4 ms·

Can you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level? (And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's p

by ak4g 9y ago

Can you clarify what you mean? How are we not left with determinism at a fundamental level? (And if it starts with a Q, then at most one can say is that it's possible that it's not deterministic. It's perfectly compatible with determinism, just not (AIUI) (and IANATP) currently known whether or not it is the case.)

acover 9y ago
Quantum mechanics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_... Edit: why downvote this?
- MacsHeadroom 9y ago
  It's widely accepted that QM is fully deterministic, even if the future is unpredictable in practice. Broglie–Bohm, being an equivalent and sound interpretation, is poof of this. Quantum randomness isn't truly random. There's no free lunch for free will to be found in QM.
  - acover 9y ago
    Sorry, I am reading conflicting information. The Wikipedia page seems to say the opposite. > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities > Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. > A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue This appears to be an open issue. With evidence pointing towards true randomness. You mentioned the pilot wave theory. Is there experimental evidence in favor of it beyond standard quantum mechanics? > Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. [0] Thanks. This is all quite over my head. [0] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
    - 77pt77 9y ago
      > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities This is the crux you should retain.

by ak4g 9y ago

acover 9y ago

Quantum mechanics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_perspective https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Modern_scientific_... Edit: why downvote this?

MacsHeadroom 9y ago
It's widely accepted that QM is fully deterministic, even if the future is unpredictable in practice. Broglie–Bohm, being an equivalent and sound interpretation, is poof of this. Quantum randomness isn't truly random. There's no free lunch for free will to be found in QM.
- acover 9y ago
  Sorry, I am reading conflicting information. The Wikipedia page seems to say the opposite. > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities > Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. > A critical finding was that quantum mechanics can make statistical predictions which would be violated if local hidden variables really existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify such predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated. This would suggest there are no hidden variables, although many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the issue This appears to be an open issue. With evidence pointing towards true randomness. You mentioned the pilot wave theory. Is there experimental evidence in favor of it beyond standard quantum mechanics? > Bohmian mechanics has never been widely accepted in the mainstream of the physics community. [0] Thanks. This is all quite over my head. [0] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
  - 77pt77 9y ago
    > the result is not traditional determinism, but rather determined probabilities This is the crux you should retain.