Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The New Scientist

Change: Random reality

Michael Brooks

Published Jan 1, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Even processes that inherently involved chance were pre-determined. Long before dice were used for gaming, they were used for divination. Ancient thinkers thought the gods determined the outcome of a die roll; the apparent randomness resulted from their ignorance of divine intentions. Oddly, modern science at first did little to change that view but it showed that randomness was nothing intrinsic; just a reflection of humanity's lack of information. Here, Brooks examines whether anything in the universe is truly random.

Related papers

Is chance or choice the essence of Nature

Thomas J. Chalko

At the beginning of the twenty first century the prevailing and vigorously defended view is that the Universe happened by chance. All fundamental sub-atomic processes are thought to be “random” and the only way to quantify them seems to be the “uncertainty” principle. Clearly, our conclusions about the Reality of the Universe are determined and limited by our imagination. Can we imagine alternatives? What if nothing in the Universe is by chance? Could it be by CHOICE?

•Jan 1, 2001•5 citations

Spooky or Random?

George G. Szpiro

While one may argue about whether tosses of coins, throws of dice, rolls of roulette balls, twirlings of ping-pong balls are truly unbiased, unpredictable, uniformly distributed, most scientists agree – Albert Einstein’s reservations (“God does not play dice”) notwithstanding – that quantum phenomena are honest-to-goodness random.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks•Dec 10, 2025•0 citations

Children of the Aimless Chance: Randomness versus Determinism

Vlatko Vedral

In our search for the ultimate law, P, that allows us to encode the whole of reality we have come across a very fundamental obstacle. As Deutsch argued, P cannot be all-encompassing, simply because it cannot explain its own origins. We need a law more fundamental than P, from which P can be derived. But then this more fundamental law also needs to come from somewhere. This is like the metaphor of the painter in the lunatic asylum, who is trying to paint a picture of the garden he is sitting in. He can never find a way to completely include himself in the picture and gets caught in an infinite regression. Does this mean we can never understand the whole of reality? Maybe so, given that any postulate that we start from needs its own explanation. Any law that underlies reality ultimately needs an a priori law. This puts us in a bit of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. So, are we resigned to failure or is there a way out? Is there some fundamental level at which events have no a priori causes and we can break the infinite regression? What does it mean for an event to have no a priori cause? This means that, even with all prior knowledge, we cannot infer that this event will take place. Furthermore, if there were genuinely acausal events in this Universe, this would imply a fundamentally random element of reality that cannot be reduced to anything deterministic. This is a hugely controversial area, with various proponents of religion, science, and philosophy all having a quite contrasting set of views on this. Often people get very emotional over this question, as it has profound implications for us as human beings. Could it be that some events just don’t have first causes? The British philosopher Bertrand Russell thought so. In Russell’s famous debate with Reverend Copleston on the origin of the world, Copleston thought everything must have a cause, and therefore the world has a cause – and this cause is ultimately God himself.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 8, 2018•0 citations

Throwing Dice? Thoughts of God in a Quantum World

Shaun C. Henson

Abstract Quantum mechanics, like other enormously successful physical theories, accurately describes how the natural world behaves. Its explanatory powers regarding the indeterminate behavior of the smallest constituents of nature have proven to be both profound and practical. Many technological devices from lasers to computer chips are based on quantum mechanics. Not surprisingly, the universe filled with microscopic random events revealed by quantum mechanics has generated wonder and interpretive bewilderment. Reactions to the unsettling revelations of quantum unpredictability have included appeals to unknown variables to preserve classical physics, and even wholesale theoretical dismissals. Far from proof of mathematical trickery or theoretical incompletion however, the now well-established and irreducible quantum randomness suggests a physical universe that is open to a future not determined by the past, and perhaps to a God that really does play dice.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 19, 2016•2 citations

Does God Gamble With Creation?

Dennis F. Polis

Despite Albert Einstein’s claim that “God does not throw dice,” it is widely believed that quantum physics presents an intrinsically random universe. This conflicts with the theological view that nature operates in one and the same way, unless it be prevented as a result of divine providence. A proposed projection paradigm is based on respect for the integrity of each science. Apparent conflicts between science and theology may be resolved by the consistent application of the principles of science, each within its valid domain. Using this approach, paradoxes are found to involve a covert Platonism among quantum theory’s interpreters. Rather than endorsing an interpretive hypothesis, this essay seeks to apply accepted physics to quandaries posed by quantum theory.

Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies•Jan 1, 2015•0 citations

God plays with a quantum die infinite interactions from the arche

Viviana Yaccuzzi Polisena

Albert Einstein once said, “God does not play dice.”In turn, Stephen Hawking said, “not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they cannot be seen.”These quotations indicate fragmentation and dualism. On the one hand, God is an infinite almighty eternal gambler. He is pure energy. On the other hand, there are two classic and solid dice.God does not think of classic dice. There is no separation between the Dice and God. It is a quantum die which has infinite interactions. The game is a Code.A new name for Hugh Everett III’s theory is proposed. This is Infinite Interacting Vibrations. Can we conceive the Divine as a source from which an infinity of vibrations emanate?The universe is vibration. Our vibration is one of the infinite alternatives with a unique dimensional pattern. Each vibration is not the origin nor end of anything, but a fluctuation of the quantum Ether.

SOCRATES: An International, Multi-lingual, Multi-disciplinary, Refereed , Indexed Scholarly journal•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations
Even processes that inherently involved chance were pre-determined. Long before dice were used for gaming, they were used for divination. Ancient thinkers thought the gods determined the outcome of a die roll; the apparent randomness resulted from their ignorance of divine intentions. Oddly, modern science at first did little to change that view but it showed that randomness was nothing intrinsic; just a reflection of humanity's lack of information. Here, Brooks examines whether anything in the universe is truly random.
In our search for the ultimate law, P, that allows us to encode the whole of reality we have come across a very fundamental obstacle. As Deutsch argued, P cannot be all-encompassing, simply because it cannot explain its own origins. We need a law more fundamental than P, from which P can be derived. But then this more fundamental law also needs to come from somewhere. This is like the metaphor of the painter in the lunatic asylum, who is trying to paint a picture of the garden he is sitting in. He can never find a way to completely include himself in the picture and gets caught in an infinite regression. Does this mean we can never understand the whole of reality? Maybe so, given that any postulate that we start from needs its own explanation. Any law that underlies reality ultimately needs an a priori law. This puts us in a bit of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. So, are we resigned to failure or is there a way out? Is there some fundamental level at which events have no a priori causes and we can break the infinite regression? What does it mean for an event to have no a priori cause? This means that, even with all prior knowledge, we cannot infer that this event will take place. Furthermore, if there were genuinely acausal events in this Universe, this would imply a fundamentally random element of reality that cannot be reduced to anything deterministic. This is a hugely controversial area, with various proponents of religion, science, and philosophy all having a quite contrasting set of views on this. Often people get very emotional over this question, as it has profound implications for us as human beings. Could it be that some events just don’t have first causes? The British philosopher Bertrand Russell thought so. In Russell’s famous debate with Reverend Copleston on the origin of the world, Copleston thought everything must have a cause, and therefore the world has a cause – and this cause is ultimately God himself.
Abstract Quantum mechanics, like other enormously successful physical theories, accurately describes how the natural world behaves. Its explanatory powers regarding the indeterminate behavior of the smallest constituents of nature have proven to be both profound and practical. Many technological devices from lasers to computer chips are based on quantum mechanics. Not surprisingly, the universe filled with microscopic random events revealed by quantum mechanics has generated wonder and interpretive bewilderment. Reactions to the unsettling revelations of quantum unpredictability have included appeals to unknown variables to preserve classical physics, and even wholesale theoretical dismissals. Far from proof of mathematical trickery or theoretical incompletion however, the now well-established and irreducible quantum randomness suggests a physical universe that is open to a future not determined by the past, and perhaps to a God that really does play dice.
Despite Albert Einstein’s claim that “God does not throw dice,” it is widely believed that quantum physics presents an intrinsically random universe. This conflicts with the theological view that nature operates in one and the same way, unless it be prevented as a result of divine providence. A proposed projection paradigm is based on respect for the integrity of each science. Apparent conflicts between science and theology may be resolved by the consistent application of the principles of science, each within its valid domain. Using this approach, paradoxes are found to involve a covert Platonism among quantum theory’s interpreters. Rather than endorsing an interpretive hypothesis, this essay seeks to apply accepted physics to quandaries posed by quantum theory.
Albert Einstein once said, “God does not play dice.”In turn, Stephen Hawking said, “not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they cannot be seen.”These quotations indicate fragmentation and dualism. On the one hand, God is an infinite almighty eternal gambler. He is pure energy. On the other hand, there are two classic and solid dice.God does not think of classic dice. There is no separation between the Dice and God. It is a quantum die which has infinite interactions. The game is a Code.A new name for Hugh Everett III’s theory is proposed. This is Infinite Interacting Vibrations. Can we conceive the Divine as a source from which an infinity of vibrations emanate?The universe is vibration. Our vibration is one of the infinite alternatives with a unique dimensional pattern. Each vibration is not the origin nor end of anything, but a fluctuation of the quantum Ether.