5 ms·

I don’t. Radioactive decay is practically the very definition of the quantum effects I mentioned.

MereInterest 9y ago
Seems 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    As 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 ago
      At 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 ago
Not counting radioactive decay as a physical process because you've chosen to define physical processes as deterministic is some intriguing mental gymnastics.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  for 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 ago
    How about we replace the dice with Schrödinger's cat?
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Then 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?

Seems 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 ago
It'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 ago
  As 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 ago
    At 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 ago

Not counting radioactive decay as a physical process because you've chosen to define physical processes as deterministic is some intriguing mental gymnastics.

abritinthebay 9y ago
for 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 ago
  How about we replace the dice with Schrödinger's cat?
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Then 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?