4 ms·

I'm not saying that classical physics isn't deterministic. I'm saying that classical physics is provably not a fully accurate model even at macro scales. For mo

I'm not saying that classical physics isn't deterministic. I'm saying that classical physics is provably not a fully accurate model even at macro scales. For most problems at the macro scale, our best model is deterministic, but it is also easy to construct scenarios where macro scale events are not deterministic unless quantum phenomena are also deterministic, so clearly our best model is one that acknowledges that macro scale events might not be fully deterministic.

kakarot 9y ago
Show me such a case in the macro scale where the arrow of time reverses or disappears, instead of just postulating.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  I don't understand what you are asking. Clearly quantum phenomena are observable at the macro scale. Every quantum mechanics experiment is an example of this, e.g. the double slit experiment.
  - kakarot 9y ago
    How is the double slit experiment an example of non-determinism?
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      Let's say that I set up the double slit and then decide that I will make a macro level decision based on the observation of which slit a particle passes through. The observation of which slit the particle passes through is non-deterministic according to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, so my macro-level actions are now also non-deterministic. Alternatively, take the example of Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1923 and then attempt to predict what papers they will publish in the future using classical physics. Clearly it can't be done because it is dependent on quantum effects.
      - kakarot 9y ago
        > The observation of which slit the particle passes through is non-deterministic according to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, so my macro-level actions are now also non-deterministic That's not true. The double slit experiment shows that as the arrow of time moves, wave patterns predictably emerge. Again, until a better unified theory of everything emerges, we currently have no synthesis between quantum and classical physics and thus measured quantum phenomena are currently irrelevant to physics measured in the classical scale. > Alternatively, take the example of Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1923 and then attempt to predict what papers they will publish in the future using classical physics This is simply a matter of not having enough information. The amount of information required to "predict the future" in the sense you're talking about is ginormous. Your concept of determinism is flawed. Further reading: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JrhoMTgMrMRJJiS48/decoherence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JrhoMTgMrMRJJiS48/decoherenc... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eWuuznxeebcjWpdnH/the-so-called-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eWuuznxeebcjWpdnH/the-so-cal...
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        > Again, until a better unified theory of everything emerges, we currently have no synthesis between quantum and classical physics and thus measured quantum phenomena are currently irrelevant to physics measured in the classical scale. That means that we don't know how quantum physics and classical physics interact. It doesn't mean that we know they don't interact. Clearly they do in some way or else it would be impossible for us to make the observations that led the development of quantum physics. > This is simply a matter of not having enough information. The amount of information required to "predict the future" in the sense you're talking about is ginormous. That information doesn't exist. Clearly it is not possible to predict the existence of quantum mechanics using only classical physics. If it were, quantum mechanics would be part of classical physics. Even knowing the entire state of the entire universe, you could not predict that they would publish a paper about quantum mechanics based solely on classical physics.
        kakarot 9y ago

kakarot 9y ago

Show me such a case in the macro scale where the arrow of time reverses or disappears, instead of just postulating.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
I don't understand what you are asking. Clearly quantum phenomena are observable at the macro scale. Every quantum mechanics experiment is an example of this, e.g. the double slit experiment.
- kakarot 9y ago
  How is the double slit experiment an example of non-determinism?
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    Let's say that I set up the double slit and then decide that I will make a macro level decision based on the observation of which slit a particle passes through. The observation of which slit the particle passes through is non-deterministic according to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, so my macro-level actions are now also non-deterministic. Alternatively, take the example of Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1923 and then attempt to predict what papers they will publish in the future using classical physics. Clearly it can't be done because it is dependent on quantum effects.
    - kakarot 9y ago
      > The observation of which slit the particle passes through is non-deterministic according to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, so my macro-level actions are now also non-deterministic That's not true. The double slit experiment shows that as the arrow of time moves, wave patterns predictably emerge. Again, until a better unified theory of everything emerges, we currently have no synthesis between quantum and classical physics and thus measured quantum phenomena are currently irrelevant to physics measured in the classical scale. > Alternatively, take the example of Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer in 1923 and then attempt to predict what papers they will publish in the future using classical physics This is simply a matter of not having enough information. The amount of information required to "predict the future" in the sense you're talking about is ginormous. Your concept of determinism is flawed. Further reading: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JrhoMTgMrMRJJiS48/decoherence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JrhoMTgMrMRJJiS48/decoherenc... https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eWuuznxeebcjWpdnH/the-so-called-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/eWuuznxeebcjWpdnH/the-so-cal...
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        > Again, until a better unified theory of everything emerges, we currently have no synthesis between quantum and classical physics and thus measured quantum phenomena are currently irrelevant to physics measured in the classical scale. That means that we don't know how quantum physics and classical physics interact. It doesn't mean that we know they don't interact. Clearly they do in some way or else it would be impossible for us to make the observations that led the development of quantum physics. > This is simply a matter of not having enough information. The amount of information required to "predict the future" in the sense you're talking about is ginormous. That information doesn't exist. Clearly it is not possible to predict the existence of quantum mechanics using only classical physics. If it were, quantum mechanics would be part of classical physics. Even knowing the entire state of the entire universe, you could not predict that they would publish a paper about quantum mechanics based solely on classical physics.
        kakarot 9y ago