Why is Randomness so Hard to Prove?

[Piers]

Randomness is subjective, absolute randomness is not possible. However due to our limitations the appearance of true randomness can exist.

By projecting the universe onto a view that we can comprehend, we can demonstrate a form of true randomness that is nevertheless subjective when considering the universe in its totality.

Quantum mechanics is a model we use to analyse certain facets of the universe. Randomness is inherent to this model. There is no suggestion here that the universe is actually random, just that for our limited minds to get some sort of grasp of what is going on we need to incorporate assumptions about randomness.

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

[ QUOTE ]
If everything were in perpetual motion, determinism would make more sense to me. But there are clearly things in this universe that STOP. Unlike the billiard break example that someone gave, my car for instance, stops... And then goes again. This would seem to disrupt the notion that all is pre-determined by some antecedent event. At least to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t really understand your point, however I suspect your intuitive feel for the subject is misleading you. You’re thinking on too macroscopic a scale.

[Zygote]

[ 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!

[Piers]

[ 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.

[chezlaw]

[ 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

[Piers]

[ 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.

[gumpzilla]

[ 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?

[Trantor]

[ 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 ]

I think you've alluded to a computer simulation of the universe before and here you put it forward as a possible (ie in principle) approach to show the QM is not inconsistent with determinism. BUT, this assumes it is possible, in principle, to carry out such a computer simulation wheras QM says this is not possible (as QM is understood at present, ie no hidden variable theory)

[Lestat]

<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.

[Zygote]

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.

[maurile]

Randomness is impossible to prove because it's impossible to rule out the possibility that there's an underlying pattern which we just haven't discovered yet.

(Likewise, non-randomness is also impossible to prove. Whatever pattern we observe, it's impossible to rule out the possibility that it was just a coincidence.)