Quantum Mechanics and randomness

[vicdan]

Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict.

Erm, how about NO?

'Random' means something that cannot be predicted. The processes difficult to model or predict are called pseudo-random, they are well understood, and they have nothing to do with real randomness. Real randomness comes from quantum non-determinism. We now know that the quantum non-determinism cannot be pseudo-randomness caused by the local hidden variables, as per Bell's theorem.

You can speculate about quantum non-determinism not being really random, but this is speculation flying in the face of experimental evidence. You can certainly propose (and people have proposed) hypotheses which get around this is really bizarre ways -- in a manner similar to how you can hypothesize that your 10lbs gain indicated by your bathroom scales is due to gravity field distortion rather than you having put on a few pounds.

Basically, the facts seem to be that genuine randomness exists.

[Philosophaster]

...in a manner similar to how you can hypothesize that your 10lbs gain indicated by your bathroom scales is due to gravity field distortion rather than you having put on a few pounds.

Hehe. Who first came up with that example? The first time I saw it was in one of Thomas Nagel's pieces, but I have no idea if he made it up.

Genuinely catchy philosophical metaphors and examples are rare enough that I like to know their provenance.

[David Quinn]

Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict.

Erm, how about NO?

'Random' means something that cannot be predicted.

The weather on the 6th June, 2050, cannot be predicted by us in the here and now, but that doesn't mean it will be random.

Quantum non-deterministic events might appear to be random (i.e. incapable of being predicted) to us in the here and now, but this could easily change with new theories in the future.

The processes difficult to model or predict are called pseudo-random, they are well understood, and they have nothing to do with real randomness. Real randomness comes from quantum non-determinism. We now know that the quantum non-determinism cannot be pseudo-randomness caused by the local hidden variables, as per Bell's theorem.

That's merely an assumption built into a particular interpretation of quantum theory, an interpretation not universally agreed upon.

-

[hsandman]

I tend to agree with David. "Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict. "

ie. Butterfly effect.

edit: Tyler was wrong though: "Tyler Durden: Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else"

I think we are special ....Just for a little while.... always right now, and then we are gone. Like my neighbor... always right now he was a snowflake... a imperfect snowflake, but now he is decaying organic matter.

I think life is fractal based on fibonaccy number.

Guess that might have been what pincho was/is saying(?)

[daybrown]

Turbulence is not totally random like TV snow. It is bounced showing us vortices that spin at a consistent rate, all rotating in the same direction, and each drifting off in a fairly, but not totally, predictable direction like a hurricane.

If snowflakes didnt have randomness, they would all be identical. Each is unique. Ditto fern, or any other kind of leaf. When you setup the right conditions, be they atmospheric moisture and temp, or the growth stage of an organism, or the flow of a liquid, each will display a particular kind of fractal that permit you to class it as a snowflake, fern leaf, or smoke plume.

If it were not for the random input, then each of these fractals would be perfectly predictable. And if you alter any of the fundamental inputs beyond a certain range, then you do not get a fractal at all; no snowflake, no leaf, no turbulent flow, but a chamber filled evenly with smoke like a TV screen with snow such that you cant see any pattern at all.

Down at the nanotechnology level this gets interesting because the quantum forces are relatively so much more powerful. You may know that an atom will adhere to a crystalline surface, but you never know which atom unless you use a probe with a field effect to move one, and even then, you dont know at which distance, or point in time it will abruptly appear where you are trying to put it. Like moving magnets close on a table, they will suddenly snap together, but if you keep repeating this, the exact distance is not determinable.

[vicdan]

The weather on the 6th June, 2050, cannot be predicted by us in the here and now, but that doesn't mean it will be random.

No, it doesn't. Weather is deterministic but chaotic (it's not even pseudorandom). meaning, it can be predicted in theory, but the actual prediction algorithm is intractable.

Note however that chaotic systems can generally be predicted with great accuracy to a narrow limit -- e.g. we can very accurately predict weather one day in advance, because one day in advance the intractable chaos has not yet gone beyond the range of our predictive power.

This is in stark contrast with quantum non-determinism, where we cannot predict even a single quantum event. That's because, while weather is chaotic and thus predictable within narrow constraints, quantum events are truly random and thus aren't predictable. At all.

You are letting your ignorant prejudice run away with you.

Quantum non-deterministic events might appear to be random (i.e. incapable of being predicted) to us in the here and now, but this could easily change with new theories in the future.

Indeed. And bats could fly out of your ass in the future, too. Doesn't mean you should set up a bat trap in your chair, does it?

As best as we can determine, quantum events are truly random. We know from observed evidence that they cannot be explained as non-random involved any local hidden variables. meaning, any hypothesis trying to conceive of quantum events as determinsitic, relying on local hidden variables, is automatically proven false by empirical evidence before it's even formulated.

That's merely an assumption built into a particular interpretation of quantum theory, an interpretation not universally agreed upon.

No, it's not just a couple of interpretations. It's Bell's theorem confirmed by empirical observations.

You are simply assuming, for your faith-held reasons, that true randomness cannot exist. You are deluding yourself, letting your prejudices overrule actual empirical evidence.

This is exactly the sort of problem that stems from your idiotic programme of redefining terms and then coming up with actually trivial, but profound-sounding when interpreted in standard English, conclusions. Like so many charlatans through the ages, you are now buying your own bullshit.

[vicdan]

I tend to agree with David. "Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict. "

ie. Butterfly effect.

You agree with him because you are an ignorant idiot.

'Butterlfy effect' -- weather -- is a canonical example of chaotic system. Chaotic systems are unpredictable in ways completely different from random systems. A chaotic system, in addition to some other property (such as high sensitivity to input variations) is intractable; meaning, the prediction algorithm is NP or greater, and thus, for all practical intents and purposes, cannot be computed beyond a certain very close point (because on any deterministc computer NP is exponentially hard AFAWCT, as per Church-Turing thesis). Weather is a chaotic system. it's not a random system. Weather can be predicted short time in advance. Quantum events, which are truly random rather than merely deterministically chaotic, cannot be predicted at all.

Note for example another key practical difference between chaotic and random systems, in addition to narrow-range computability. With the advent of quantum computers which can emulate non-deterministic Turing machine, we will be able to compute NP problems in P time, up to a point (limited by the qbit count). This means that our ability to accurately predict weather will take a quantum leap, assuming we can accurately and exhaustively measure the initial conditions. Contrawise, quantum computing will do exactly nothing -- zero, nada, zilch -- to help us predict quantum events. That's because the problem with predicting random events, such as quantum decoherence, is not that the algorithm is intractably hard, but that the algorithm doesn't exist.

Chaotic system: prediction algorithms are intractably hard, and approximations are useless because of sensitivity to input variability.
Random system: prediction algorithms don't exist at all.

[hsandman]

Vic:

"Chaos theory attempts to explain the fact that complex and unpredictable results can and will occur in systems that are sensitive to their initial conditions. A common example of this is known as the Butterfly Effect. It states that, in theory, the flutter of a butterfly's wings in China could, in fact, actually effect weather patterns in New York City, thousands of miles away. In other words, it is possible that a very small occurance can produce unpredictable and sometimes drastic results by triggering a series of increasingly significant events. "


"flutter of a butterfly's wings in China" (cause) --> effect weather patterns in New York City (effect)


"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event.

A is called the cause, B the effect.

Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.

Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Source-Causality)

Cause -> effect. A causes B in the future. <- Prediction. It is just so complex that the noise created by unlimited numbers of A's make any long term/time prediction (effect) inacurate the futher it is away from the (cause). Hence the chaos theory.

Chaos can be predictable, hence laws of physics and mathematics etc. The fact that they may never predict events with absalute accuracy does not mean that it is impossible.

Let's see ...

Edit:

That's because, while weather is chaotic and thus predictable within narrow constraints, quantum events are truly random and thus aren't predictable. At all."

Like you wrote in some other thread vic: Indubitable does not mean impossible.

I tend to agree with David. "Random doesn't mean uncaused. It simply refers to causal processes that we find difficult to model or predict. "

Edit: Learning to bear the burden of a meaningless universe, and justify one's own existence, is the first step toward becoming the "Ãœbermensch" (English: "overman" or "superman") that Nietzsche speaks of extensively in his philosophical writings.

Existentialists have suggested that people have the courage to accept that while no meaning has been designed in the universe, we each can provide a meaning for ourselves.

Though philosophers have pointed out the difficulties in establishing theories of the validity of causal relations, there is yet the plausible example of causation afforded daily which is our own ability to be the cause of events. This concept of causation does not prevent seeing ourselves as moral agents. -wiki

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm halfway between Handsman, and Vicdan.

I agree with Vicdan here....
There do appear to be some truly random Quantum Effects. When a particle can do two things at once, and is therefore about to do either thing in the present time.
Like this...

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins clockwise.

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins anti-clockwise.

These dual actions are TRULY RANDOM.

I doubt that we will ever be able to predict them, but I agree with HandsMan here...

We might be able to predict them in the future. Although it means to analyse the sentience of a particle, which sounds extremely difficult.

[Pincho Paxton]

I have thought of a good example of true randomness using my above principal.

The dualistic state of a particle is created by making a particle twin of itself. Everything in the universe is twinned. Us humans could have all of our particles twinned as well. So if we were to be twinned in this way, we would then be still a single person, but we would be ghostlike, inside one another, not really moving through time, but sharing the present. Each twin could then make seperate decisions. But just remember that the twins are already inside us right now, but have not been seperated.

[hsandman]

I'm halfway between Handsman, and Vicdan.

I agree with Vicdan here....
There do appear to be some truly random Quantum Effects. When a particle can do two things at once, and is therefore about to do either thing in the present time.
Like this...

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins clockwise.

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins anti-clockwise.

These dual actions are TRULY RANDOM.

I doubt that we will ever be able to predict them, but I agree with HandsMan here...

We might be able to predict them in the future. Although it means to analyse the sentience of a particle, which sounds extremely difficult.

And he also said:

" in a manner similar to how you can hypothesize that your 10lbs gain indicated by your bathroom scales is due to gravity field distortion rather than you having put on a few pounds."

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm halfway between Handsman, and Vicdan.

I agree with Vicdan here....
There do appear to be some truly random Quantum Effects. When a particle can do two things at once, and is therefore about to do either thing in the present time.
Like this...

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins clockwise.

Time = 1hr, 20mins, 15 seconds, .0000001 nanoseconds.. particle spins anti-clockwise.

These dual actions are TRULY RANDOM.

I doubt that we will ever be able to predict them, but I agree with HandsMan here...

We might be able to predict them in the future. Although it means to analyse the sentience of a particle, which sounds extremely difficult.

And he also said:

" in a manner similar to how you can hypothesize that your 10lbs gain indicated by your bathroom scales is due to gravity field distortion rather than you having put on a few pounds."

Vicdan is talking about using real experiments, rather than hypothesis. The dual state of particles has been observed, and is therefore not hypothesis. Our sentience is observed, and is therefore not hypothesis. Our bodies are made from particles, not hypothesis. I can conclude from this that particles create sentience, not hypothesis. I am just stepping up, and saying that partcles can have individual sentience, and it is based on all previous information. It is hypothesis in the sense that it might take two particles to have sentience, and work together. But this second opinion that two particles can work together is observed in Photons, and Electrons. Where a photon hits an electron to create an energy level that we can translate into colour. Our sight is therefore sentience multiplied through many particles. Sentience could start for example at 1 for a particle, 2 for two particles, but then leaps to 6 for 3 particles because this is all the possibilities of 3 elements working together. And by the time you get to the picture formed inside your head you are up to several billion combinations of information. However small... sentience was always there from the beginning.

[DHodges]

This is in stark contrast with quantum non-determinism, where we cannot predict even a single quantum event. That's because, while weather is chaotic and thus predictable within narrow constraints, quantum events are truly random and thus aren't predictable. At all.

Victor, this seems to relate to something you said elsewhere about the difference between something being "truly" indubitable and just not seeing how you can doubt it (with the non-Euclidean geometry example).

At the present time there is no way to forecast quantum events, and Bell's theorem rules out hidden local variables. However, I don't think you can rule out non-local variables of some sort. It's possible that a particle reacts with its environment is some holistic, non-local way that determines a quantum event.

I have no idea how to test for such a thing, but I don't think that it is impossible. I don't think we can say, with certainty, that there is no cause. We can say, at present, that we don't know of a cause. (It could be something like quantum entanglement that turns out to be very hard to detect and very non-intuitive.)

On the other hand, the word "random" is tricky. The distinction between "not predictable in practice" and "not predictable because of theoretical limitations" doesn't usually mean anything in terms of observed distributions. So I don't have any problem with considering a coin flip, the weather a year from now, or a quantum event as being "random," since modelling with random variables is the best that can be done with the unpredictability.

[vicdan]

"Chaos theory [blah blah blah]

Dude, i already mentioned all that. i know what chaos theory is -- and I know why it's not random. What you seem to be ignoring is that quantum events aren't chaotic. As far as we can tell, they are random.

Chaos can be predictable, hence laws of physics and mathematics etc. The fact that they may never predict events with absalute accuracy does not mean that it is impossible.

Right. This is why we cannot predict weather. We have some understanding of how weather can be hypothetically predicted, but it being a chaotic system rules out making such predictions for any significant time in advance (on deterministic computers).

We do not have a prediction algorithm for quantum events, and AFAWCT, such an algorithm doesn't exist.

Like you wrote in some other thread vic: Indubitable does not mean impossible.

In the empirical world, everything is doubtable. You can doubt that we live on the outside of Earth -- there have been hypothesis proposed which have in living on the inside of a sphere, with the laws of nature suitably adjusted to make it appear otherwise. Similarly, you can postulate a local gravity distortion when your bathroom scale shows a 10lbs gain -- but that's an intellectually dishonest approach.

You and Quinn are refusing to accept quantum non-determinism simply because your minds are made up, and you won't be confused with facts. Rather than constructing your hypotheses based on the available evidence, you come up with a conclusion, and then retro-fit evidence into it.

In the same way you idiotically refuse to accept that a magnet expends no energy to hang on a fridge surface. it's all blind faith occluding empirical evidence. You are no better than xian faithful in this regard.

[vicdan]

Victor, this seems to relate to something you said elsewhere about the difference between something being "truly" indubitable and just not seeing how you can doubt it (with the non-Euclidean geometry example).

Did you notice the qualifiers I put in about likelihood and intellectual honesty, vs. certainty?

No scientific theory is certain; but quantum non-determinism is 'uncertain' in the same way relativity, evolution, and germ theory of disease are uncertain. They could be wrong, but unless radcially new evidence comes to light, it's intellectually dishonest to reject them by inventing convoluted alternative explanations.

At the present time there is no way to forecast quantum events, and Bell's theorem rules out hidden local variables. However, I don't think you can rule out non-local variables of some sort. It's possible that a particle reacts with its environment is some holistic, non-local way that determines a quantum event.

yes, it is possible. However, until we have an empirically supported model which makes such predictions and which is experimentally distinguishable from the non-deterministic model.

Quinn and hsandman reject non-determinism out of faith-soaked intellectual prejudice, rather than because of evidence. Quinn has simply decided, by sitting on his ass, that non-determinism cannot possibly exist -- in the same way Aristotle had decided, by sitting on his ass, that a thrown stone flies because it bores a hole through the air, and the air rushing in from behind to fill that hole, propels the stone forward.

I have no idea how to test for such a thing, but I don't think that it is impossible. I don't think we can say, with certainty, that there is no cause.

indeed. We also cannot say with certainty that disease is caused by germs, or that the biodiversity is the product of evolution, or that you had gained 10lbs because that's what the scale says.

That doesn't mean we should take seriously the 'bathroom gravity field distortion' hypothesis for the indicated weight gain.

On the other hand, the word "random" is tricky. The distinction between "not predictable in practice" and "not predictable because of theoretical limitations" doesn't usually mean anything in terms of observed distributions.

There is a world of difference between 'not predictable in practice because it's intractable' and 'not predictable at all'. The former is predictable, but only to the very short range. The latter is not.

I would be curious about any 'not predictable in practice' things which are indistinguishable from random events. I know of no such.

So I don't have any problem with considering a coin flip, the weather a year from now, or a quantum event as being "random," since modelling with random variables is the best that can be done with the unpredictability.

Indeed. As things stand right now, rejecting non-determinism for rationalistic reasons is intellectually dishonest at best. This is what Einstein was guilty of when he proclaimed that god does not play dice with the Universe. it was the one thing he eventually came to regret the most, his aprioristic rejection of quantum non-determinism.

[Pincho Paxton]

We do not have a prediction algorithm for quantum events, and AFAWCT, such an algorithm doesn't exist.

Most of the quantum events that can't currently be predicted, I have predicted myself using my different approach to science. I predicted the Bose Einsten Codensation experiment before reading about it, and even Einstein didn't predict that result.

If you are going to talk about.. WHAT CAN'T BE PREDICTED.. you need to be more precise than just.. QUANTUM EVENTS.

You should really say.. DUALISTIC EVENTS, not QUANTUM EVENTS.

I would say that dualistic events are truly random. They happen faster than our timeline allows. They happen instantly, which just doesn't allow any time for there to be a cause. But still, undubitability remains the same as before... a word which cannot be trusted.

[maestro]

This is in stark contrast with quantum non-determinism, where we cannot predict even a single quantum event. That's because, while weather is chaotic and thus predictable within narrow constraints, quantum events are truly random and thus aren't predictable. At all.

Victor, doesn't the randomness of quantum events, say something above the knowledge of the observer, or do you think that the wave function is a real entity. For example consider the Schrodinger's cat in a box with the friend problem, from Wikipedia
in this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation (scroll down to Schrodinger's cat).

In my view it simply says that to an external observer the information above the cat being dead and alive is 50-50. The metaphysical question of the objective reality of the cat is an absurd one, since physics is simply about observation and measurement. These paradoxes occur because of the assumption of an objective reality. Thus depending on your measuring apparatus electron behaves as a particle or wave, but to speculate about the objective nature of an electron is foolishness, because to gather information about something you have to make a measurement, and your way of measurement shows what you will observe. This quote by Bohr puts it well.

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature.

Thus the task of physics is not to answer metaphysical speculations about the reality of electrons for example, but to predict the results of experiments (i.e. what we can observe).

[vicdan]

Victor, doesn't the randomness of quantum events, say something above the knowledge of the observer, or do you think that the wave function is a real entity.

Wave function is just a predictive model, like all scientific theories and entities. As you note, 'objective reality', in the sense usually spoken of, is metaphysical bullshit. I was simply trying to talk to Quinn and hsandman within their ontological frame of reference -- you know, trying to introduce only one world-wrecking idea at a time to them.

Yes, it would be more correct to say not that events are random, but that the non-deterministic model is the one that best allows us to predict future observations -- best by a long shot.

These paradoxes occur because of the assumption of an objective reality.

Well, no. paradoxes like Schroedinger's Cat occur because we assume objective reality and also assume it to behave in a certain way -- a way which coheres with our macroscopic intuitions, the intuitions which developed in a world where people hunted big animals with pointy sticks.

Thus the task of physics is not to answer metaphysical speculations about the reality of electrons for example, but to predict the results of experiments (i.e. what we can observe).

But that can be said of all knowledge of the world (and arguably self-knowledge as well); so while you are correct, this doesn't affect the nature of Quinn's and hsandman's claims. Inasmuch as their claim about determinism is meaningful at all, it can only mean that there is a theory of QM which is deterministic in nature, and which is empirically distinguishable from the non-deterministic model; or at least which does a reasonably good job of predicting observed evidence without engaging in metaphysical contortionism.

just FYI, I am not a fan of any interpretation of QM. The mathematics of it are the whole content of quantum mechanics, AFAICT. Interpretations are just semantic sugar to make the pill easier to swallow (unless of course different interpretations make different empirical predictions which can be tested, in which case the distinction becomes meaningful). The most reasonable approach, IMO, is Feynman's "shut up and calculate". No 'interpretations'.

[maestro]

Well, no. paradoxes like Schroedinger's Cat occur because we assume objective reality and also assume it to behave in a certain way -- a way which coheres with our macroscopic intuitions, the intuitions which developed in a world where people hunted big animals with pointy sticks.

I think that objective reality might be a useless concept, since observation implies the universe acting on a measuring apparatus, to talk about properties of the universe outside of a measuring apparatus is meaningless. I am glad that modern physics rests on this foundation and not on platonic ideals of knowledge apart from observers.

But that can be said of all knowledge of the world (and arguably self-knowledge as well)

.
My point exactly, I think that for example practices such as mindfulness are about observing the mind in real world situations, and thus gathering empirical knowledge about the mechanism of the mind, and hence knowledge of the self. Since after all the self is constructed by the mind.

With the advent of quantum computers which can emulate non-deterministic Turing machine, we will be able to compute NP problems in P time

You are wrong on this one. Quantum computers can not solve NP complete problems in P time. They can solve prime factorization though, which is not NP complete but is BQP complete, suspected to be a strict subset of NP.

[DHodges]

Yes, it would be more correct to say not that events are random, but that the non-deterministic model is the one that best allows us to predict future observations -- best by a long shot.

Well, I'll agree with that.

just FYI, I am not a fan of any interpretation of QM. The mathematics of it are the whole content of quantum mechanics, AFAICT. Interpretations are just semantic sugar to make the pill easier to swallow (unless of course different interpretations make different empirical predictions which can be tested, in which case the distinction becomes meaningful). The most reasonable approach, IMO, is Feynman's "shut up and calculate". No 'interpretations'.

Yeah, but then you have to actually do the math. In the words of Barbie, "Math is hard!"

[vicdan]

You are wrong on this one. Quantum computers can not solve NP complete problems in P time. They can solve prime factorization though, which is not NP complete but is BQP complete, suspected to be a strict subset of NP.

First of all, this makes no practical difference, because BQP solutions can be verified in P time and algorithm re-ran as needed, so you will still get an exponentially likely P-time solution for prime factorization via Shor's algorithm (this is what you were talking about, right?)

But yeah, it was somewhat speculative to speak of quantum computers solving NP problems in P time, and I presented it as such. I took some liberties in trying to make the distinction between randomness and intractability clear. In my defense, I don't think it's much of a speculation: the quantum computer property which allows for Shor's algorithm is essentially the non-deterministic computation, computation in superposition. That so few such quantum algorithms are currently known is a different matter.

[maestro]

Well anyhow this makes little difference to your essential argument about chaotic problems and inherent randomness.

I think that the ideas of enlightenment sit in well with empirical methods, and why not, since empirical methods give us so much knowledge of the physical world, it stands to reason that they will be as powerful when applied to the internal subjective world. Further humans are quite similar in their make up to meaningfully exchange information about their subjective observations and models.

The goal of meditation is for the intellect to uncover that there is no independent agent which is outside of the universe in you, and your mind runs on cause and effect much like any external thing. Which then leads to a tremendous sense of oneness with everything in the universe.

[daybrown]

All I see are the patterns of bits on this screen. I dont pretend to know what produced them.

I understand that everything else which I see could be some computer generated virtual reality, which need not even exist, but merely be the data feed to what seems to be my brain.

i can see, as Saint Ramprasad tells me, that there are other matrices. Some seem to have those who are utterly convinced of randomness, while other have those who are utterly convinced that all events are at the hand of god.

I dont see why everyone has to be on the same sort of matrix that I exist on. Wherever they are, they may also be deluded. No reason to have an emotional response to the rants of the insane.

[David Quinn]

There are a lot of inconsistencies in Victor's discourse. For example, he says:

I am not a fan of any interpretation of QM. The mathematics of it are the whole content of quantum mechanics, AFAICT. Interpretations are just semantic sugar to make the pill easier to swallow (unless of course different interpretations make different empirical predictions which can be tested, in which case the distinction becomes meaningful). The most reasonable approach, IMO, is Feynman's "shut up and calculate". No 'interpretations'.

This is probably a good policy, but for some reason, having expounded the virtues of it, Victor suddenly abandons it in this thread and instead arbitrarily adopts one particular interpretation of QM and proceeds to pontificate how QM demonstrates non-determinism!

That is what I would intellectual dishonesty.

To claim that QM demonstrates indeterminsim (or determinism, for that matter) is nonsense because such a claim necessarily involves adopting one particular interpretation over another. Proofs of determinism or indeterminism can't be found in the math of QM. The math is entirely neutral on the issue. So if, as Victor claims, math is all there is to QM, then on what basis does he say that QM demonstrates indeterminism? There is no basis. He is making it up out of thin air

Thus the task of physics is not to answer metaphysical speculations about the reality of electrons for example, but to predict the results of experiments (i.e. what we can observe).
But that can be said of all knowledge of the world (and arguably self-knowledge as well); so while you are correct, this doesn't affect the nature of Quinn's and hsandman's claims. Inasmuch as their claim about determinism is meaningful at all, it can only mean that there is a theory of QM which is deterministic in nature, and which is empirically distinguishable from the non-deterministic model; or at least which does a reasonably good job of predicting observed evidence without engaging in metaphysical contortionism.

That's right. There are both deterministic and indeterministic interpretations which are consistent with the data and consistent with the math of QM. Thus, neither determinism nor indeterminism can find any sustanance in QM. Yet according to Victor, we are all supposed to pretend otherwise.

The issue of determinism is not one that can be resolved scientifically or empirically. It is a purely logical issue, one that centres upon whether things can exist all by themselves, independently of other things. Thus when Victor says ....

Quinn and hsandman reject non-determinism out of faith-soaked intellectual prejudice, rather than because of evidence. Quinn has simply decided, by sitting on his ass, that non-determinism cannot possibly exist -- in the same way Aristotle had decided, by sitting on his ass, that a thrown stone flies because it bores a hole through the air, and the air rushing in from behind to fill that hole, propels the stone forward.

.... he is speaking out of ignorance. Unlike Aristotle, I'm not engaging in any scientific or empirical theorizing. I'm simply distinguishing between what can be resolved empirically and what can only be resolved logically. So Victor's analogy here misses the mark entirely.

-

[vicdan]

There are a lot of inconsistencies in Victor's discourse. For example, he says:

I am not a fan of any interpretation of QM. The mathematics of it are the whole content of quantum mechanics, AFAICT. Interpretations are just semantic sugar to make the pill easier to swallow (unless of course different interpretations make different empirical predictions which can be tested, in which case the distinction becomes meaningful). The most reasonable approach, IMO, is Feynman's "shut up and calculate". No 'interpretations'.

This is probably a good policy, but for some reason, having expounded the virtues of it, Victor suddenly abandons it in this thread and instead arbitrarily adopts one particular interpretation of QM and proceeds to pontificate how QM demonstrates non-determinism!

Wow. You just don't get it, huh?

The non-determinism is built in. The raw math offers us no way to predict the outcome of a quantum event -- only the probabilistic distribution. probabilistic distribution is the aspect of the math itself. A probabilistic distribution is non-deterministic by definition. it takes some pretty convoluted interpretations (such as Bohm's or many-worlds) to wave the non-determinism away, and even then, the deterministic interpretations still use the probabilistic distributions -- they just claim that those aren't really non-deterministic due to the non-local hidden variables and what-not.

That is what I would intellectual dishonesty.

No, that would be a combination of your inability to read and your ignorance.

To claim that QM demonstrates indeterminsim (or determinism, for that matter) is nonsense because such a claim necessarily involves adopting one particular interpretation over another. Proofs of determinism or indeterminism can't be found in the math of QM.

What do you think a probabilistic distribution is, kiddo? it's non-deterministic by its nature. The 'raw math' entails non-determinism.

That's right. There are both deterministic and indeterministic interpretations which are consistent with the data and consistent with the math of QM.

yeah, 'consistent with the math'. Just as the local gravity field distortion hypothesis is consistent with the observed fact of your bathroom scales indicating a 10lbs increase.

The most common deterministic interpretations (Bohm's and many-worlds) both posit real entities which are in principle unobservable -- the sub-quantum particle position relations for Bohm, unobservable other universes for many-worlds. Both do that because they have to deal with the inherent non-determinism of the math, by tucking it away into metaphysical contortionism. They invoke the equivalent of Santa Claus in order to make the non-determinism seem determinsitic.

The issue of determinism is not one that can be resolved scientifically or empirically. It is a purely logical issue, one that centres upon whether things can exist all by themselves, independently of other things.

Not even close. But this sort of stupidity is what you get when you assume that you can understand the empirical world by simply reasoning about it. See my earlier note about Aristotle.

.... he is speaking out of ignorance. Unlike Aristotle, I'm not engaging in any scientific or empirical theorizing. I'm simply distinguishing between what can be resolved empirically and what can only be resolved logically.

hahaha. Dude, you are so far out in the left field, you are on another continent entirely.

You see, this is exactly the problem I had pointed out before. You start out with common words drafted to serve as your own terms, defined in complete disconnect from the real world, and you come up with some conclusion about those private definitions of the words; but then you assume that your conclusion can be applied to the common meanings of the words.

For example, you claim that non-determinism is impossible, and you specifically relate that to the common meaning of 'determinism' as evidenced by your references to QM interpretations, based on the argument you had made which supposedly demonstrates that everything has a cause -- but of course that argument used your own private definitions of 'thing', 'cause', etc. which have nothing to do with the empirical world.

You are exactly falling into the trap i had pointed out to you many times before -- because you dishonestly re-use common words, you arrive at conclusions which are trivial and meaningless when taken in terms of your custom-defined terms, but appear profound when considered in common English -- and this is exactly the bait-n-switch you are doing right now.

You are a faith-soaked liar, dude.