Does science disprove this person's theory?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of randomness and its relationship to quantum mechanics. The poster suggests that randomness may not actually exist and that the universe follows a predetermined path of cause and effect. However, there is no way to prove this and the conversation ends with the acknowledgement that this is not a reliable source for scientific discussion.
  • #1
Rich76
27
2
I was reading a forum post on a gaming website, and someone posted something I found interesting. Some have argued that it goes against scientific facts, specifically with regard to Quantum Mechanics. I don't know who's right, but I'd love to hear your thought on this?

Human Wonder: "Random" and "Cause and Effect"

"In the context of this discussion, "random" is not anticipatable or predictable. Methods to anticipate or predict a random occurrence is entirely impossible, as random does not comply with any rules or patterns. Random as we know it is nothing more than a concept, and so I am truly inclined to believe that random does not exist, and that the destiny of our universe (and our lives) has but only one path of many causes and effects (non-random events).

What I am suggesting is that if you take our universe, pause it, and make an identical copy of it, then resume both universes, I believe you'd find that both universes remain perfectly synchronized down to the tiniest electron. If random does exist in our universe, the two universes would not remain synchronized in the given scenario.

While your destiny will never change, allow this message (cause) to have the effect it was always going to have on your life, should you accept what I'm saying (or not)."Source: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/608971-human-wonder-random-and-cause-and-effect/
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
There's no way to know for sure since we can't rewind time or generate observable parallel universes. So there's no answer to the question. We treat quantum physics as being truly random, but even if the results are somehow deterministic in a way that we can't observe, then we can't do anything but continue treating it as truly random.
 
  • Informative
Likes Rich76
  • #3
Rich76 said:
a forum post on a gaming website

...is not a good source for reliable scientific statements. Nor is it a good basis for PF discussion given our rules about acceptable sources.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Rich76

FAQ: Does science disprove this person's theory?

Does science have the ability to disprove someone's theory?

Yes, science is based on the scientific method which involves testing and experimentation to gather evidence and support or refute a theory. If the evidence collected does not align with the predictions of the theory, it can be considered disproven.

How does science go about disproving a theory?

Scientists use a variety of methods such as experiments, observations, and data analysis to gather evidence and test a theory. If the results consistently contradict the predictions of the theory, it can be considered disproven.

Can a theory be partially disproven by science?

Yes, a theory can be partially disproven if some evidence does not support it, but other evidence still does. In this case, the theory may need to be revised or refined to better align with the evidence.

Is it possible for a theory to be disproven by science and then later be proven again?

Yes, as science and technology advance, new evidence and methods may become available that can support a theory that was previously disproven. This is why scientific theories are constantly being tested and refined.

Can a theory be considered completely disproven by science?

Yes, if a theory has been thoroughly tested and all evidence consistently contradicts its predictions, it can be considered completely disproven. However, this does not mean that the theory is completely discarded, as new evidence or perspectives may emerge in the future.

Similar threads

I Parallel universes and randomness
Replies
1
Views
1K
I How Do Kochen-Specker Theorem and Contextuality Relate to Financial Markets?
Replies
3
Views
925
I Two-State Vector Formalism - I like it
Replies
1
Views
1K
B Does quantum physics imply the existence of randomness?
3
Replies
86
Views
10K
I Born rule as an axiom or as a theorem?
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Unruh, Haag et al.: No Room for Particles in Quantum Field Theory?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Pilot Wave Theory: Exploring Spontaneous Transitions
Replies
4
Views
2K
I "Observer Effect" referring to two different things?
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
B Is there another workable interpretation of the Bell Inequality?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Non-local uncertainty - does it make sense?
Replies
7
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top