5 ms·
There almost certainly is but you can’t collect the data. At some point quantum effects will come into play too. Theoretically all physical processes are predi
by abritinthebay 9y ago
There almost certainly is but you can’t collect the data. At some point quantum effects will come into play too.
Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit.
- boyce 9y agoHad the pleasure of meeting Alain Aspect once who would definitely have, at that time at least, argued the opposite.
- abritinthebay 9y agoWell he’d be coming at it from the quantum angle, which I agree makes it more complex. However I did add that as a major caveat.
- robotresearcher 9y ago> Theoretically all physical processes are predictable If you count a radioactive decay event as a physical process, then this is not so.
- abritinthebay 9y agoI don’t. Radioactive decay is practically the very definition of the quantum effects I mentioned.
- MereInterest 9y agoSeems a rather odd definition to make, then. Radioactive decay has large-scale effects, such as determining The elemental composition of the universe. Quantum effects govern the entirety of the universe, so I'm not sure why you would want such a large exception to your generalization. I would go the other route. Nothing can be predicted, except statistically.
- abritinthebay 9y agoIt's only odd if you're worrying about it outside of the context that the parent comment was talking about. Which I wasn't. You clearly are. Yes, quantum stuff exists. At the scales the OP was talking about though they are mostly insignificant therefore I hand-waved them because they were not relevant to the discussion.
- MereInterest 9y agoAs far as I could tell, the thread started from the mention that Einstein believed that the universe is deterministic, which set the context of the thread. This argument is traditionally seen in context of quantum effects, and whether or not there exist hidden variables.
- abritinthebay 9y agoAt the level of discussion in advanced physics, yes. But that’s also because that’s where the really interesting work is. It’s quite a different scope of conversation
- CryptoFascist 9y agoNot counting radioactive decay as a physical process because you've chosen to define physical processes as deterministic is some intriguing mental gymnastics.
- abritinthebay 9y agofor the purposes described in the comment - I was quite clear that a certain level you get down to quantum effects. But for the context of the physical processes the OP was talking about those effects are not significant and so I excluded them.
- robotresearcher 9y agoHow about we replace the dice with Schrödinger's cat?
- abritinthebay 9y agoThen we’re dealing with a very different thing and the conversation is therefore different?
- robotresearcher 9y ago> Theoretically all physical processes are predictable, but in practice there is a limit. So you defined away quantum effects as 'not physical', which most people would not agree with. How do feel about the theoretical limits on measurement accuracy that also negate your claim?
- plus 9y agoThis could maybe, possibly be true if it were possible to have complete knowledge about the (quantum) state of the universe, but that is impossible. The uncertainty principle isn't a hypothesis, it's not even really a theory, it's a direct mathematical consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics. I want to be clear that my point is not merely a technical one. I'm not just saying "it's technically impossible to have complete knowledge," I'm saying that it is physically, mathematically impossible. The laws of physics do not allow it. One might argue "maybe it's not possible, but if we did know the complete quantum state of the universe, the universe would be deterministic and we could predict everything," but this is equivalent to saying "if the laws of physics were different, then the universe would be deterministic." Edit: To the distinction you make between "physical" and "quantum" processes: There is no distinction. Quantum effects do diminish in magnitude with increasing size, but they never truly go away. You can predict the motion of macroscopic objects with what may seem to be an arbitrarily high degree of certainty, but in truth you can never have 100% complete knowledge of even macroscopic properties. I still disagree with your claim that the universe is deterministic in any way, even if you conveniently exclude systems for which quantum effects are substantial.