Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
It means it doesn’t predict correctly in quantum physics but still predicts correctly in 90% of other cases such as motions and thermodynamics in daily scales. Why do you think schools still teach those if it’s not useful?
Things can be random and chaotic but if the effects are slow enough then we can still find order in a short period. Evolution is randomness + natural selection but it happens over such a long period we can’t really feel it. Yet we are affected by and products of evolution.
Once again, we model genetic variation as being “random” because we cannot currently predict it accurately, but in truth it’s no different than the lottery. You have quite the task ahead of you if you intend to prove it is necessarily and totally chaotic.
If things are usually “seemingly random” to us it would imply the multiverse would also be “seemingly random” to us. I don’t see the need to prove the chaotic to be truly, whatever that means.
Well, if you don’t care about proving anything, and you simply believe your assumptions are facts, then why are you discussing it with me? Please continue to think whatever you wish, just as I will continue to remain unconvinced by your gut instinct on this topic
Likewise I’m not convinced that I’m the one who needs to provide proofs in this discussion. You already said that “we” model genetic variation as being “random”. And the model is working great. Therefore it is only reasonable to assume things work according to the model unless proved otherwise. A model doesn’t need to be 100% correct to make correct predictions. We still use Newton’s physics model to predict things (flawlessly) even tho it’s not a “truly” correct model.
Um, sorry to say friend, but Newton’s laws are actually just approximations. This is the entire basis of the emergence of quantum theory.
This perfectly illustrates the error in your thought process. You live life assuming that whatever pops into your head is the truth. Well, look where that’s led you, you actually believe physics has not improved since the 17th century.
I’ll give you a hint: scientists do not simply write “this seems reasonable to me, therefore I feel no need to prove it” underneath their theorems. You made a claim, and you need to provide evidence if you expect to be taken seriously
Have you read my comment? I’m aware that Newton’s model is not correct. My point was that it still predict flawlessly in most cases.
Whatever you say friend, enjoy your flawless yet incorrect predictions then, whatever that means
It means it doesn’t predict correctly in quantum physics but still predicts correctly in 90% of other cases such as motions and thermodynamics in daily scales. Why do you think schools still teach those if it’s not useful?