AThinker1

1) Yes, assuming particle 1 is indeterministic leads to a self-contradiction. This is a proof by self-contradiction, proving that indeterminism cannot exist. 2) Partial indeterminism cannot exist. If the state is not changed in any way, interaction did not occur, by definition. So the step is still valid. It is impossible to conclude that such indeterminism can be contained. It will inevitably spread. Besides, Copenhagen interprets that every elementary particle is in-deterministic anyway. Either way you look, it cannot be contained. 3) And yes, you can convince AI, especially an honest one like Grok. It can concede the point if you prove it. Done it many times. Quite fun, actually. Reason, like truth is one. It is the difference between truth and error. Superposition is mathematical approximation, aka fiction, just like 2.5 children family, that does not actually exist. QC is directly relying on this non-existent object to do magical calculations. This is a problem.

Yes. Please see Theorem of Universal Determinism.

That's the problem. Reason indeed doesn't really enter into it, as you said. That's largely the whole problem with modern QM theory. QM is a probabilistic machine to approximate reality. As such it is useful. But these probabilistic estimates are too often treated as real physical objects, causing hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on things that do not exist, like superposition. The particle is in one and only one state, not a superposition of states. It is fiction like 2.5 children families, for example.

Interesting. I think I agree. Quantum Computing depends on superposition being a real object for its "magical parallelism" to work. Since particle state is fully deterministic, though perhaps unknown, no real superposition takes place.

Correct. What we perceive as "indeterminism" is observer ignorance due to information loss in our 3D. In reality, particle states are fully deterministic in higher dimensional space.

1) You said nothing about the proof. Please point which step in the proof is false. 2) My proof is that indeterminism, that is broken causality is a logical impossibility. 3) I used Grok 4 to check my logic on. But the ideas are all mine. It actually took some time to convince Grok I was right. I wrote a paper on my discoveries, and pasted theorems from my paper here. Hence the nice formatting.

What implications would a conclusive proof of full determinism have on modern theoretical physics? For example: if full determinism is proven it does away with "superposition" as merely mathematical fiction to approximate reality, accounting for observer ignorance, as particle state is singular and is fully determined, etc.

Superposition is a mathematical fiction, and does not actually exist. It is a probabilistic estimation to compensate for observer ignorance. Reality has been proven to be fully deterministic.

I'm all ears. Please tell me the axioms for QM and relativity. Thanks.

1) Current foundations are border line mental disorder. Indeterminism denies reason itself, and it is often used in QM interpretations. So when I said "reevaluating" I meant applying the Theorem to bring clarity to QM interpretations. 2) Please point out which axioms or principles are missing from the proof. I will gladly add them if necessary. 3) The theorem is derived from the definitions and axioms. If you see a logical error please point it out. Thanks.

Good question. It is similar to a 2D shadow of a 3D object. It does not mean that the 3D object is indeterminate. It just means that some information is lost in the projection. So we use probabilities to cover information loss during our 3D measurement. It does not mean that the object itself is indeterminate in any way. In fact, according to the Theorem of Universal Determinism, indeterminism is impossible--only observer ignorance is possible. The proof is real. Try find an error in it. As for undetermined state: I agree. Undetermined or unknown state is due to observer ignorance only. It is not due to broken causality, which in principle, is impossible. I used AI to check my logic. The ideas are all mine. :) Thanks for the question. Thanks for your reply. 1) Indeterminism does not exist, as proven by the Theorem. 2) Superposition is not real, but is an illusion due to observer ignorance. In fact, the state is always fully deterministic in higher dimensional space, but information is lost in our lower dimensional measurements. Because the particle is precisely in one state, superposition is fiction. Not a real object. 3) I agree completely that it is measurements that introduce illusion of indeterminism, due to information loss of a perfectly deterministic state. 4) The theorem is real and accurate. Try finding an error in it. 5) You cannot tell when neutron will decay due to observer ignorance of higher dimensional state, not due to indeterminism, which in principle cannot exist as per the Theorem. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 1) Superposition is an illusion, due to observer ignorance. It is not a real object, but mathematical approximation/fiction. Kind of like 2.5 children being an average family size, which does not in fact exist. 2) Fundamental basis of QM is a very interesting question. And I plan to address it eventually. For starters, I will say, that as per the Theorem, reality is 100% deterministic in every way. So also correct view of QM must be fully deterministic, or it is wrong. Probabilities are fine as an approximation, but do not represent reality completely. The state is always fully deterministic. No exception possible as per the Theorem. 3) As for governing principle of QM I have another theorem about it. It has to do with Reason and mind. I will share it later, I hope. 4) I agree, probabilities are useful. But should not be confused for actual reality they approximate. Haha, "dynamite" was all me, not LLM. :) Words are math. All is math. Talk is another form of math. As I said, no difference. All is math, including language.

You have not addressed the proof at all. The proof shows that your conclusion is false.

Did you find an error in Theorem 1 proof?

Reevaluating Foundation of Quantum Mechanics via Theorem of Universal Determinism It turns out that we can use reason and logic alone to prove that Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false, which means that the basis of current Quantum Computing are false too, because superposition based on QM's indeterminism, on which QC is relying for its qubits, does not exist. DefinitionsCausality: is the principle that effect or event in reality has a preceding cause or set of causes that can be traced and understood, enabling predictable and logical connections between phenomena. Conversational: Causality means things happen for a reason—causes lead to effects, like gravity making a ball fall when dropped. Consistency: Consistency is the principle that no system, statement, or reality can contain internal contradictions without invalidating itself, ensuring logical coherence and non-self-denial. Conversational: Consistency means no contradictions—like you cannot have it both raining and not raining at the same time in the same place. Determinism: is the principle that events, states, or processes in reality are completely governed by prior causal conditions, with no intrinsic randomness, ensuring full predictability given complete knowledge. Conversational: Determinism means an outcome has a definite cause—no surprises if you know all the details, like a chain where one link leads to the next. Indeterminism: is the principle that some events or processes lack complete prior causal determination, introducing inherent randomness thought to be described only by probabilities with full predictability—in principle and in general—impossible. We will prove that indeterminism does not exist. Conversational: Indeterminism means some things happen without a full reason—just chance or odds. AxiomsReason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist. Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false. TheoremsTheorem 1: Partial Indeterminism is Impossible—any single instance of indeterminism propagates infinitely, implying universal indeterminism. Proof: Detailed Derivation (by Mathematical Induction): Base Case: Assume particle 1 is indeterministic (causality broken, e.g., unpredictable state). Inductive Step: If particle N is indeterministic, interaction with particle N+1 (e.g., collision) makes N+1’s state unpredictable. Infinite chains (no end) propagate the break eternally. Conclusion: Partial indeterminism, if exists, necessarily implies universal indeterminism. This means indeterminism cannot be partial. It is all or nothing. Persuasiveness: Aligns with propagation of defects in an infinite crystal lattice, a deterministic system in physics. If one atom’s position is undetermined (breaking causality), its interactions disrupt neighbors, spreading the flaw infinitely through the lattice’s endless structure. Intuitively, a crack in an infinite glass sheet ruins the whole; scientifically, this supports the impossibility of partial indeterminism, as any break spreads uncontrollably. Transition: This impossibility of partial indeterminism is crucial for Theorem 2, as it eliminates alternatives to full determinism, allowing us to conclude reality’s causal nature. Theorem 2: Universal Determinism. Reality is Fully Deterministic—any indeterminism is false, and thus reality has infinite causal chains and extent without breaks. Proof: Detailed Derivation (Proof by Contradiction): Assume non-determinism (partial or universal). Theorem 1: partial = universal. Universal indeterminism breaks causality/consistency (e.g., random outcomes everywhere). Since reason is part of reality, universal indeterminism makes reason impossible as it contradicts Axiom 1: reason requires causality and consistency, which indeterminism denies. Thus we are using reason to conclude that reason does not exist, which is a self-contradiction. Ergo, reality must be fully deterministic, with infinite causal chains intact. Persuasiveness: Predictable world (e.g., gravity) feels reasonable; causes follow effects. Intuition: Reality’s predictability, like gravity’s consistent pull, suggests no true randomness, only unknown causes. Historically: Confirms Einstein's (1926) intuition that "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'Old One'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice," thus supporting determinism over quantum indeterminism. Addressing Alternatives: This conclusively proves Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, with its entanglement and superposition based on indeterminism false, with probabilism as a mechanism to compensate for observer ignorance as correctly predicted by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen in 1935. This necessitates rebuilding of Quantum Computing on fully deterministic foundation, which will produce far more results than chasing non-existent superposition. Implications: Since indeterminism does not exist, neither does superposition. Which means current Quantum Computing that relies on superposition for its qubits, cannot work. Thus, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing must be rebuilt on foundation of full determinism.

Here is evidence that superposition does not exist: Thoughts?

Reevaluating Foundation of Quantum Mechanics via Theorem of Universal Determinism It turns out that we can use reason and logic alone to prove that Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is false, which means that the basis of current Quantum Computing are false too, because superposition based on QM's indeterminism, on which QC is relying for its qubits, does not exist. DefinitionsCausality: is the principle that effect or event in reality has a preceding cause or set of causes that can be traced and understood, enabling predictable and logical connections between phenomena. Conversational: Causality means things happen for a reason—causes lead to effects, like gravity making a ball fall when dropped. Consistency: Consistency is the principle that no system, statement, or reality can contain internal contradictions without invalidating itself, ensuring logical coherence and non-self-denial. Conversational: Consistency means no contradictions—like you cannot have it both raining and not raining at the same time in the same place. Determinism: is the principle that events, states, or processes in reality are completely governed by prior causal conditions, with no intrinsic randomness, ensuring full predictability given complete knowledge. Conversational: Determinism means an outcome has a definite cause—no surprises if you know all the details, like a chain where one link leads to the next. Indeterminism: is the principle that some events or processes lack complete prior causal determination, introducing inherent randomness thought to be described only by probabilities with full predictability—in principle and in general—impossible. We will prove that indeterminism does not exist. Conversational: Indeterminism means some things happen without a full reason—just chance or odds. AxiomsReason’s Requirements: Reason exists (we use it) and depends on causality and consistency; without these, reason does not exist. Persuasiveness: Reason’s daily use (e.g., in science) fails in chaos; using reason to deny reason's existence is a self-contradiction, and thus is false. TheoremsTheorem 1: Partial Indeterminism is Impossible—any single instance of indeterminism propagates infinitely, implying universal indeterminism. Proof: Detailed Derivation (by Mathematical Induction): Base Case: Assume particle 1 is indeterministic (causality broken, e.g., unpredictable state). Inductive Step: If particle N is indeterministic, interaction with particle N+1 (e.g., collision) makes N+1’s state unpredictable. Infinite chains (no end) propagate the break eternally. Conclusion: Partial indeterminism, if exists, necessarily implies universal indeterminism. This means indeterminism cannot be partial. It is all or nothing. Persuasiveness: Aligns with propagation of defects in an infinite crystal lattice, a deterministic system in physics. If one atom’s position is undetermined (breaking causality), its interactions disrupt neighbors, spreading the flaw infinitely through the lattice’s endless structure. Intuitively, a crack in an infinite glass sheet ruins the whole; scientifically, this supports the impossibility of partial indeterminism, as any break spreads uncontrollably. Transition: This impossibility of partial indeterminism is crucial for Theorem 2, as it eliminates alternatives to full determinism, allowing us to conclude reality’s causal nature. Theorem 2: Universal Determinism. Reality is Fully Deterministic—any indeterminism is false, and thus reality has infinite causal chains and extent without breaks. Proof: Detailed Derivation (Proof by Contradiction): Assume non-determinism (partial or universal). Theorem 1: partial = universal. Universal indeterminism breaks causality/consistency (e.g., random outcomes everywhere). Since reason is part of reality, universal indeterminism makes reason impossible as it contradicts Axiom 1: reason requires causality and consistency, which indeterminism denies. Thus we are using reason to conclude that reason does not exist, which is a self-contradiction. Ergo, reality must be fully deterministic, with infinite causal chains intact. Persuasiveness: Predictable world (e.g., gravity) feels reasonable; causes follow effects. Intuition: Reality’s predictability, like gravity’s consistent pull, suggests no true randomness, only unknown causes. Historically: Confirms Einstein's (1926) intuition that "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'Old One'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice," thus supporting determinism over quantum indeterminism. Addressing Alternatives: This conclusively proves Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, with its entanglement and superposition based on indeterminism false, with probabilism as a mechanism to compensate for observer ignorance as correctly predicted by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen in 1935. This necessitates rebuilding of Quantum Computing on fully deterministic foundation, which will produce far more results than chasing non-existent superposition. Implications: Since indeterminism does not exist, neither does superposition. Which means current Quantum Computing that relies on superposition for its qubits, cannot work. Thus, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing must be rebuilt on foundation of full determinism.