>>12585368The interesting portion of constructive randomness is it paves way for the empirical discovery of "Divine Law" which is a precausality construction without entities versus a construction like prime movers. It has parallel the living in a simulation idea, where randomness limiting structure is the program.
Questions arise as to how the structure could exist. And the complementary conundrum is why should random events interact at all. The excuse was Locality( and now maybe non-locality) and ontology. Things are some way, but if their existence is like hurricanes of randomness with a lot of inertia - as a hurricane isn't a thing at all, but good luck wishing one away - then being is an event of randomness channeling randomness. Oddly enough, naming hurricanes turns out to be a striking example of the depth in human intuition as well as its blindness. My point is there are currently structures that exist everywhere with pretty much no reason for their particular existence and to arbitrarily ask more of a non-causality structure is merely duplicitous. Randomness acting upon itself is proof of the structure.
I am sure there is a lot I am missing, but it appeals to some. I haven't really dug into the Law solution and while fractal structures are extremely interesting to me, I am fully convinced of monads and the only way that will change is a lobotomy, but it is sexy compared to fickle gods and their tantrums. Hypothetically interactions of randomness will vary based upon the structure. This could be tested for, maybe like GCPdot but probably not as that follows the similar quackery of psychic phenomenon. Mental states would be just as swayed by the structure as any random event.
