Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

QM has an inherently random factor within the wave-function. QM is random by its own definition and does not need proof beyond this. To debunk the randomness of QM, one would need to show that something beyond the wave function could be well defined, and make more accurate predictions.

Also, the wave function's uncertainty is not proof against determinism, but since there is uncertainty, its defeinitely a reduced form of predictability. This amounts to being able to predict only the wave function itself at any point in time.

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; it just suggests that completely accurate predictions of the future are currently beyond us.

[/ QUOTE ]

QM does NOT suggest that accurate predicitons are currently beyond us. QM says that the most htat can be known by anyone (whether it be a god, a superhuman or supermachine) is the wave function!

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; it just suggests that completely accurate predictions of the future are currently beyond us.

[/ QUOTE ]

QM does NOT suggest that accurate predicitons are currently beyond us. QM says that the most htat can be known by anyone (whether it be a god, a superhuman or supermachine) is the wave function!

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum mechanics says that if you model a wave or particle using quantum mechanics then the most that can be know by anyone (whether it be a god, a superhuman or supermachine) is the wave function.

Also for the moment quantum mechanics appears the best model we have for such wave/partial dynamics.

It is important not to confuse model and reality. The choice to apply any model is always subjective.

[ QUOTE ]

Quantum mechanics does not disprove determinism; it just suggests that completely accurate predictions of the future are currently beyond us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that my language was slightly sloppy.

The original poster claimed that QM could be used to disprove determinism.

The point I was trying to make is that if QM is the best model we have, then the most our current use of QM could do is show that determining the future is currently beyond us.

I was buying in to his assumption that determinism does not exist within a QM model, but pointing out that a model cannot give results outside of itself.

Personally I think the whole QM thing feels like the projection of some structure onto a subspace. If we could step back we would be able to see a way of lifting everything to some super-space where all the QM paradoxes disappear. But that’s just me guessing in the dark.

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The original poster claimed that QM could be used to disprove determinism.


[/ QUOTE ]
QM is not inconsistent with determinism and could never be used to disprove determinism. To see why this is true, imagine a deterministic simulation of a QM universe

[unless you make non-determinism an assumption of QM but its not a neccesary assumption]

chez

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me there are plenty of things without determined outcomes. Why do we need QM to disprove determinism?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original poster claimed that QM could be used to disprove determinism.


[/ QUOTE ]
QM is not inconsistent with determinism and could never be used to disprove determinism. To see why this is true, imagine a deterministic simulation of a QM universe
[unless you make non-determinism an assumption of QM but its not a neccesary assumption]
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s fine. If QM is not inconsistent with determinism, I do not need to do anything to show that QM does not disprove determinism, which is all I was trying to do.

I was instead making the point that the details of a particular model of some facet of the universe that is currently in vogue cannot be used to disprove determinism; which seems to achieve the much the same result.

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It just seems to me there are plenty of things without determined outcomes. Why do we need QM to disprove determinism?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original poster claimed that QM could be used to disprove determinism.


[/ QUOTE ]
QM is not inconsistent with determinism and could never be used to disprove determinism. To see why this is true, imagine a deterministic simulation of a QM universe
[unless you make non-determinism an assumption of QM but its not a neccesary assumption]
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s fine. If QM is not inconsistent with determinism, I do not need to do anything to show that QM does not disprove determinism, which is all I was trying to do.

I was instead making the point that the details of a particular model of some facet of the universe that is currently in vogue cannot be used to disprove determinism; which seems to achieve the much the same result.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but you'll never convince the evidence junkies your way, they'll start wittering on about the probability that randomness exists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]

QM is not inconsistent with determinism and could never be used to disprove determinism. To see why this is true, imagine a deterministic simulation of a QM universe

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you propose to recreate the predictions of quantum mechanics deterministically?

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

QM is not inconsistent with determinism and could never be used to disprove determinism. To see why this is true, imagine a deterministic simulation of a QM universe

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you propose to recreate the predictions of quantum mechanics deterministically?

[/ QUOTE ]
All that's needed is to show that our universe could be running as a simulation on a deterministic computer. (I'm obviously not claiming that's what is going on)

Computationally QM is like late evaluation, you never calculate a value until its needed.

Consider the up/down spin of two entangled particles (pretty much the classic QM experiment). This is consistent with a computer simulation that doesn't calculate the up/down values until they are needed for something. When one of the particles is force by measurement to have an up/down value the 'program' pseduo-randomly allocates the values up/down to the particles. This happens at the speed of the computer which is many orders of magnitude greater than the max speed within the simulation.

That's a bit of a hurried explanation but ask more if its not clear (or shoot it down in flames)

chez

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

<font color="blue"> You’re thinking on too macroscopic a scale.
</font>

No doubt! I just really have a problem with determinism for some reason. I can't grasp it. I can't believe it. Most of all, I can't understand it.

Re: Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?
 

<font color="blue">I am really confused by this example. I'm not sure why motion affects determinism. And, as I'm sure you know, when your car is "stopped", it's still in motion. </font>

What I'm trying to figure out is how I do not have free will. I just cannot conceptualize it.

As I udnerstand it, determinism states that everything I do is caused by an antecedent event which sets everything in motion to where I do not have a choice over my actions or thoughts. Everything I do and think, I'm doing because of some causal link. Is this correct? Maybe I'm not understanding what determinism is?

So whether it was the big bang or God who set everything in motion, the point is I have no choice. Everything has already been set in motion and it's oucome pre-determined.

I'm just having a real hard time buying into this.