Lord Antares

1) It's isn't contradictory. If everything is always in line with the laws of physics on a macro-scale, then anything happening on a macro-scale will not be random. Also, 2) I said ''arguably QM'' because I don't believe QM is random, although most people do. I don't think QM is random, just like anything else. However, I can make no claims.

Why do they have to be false in order to disprove your claim? Why can they not all be true and still be coincidental? As I have stated, you seem to be good at probability, so I'm interested to know why you think these events are not coincidental? And what is the alternative to coincidence?

Honestly, I don't see why it couldn't be coincidence. You are good at math, so you're aware that coincidences like these aren't unbelievable given that there are so many variables, possible outcomes, people and generally ''high entropy'', to put it like that. Personally, I find the one where a kid dropped from some floor on a person and then 1 year later (or something like that) it fell from the same floor on the same person more unlikely - but it doesn't have to mean anything. It would be extraordinary if coincidences like that didn't happen.

I understand what you are saying but I don't see your point. I did agree that, for all intents and purposes of humans, things are random. I'm simply pointing out that randomness isn't an objective, exact ''thing'' which can be agreed upon. What may be random for humans might not be random at all for some possible alien beings. We do agree here. I did say ''except for QM, arguably'' in my next post.

I would be against this. I would guess that most people join the forum to ask a question in their thread. That's why I registered. If I wasn't able to do that, I certainly would have found another place to be a part of. Plus, most new members are not very knowledgeable in science, so by needing to contribute to other threads, they would literally be encouraged to post unfounded and potentially bad posts. I think new members need to be able to ask questions immediately.

Exactly, but my point is, randomness is an arbitrary term, given as a statistical probability measure for what we don't know. If we did know, nothing would be random to us, hence the nature of the universe cannot be random. Things CANNOT be unpredictable in a technical way (except for arguably QM, but will not go into that), because if they could, the laws of physics couldn't exist and the sole purpose of laws (to standardize and always measure a predictable result) would be defeated. Therefore, reality is not random. Do you agree?

Obviously, reality isn't ''random'' because randomness isn't a real ''thing''. It is only applicable to an ignorant observer. For example, a coin might have a ~50% chance of landing on either side for your or me, but only because we don't know at which angle it was flipped, with which force, velocity etc. If this information was known to us, we would know how it would land with a probability of 1. Same goes for the rest of the universe. Every reaction was caused by an opposite action which we may or may not be aware of, but it is present nevertheless. It may be random to us mere mortals, but it isn't ''actually'' ''random''.There is nothing mysterious there.

Also, I encourage the use of spoiler tags. Especially since the new activity feed displays the whole posts.

It doesn't really make much sense.

You're going on incoherent tangents, none of which have anything to do with your ''theory''. It's ironic that you're talking so much about math without ever providing any. Please focus on the thread and provide concrete evidence and cases, instead of handwaving.

What are you on about? Seriously. As I said, the point of math is not to demonstrate anything ''logically''. It is to give correct, quantifiable results, as far as proving and standardizing theories goes. You're writing too many words with too little meaning.

No, it really doesn't. Math demonstrates that a theory is correct or at least applicable if you don't like using ''correct''. Newton's inverse square law, for example, tells you exactly how much weight an object will have at a certain distance from another object (given that the masses are known). There is no logical explanation which accompanies it. It is literally correct in every experiment shown so far and is a method of calculation. It has nothing to do with concepts. Then it would be wrong, and hence, illogical. So it would be useless and unlike a theory supported by math. Quantum mechanics is largely incomplete. That doesn't mean that anything you say is a substitution. That is a stupid way of saying that math is useful. It is certainly supported by much more evidence and use than god.

The common folk are still more well off than in the majority of countries. Therefore, comparatively wealthy. I'm talking about the general success of the country; what it has achieved through history, not what individuals might have achieved.

What sort of question is that? What is any country's role in the word? Does it need to be anything than to exist under good conditions? lol Are you implying that it was something higher than that prior to the cold war? I hate to break it to you, but it really is just a country. A wealthy and successful one, but just a country like any else nonetheless.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong in your main point, it's just that out posts are at cross purposes. You're talking along the lines of philosophy. Does truth exist? Are things which are shown to be functional true or a re they approximations? Is math the truth or a model etc etc. This is not what I am talking about. I am saying that math is essential for science and only with math are you able to ''prove'' your theories and experiments. Math is how we can replicate and standardize how we handle the theory and how we apply it. Whether it is ''the truth'' or not is irrelevant to me as long as it serves its exact intended purpose. I bring this up only because I have a feeling he's saying that his speculative models are as plausible as the ones supported by math. If you read through what he says, he states that (I paraphrase) quantum mechanics is largely unsupported by evidence and it's just an abstract model rather than something functional. He then states that math is not a proof of anything, it's just a concept which is secondary to a theory (that's wrong). Then he exclaims how no one has refuted his philosophical thoughts. That leads me to conclude that he thinks that his ramblings are as legitimate as some other theories which are actually supported by math. This could not be farther from the truth. Math is THE ultimate way to a theory's success.

I can get behind this. I would have phrased it like this as well. Well, no. Math demonstrates that it's true. If we have a mathematical model of how objects will freefall under different circumstances and it's shown to be correct every single time, it proves that it's true, or at least applicable, not just ''logical''. What is the point in this? Data is a concept by definition, however a much more useful and straightforward one than what you were saying here. If you're suggesting that data which can be universally agreed upon is as valid as your speculative ideas, then you are dead wrong. What? What are you on about now? Expansion of space is well established by data and observations. It has been addressed for years. Seeing how you said nothing concrete with no evidence, there is nothing to address.

I couldn't really tell you. There is a lot of conjecture in quantum science for sure. Many things are unproven and untested. For example, string theory is said to be the most advanced physical model for the universe humanity is achieved, yet it is largely unproven. There are little pieces of evidence which could point towards it, but it is far from the level of knowledge and certainty we have about Newtonian or Einstenian physics. On first thought, I might say that it's all nonsense until proven otherwise. After all, you can't accept what has not shown to be reality. But reasonable me would guess that there must be something to it, since it is so widely praised by actual physicists around the world. So you would have to ask someone of repute in quantum physics, but I doubt they could give you a simple answer. Maybe you could try googling ''evidence for quantum physics/string theory''. There are such things as the double slit experiment which are substantially tested but then there are other things which aren't.

As Strange said, citation needed. I want you to know that I fully understand what you are saying. I have thought about it too. I'm sure others have as well. It's called quantization of space. It means that everything moves in intervals which have a set value, rather than fluently. Like videos on a monitor. They can only move by 1 pixel, never less. Although this may make sense to you, it doesn't mean it is true. You cannot base your conclusions on unproven suppositions.

That explains it, good catch. It also explains why they all ''seem'' to stay for about equal periods of time. Was it like that on the old forum? Because that's where I noticed it.

Then we've noticed the same thing but we disagree on the implications. ''Invariably'' really is applicable, and you would think that it suggests bot behaviour since it is unlikely that literally all humans would be reading their thread for a couple of minutes (I thought it was longer but you checked empirically). Especially since they presumably post their stuff on multiple fora. You would expect them to leave their post and leave the forum. Even if you wouldn't expect that, you'd certainly expect a variation in behaviour, no?

Fair enough, but I thought all of these (or most) were just bots. One reason that I would suggest is evidence of that is, back on the old forum, I would notice that all of those members were constantly watching their thread. They wouldn't move or go offline. They were there until they were banned. To me, that suggests bots.

Yeah, I figured this might be the case. Hmm, then is it possible to add a captcha requirement before you first (first three?) post? This would remove the need for you to do anything about them, right? By the way, merging posts automatically doesn't work anymore. I've seen people do double posts like this because they weren't aware.

I see an even bigger issue here. You're using Internet Explorer when you have Google Chrome. Ugh. OT: What if the mods had to approve the first post of any member, as if they were in mod mod queue? Then no spam would ever be seen by the members and some of the bad posters would be recognized immediately, with the option to cut them short if they're particularly hateful, preachy, arrogant etc.

There is no evidence that space is quantized (i.e. that everything moves in increments of planck length rather than ''smoothly''). The Planck length has no proven significance, yet. In theory, it is the length which is impossible to discern. In other words, objects less planck lenght away would be in the same place. It remains to be verified or disproven. There is such a thing as a planck volume (simply planck length cubed), but it is of no significance either. I've talked about something similar to this. About vacuums in between particles. Especially in your case, you run into the problem of there not being a set size or shape of quantum particles. They're not just a round ball between which there are regularly shaped holes. You need to account for quantum behaviour of particles. You wot?