Yup. Artificial randomness comes from theoretical Brownian motion upon which the field of statistics rests on (a mythological perfect random) and statistics is used in quantum physics.
So, a lot of it is based on a lie But the results are accurate enough (for now) to work with.
Eh, I’d say mitigates it but doesn’t remove it. Someday, I think they’ll have to face it. But for now, it works.
I think the flaws built-in to statistics will show up as engineering goes deeper and deeper into the smaller and smaller.
When you need things to work reliably and consistently, values and ranges need to be pinned down.
I look forward to more research done on “timelines”. That is – each “thing” has its own birth, death, pace of running out of existence and its capabilities at any given moment.
So, there’s really not two of anything.
One day I think we’ll be able to work with things along those lines
I think that’s why mass production fascinates me: how they can start with the “same stock”, constrain parameters, immensely microscopic quality control, and STILL end up with end product quality control issues as items are put under use and strain.
Yup. Time is also non-linear, and in a sense, those cycles aren’t repeating as background time continues its pace. But they are similar.