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.

Definitions

1. Causality: 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Axioms

1. Reason’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.

Theorems

1. Theorem 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.

2. 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.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by AThinker1

16 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

Definitions

1. Causality: 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

Axioms

1. Reason’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.

Theorems

1. Theorem 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.

2. Theorem 2: Universal Determinism. Reality is Fully Deterministic—universal 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.

What silly rubbish. Getting AI to dress it up is just putting lipstick on a pig.

The fact that the law of cause and effect operates at the macro level is not proof that a certain degree of indeterminacy can't exist at the quantum level.

Just now, exchemist said:

What silly rubbish. Getting AI to dress it up is just putting lipstick on a pig.

The fact that the law of cause and effect operates at the macro level is not proof that a certain degree of indeterminacy can't exist at the quantum level.

Did you find an error in Theorem 1 proof?

Just now, AThinker1 said:

Did you find an error in Theorem 1 proof?

I've just told you where the error is.

Just now, exchemist said:

I've just told you where the error is.

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

Just now, AThinker1 said:

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

Observational evidence is that quantum indeterminacy is real. How do you account for that?

1 minute ago, AThinker1 said:

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

It’s not really a proof. Being in an undetermined state does not mean that causality is broken.

Please disclose which AI you used for this.

37 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

Since indeterminism does not exist, neither does superposition.

This is obviously false, as indeterminism is not a consequence of superposition. Superpositions in quantum mechanics evolve in a perfectly deterministic way. They're more to do with non-realism than with indeterminsm. It is measurements that introduce indeterminism. But that's an independent postulate that has nothing to do with superpositions. It's quite ad hoc. The fact that it's ad hoc is bothersome, but it is what it is. And it works.

As to the rest, I'm afraid it's just a heavily-worded expression of your hopes that has little or nothing to do with an actual theorem in mathematical physics, like the Coleman-Mandula theorem, and the like.

You cannot tell when a neutron will decay. Even though neutrons are all the same. That's indeterminism for you.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

I note you haven't understood what superposition is all about as the Copenhagen interpretation (which I do not agree with either) is not required for superposition.

I would be interested if you were to tell us what you regard as the fundamental basis of QM ?

That is what is QM about and what is its governing principle ?

I am totally comfortable with the same principle that governs non quantum mechanics and in fact underlies most processes in this universe.

This leads to ready and accurate calculation in Physics, Chemistry, Applied mathematics and many other sciences, all in accordance with observations to a very high degree of agreement.

34 minutes ago, joigus said:

You cannot tell when a neutron will decay. Even though neutrons are all the same. That's indeterminism for you.

+1

Edited August 27Aug 27 by studiot

(OP: "Help me win a Nobel with my theory"

LLM: "Use 'dynamite' in the title")

5 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

(OP: "Help me win a Nobel with my theory"

LLM: "Use 'dynamite' in the title")

Luv it +1

58 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

Did you find an error in Theorem 1 proof?

Why are humanists so dense?

You haven't proven anything, because in physics you can have zero text and only calculations. It is the calculations that are the proof, not the description.

You have a particle with spins 0, 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 5/2, 3, etc., and it gives you some number of dots on the screen, i.e., 2S+1. And now your goal is to show why these particles land exactly where we see (detect) them.

If you don't understand what we're talking about, here's some reading material for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

51 minutes ago, joigus said:

You cannot tell when a neutron will decay. Even though neutrons are all the same. That's indeterminism for you.

Untrue, we have fast neutrons, we have thermal (slow) neutrons, we have free neutrons and neutrons bound to protons.. Maybe there are other classifications as well.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

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

You don't understand what “proof” is. Talk is proof only in court.

Maybe try this first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

13 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Untrue, we have fast neutrons, we have thermal (slow) neutrons, we have free neutrons and neutrons bound to protons.. Maybe there are other classifications as well.

What is untrue? That neutrons decay time cannot be predicted?

Of course there are many different situations for neutrons. Lifetimes of bound neutrons can be very long indeed. Slow neutrons can couple to a nucleus and prolong their life, etc. If and when they decay cannot be predicted though.

Neutron decay time cannot be predicted.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

What is untrue? That neutrons decay time cannot be predicted?

Of course there are many different situations for neutrons. Lifetimes of bound neutrons can be very long indeed. Slow neutrons can couple to a nucleus and prolong their life, etc. If and when they decay cannot be predicted though.

Neutron decay time cannot be predicted.

Nobody questioned the impossibility of predicting when a neutron particle will decay.

I only questioned your statement that they are identical/the same.

And if we add theories about hidden variables to the mix, then no particle is identical.

You have bits in your computer. Can you say that they are identical/the same? They have different offsets in different bytes etc.

8 minutes ago, Sensei said:

I only questioned your statement that they are identical/the same.

Oh. OK. I understand. I wouldn't say those neutrons are not identical. I'd say they are in different quantum states.

24 minutes ago, Sensei said:

And if we add theories about hidden variables to the mix, then no particle is identical.

As to hidden variables for the neutron, according to Bell's theorem, you cannot assign hidden parameters that determine any objective internal structure to a neutron, as SU(2) is a subgroup of SU(3), which is an exact symmetry for neutrons. And SU(2) is exactly the group that Bell used to build a set of three observables that cannot have simultaneous elements of reality.

Present physics could, of course, be wrong, but the present status of our understanding is that neutrons just decay when they do. And it seems hard to attribute that to any "internal" mechanism, at least if we don't want to resort to superdeterminism.

I do believe elements of reality can be ascribed to position variables through gauge particularisation, which would "protect" them from being known with certainty, but not to spin or any SU(n)-related variables = "internal variables" = "based on a compact group". But that's a different story, it's not mainstream, and just my thinking.

Edited August 27Aug 27 by joigus
minor grammatical trimming

On 8/27/2025 at 3:26 PM, exchemist said:

Observational evidence is that quantum indeterminacy is real. How do you account for that?

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.

On 8/27/2025 at 3:29 PM, swansont said:

It’s not really a proof. Being in an undetermined state does not mean that causality is broken.

Please disclose which AI you used for this.

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.

On 8/27/2025 at 3:41 PM, joigus said:

This is obviously false, as indeterminism is not a consequence of superposition. Superpositions in quantum mechanics evolve in a perfectly deterministic way. They're more to do with non-realism than with indeterminsm. It is measurements that introduce indeterminism. But that's an independent postulate that has nothing to do with superpositions. It's quite ad hoc. The fact that it's ad hoc is bothersome, but it is what it is. And it works.

As to the rest, I'm afraid it's just a heavily-worded expression of your hopes that has little or nothing to do with an actual theorem in mathematical physics, like the Coleman-Mandula theorem, and the like.

You cannot tell when a neutron will decay. Even though neutrons are all the same. That's indeterminism for you.

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!

On 8/27/2025 at 4:13 PM, studiot said:

I note you haven't understood what superposition is all about as the Copenhagen interpretation (which I do not agree with either) is not required for superposition.

I would be interested if you were to tell us what you regard as the fundamental basis of QM ?

That is what is QM about and what is its governing principle ?

I am totally comfortable with the same principle that governs non quantum mechanics and in fact underlies most processes in this universe.

This leads to ready and accurate calculation in Physics, Chemistry, Applied mathematics and many other sciences, all in accordance with observations to a very high degree of agreement.

+1

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.

On 8/27/2025 at 4:15 PM, pzkpfw said:

(OP: "Help me win a Nobel with my theory"

LLM: "Use 'dynamite' in the title")

Haha, "dynamite" was all me, not LLM. :)

On 8/27/2025 at 4:31 PM, Sensei said:

You haven't proven anything, because in physics you can have zero text and only calculations. It is the calculations that are the proof, not the description.

Words are math. All is math.

On 8/27/2025 at 4:31 PM, Sensei said:

You don't understand what “proof” is. Talk is proof only in court.

Talk is another form of math. As I said, no difference. All is math, including language.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by AThinker1

29 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

Having carefully side stepped all my questions by addressing things I did not say how about answering the questions I did ask ?

For instance I said nothing about probability.

You claim that you are

Reevaluating Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

So surely you should know and be able to state what the foundations currently are ?

You can't do a reevaluation without this so how will you

And I plan to address it eventually.

?

Theorem of Universal Determinism

You can't have a theorem until you have some axioms or principles to derive it from.

You appear to be trying to work arse backwards.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

So surely you should know and be able to state what the foundations currently are ?

You can't do a reevaluation without this so how will you?

You can't have a theorem until you have some axioms or principles to derive it from.

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.

12 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

This is a no then, you don't actually know what the axioms of QM are.

You have stated no axioms that I can see, consequently they are all missing.

But I am only looking for the main one.

Einstein needed two for relativity.

Edited August 28Aug 28 by studiot

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

This is a no then, you don't actually know what the axioms of QM are.

You have stated no axioms that I can see, consequently they are all missing.

But I am only looking for the main one.

Einstein needed two for relativity.

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

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

The proof is real. Try find an error in it.

I pointed it out.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

As for undetermined state: I agree. Undetermined or unknown state is due to observer ignorance only.

No, that’s not true. Let’s say you have a particle that’s spin 1, and you measure the state. Then it decays into two spin 1/2 particles. Their spins are undetermined. If they had determined but unknown states you can measure effects from that.

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

It is not due to broken causality, which in principle, is impossible.

Then why did you say that it was? And your “proof” relies on it

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

I used AI to check my logic. The ideas are all mine. :)

I asked which one. Will you answer that question?

Your post is curiously well-formatted . You did all that for a forum post? And made it look like a bunch of other posts that used AI? That seems…unlikely.

(And AI is not trustworthy to check your logic)

2 hours ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

Superposition depends on your basis. It’s a fairly trivial exercise to change from one basis to another. Kinda pointless to deny this.

Nobody says it’s an “object”

1 hour ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

“Reason” doesn’t really enter into it.

QM interpretations are not QM, they are each a framework to help with a more intuitive understanding of QM. You don’t like e.g. wave-function collapse? Fine. You have other options. It doesn’t change QM one iota.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I pointed it out.

No, that’s not true. Let’s say you have a particle that’s spin 1, and you measure the state. Then it decays into two spin 1/2 particles. Their spins are undetermined. If they had determined but unknown states you can measure effects from that.

Then why did you say that it was? And your “proof” relies on it

I asked which one. Will you answer that question?

Your post is curiously well-formatted . You did all that for a forum post? And made it look like a bunch of other posts that used AI? That seems…unlikely.

(And AI is not trustworthy to check your logic)

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.

5 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

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

QM concerns material objects.

I am not sure there are any non material objects subject to QM.

In Mathematics we have axioms, in Physics we have principles.

The fundamental principle we need here is the Principle of Least Energy.

A system of material objects acts to attain minimum energy.

Using this principle, mathematics can be derived to explain why fluids flow, why structures stand or fall, why hot objects cool off, why chemicals bond, why chemical reactions happen and much more.

The mathematics can be used to predict what will happen (though humans do not always get if right).

I said energy, but energy (which is a property of material objects) may be possessed in various ways.

For a system of material objects one of these ways is configuration energy.

If a system can minimise its energy by reconfiguration it will do so unless constrained in some way.

It is this process which drives activity amongst sub atomic particles in a manner most readily described by QM.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

QM concerns material objects.

I am not sure there are any non material objects subject to QM.

In Mathematics we have axioms, in Physics we have principles.

The fundamental principle we need here is the Principle of Least Energy.

A system of material objects acts to attain minimum energy.

Using this principle, mathematics can be derived to explain why fluids flow, why structures stand or fall, why hot objects cool off, why chemicals bond, why chemical reactions happen and much more.

The mathematics can be used to predict what will happen (though humans do not always get if right).

I said energy, but energy (which is a property of material objects) may be possessed in various ways.

For a system of material objects one of these ways is configuration energy.

If a system can minimise its energy by reconfiguration it will do so unless constrained in some way.

It is this process which drives activity amongst sub atomic particles in a manner most readily described by QM.

Interesting. I think I agree.

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Superposition depends on your basis. It’s a fairly trivial exercise to change from one basis to another. Kinda pointless to deny this.

Nobody says it’s an “object”

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.

2 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

1) You said nothing about the proof. Please point which step in the proof is false.

Theorem 1 “Assume particle 1 is indeterministic (causality broken, e.g., unpredictable state).”

Apologies. I mistakenly assumed you were familiar with your own work.

2 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

2) My proof is that indeterminism, that is broken causality is a logical impossibility.

But if the premise is incorrect the conclusion is invalid.

Another clue to this is that we can measure states, so indeterminism is not universal.

There are counterexamples to step 2 as well. A particle in an undetermined state could interact with a particle in a determined state but not have sufficient energy to change the state. Or it could interact in such a way that one must return to a determined state (e.g. an excitation into a maximal angular momentum state only has one decay channel, so you know what state it’s in)

2 minutes ago, AThinker1 said:

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.

You can’t “convince” an AI.