decay, to the photoelectric effect, to nuclear tunnelling, to discrete light spectra, to the Casimir effect. There are causations at work, no matter how complicated and difficult for us to presently see.

Quantum mechanics does not say something happens all by itself. Fuzzy quantum mechanics may though. It's always disingenuous to make claims in the most complicated thing (that no human being fully understands all such minute causes) in life as evidence for no causes. That approach is the work of charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

Since you still can find no alternative explanation for Paul's meeting with the apostles in agreement of His resurrection truly believed by them and scholars for their reasons are more than 95% in accord, your uncited reason for your disagreement is your baseless assuming. I am grateful that is the best you can do, because your best is not good enough.

[DD_8630]

Statistics is a way to observe processes, but does not say they are without causes.
Source?


Since we observe nothing that is without a cause in such processes, then all things have a cause.
Once again, this is fallacious logic.
I haven't seen a Camel Spider, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Likewise, just because we haven't seen anything uncaused doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That said, we have seen things uncaused. I refer you again to my list of quantum phenomena.
Einstein's photoelectric does not say something happens all by itself without a cause. You misunderstood it.
What, in your own words, is Einstein's photoelectric effect?
Without spontaneous events (i.e., events without cause), electrons would only be emitted from an illuminated metal plate when the light exceed the binding energy of the electrons.
We observe electrons being emitted even when the light is below the binding energy: the electrons do not have enough energy to escape the metal, but they do it.
The only known explanation for this is probabalistic positioning: the electrons have a purely random chance of being in a low-energy state outside the atom, and thus be emitted.Einstein demonstrated this. Why do you continue to disagree with something you know nothing about? You simply say "No no no, you must have got it wrong", yet you never explain yourself. Assert all you want, but that will get you nowhere.



There is no reason to call someone an idiot, so you deserve an infraction for name-calling.
Since it was justified, it was not an insult. You said:

"I don't deny some propose something happens all by itself like puff the magic dragon out of nowhere out of nothing, but I am comforted in the fact they can't prove it."

This is an idiotic statement to make, and I was simply commenting as such.


The point remains since nothing in nature happens all by itself in mathematics and physics, then accept this fact. If you can't prove it, then you are only assuming something happens all by itself to reject your uncreated Creator.
Since it has been proven, your point here is moot.


Trillions of examples of causes would disagree with your assumption.
I do not deny that one event may cause another, but I do deny that one event must have been caused by another.



Quasi quantum physicists and pseudo scientists with fuzzy math can disagree with Einstein, but modern day Christian quantum physicists are in complete harmony with Einstein.
Since Einstein was not 100% correct in everything he ever did, I fail to see your point.


Obviously, you don't understand quantum physics very well to assume something happens all by itself.
Tell me, what is quantum mechanics? You have yet to demonstrate any understanding whatsoever with regards to any scientific discipline.


Nothing denies causation, either from radioactive decay,
Then explain how radioactive atoms decay without quantum tunnelling.


to the photoelectric effect,
Then explain how electrons can be in higher states that their energy would allow.


to nuclear tunnelling,
Then explain how a Helium nucleus can still be emmitted by near-absolute-zero radioactive nuclei.


to discrete light spectra,
Please, please, explain how light spectra occur if not by energy quanta.


to the Casimir effect.
Then explain the quantum 'foam' demonstrated by this effect.


There are causations at work, no matter how complicated and difficult for us to presently see.
It is not a matter of complication, it simply does not exist according to quantum mechanics. As a physicist, I think I would know.


Quantum mechanics does not say something happens all by itself.
Yes it does.

The posits of quantum relativity directly lead to truely random behaviour (Eisberg & Resnick (http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Molecules-Solids-Particles/dp/047187373X), pp377-384) (Tipler & Mosca (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physics-Scientists-Engineers-Paul-Tipler/dp/1429202653), pp1024-1224).

[Churchwork]

I could find no sources that said statistics happen all by themselves without causes.

We only have evidence, and trillions of things have causes. We have no hard evidence for something without a cause, therefore to think it is possible is a baseless assumption. It would be disingenuous and illogical to say something is without a cause just because you are not smart enough to figure it out in these various examples you cite, including the photoelectric effect. You can see the pride in that view. A simple explanation can help understand this. When you shuffle the cards and deal them they appear to come out randomly, but in fact we know it is not random at all, for the reason they came out as they did was because of prior shuffling order. The same is true of electrons. Just as the shuffle is so complicated we can only estimate the randomness. No Shuffle Masters are yet able to my knowledge predict every card that is to come out, yet even the Shuffle Master produces a causation to why the cards come out in the order they do. Nobody denies this. Pseudo scientists who say something happens all by itself out of nowhere is for the birds. Part of your problem is misunderstanding what scientists are saying. You misperceive them saying there is a randomness as though something happens all by itself. It's not the case at all.

Since your name calling is continuing and you still can't find justification for your puff the magic dragon theory, I won't return by calling you an idiot, but simply continue giving you the same infraction.

There is no difference in saying one event must be caused by another and an event is caused by another. If something is caused by another then it must be caused by another whether you know the cause or not. There you have a contradiction because you admit something must have a cause while still professing puff the magic dragon it happens all by itself. Your contradicting yourself betrays your belligerency.

You still don't understand what is quantum mechanics, by your belief in puff the magic dragon.

Radioactive decay causations are not known by man entirely as you would expect with such complicated things, for man does not know everything, nor will we, for somethings are held by the uncreated Creator not to be revealed. Real scientists don't just close up shop and say something happens all by itself. How silly.

What appears random does not mean it is truly random since we observe in nature nothing is truly random; therefore, we should expect no less in quantum mechanics, and not assume otherwise. We all know the lame game the unsaved soul is playing by his assumption about quantum mechanics, but praise the Lord, quantum mechanics, as in all things, have root caused except that which is uncaused. We know the uncaused Creator must exist as Antony Flew knew it, because nothing in nature happens all by itself and because the exponential progression in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural or supernaturally caused.

A very important point to realize also is that the knowledge man had 2000 years ago should not be a strike against him in a discussion about scientific matters we are more well equiped to understand today to keep him from being saved. As the law of causation remained constant 2000 years ago, so does it remain a constant today; it poses no obstacle to truth, but in searching out causes, we find addition details of that which we already know. In other words, you can discern the truth about whether there is an uncreated Creator without addition study of quantum mechanics. Trying to obfuscate by yourself not knowing the cause as evidence there is no cause is really just centering on yourself. I for one can really sense the evil in that approach and why hell is needed for such folks.

[DD_8630]

I could find no sources that said statistics happen all by themselves without causes.
That's because they don't. Statistics is a mathematical model in which variable distributions are random, albiet not uniformly so. It is used to approximate seemingly random systems.

That said, quantum mechanics tells us that quantum systems are truely random systems. I challenge you to show otherwise.



We only have evidence, and trillions of things have causes.
Indeed, and that makes a very good case for causality. However, as soon as we have one observed instance of an event with no cause, then we must rethink our picture of reality.

And you know what? We have dozens of instances of truely random behaviour. These occur at the nanometric level, and in the limit of large scales become undetectable to the human eye.


It would be disingenuous and illogical to say something is without a cause just because you are not smart enough to figure it out in these various examples you cite, including the photoelectric effect.
If you cannot answer my questions, then know that you are wrong. You know nothing about quantum mechanics or the applications thereof. Stop acting as an authority in thing you know nothing about.


A simple explanation can help understand this. When you shuffle the cards and deal them they appear to come out randomly, but in fact we know it is not random at all, for the reason they came out as they did was because of prior shuffling order.
Your analogy assumes a classical model of reality (unimaginatively called Classical Mechanics). Since we are talking about the quantum model of reality, your analogy fails.


The same is true of electrons.
No, it is not. They are not discrete particle with a definite position, momentum, energy, etc. They have distributions across all spacetime. Where they are at any one point is truely random. It is not simply a matter of insufficient information.

I ask you yet again, what is your training in physics? I contend that you know nothing of quantum physics: you have thus far misused every scientific term in every thread we are having discussions in. This is no exaggerration.


Pseudo scientists who say something happens all by itself out of nowhere is for the birds.
Like Dirac, Plank, Hawking, Mosca, Resnick, et al. Take a look at quantum mechanics, and know that you are wrong.


Part of your problem is misunderstanding what scientists are saying.
By all means, show me what scientists are saying. Show me a quantum physicist who backs up your misconception of quantum mechanics.


You misperceive them saying there is a randomness as though something happens all by itself. It's not the case at all.
Show me a quantum physicist who agrees with you.


Since your name calling is continuing
I called you no names. If you wish to continue your childish tirade of infractions, be my guest. It is no skin of my nose.


and you still can't find justification for your puff the magic dragon theory,
I have quantum physics on my side. You have your blind assertions. I have given my sources, I have given my evidence, yet you dismiss them as too complex. Could it be that you have no idea what you're talking about?


I won't return by calling you an idiot, but simply continue giving you the same infraction.
Nevertheless, the comment was idiotic: science does not deal in proof. Germ theory is unproven, so do you take comfort in misasmas?


There is no difference in saying one event must be caused by another and an event is caused by another. If something is caused by another then it must be caused by another whether you know the cause or not.
Well, yes. If x is x, then x is x. However, since it follows directly from the posits of quanutm mechanics that quantum particles are probabalistic in position (and indeed in the various HUPs), the particles do not have a cause associated with their position. Determinism fails for this precise reason: there is no way to predict what the universe will look like in the future down to the particle scale.


There you have a contradiction because you admit something must have a cause while still professing puff the magic dragon it happens all by itself.
I said that causal relationships can exist, but not that they have to exist. I said that an event may have a cause, but not that it must have a cause. Stop misunderstanding me.


Your contradicting yourself betrays your belligerency.
My belligerency? Hah! Any more insults you'd like to add? Perhaps I'm being hostile. Or am I angry? Hmm...


You still don't understand what is quantum mechanics, by your belief in puff the magic dragon.
I have a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Applied Mathematics. Trust me, I quizzed my lecturers heavily on this issue to make sure I understood them correctly.



Radioactive decay causations are not known by man entirely as you would expect with such complicated things, for man does not know everything, nor will we, for somethings are held by the uncreated Creator not to be revealed.
The very fact that you say this tells me you know nothing of quantum mechanics. As I said before, so-called hidden variable have been soundly disproven. And I mean that in the mathematical sense: hidden variables are wholly incompatible with the posits of quantum mechanics (indeed, they contradict the very first one: that all information is contained in the Schrödinger equation).


Real scientists don't just close up shop and say something happens all by itself.
Actually, they do. Unless we are prepared to refute quantum mechanics, we simply accept that there are events without a cause. Indeed, we use these to our advantage in things like cryptography and security. Open a textbook, you might learn something.


How silly.
Yes, you find a lot of things silly. Tell me, have you ever talked to a quantum physicist before? Something tells me you are only quoting what you can find on Christian websites.


What appears random does not mean it is truly random
Agreed. However, quantum mechanics tells us that it is random. Open a textbook (I recommend "Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei, and particles", second edition, by Eisberg and Resnick, published by Wiley. I have it in front of me. Would you like a scan?)


since we observe in nature nothing is truly random;
Yes, we do: radioactive decay.


therefore, we should expect no less in quantum mechanics, and not assume otherwise.
Perhaps, but quantum mechanics does posit otherwise.


We all know the lame game the unsaved soul is playing by his assumption about quantum mechanics, but praise the Lord, quantum mechanics, as in all things, have root caused except that which is uncaused.
Source? What journal was this published in? Nature? New Scientist? I think you should tell the scientific community: you claim to have refuted half of modern physics.


We know the uncaused Creator must exist as Antony Flew knew it,
Flew does not know the Creator must exist, he believes, just as you believe. Read some of Descartes works, he addressed just this issue.


because nothing in nature happens all by itself
Yes, it does.


and because the exponential progression in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects in the natural or supernaturally caused.
Since you have demonstrated no such exponentiation, I beg to differ.


A very important point to realize also is that the knowledge man had 2000 years ago should not be a strike against him in a discussion about scientific matters we are more well equiped to understand today to keep him from being saved. As the law of causation remained constant 2000 years ago, so does it remain a constant today; it poses no obstacle to truth, but in searching out causes, we find addition details of that which we already know. In other words, you can discern the truth about whether there is an uncreated Creator without addition study of quantum mechanics. Trying to obfuscate by yourself not knowing the cause as evidence there is no cause is really just centering on yourself. I for one can really sense the evil in that approach and why hell is needed for such folks.
So in other words, you don't need any education in physics to be an authority on quantum mechanics. Gotcha.

[Churchwork]

Quantum mechanics does not claim truly random, since nothing in nature is truly random, but we can always surmise some underlying cause even though we do not know what it is in all cases. The evidence is against you more than a trillion to one. This is why you lose in your pursuit.

Since you only repeat your point, but have no evidence for it, this is an infraction, specifically Board Etiquette #6.

The exponential progression of conscience is easily observed in the fact that child sacrifices are no longer prevalent as they once were among the nations. Therefore, there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for we would not still be sinning by now.

Since the next quantum physicist will disagree with you that things on the quantum level pop into existence out of nowhere all by themselves, that more agrees with the assessment of many in the field there are more theoretical papers than there are scientists. This is therefore, useless information in terms of determining whether there is the uncreated Creator as proven in the 4 Step Proof for God and that Jesus is God in the Minimal Facts Approach.