Jude, you are correct, they do. The problem is, without a unity theory that brings together quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, we know we don't have a handle on quantum mechanics yet; so, none of those laws is absolute.
Laws are never absolute, but Quantum Mechanics (whether it is unified with relativity or not) is the theory that best fits the evidence we have collected to date. As such, I don't see how dismissing the parts of Quantum Mechanics that are inconvenient to your world view is particular logical on the basis that they are not absolute certain, when they are quite certain, and your world view is not.
It didn't seem to me to be out of bounds in assuming if random parameters were present, then there was a high probability of lack of understanding.
Yes, if random parameters are present there is a high probability that we don't understand something. However, is it not more likely that our understanding of randomness, objectivity, and absolutes is what needs refining, not the law which is a consequence of good evidence?
All of those laws depend on a finite universe as well.
Do they? I don't recall that ever being an assumption anywhere in any of the physics I've studied. Even the cosmological principle doesn't assume that the world is finite.
It is noteworthy that none of them can run back to the finite time line to the point of zero, and that neither of them can explain the source of gravity or explain the anomalies we see with it.
... and? The fact that I have a cup sitting to the right of my laptop right now can't any of that either, yet that doesn't mean I have reason to doubt that the cup is there. Similarly, the aspects of Quantum Mechanics that are inconvenient for you are well-supported. The unknown connection between relativity, gravity, and quantum mechanics that has yet to be illuminated is not sufficient reason to believe that it is false. It is sufficient reason to believe that there is much we do not know. It isn't unrealistic to think that some aspects of Quantum Mechanics could be wrong, but it isn't rational. Reason implores us to keep our belief in a proposition proportional to its degree of confirmation
, you're not doing that when you dismiss the aspects of Quantum Mechanics you don't like.
It is for those reasons I table those laws as theory and try to advance philosophical theory based on guesses since the whole thing is a great big guess anyway.
So you throw away fairly confirmed principles and make improbable guesses which conflict them? That seems like a recipe error.
I do try to run the math. When we run the math on the universe we see, none of it has quite added up. Just from basic probability alone, now was highly unlikely given all of the random parameters in our laws. This condition makes me guess the universe is actually infinite, rather than finite, and have tried to develop the concept of knowledge from there. I also know from information theory that infinite knowledge requires infinite energy.
Yes, due to the complexity of reality any particular outcome is highly unlikely, but consider for a moment an event where a million different things could occur, each with equal chance. That means there is a one in a million chance that what does happen will happen; that is not special. If you throw a dart at an impressionist's painting you're going to hit a tiny fleck of color. Lets say you hit a blue dot. That doesn't mean blue is magical or something fantastical was involved in your act of chucking sharp objects at fine art. That aside, I don't understand how one thing you're saying logically flows from another, I feel as if that bit of argumentation is non-sequitor.
If I place my guess of an infinite universe, then the infinite energy required for infinite knowledge can actually be true. It didn't take long to reach the guess that infinite knowledge was actually all energy and space. Of course, this all comes back to if the universe is as finite as it appears to us, I'm flat wrong. I hope this helps.
Quite frankly it didn't help at all, but I fail to see how the universe being infinite really is at all relevant to this discussion to begin with. I feel we're getting off topic here so I'm going to return to one of your earlier posts I didn't respond to in great detail.
Jude, quoting another person won't help you, especially when their conclusion is impossible to prove.
Nothing being said on the subject of good and evil is going to be possible to prove. The idea in linking you to the Principia Discordia was to expose you to a school of thought that believes Chaos and Order are both good and evil; destructive chaos is bad, but the Principia makes the point that chaos can actually be constructive as well.
If randomness drove our evolution, I already know the probability of now is extremely close to zero.
Now had to occur regardless, the state that now took is what varies. But it isn't like now had a choice of not happening or not choosing to land on some particular outcome (I already discussed this earlier in my post so I'll leave it at that).
My concepts are based on the more likely scenario that the universe is truly infinite and the probability of now is 1.
Two unrelated and quite possibly contradictory premises. In order for the probability of now to be one, you have to speak in what context you mean this. What is the probability of now arising given the initial conditions that existed 3000 years ago? If you believe randomness in no way affected things, then the probability is one.
However, if the universe is infinite then there are an infinite number of working parts to the universe which are all capable of affecting each other, and in turn causing a chain reaction. An infinite amount of opportunities for this to arise over an infinite amount of space and time leads to an infinitely interconnected existence full of infinite possibilities for complications to arise. Now, sometimes infinity adds up forever and never becomes 1 (consider the case of a series of numbers starting with .9 and being divided by a factor of 10 every turn for example), but the infiniteness that you suggest actually results in a more chaotic vision of reality, not less.
Furthermore, what you have to say is far more interesting than a paper. I'll read it eventually, but the fact you didn't want to give your take on it speaks volumes. You may as well as told me to shut up and quit posting with that move because I didn't bow down to a philosopher's opinion. Sorry it seems personal to me, but I hope you at least understand why it seemed that way to me.
There's nothing special about me, but I understand your point. You came here to converse with another person, not read articles. I wouldn't relish that attitude too much however, because if you debate topics without ever drawing on sources or reading what other people present as their sources, you're missing out on a lot of foundational knowledge and you have no way of knowing whether or not the claims they make are true.
Anyway, I already know for a fact choice is the fundamental mechanism of evolution. Genetics are generated by sexual choice.
Genetics are generated by a number of things. Errors in copying of DNA, abiogenesis potentially formed the very first amino acids which became the building blocks of genetics, but of course radiation has been known to mess with the structure of genetics now and again, often resulting in cancer, but sometimes mutations that serve as advantageous. Without mutation there is no evolution and there is no "natural selection." Natural selection is of course highly different than choice; natural selection is merely dominance occurring based on deterministic outcomes: Genetics A results in an organism that is more successful in Environment A than a creature with Genetics B, therefore Genetics A are selected.
To call people's decisions random comes across as a bit arrogant to me.
If there is no randomness to the decisions people make then they are completely deterministic and free will does not exist. Be careful where you're heading with this, because the lack of free will annihilates any possibility of ethics being anything beyond a tyrannical code that exists to reign in human behavior for the success our species.
No one can even prove random exists. Random is a concept perception generates to explain the output of problems so complex, there is no way to compute them with limited computing power. Every scientist knows this simple truth. You can no more prove random exists than you can prove God exists. In fact, a tantalizing thought is that if random does exist, maybe God doesn't, because there would be no way to absolutely know everything. Our fun is that we can't prove either and to say either is the engine for evolution is extremely dangerous to integrity of a position.
Please note that in this bit, which I replied to previously, you say that "every scientist knows this simple truth." I gave an example of a scientific theory advanced by physics which is in direct contradiction to what you said. Either physicists are not scientists or you're making claims without really thinking about what you're saying very much.