> But that has been challenged by uncertainty principles, observer effect and all that. Any system which allows universal computation necessarily has subsystem

> But that has been challenged by uncertainty principles, observer effect and all that. Any system which allows universal computation necessarily has subsystems that cannot make perfect predictions about the full system. This doesn’t even require quantum mechanics; humans would run up against this problem in a fully classical universe. Loosely put, since we’re part of the system ourselves, we can’t gather all of the information necessary for perfect prediction without interfering with whatever we’re trying to predict. However, as far as I’m aware, we haven’t yet closed all the loopholes related to superdeterminism, meaning quantum randomness might not be truly random in the sense that an observer completely outside of our universe could in theory procure an algorithm that predicts the exact eigenvalues for every quantum measurement we make. Since we’re inside the system, no luck for us though. But I like to make a subtle distinction between “unpredictable random” (max Kolmogorov complexity) and “truly random” (ungenerated via any Turing computable algorithm and unpredictable with infinite knowledge). The latter is a bit philosophically difficult to prove exists. The former is quite easy to prove exists; think about how a one time pad has max Kolmogorov complexity (assuming a good source of random noise) but it’s conditional Kolmogorov complexity with the key is much smaller.