Paranormal
Recently, an attempt to incorporate a random sentence generator into an application had given me a realization. The sentences being generated, I felt, weren't really random. It's known that in a computer, random numbers are basically generated from a function which is fed a 'seed number', which would be something such as the time, or any other number. The function would then create a series of numbers which would be distributed over a certain range, enough to give the appearance of being random. In other words, the numbers generated were statistically spread out so that they would serve our purpose. In reality, though, they were the result of an equation, and if that same seed were supplied to the same function again, we'd get the exact same numbers generated. So that didn't really make it random, did it?
Taking a step in a different direction, the thought was then, what do we have that is truly random? Some people would assert that the human mind would serve as a good candidate for this. Because we have the capability of creating random sentences, such as "Satirical popcorn dancing inside tuberose pudding," or "Avalanche mayonnaise tableau," or we could even go for a random jumble of letters. There are many more things that the mind can do, but then, these are not truly random. When we attempt to create something random with our minds, it is the outcome of several different processes at work here, such as the requirement to do it, a reason, blood flow, chemical processes, environmental stimuli, and other things which would make this list rather endless. In the end, the random outputs that we produce with our brains are due to a certain set of inputs, and therefore not truly random.
When we create music, we are once again using certain sets of inputs and outputs to manifest mathematical expressions into audio frequencies for our own pleasure. When we choose a random card out of a deck, is that really a random choice? It isn't. We are following certain tendencies, such as going for the middle of the pile. That isn't random. If we deliberately choose not to go for the middle of the pile, then we are simply negating our tendencies, it is still an input-output, and therefore still not random.
What else do we have that we would call random? In several experiments, random numbers are generated using the decay of a Strontium-90 as it delivers electrons. We call this random because we have no way of predicting where or when an electron would be released, simply because our science framework has not reached there yet. Quantum Physics is what will eventually explain it, if anything can. Either way, the strontium atoms are following certain laws with regards to the emission of electrons. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we call it random because we do not know the mechanics behind it. They are random according to the way we think, but again, not truly random. Could it be that anything whose mechanics we do not fully understand would constitute randomness? Something complex, in other words, would be considered random. Something in which we would not be able to decipher a pattern.
Thousands of years ago, several civilizations would not have understood when lunar eclipses or solar eclipses occurred. Because they did not understand the timings and mechanics, it would have appeared to be random occurrences to them. Over time, they studied it, understood it, and were able to predict when it would occur. The Egyptian Priests are known to have used the knowledge of being able to predict eclipses to their advantage. It then wasn't really random anymore.
Another example would be coincidences. Whenever a coincidence occurs, we are surprised. As if it was something unexpected, as if it wasn't supposed to happen in the first place. We then try to look at it as some sort of a sign, because that is our most logical tendency: to look for patterns. We look for patterns in our lives, in the stars, and in coincidences. Life as we know it is probably another logical outcome of universal laws, but our tendency to view it as a self-centric pattern would perhaps stop us from believing that. That of course is entirely subjective, a topic of perhaps another discussion.
A coincidence is basically the intersection of two sequences of events. Taking into account the mind-numbingly large number of sequences occurring in the universe at any given point in time, a coincidence is what would be a very logical outcome. If you start looking for coincidences, as opposed to waiting for one, you can find several hundred in a day. It is pure mathematics. Coincidences could be predicted too. If we were to know the state of the universe at a point in time, with all the variables, we could then use this data to predict the next state of the universe, and look for the coincidences that would otherwise surprise the hell out of us.
So, what is truly random? Is there anything at all that is completely random in its existence or occurrence? I would like to venture a thought here. How about the event known as the creation of the Universe? Let us assume, simply for this discussion, that the Big Bang is how the Universe was created. At the very point of the Big Bang, when that giant cosmic boom took place, all laws of physics and mathematics were set into motion, cascading endlessly and eventually leading to the formation of the galaxies, stars, planets and life as we define it. But why did the Big Bang occur? Why not something else? After all, anything could have happened. Instead of the Big Bang, the appearance of a large, two-legged rhinoceros. With arthritis. Or perhaps a Universe quite similar to this one, with the exception that instead of a vacuum, there was an entirely liquid-Helium medium.
In essence, an infinite number of events could have occurred at that point, but the event known as the Big Bang did. This leads us into two directions.
The first direction: the Big Bang and only the Big Bang occurred, and its probability of occurring is 1/infinity, equal to zero. And thus implying, that the probability of our existence is zero. Implying that we are mere randon manifestations. Or implying that we are the outcome of some occurrence in the fourth-dimension. Or further implying, that we do not exist. Another way of looking at this exact same thing, is that this same probability factor implies the existence of a divine creator, known as a "god". A god creating this universe would mean that it is not a random event at all.
The second direction: The Big Bang did occur, but at the same time, all other infinite things occurred. This gives us a probability of infinity/infinity or 1. Meaning, that the existence of what we call the Universe is, just like a coincidence, no big deal. It was supposed to exist, merely due to a play of probabilities, if I can call it that. This would also mean that there are an infinite number of alternate universes.
And so, your view of our existence would come down to whether you feel that the existence of the Universe was a random occurrence or not. A person who finds the universe way too complex and simply does not feel that she can understand it would assume the existence of a god as a layer of abstraction. Another person who understands that the universe is complex, too complex to be understood or understood at this point in time would find the existence of a god to be illogical. There are of course several other thought processes possible from this, I am only showing a few. Everyone has their own philosophies, and they would be some sort of an outcrop of the points given here.
We cannot find out the answer to our existence, of course. We have no way of finding out whether it was something random, or if there is a creature in the fourth dimension who set things into motion. To find out, we would have to study the Universe from the outside, just like any other system, but this is not possible. Just like a two-dimensional entity cannot exist in our three-dimensional world, we would also never be able to reach the fourth-dimension, forget about surviving there.
And since we can never find out the answer, it reduces the questions regarding life and its meaning to mere intellectual deliberations, subjective and illusory in their nature, to be eternally unresolved.
