SeanmBateman

I do know about the uncertainty principle. it is becoming apparent to me it's not always going to be true. plus hypothetical.

Hypothetical. Imagine you have created nanobots. What core functions were to replicate themselves, and to collect the data of every subatomic particles position and all other information about them. Becoming omniscient, they have the fundamental knowledge to predicting every single event from that point onward. When and where earthquakes will happen, what random number I choose etc. I meet up with your omniscient nanobots and ask them a simply question. What hand will I put up, the regulations are, you have to tell me before I make my decision and whatever you say I will choose the opposite.

I have shown before my support against the Copenhagen interpretation view of the quantum world. That states at a quantum scale sub-atomic partials behave randomly. There are many experiments to show case this, one being the double slit experiment. (Watch for more details.) If photons were really random the result would not be waves or partials. It would be an interference pattern with the double slit pattern at 50% opacity. The results are conclusive and the fact that the results are constant shows that. This has lead me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables_theory The hidden variables theory. But why an observer changes any of this, I don't know. This theory would make more sense that this constant randomness. I am by no means an expert on this so I would like as much help as I can get.