Jump to content

determinism or indeterminism


Itoero

Recommended Posts

It depends what you consider proof. I take radioactivity as example.

We created the rule that +/- 50% carbon-14 decays within 5,730 years.

If this process is indeterministic and nothing defines the moment it starts to decay then the process is not subject to the rules(half-life) we set up.

 

Where did I say radioactivity was deterministic or non deterministic?

 

The problem with binary logic is just that.

 

It is binary.

 

It does not allow shades of grey or the statement it is partially deterministic.

 

For instance if you start with an even number of atoms the process is deterministic (if we set aside statistical variations) for an unknown number of steps.

 

If the initial number of atoms is 10 then 10/2 = 5 which is deterministic, but 5/2 is not.

 

Yet 128. 64 . 32 . 16 . 8 .4 . 2 is deterministic all the way down to 1.

 

 

Can you plz answer the following?

"we can statistically say, with a very high accuracy, that after 5,730 years half of all the original carbon-14 atoms will have decayed, while the rest still remain...a half-life would not exist if the moment an atom starts to decay is completely random or indeterministic. If the moment is random then the decay can start in 1 second or in 10^(+∞)years..."

 

-Determinism being mathematically untenable does not prove anything. Why do you think the probabilistic math explains definite reality?

Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with a Newtonian world...we have a Newtonian brain if you will. We have simply the wrong tools (atm)to make valid assumptions concerning the cause of quantum effects.

 

I am sorry I did answer that part of your previous post, but I was trying to separate questions using the quote function and deleting the unwanted bits in each case.

 

Somewhere along the line it got lost. So here it is again.

 

Yes we can statistically say that if we repeat the experiment of many trials we will obtain a range of actual outcomes with a mean of exactly half.

 

So random variation also affects the process.

 

But I come back to the fundamental requirement of determinism.

 

That to be deterministic a process must be capable of determinism.

 

That it it must be possible to deduce the outcome from the initial conditions exactly, each time the process is run.

 

The same deduction on the same process must produce the same result each time it is run.

 

Saying the process that outputs half of 5 sometimes produces 3 and sometimes 2 is not good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I say radioactivity was deterministic or non deterministic?

 

The problem with binary logic is just that.

 

It is binary.

 

It does not allow shades of grey or the statement it is partially deterministic.

 

For instance if you start with an even number of atoms the process is deterministic (if we set aside statistical variations) for an unknown number of steps.

 

If the initial number of atoms is 10 then 10/2 = 5 which is deterministic, but 5/2 is not.

 

Yet 128. 64 . 32 . 16 . 8 .4 . 2 is deterministic all the way down to 1.

You did not say radioactivity is indeterministic. I took radioactivity as example that non deterministic processes are not subjeect to the rules of its reality.

 

-The moment a particle starts to decay seems random yet the half life proves its not random.

-You can't predict if a photon is reflected or not(when shot through a polarising filter), but you can predict it will be 50/50. If its random then then it can't be 50/50 every time.

-If there are no hidden variable between entangled particles then those are separate particles. Correlation can't exist without hidden variables.

-You can't predict the exact place of a photon but you can predict the wave behavior.

If photons drop random then they should not show wave behavior on the screen. (in double slit)

=>The presence of a hidden reality is all over QM.

 

A half-life usually describes the decay of discrete entities, such as radioactive atoms. In that case, it does not work to use the definition that states "half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay". For example, if there are 3 radioactive atoms with a half-life of one second, there will not be "1.5 atoms" left after one second.

 

Instead, the half-life is defined in terms of probability: "Half-life is the time required for exactly half of the entities to decay on average". In other words, the probability of a radioactive atom decaying within its half-life is 50%.

 

Isn't binary logic the reason why many people believe in the complete absence of local hidden variables?

 

Yes we can statistically say that if we repeat the experiment of many trials we will obtain a range of actual outcomes with a mean of exactly half.

 

So random variation also affects the process.

 

But I come back to the fundamental requirement of determinism.

 

That to be deterministic a process must be capable of determinism.

 

That it it must be possible to deduce the outcome from the initial conditions exactly, each time the process is run.

 

The same deduction on the same process must produce the same result each time it is run.

 

Saying the process that outputs half of 5 sometimes produces 3 and sometimes 2 is not good enough.

Why do you think those measurement outcomes show definite reality and are not just something that arises when our knowledge (technology/science) shoots short?

 

I'm not the only one that thinks the probabilistic math does not explain definite reality. We need to find a link between the two.

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says science ever considers definite reality? What does that have to do with whether or not a process is deterministic or indeterminate?

 

Its amazing people try to describe reality but don't spend time understanding the meaning of the terminology they are trying to describe as real.

 

Determinant vs indeterminate is a prime example. Which Studiot is trying to properly explain to you.

 

If you cannot get the exact same answer everytime then its not a deterministic process. Getting the same answer sometimes but not always is indeterministic. Pretty straightforward.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says science ever considers definite reality? What does that have to do with whether or not a process is deterministic or indeterminate?

huh? Are you kidding me? It's been said many times that there are no local hidden variables.

I said several times that hidden variables are not defined and you can't disprove a hidden reality which you did not agree with. And now you make the nonsensical comment that science does not considers definite reality?

Science tries to explain definite reality.

 

 

If you cannot get the exact same answer everytime then its not a deterministic process. Getting the same answer sometimes but not always is indeterministic. Pretty straightforward.

If a process is deterministic then that does not mean you can show that in experiments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mixup local variables and non-local variables.

 

-The moment a particle starts to decay seems random yet the half life proves its not random.

 

So if I have a computer with a (pseudo-) random generator, then you say it is not random because its value is always between 0 and 1? Is that a valid criticism that my number generator is not random?

 

-You can't predict if a photon is reflected or not(when shot through a polarising filter), but you can predict it will be 50/50. If its random then then it can't be 50/50 every time.

 

No idea what you are saying here. Chance of absorption is 1/2. This simply means that if you send 1,000,000 photons through the polarisation filter about 500,000 go through, and the other circa 500,000 are absorbed. So you cannot predict if a single photon will get through or not. As a photon is not a composite particle, there is nothing in the photon that determines if it gets through or not.

 

-If there are no hidden variable between entangled particles then those are separate particles. Correlation can't exist without hidden variables.

 

Ah. But now you are not talking about local variables. Now you are talking about Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance', or Bohm's 'implicate order'.

 

-You can't predict the exact place of a photon but you can predict the wave behavior.
If photons drop random then they should not show wave behavior on the screen. (in double slit)

 

Somehow you do not seem to understand the statistical character of QM. The wave function (ok it's square) gives you the chance distribution of measuring a photon somewhere. But you cannot predict where a single photon will arrive: it will be somewhere where the chance does not equal zero. Do you understand what a chance distribution is.

 

03-double-slit-experiment-with-single-ph

 

=>The presence of a hidden reality is all over QM.

 

The presence of some hidden connection is everywhere in QM: but not of local determinism.

 

The video of Brian Greene has not much to do with what you are talking about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mixup local variables and non-local variables.

I just don't use 'local' when it's not necessary. Also, non local variables are not disproven but they aren't proven either..

 

So if I have a computer with a (pseudo-) random generator, then you say it is not random because its value is always between 0 and 1? Is that a valid criticism that my number generator is not random?

The word 'pseudo' explains it. True randomness does not exist. Every action is a reaction with a causal relation. You can always predict the outcome of something if you have sufficient knowledge and technology.

 

 

Somehow you do not seem to understand the statistical character of QM. The wave function (ok it's square) gives you the chance distribution of measuring a photon somewhere. But you cannot predict where a single photon will arrive: it will be somewhere where the chance does not equal zero. Do you understand what a chance distribution is.

I do understand it. Why do you think the probabilistic behavior is a real property of particles and not a property caused by our science/technology?

Something swansont said explains it:

"Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not there's no way to test it."

 

03-double-slit-experiment-with-single-ph

That's a nice picture! I like photons.

The video of Brian Greene has not much to do with what you are talking about.

He said something like this: "Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with Newtonian dynamics...we have a Newtonian brain if you will."

=>That's what I said but in different words. I said we have the wrong logic to explain the cause for quantum effects.

He also said "we need to find a link between the probabilistic math and definite reality."

=>He makes a distinction between the math and reality. The math does not explain reality.

 

28:00->32:15

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't use 'local' when it's not necessary. Also, non local variables are not disproven but they aren't proven either..

 

The word 'pseudo' explains it. True randomness does not exist. Every action is a reaction with a causal relation. You can always predict the outcome of something if you have sufficient knowledge and technology.

 

 

I do understand it. Why do you think the probabilistic behavior is a real property of particles and not a property caused by our science/technology?

Something swansont said explains it:

"Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not there's no way to test it."

 

03-double-slit-experiment-with-single-ph

That's a nice picture! I like photons.

He said something like this: "Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with Newtonian dynamics...we have a Newtonian brain if you will."

=>That's what I said but in different words. I said we have the wrong logic to explain the cause for quantum effects.

He also said "we need to find a link between the probabilistic math and definite reality."

=>He makes a distinction between the math and reality. The math does not explain reality.

 

28:00->32:15

 

Since you are using the word probability so freely here is a little question for you.

 

What is the meaning of the statement the probability of an event is 1 (one).

 

Does it mean

 

a) Absolute certainty?

 

b) Something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't use 'local' when it's not necessary. Also, non local variables are not disproven but they aren't proven either..

 

Well, it is necessary, because Bell's theorem only excludes the possibility of local variables. Again and again, you want to be less precise than necessary for a clarifying discussion.

 

The word 'pseudo' explains it. True randomness does not exist. Every action is a reaction with a causal relation. You can always predict the outcome of something if you have sufficient knowledge and technology.

 

No, I only put in the word 'pseudo' because it is not possible to make a real random generator with a perfectly deterministic machine. And you missed what I really asked:

 

Can you criticise that it is not a good random generator on the ground that it only produces values between 0 and 1?

 

 

I do understand it. Why do you think the probabilistic behavior is a real property of particles and not a property caused by our science/technology?

 

 

Because there are no 'inner workings' of electrons and photons, and because Bell's theorem excludes that there are such that are responsible for the exact attributes a single particle has. If you would understand QM, you would see that this is correct.

 

The problem you have is that you just can't believe that QM defies our daily understanding of the world. We are not capable of understanding how an object can have particle attributes and wave attributes at the same time. The problem is not mathematics or logic: QM is mathematically and logically sound. But we cannot picture exactly what is going on. But that is what you are doing: you apply your daily, intuitive understanding of the behaviour of macro objects to quantum objects:

 

He said something like this: "Through 1000s of years, we evolved/developed an intuition and language/math to deal with Newtonian dynamics...we have a Newtonian brain if you will."

 

So this applies perfectly to you.

 

That's a nice picture! I like photons.

 

Me too: they light my way. ^_^

 

He also said "we need to find a link between the probabilistic math and definite reality."

=>He makes a distinction between the math and reality. The math does not explain reality.

 

Greene is pointing to the many worlds interpretation of QM. (In the end with 'hidden reality' he means the multiverse, not a reality under the events we measure.)

 

The Schrödinger wave function is deterministic: the problem is however that we can only measure single events. And about these the wave function says nothing, except their chances to occur. It does not predict exactly what we will measure. The many worlds interpretation assumes that all events that are possible according to the wave function occur but in different universes: the universe, together with its observer, split in so many universes as there are possible outcomes of a quantum measurement. That is a bit extreme theory, but it is consistent with the mathematical formalism of QM.

 

As said before, you can accept that there are non-local variables. But then you get Bohm's implicate order, in which events depend on momentary events at other places in the universe, possibly lightyears away.

 

I am not aware of any other theories that are consistent with QM, and are strictly deterministic.

 

So this is it: either you accept the many worlds theory or Bohm's implicate order; or you accept that quantum events are not completely determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you are using the word probability so freely here is a little question for you.

 

What is the meaning of the statement the probability of an event is 1 (one).

 

Does it mean

 

a) Absolute certainty?

 

b) Something else?

The probability of an event refers to the likelihood that the event will occur. The event will almost definitely occur when the probability is 1.

Well, it is necessary, because Bell's theorem only excludes the possibility of local variables. Again and again, you want to be less precise than necessary for a clarifying discussion.

You again make the claim that bells theorem is about local hidden variables. The theorem debunks our theories concerning local hidden variables.

 

Can you criticise that it is not a good random generator on the ground that it only produces values between 0 and 1?

How can I say that's a good generator? If you only need values between 0 and 1 then it might be a good one for you.

 

Because there are no 'inner workings' of electrons and photons, and because Bell's theorem excludes that there are such that are responsible for the exact attributes a single particle has. If you would understand QM, you would see that this is correct.

Again, the theorem states that our theories/knowledge/intuition/logic can't explain 'inner workings'.Why can't you understand that?

 

The problem you have is that you just can't believe that QM defies our daily understanding of the world. We are not capable of understanding how an object can have particle attributes and wave attributes at the same time. The problem is not mathematics or logic: QM is mathematically and logically sound. But we cannot picture exactly what is going on. But that is what you are doing: you apply your daily, intuitive understanding of the behaviour of macro objects to quantum objects:

You say that math and logic are not the problem and that QM is mathematically and logically sound. How can you know it's sound?

 

 

Greene is pointing to the many worlds interpretation of QM. (In the end with 'hidden reality' he means the multiverse, not a reality under the events we measure.)

yes but that's not the only thing he points to, like I already showed.

So this is it: either you accept the many worlds theory or Bohm's implicate order; or you accept that quantum events are not completely determined.

I can't accept things which are not proven.

 

*The logic/intuition which makes people debunk local hidden variable based on Bells theorem, is made to deal with Newtonian dynamics.

You are trying to eat soup with a fork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You again make the claim that bells theorem is about local hidden variables. The theorem debunks our theories concerning local hidden variables.

 

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem):

 

No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

 

 

How can I say that's a good generator? If you only need values between 0 and 1 then it might be a good one for you.

 

Well, how you normally do it: finding no regularities, no absolute repetitions, etc etc.

 

Let's assume it passes all statistical tests. Now, is this random generator totally random? Say, the possible range of values is between 1 and 100. Can I predict that its value lies between 0 and 1? Does random then mean that the value is not determined at all?

 

Maybe you find some interesting ideas here: Probabilistic Causation.

 

“Probabilistic Causation” designates a group of theories that aim to characterize the relationship between cause and effect using the tools of probability theory. The central idea behind these theories is that causes change the probabilities of their effects.

 

You say that math and logic are not the problem and that QM is mathematically and logically sound. How can you know it's sound?

 

Because QM:

- gives definite and unambiguous statistical predictions

- these predictions are correct

 

The question of completeness is a different one. And that is what we are discussing here.

 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

They debunk physical theories...like I've said many times.

 

Because QM:

- gives definite and unambiguous statistical predictions

- these predictions are correct

 

The question of completeness is a different one. And that is what we are discussing here.

QM can only make predictions because everything is determined. A random event is not adjusted to the rules of its prediction. You can't make predictions if a process or effect is random.

 

We created the rule/prediction that +/- 50% carbon-14 decays within 5,730 years.

If this process is indeterministic and nothing defines the moment it starts to decay then the process is not subject to the rules(half-life) we set up.

 

"Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not there's no way to test it."

 

*The logic/intuition which makes people debunk local hidden variable based on Bells theorem, is made to deal with Newtonian dynamics.

You are trying to eat soup with a fork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."

They debunk physical theories...like I've said many times.

 

So you propose:

  • everything is determined
  • but we cannot describe it, i.e. formulate it as a theory

How can you find out if some event is determined, when there is no regularity in its occurrences? Or which kind of regularity cannot be described with a theory.

 

(BTW, you are using the word theory again: what does it mean now? Idea? Notion? A set of related laws of nature? An opinion?)

 

QM can only make predictions because everything is determined. A random event is not adjusted to the rules of its prediction. You can't make predictions if a process or effect is random.

 

You should react on my mentioning of probabilistic causation. QM makes predictions. But not exact predictions for every single event.

 

We created the rule/prediction that +/- 50% carbon-14 decays within 5,730 years.

If this process is indeterministic and nothing defines the moment it starts to decay then the process is not subject to the rules(half-life) we set up.

 

This is an empirical rule. And there is a cause for it: the energy levels in the carbon-14 nucleus. The structure of the carbon-14 nucleus is so that on average a nucleus decays in 5730 years.

 

*The logic/intuition which makes people debunk local hidden variable based on Bells theorem, is made to deal with Newtonian dynamics.

 

The logic that people think that they can apply Newtonian logic in the realm of QM, makes people think that QM events must be determined exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't have a probabilistic system that is local if you get non-local results. The results of entanglement have been experimentally confirmed to be non-local. One has out a limit on the speed of any possible communication at 10,000c, IIRC.

 

That the results are non-local is not in question. Any proposal that requires locality is dead in the water.

This is a physicist saying. I would say, follow the link of the quotation (bent arrow on the right of the quotation), and join in in the discussion there.

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you propose:

  • everything is determined
  • but we cannot describe it, i.e. formulate it as a theory
How can you find out if some event is determined, when there is no regularity in its occurrences? Or which kind of regularity cannot be described with a theory.

 

There is regularity in its occurrences...that's what something like the half life is about. If events are not determined we could not study them.

A random event is not adjusted to any rules of reality.

If the absence of local hidden variables enables an event then the event can be present everywhere.

The absence of local hidden variables is a property which is present everywhere.

 

This is an empirical rule. And there is a cause for it: the energy levels in the carbon-14 nucleus. The structure of the carbon-14 nucleus is so that on average a nucleus decays in 5730 years.

The carbon-14 has 50% chance of decaying within 5730 years. The structure of carbon-14 atoms is the same in every atom so why don't they all decay within a certain amount of time? Why is it that carbon-14 can decay in one second or in 50.000 years? The presence of a hidden reality explains statistical correlation and it explains why there are so many things we can't explain.

 

The logic that people think that they can apply Newtonian logic in the realm of QM, makes people think that QM events must be determined exactly.

I don't think so. Our logic and intuition evolved to deal with Newtonian dynamics or the world we can observe and understand. When we conclude the absence of local hidden variables because of experiments/math then our intuition which evolved to deal with Newtonian dynamics, tells us there are no local hidden variables. Our evolved logic tells us that things we can't observe/understand are not there.

 

Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not there's no way to test it.

This is the same physicist saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is regularity in its occurrences...that's what something like the half life is about. If events are not determined we could not study them.

A random event is not adjusted to any rules of reality.

 

If the absence of local hidden variables enables an event then the event can be present everywhere.

The absence of local hidden variables is a property which is present everywhere.

 

So for you there is no difference between totally random, meaning 'event can happen any time and anywhere' on one side, and statistical 'event can happen according a certain limited chance distribution in time an space.'

 

The interference pattern of light (or any other quantum particle) in a two slit experiment is exactly predicted by QM. So where particles arrive is totally random?

 

I don't think so. Our logic and intuition evolved to deal with Newtonian dynamics or the world we can observe and understand. When we conclude the absence of local hidden variables because of experiments/math then our intuition which evolved to deal with Newtonian dynamics, tells us there are no local hidden variables. Our evolved logic tells us that things we can't observe/understand are not there.

 

Of course you don't think so. But it is your Newtonian notion that every event must have a cause that convinces you there must also be causes for quantum events. QM explains the build-up of atoms and molecules, explains phenomena like superfluidity and superconductivity, it is the basis of electronics by describing and predicting the behaviour of semiconductors etc etc, without caring about the question if there is a hidden reality under the chance processes.

 

But if we do the experiments as in Bell-testing experiments, it turns out that a hidden reality with local causes is excluded.

 

And that is an empirically proven, scientific fact.

 

This is the same physicist saying.

 

Science is not the search for truth. Science attempts to explain how nature behaves, not what it is. At a fundamental level, you can't tell if your model is reality or not — there's no way to test it.

 

Yes, and this:

 

You can't have a probabilistic system that is local if you get non-local results. The results of entanglement have been experimentally confirmed to be non-local.

 

How do you reconcile these? Didn't Swansont describe here how nature behaves? We do not 'really know' what is going on on the quantum level, but we know how nature at least does not behave in Bell-like experiments: it does not behave according to local causes.

 

Do you thinks Swansont's statements are inconsistent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So for you there is no difference between totally random, meaning 'event can happen any time and anywhere' on one side, and statistical 'event can happen according a certain limited chance distribution in time an space.'

True randomness doesn't exist, but you can use the word 'random' to describe certain behavior.

It's like Free Will. It does not exist but you can call a choice to be free will because a choice seems random and is made without direct hindrance from external sources.

 

The interference pattern of light (or any other quantum particle) in a two slit experiment is exactly predicted by QM. So where particles arrive is totally random?

No. In order to know if behavior is totally random within a deterministic system, you need to know what causes the behavior.

Those inequalities describe random behavior it does not describes the system that causes the seemingly random behavior.

 

Many people think there are no local causes because we can't understand for there to be local causes.

 

A number generator can be described to be random but in order to know that it's not random you need to know the mechanism that gives the seemingly random numbers.

 

 

Of course you don't think so. But it is your Newtonian notion that every event must have a cause that convinces you there must also be causes for quantum events. QM explains the build-up of atoms and molecules, explains phenomena like superfluidity and superconductivity, it is the basis of electronics by describing and predicting the behaviour of semiconductors etc etc, without caring about the question if there is a hidden reality under the chance processes.

 

But if we do the experiments as in Bell-testing experiments, it turns out that a hidden reality with local causes is excluded.

 

And that is an empirically proven, scientific fact.

We evolved to deal with Newtonian dynamics, the world we observe/understand. When experiments/math shows something isn't there then our logic dictates it's not there. Those local causes are a product of our knowledge...and that's what the theorem disproves. Thinking we can disprove a hidden reality is like saying we disprove non existing theories.

Our Newtonian brain is not linked to idea's of causality.

Idea's concerning causality are often personal beliefs...many people believe in real Free Will or that a divine force is the cause for the universe.

 

How do you reconcile these? Didn't Swansont describe here how nature behaves? We do not 'really know' what is going on on the quantum level, but we know how nature at least does not behave in Bell-like experiments: it does not behave according to local causes.

 

Do you thinks Swansont's statements are inconsistent?

Admitting you can never know if a model is reality or not does not mean you can't make valid assumptions about our idea of reality. Those models show our idea of reality but that's not necessary absolute reality.

 

The observable universe seems to be made by fundamental particles/quantum effects. If fundamental particles/quantum effects are not caused, then the (observable)universe is not caused by anything?

I believe in a hidden reality because it explains a lot!

 

Science doesn't deal with absolute reality or absolute truth. Science is a never ending search towards absolute truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True randomness doesn't exist, but you can use the word 'random' to describe certain behavior.

It's like Free Will. It does not exist but you can call a choice to be free will because a choice seems random and is made without direct hindrance from external sources.

 

What has randomness to do with free will? So not only you do not understand physics, you neither understand much of philosophy.

 

Idea's concerning causality are often personal beliefs...

 

How true...

 

I believe in a hidden reality because it explains a lot!

 

Sweet dreams.

 

In short: you say you understand Bell's theorem better than all the physically reliable articles about it. I hope you are going to study physics. I already see the description of the Nobel Price Committee: 'Against the mainstream, Itoero proved that Bell's theorem did not exclude local causes, and that there is a hidden mechanism exactly predicting single quantum events'. It also showed why technology based on quantum entanglement that always seemed to work, in fact does not'.

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has randomness to do with free will? So not only you do not understand physics, you neither understand much of philosophy.

I'm comparing randomness with free will. They both don't exist but you can call behavior to be random or a choice to be made with free will if you observe it that way.

 

Is my English that bad? You often just don't react to what I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that?

If true randomness exists then you can have an effect without a cause...that's impossible.

An effect is always adjusted to the properties of a cause. A random effect is not adjusted to any properties, so it's not invested in the structure of its reality.

 

Randomness can be defined as the absence of structure or pattern.(the absence of rules) All processes we label as random are "apparently" random. I claim or hope that in some future golden age of science all types of randomness, including quantum weirdness, will be banished. But until we actually reach that elusive stage in the development of science, all we can say is that randomness seems to be a feature of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you can't say that true randomness doesn't exist. You just hope it doesn't exist because you don't like the idea of it existing.

 

You're in good company there. Even Einstein didn't like it.

 

Unfortunately, as with everything else in science, the universe doesn't particularly care how we want it to work. It is what it is and isn't bound to conform to any notions we have about how it should or shouldn't operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm comparing randomness with free will. They both don't exist but you can call behavior to be random or a choice to be made with free will if you observe it that way.

 

Is my English that bad? You often just don't react to what I say.

 

No, your English is not bad at all. But your thinking is:

- you think you understand Bell's theorem, but you don't

- you do not accept empirical proven aspects of nature (a hurray for the one who sees the small pun in this one...)

- you use no rigid definitions of your terms ('theory'), which leads to your chaotic thinking

- you do not backup your claims with references to physics sources

- you stick to your dogmatic thinking, without giving valid arguments

- you suffer from 'black or white thinking': 'not completely determined' does not mean 'totally random'

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know that is not possible?

If quantum effects/fundamental particles are not caused by anything then the universe is not caused by anything? You think the universe appeared out of 'thin air'?

No, your English is not bad at all. But your thinking is:

- you think you understand Bell's theorem, but you don't

- you do not accept empirical proven aspects of nature (a hurray for the one who sees the small pun in this one...)

- you use no rigid definitions of your terms ('theory'), which leads to your chaotic thinking

- you do not backup your claims with references to physics sources

- you stick to your dogmatic thinking, without giving valid arguments

- you suffer from 'black or white thinking': 'not completely determined' does not mean 'totally random'

And you think probabilistic math explains the nature of the universe...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.