Random reality Essay

Random reality            The article is saying that things come from randomness.

And these things comprise the reality. So, reality comes from randomness. The two Australian Cahill and Klinger made this theory.One study which contributed to this theory of Cahill and Klinger is that of the published study of Austrian Godel which reported about the incompleteness theory. That theory is about how some theorem in mathematics that cannot be deduced so there can be no way to prove all of the mathematical truths.

That gives the incompleteness of a theorem. This Godel’s work was supposed to affect Physics because Physics has a very strong foundation from Mathematics. However, it wasn’t the case and Godel’s work seemed not to directly affect Physics, according to Cahill. But another person in the name of Chaitin backed up Godel’s work and suggested that those truths which cannot be proven are the random truths—that there is no explaining about it, but it is truth. This has made Chaitin to conclude that “randomness is at the very heart of pure mathematics.”That was the point where Cahill and Klinger have though that random truth is also in Physics.

The works of Godel and Chaitin refers to those things that cannot be proven by anything else. It is like proving an existence based on something but not finding any evidence so the existence, in itself, becomes the truth. This is what meant by what the article meant of Godel and Chaitin’s result as those pertaining to systems “which are powerful enough to make statements about itself.” The best example was already given by Cahill when he made use of the self and one’s awareness to it. I am aware of myself. There is no better way to prove one’s self but itself. Thus, Cahill made a connection between the random truths and Physics.

He said, the universe in itself is capable of “self-referencing,” like that of Godel’s and Chaitin’s, and in that he meant that the universe have these random truths. He also said that there are a lot of things around us that is reality and cannot be explained or proven so it becomes random truths.The article also mentioned that in Physics, when one is proving something, they first assume that the something is exists. But, it would be difficult to think that a thing exists on its own, so many based the existence on its use or relationship with other things that exist. This is how Leibniz, another physicist try to introduce to the world of physics. However, it isn’t successful to be given much attention due to lack of application. Cahill and Klinger found a way to somehow prove it by a similar work. They tested their theory with the use of “pseudo objects.

” They place it in a random order and find a connection between the objects. The two came out with a matrix. This matrix equation they used to generate results by adding random noise and time.

The matrix equation isn’t linear and involved the inverse of the original matrix. They started by using values closer to zero. They found that they could either be getting too small or too large values even with the same values. They got random results. They, in the end, suggested that the randomness of their results is unexplainable because there is no cause to that. It is just random.

Then they took a connection between those values which then gave them what seemed like a “tree,” a network. But they found something incredible with their results. They found a property in their “tree” that is similar to that of the three-dimensional space. When counting the neighbors of one pseudo-objects to its nearest, to the second and so on, it becomes proportion to the square of the number of steps away to it. This observation made them think that space is a result of randomness. The property of our space is due to the randomness that is like what the two physicists have put together during their demonstration. That can be a coincidence, but, it’s difficult to discard the similarity of the result of the randomness and that property of space. Then the two further observed and they found more similarities like the decay in the pseudo-objects and its exponential increase which they took as the universe expanding and accelerating.

The two also found defects in their space model from randomness and they’ve thought of these defects as “the stuff we are made of.” These defects were related to the quantum theory of the correlation between particles. The defects were referred to two pseudo-objects having short links but have such long routes. The two physicists described these defects as the property of quantum entities which is non-locality.

Then they also found out that the matrix changes structure. After a lot of iteration, the connection between pseudo-objects disappears and that is what they relate to the collapse of a certain quantum state. They related that to time. Things change, that is why our present is not the same as the past and our future won’t be the same as our present.

But because randomness created the space and the connections, we could never predict what’s going to happen to the future.Cahill and Klinger were greeted with some praises and much skepticism regarding their studies. Chown, the author, said that Cahill and Klinger made impressive work to put into account the limitations of logic to solving physics mystery. The two made a very interesting study. We cannot detect the results of this randomness because we cannot see where it will be coming from. If this is true, it could mean that it will not be possible for someone to create reality but rather wait for it to happen and from there, prove it. If their theory is true, then we already have an explanation of the origin of space which is randomness. But there is still a lot of question like the origin of many physical matter and phenomenon and laws.

If those4 also came from randomness, the model of Cahill and Klinger must be able to demonstrate it. They’ve somehow related their results with some of the quantum theory and there should be more proofs. There are still a lot to demonstrate, if it cannot be proven, to make their theory be accepted. But to say that reality resulted from randomness, it’s going to make a lot of people believe in fate.

Work CitedChown, Marcus. 26 February 2000. “Random Reality.” New Scientist 2227 (2000): 24-28. 14 April 2009 < http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes /people/cahill_r/NS.pdf >.


I'm Tamara!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out