We can all agree that there's no such thing as randomness, only inquantifiable fluctuations that follow logical processes that can cause drastically different outcomes under even slightly different conditions (the butterfly effect/chaos theory)
So if there's no such thing as true randomness and only psuedo-randomness, then how would you explain being born as a particular person at a particular time? In other words, why are you you? Why are you here in the 21st century as a (probably) first-worlder with internet access and not some 2nd century peasant? Or even within the same century, why aren't you some poor African child infected with AIDS doomed to die at a young ge without ever seeing the world? If it's the result of a perfect particular brain composition that results in "you" then theoretically reincarnatiom should be possible by having someone at a different point in time have the same exact brain composition as you.
However, this itself creates another question of why "you" are a particular consciousness. Furthermore, this would mean that "you" could be two different people at once, if there was hypothetically a perfect clone of you.
If there is nothing random in the world then there has to be a reason, intentional or not (but nonetheless only psuedorandom) as to why you are who you are, and why I am who I am.
So what could that reason be if not chance, which does not exist? There seems to be no logical explanation for it as far I'm aware.
>>1270456
>So what could that reason be if not chance, which does not exist? There seems to be no logical explanation for it as far I'm aware.
Quite simply put, you are an idiot. You are applying human semantics to the universal order, doesn't work like that. For instance there is literally no chance in this carnation that I be born elsewhere as I was born here. It's more a form of 'destiny' than 'chance'. I mean you said it yourself (Chaos Theory), if you give a universe the exact same 'event's as this universe then I will be born at the exact same relative time and do all the exact same things I did in this life.
They do exist within human perception, which is quantifiable
>>1270465
But something still had to determine this "unviersal order" because it can't just exist in and of itself.
And if it does exist of its own accord, then that would mean it falls outside the realm of human understanding because everything we know about the world, we know because it's quantifiable, at least to some extent. Therefore, if there is a universal constant, then this universal constant would in essence be "god". Not god in the theological sense, but in the sense of an indeterministic infinite being/energy (although calling it 'being" or "energy", like you mentioned, is once again applying human semantics to an abstract concept) from which all deterministic things are decided. Basically, what I'm getting at is that there's shit out there that's impossible for humans to comprehend because it lies outside of our realm of understanding, by it's very nature of being "infinite" and of us being "finite". You can't put something infinite into finite terms, so you can't truly answer questions that pertain to the infinite. Questions like "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" and "If god is omnipotent, what would happen if he intetionally created a rock that he can't lift" are pointless to ask because their literally is no answer (at least not one that we can ever possibly know); these questions require the use of infinites (infinite energy moving the unstoppable object, infinite weight holding the immovable object down, infinite weight holding down god's boulder) and our understanding is only capable of comprehending finite knowledge.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I know I've kinda steered away from the topic but I think this is at the root of the original question and your response.
Quantum theory works with pure probabilities and it is in agreement with the data.
A certain outcome is only a specific case of a probability distribution, why would the more general case not be possible in the world?
>>1270551
And if I'm way off base then tell me why. I'm not looking to be right or wrong, I'm looking for objective knowledge.
>>1270456
>Newtonian mechanicism
>2016
Pretty much every contemporary physicist disagrees with you.
