Double-slit experiment implies that we literally create reality (keep in mind that a lone experiment is not the sole basis for my reasoning). This experiment shows that at the quantum level, there are observable and detectable changes directly influenced by observation. But, when you scale up to macro levels, this effect becomes increasingly smaller until it is undetectable at the systemic level.
Believe it or not, this implies that no reality exists independent of an individual's perception of it. The changes are undetectable at the largest level because you ARE the largest level, and thus you don't notice the changes because you are the change. In this way, a paradox is formed wherein change at the micro-level implies a static reality, and where no change at the macro-level implies pervasive, Universal change, hence the wave-particle paradox.
TL;DR: Everyone is essentially a mini-universe, like a holographic or isomorphic image of the entire Universe, or the set of all sets.
You have failed to produce a rebuttal to my argument and you respond by changing the topic? How does this have anything to do with a human changing the outcome of a random process? You're pretty much out of arguments and now you're trying to derail the topic to make yourself look smart.
On topic: that doesn't change the fact hashing is a mathematical operation that produces the same result every time. Although the output from a hashing function is random, there's nothing you can do to affect it. If you can produce actual results (no theoretical physics theories, please) that a human can change the outcome of a random function, I will believe you.
Who says it's a mathematical operation? Who says it's random? It's you, and the only reason you believe it is because everyone else does too (ad populum is a logical fallacy, though it doesn't make something less pluasible). And by the way, random is a bullshit word, anyway -- "It was caused by randomness." Go figure that one out. Additionally, absolutely every single definition of anything is essentially a theory of it; we live in a world of theories whether you like it or not. This includes operational definitions which are the basis for knowing what the hell it is you want to measure in the first place. When you say you want "results," you are asking for the results of what happens when one piece of reality (us) tries to measure some other piece of reality, without taking into account the entire system in which we both inhabit. But, without understanding the 'theory of theories,' (aka Universe) you are simply asking for results to pile atop a nonexistent foundation.
Fortunately, the things that help us learn about the 'theory of theories' are self-evident. The 'results' you are looking for are an indirect route to knowledge whereas direct experience is, well, a direct route to knowledge. "What one can prove, he does not know. What one knows, he cannot prove." ~ Me
On a side note, I wasn't trying to form a rebuttal. I was following up on the 'double slit experiment' because it was mentioned by someone else.
