The Underlying Issues with Randomness

and entropy driven system is inherently meaningless on the quantum level and doesn’t work.

The fact that the word randomness in quantum mechanics is pointed to for anyone arguing this cosmological theory is simply a shell game. Moreover, as we’ll shortly see, quantum computing, as a part of the natural universe strongly disproves the very theory randomness sought to defend.

The Underlying Issues with Randomness

Aside from the fact it is clearly dead-wrong, Birnbaum has laid out a list of issues the entire Randomness Theory creates:

It is internally contradictory? The same British scientific community that is so entrenched with the concept of a directionless universe defends evolution. Evolution, as we have seen, has direction. The universe cannot be both at once.

It is alchemy? In the Dark Ages, alchemist used pseudo-science in the elusive pursuit of trying to turn lead into gold. While this was mystical nonsense, adherents of Randomness have repeatedly tried to convince people that the universe sprang from nowhere and

248

nothing into what now, 14 billion years on, is a supremely complex universe complete with advanced life.

Given the much vaunted Second Law of Thermodynamics, why does our allegedly random universe not implode from entropy? Randomness proponents speak of elusive dark energy as keeping the universe from imploding on itself. While it sounds perfectly scientific, it really isn’t when you scratch below the surface. The word dark isn’t used because the energy is literally dark.

The term is used because it means it is unknown. It is purely hypothetical. It has never been seen or measured. So, what is this elusive dark energy that remains completely undetectable in physics yet keeps the universe moving in an orderly fashion towards greater complexity? Q4P, as we have already been told. It’s just dressed up in a different word because Randomness realizes it is missing a key piece of the cosmic puzzle.

We are all still waiting for the actual theory Here is a very frustrating problem. As I’ve noted, it is extremely hard to argue against Randomness, not because it is a good theory, but because it is an elusive one. The simple fact is it is the Theory of No Theory. It solves nothing and is riddled with holes scientifically. Why it is still clung to has more sinister roots than scientific ones.

249

Scientists have built their livelihoods and reputations on their works. Sometimes it turns out they are wrong. Most have the good graces to bow out and admit defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence contradicting their hypothesis. Not so with Randomness adherents.

After 150 years, no one is willing to blink and admit they were wrong. Unfortunately, this has led to blistering attacks in academic publications and conferences to try and silence competing cosmological theories in place of hard science. In Texas we have a saying for this: all hat, no cattle.

Defining our universe While there are certainly random elements to the universe, we cannot ignore it is ruled by laws, not chance. Consider how many constants there are in physics and chemistry alone.

For many of these, scientists admit that if those numbers were even slightly different than what they are, life and (for some constants) even our universe would not be possible.

Instead, we live in a universe perfectly fine-tuned for supporting not only celestial bodies, but life. And intelligent life at that.

250

Summary Birnbaum affectionately refers to Randomness as the Theory of No Theory. And he does so for good reason. In short, Randomness is:

No theory.

No content.

No core work.

No formulation.

No science.

No cosmology.

As Birnbaum unflinchingly points out, “The earth is not flat; the sun does not orbit the earth; our universe did not randomly ignite, gain traction, evolve, and steadily iterate towards everincreasing sophistication and wondrousness ongoing for 14 billion years and counting.”

Randomness, at its core, is a non-answer masquerading as science. It begs the question why it is still adhered to so fervently?

251

noun

the phenomenon whereby a person is reluctant to abandon a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that abandonment would be more beneficial.

To be blunt, here is the issue. For the better part of the last century, Randomness reigned supreme. Physicists spent their entire illustrious careers teaching this theory. It is only human nature to want to be right, avoid embarrassment and not have to admit our mistakes.

The problem arises when this is done at the expense of good science. The universe is not what we want it to be. It is, rather, what it is. British academia has been guilty, for the sake of pride, of holding onto the past and what amounts to a grave mistake.

In 1633, Galileo was condemned by the Roman Catholic Inquisition and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life for the crime of “heresy”. His crime? He taught and defended the heliocentric model. For those unfamiliar with the term, it is: The earth revolves around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

252

Fast forward five centuries and David Birnbaum stands trial now for having the audacity of upsetting the world of cosmology and metaphorically calling out the emperor has no clothes.

It’s no exaggeration to say this is a battle for the future understanding of the universe. Birnbaum knows that the evolution of our understanding will be forever hampered until we learn and understand the central role of Potentialism.

The ever-elusive Theory of Everything will go unanswered until we realize the truth is staring right at us. We have been giftwrapped one simple formula. A universal one that can describe the entirety of the cosmos, from the micro, sub-atomic scale to the macro galactic clusters, from the dawn of time to the end of days:

253