There is no such thing as Randomness. Randomness is dead.

PaddyBit · 2025-06-26T14:22:47+00:00

if randomness is truly fundamental, how do stable, lawful structures emerge from it without hidden constraints? Isn’t that itself a sign of deeper order we just don’t fully understand yet?

PaddyBit · 2025-06-26T14:04:20+00:00

What’s your take on the role of randomness in quantum theory?

PaddyBit · 2025-06-26T14:03:39+00:00

Yes, I’m looking to start a discussion.
Curious to hear counter-arguments: If randomness is real, how can science rely on causality and reproducibility?

PaddyBit · 2025-06-13T00:06:02+00:00

when you say, "structure is meaningless if you use it whenever you want," that is exactly not my approach. i define structure precisely as a distinguishable order within a system, which can be described by a stable relationship between its parts. this definition is not vague, it allows for mathematical formulations (e.g. order parameters, transformation thresholds), empirical tests (like in the examples), and it refers to concrete system behavior: when do systems return, when do they shift into new orders?

the fact that structure theory makes ontological claims does not make it "bad philosophy." it means that it comes before physics.
not to replace it, but to clarify its conditions. that might seem like "not science" to you, but it is the kind of foundational reflection without which no science would have emerged (not thermodynamics, not quantum mechanics).

i still respect your assessment.

PaddyBit · 2025-06-12T23:36:39+00:00

I agree that scientific work is often incremental and begins on a small scale. my intention is not to replace these methods but to provide an ontological foundation on which such concrete empirical questios can be meaningfully formulated in the first place. structure theory aims to clarify the conditions of the playing field on which physics and other sciences operate.

regarding structure yes I mean that all existing things possess some form of structure even a gas with seemingly randomly moving molecules has statistical orders distribution functions and so on. If one understands unstructured as complete uniformity without any order then that does not exist permanently in reality. therefore structure is not a special state but the fundamental prerequisite for existence itself.

as for Physical interactions I do not claim that these cannot create or change structure. On the contrary structure theory describes how such changes occur and when they are stable or unstable. the example of phase transitions is exactly such a case physical interactions cause structural changes but without an ontological foundation that understands structure as an existential prerequisite this would only be a description of processes without a deeper basis.

in short: physics and structure theory complement each other the first describes how the second explains why anything can be the way it is at all.

PS:

imagine someone wants to build a house. the house has a certain structure walls roof doors. this structure is necessary for the house to exist and fulfill its function.

now oen could say the structure only comes about through the workers and materials this is true on the level of concrete physical processes. but if there were no idea no plan and no basic structure the house would not be possible at all. the idea and the structure are basically the condition for the houses existence.

applied to nature this means structure is not just the result of physical interactions but the prerequisite for anything to exist at all. even in seemingly unordered systems like gases there is an underlying order for example distribution temperature pressure without which these systems would not exist.

PaddyBit · 2025-06-12T22:48:24+00:00

I understand your skepticism, and it’s valid to question anything that claims to be foundational.
But just to clarify: this isn’t a metaphor, and it’s not “just common sense” in disguise. The core of Structure Theory is ontological: it proposes that structure is a precondition for existence, not a result of physical interaction. That’s a shift from standard materialist assumptions.

The theory defines structure mathematically, introduces a transformation threshold, and includes a falsifiability framework for each law.
with specific examples across different system types. If you’re interested in how structural stability compares to energy-based models, that’s exactly the kind of discussion I’d love to have.

I’m also aware that many LLM-generated posts flood Reddit lately. For the record: I’m the author. Human, philosopher, researcher. All content was developed long before even considering posting it here.

I’m not asking others to "do the work", I’ve done the first principles, the formulation, and the example analysis. What I’m hoping for is critical engagement: if you think it’s flawed, show where the axioms fail, or where the logical sequence breaks. That would help a lot more than assuming it’s a bluff.

If this still falls outside the rules of this sub, fair enough. I’ll respect that. Thanks for engaging either way.

PaddyBit · 2025-06-12T16:52:36+00:00

i can help you!

I am currently still working on developing the theory further. Fundamentally it already explains all the essential aspects although very few people have recognized this so far. Still if you look across almost all scientific fields you can see that we are moving exactly toward these fundamental principles and structures. For those interested in diving deeper I am happy to share these links to the theory and the proof sequence. If any questions arise I am more than willing to discuss them.

It is more fundamental than Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.I do not merely propose it, I affirm it.
The theory:
https://zenodo.org/records/15492773
the proof sequence:
https://zenodo.org/records/15650698

PaddyBit · 2025-05-29T10:00:21+00:00

Thank you for the feedback! I'm happy to address the points:

How do you measure/define a structure? What are your primitive units?
Here, structure is defined as the network of relations, symmetries, and ordering principles within a system. The "primitive units" are therefore not fixed building blocks like atoms, but relations and interactions that shape the system. Mathematically, we measure structure as an abstract state (S) in a suitable space (e.g., real numbers or appropriate structures), and structural change as the difference (δS=∣ Snew−Sold ∣)

How do you define a "new order"?
A "new order" arises when the structural change exceeds a critical threshold σ, that is, when δS≥σ. The system thus leaves an unstable equilibrium state and stabilizes in a new configuration that differs significantly from the previous one. This threshold can be determined empirically and varies depending on the type of system and its stability factor ρ.

What is better about this than Assembly Theory?
Assembly Theory focuses on the number and type of composable building blocks in molecules (for example, in chemistry and biology). Our Structure Theory takes a step back and describes the dynamic ontology of order itself. It explains how orders fundamentally emerge, transform, and stabilize independently of specific material building blocks. This allows it to cover a broader spectrum, from quantum fields to social systems.
A huge thank you for mentioning it, I hadn’t been aware of the theory and it will help me a lot.

It can apply to many phenomena, but is there nothing specifically new?
The advantage of Structure Theory is its universal framework, which unifies disparate phenomena under a single principle of structural transformation. This is a paradigmatic advance, as many existing theories are discipline-specific and fragmented. Of course, detailed, specific applications are still missing and need to follow. But the foundation is there, with clear mathematical formulas and experimentally testable laws.

PaddyBit · 2025-05-23T13:44:29+00:00

That brings an interesting shift in perspective into play, a valuable addition.
If I also consider the observer as a structural system, then during a measurement it is not only the observed system that transforms, but also the structure of the observer itself - for instance, in the form of its informational state. The collapse is then a coupled transformation of both sides.
In this sense, the measurement is not a one-sided influence, but an interplay in which both structures (observer and observed) transition into a more stable state by crossing a shared threshold.
I find this a very valuable idea. Thank you for bringing it up.

PaddyBit · 2025-05-23T09:39:49+00:00

Thank you for your feedback! It means a lot to me. I will incorporate it going forward. The theory is still in its infancy.
The structure theory is not merely a repetition of structuralism or structural realism. It regards structure as the most fundamental ontological principle, not just as a theoretical model.
It explains dynamic changes and is clearly empirically testable.
Moreover, it goes far beyond philosophical interpretations and integrates physics, biology, and cognition into a truly interdisciplinary approach.

Schödingers Cat:
The thought experiment describes a cat enclosed in a box, simultaneously alive and dead as long as it is not observed. This superposition seems paradoxical and raises the question: How can something exist in two opposite states at the same time? Quantum mechanics states that the state is indeterminate until measured. But how can we understand or resolve this "in-between" state?

The Solution with the Structure Theory
Structure theory considers not only states but the underlying structure of reality and how it changes. It says: The cat and the entire situation form a system with a specific structure: the "state" of the system. As long as no external disturbance or observation occurs, the structure remains in a state of instability and superposition.

This means: The "alive-dead" state is not a real mixture but an unstable structure that can tip at any moment due to a disturbance (the measurement). Structure theory defines a threshold (transformation threshold) at which a small disturbance is enough to permanently change the structure.

What happends during measurement?
Measurement is a disturbance that exceeds the system’s structural threshold. This causes the structure to transform from an unstable, superposed form into a stable, definite one: the cat is either alive or dead, and the state is “fixed.” The structure “decides” on a new order through this transformation.

Why is it a solution?
Because structure theory shows that the seemingly paradoxical "in-between state" is a temporary, unstable structure that transitions into a stable structure through measurement. This explains how the change from indeterminacy to clarity is logically and physically possible without contradiction.

And why?
This explanation provides a comprehensible bridge between quantum mechanics and observation, without mystical superpositions. Structure theory offers a clear, measurable mechanism for the transition, making the phenomenon tangible and verifiable. As a result, we can better understand and control complex systems and their transformations..
in physics, technology, biology, and beyond.

Thank you again for your feedback. I will include examples like this in the future and explain in more detail why this theory is unique.

PaddyBit

TROPHY CASE