I’m not disagreeing. I recently heard someone criticising randomness and do w very good job of it. But of course I don’t remember well enough to summarise it
in short: everything in the known universe and in all possible worlds remotely similar to this one -- everything -- is based off of cause and effect (except God and the "first cause" let's say). Every equation is the result of factors, and those factors are essentially causes of the outcome. Random presupposes an effect without a cause: an outcome without a knowable strictly set factor. There is no random in coding: the closest you come is stoping the internal clock and using that for "random" input, otherwise it is a completely false predetermined set (that isn't random at all).
If there is some force that causes "random" it is a wholly unique thing in all math and physics and logic. A more likely scenario is it is simply unexplained and off the radar. If there were more spacial dimensions than the three or four (time) we perceive, interaction from/on that imperceivable plane would appear as random and be detectably so.
"Random" is for things outrageously complicated that people cannot admit that they do not know everything about. "Random" will be a joke one day as being entertained by these empirical knuckleheads known as physicists.
That’s a very good and succinct summary. Thanks, I’m saving it
(post is archived)