>>55
a) we do know they never really change. give me an example of how they could possibly change.
b) i agree. which is why i'm not talking about our "laws", i'm talking about the laws. if there are no laws, then the law is that there are no laws. otherwise, there are laws, and the laws don't change. i'm not saying our theories on how the universe behaves don't change, because that would be fucking retarded, considering they have changed and will most likely change in the future.
consider a small algorithm
t = 0
loop
{
x = t
t = t+1
}
repeat
what is x? now its 0... now its 3... now its 24...
x changes, the law doesnt. if one day you check and find x = -3, then you've made a bad measurement, because that's not possible in this set of laws. if you're absolutely sure x = -3, then those weren't the laws. maybe the laws were
t = 0
loop
{
x = t
t = t+1
if t = 500 then x = -3
}
repeat
>>56
"not being able to determine" does not mean "random", it means "unpredictable"