Assassinating Order To Orchestrate Accidents

I'm going to summarize the whole of the following article with the line: "the inability to anticipate axiomatically precludes the ability to randomize."

Didn't get it? Here we go. We can't randomize. Ever. However hard we try, we will never be able to instruct a computer to come up with a number at random. First off, we build computers - they don't build themselves (unless you a stick a bit of the Cube into them) - and that also means we've to instruct them on how to randomize. In instructing them, we have no way of telling them to just pick a number at random; the machine does not understand the word "random"!

Next off, in an attempt to make the machine understand what "to randomize" entails, it must be provided with a series of logical steps because of the simple reason that machines have no way of isolating a word from its meaning. Since this brings in a monumental restriction in the amount of chaos available to facilitate randomization, the notion of chance is completely eliminated. Even our best attempts at replicating random selection will only be asymptotic to the real thing, not the real thing itself.

Third, with the "structuralization of chance" (which is what I'm going to call the asymptote), we're going to be simulating accidents - accidents whose underlying causes are not completely random but so complex that they are - yes - asymptotic to randomness. As a result, in an ideal scenario, if we're willing to undertake the immense number of calculations involved, we will be able to predict what "accident" is going to happen in a non-ideally random system.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="A damped wave tends to rest asymptotically"][/caption]

What's with the "axiomatically", you ask? Well, it means that if we defy all the paradoxes the universe throws at us and truly randomize an event, we will not be in a position to predict anything however hard we try, and vice versa (that's the axiom, by the way). Now, the third law of thermodynamics, in the context of refrigeration, states that absolute zero can never be reached by a series of infinite processes at least one of which is isothermal. Do you see the analogy? Do you see the analogy? Absolute zero is analogous to complete randomness, the series of processes is analogous to the construction of a perfect randomizer, and the isothermal process is analogous to an algorithm that involves logic. God, the third law is everywhere!

It is also my firm belief that all paradoxes are insurmountable by operations of a homogenous build: if a theory of human construction encounters a paradox, then any device that is the child of the same construction cannot surmount that paradox. Thus, putting together the conclusions of this statement and the axiom, we arrive at the hypothesis that if humans can never randomize, they can always anticipate... and vice versa.