3 ms·

> The observation of which slit the particle passes through is non-deterministic according to most interpretations of quantum mechanics, so my macro-level actio

> 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
  Did you read my links? I never made a claim that classical physics can predict quantum mechanics. In fact it's the opposite, I said the theories have not been synthesized. We are no longer arguing about your original claim of non-determinism in the classical scale, and you don't seem to have a comprehensive enough understanding of the concepts involved here and you're not interested in changing your mind, so I'm done arguing about this. I really suggest you read up on decoherence.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    The subject was whether Facebook's stock price going down could be predicted based solely on classical physics. I am arguing that it cannot. I am arguing that classical physics can not in general predict human behavior. Publishing a paper on quantum mechanics is a human behavior. Classical physics cannot predict whether someone will publish a paper on quantum physics, so clearly it cannot predict all human behavior. This in itself is not enough to prove that classical physics cannot predict Facebook's stock price, but since Facebook's stock price is dependent on a vast number of human behaviors, it should cast serious doubt on the idea that the stock price could be predicted using classical physics. Is there some part of this that you disagree with?
    - kakarot 9y ago
      I am arguing that classical physics can not in general predict human behavior. That has nothing to do with determinism, and everything to do with incomplete information. Your postulate was such: It seems readily apparent that the future is not predictable solely using classical physics That means the future is not deterministic, but our current standard model says otherwise on scales that matter for this kind of situation. The inability to predict human behavior and other external events is entirely because of lack of complete knowledge about the system. That doesn't mean it's not deterministic, nor unpredictable given the right knowledge. You fundamentally misunderstand these concepts you are arguing, and again I recommend further reading before you continue to engage in such debates.

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
Did you read my links? I never made a claim that classical physics can predict quantum mechanics. In fact it's the opposite, I said the theories have not been synthesized. We are no longer arguing about your original claim of non-determinism in the classical scale, and you don't seem to have a comprehensive enough understanding of the concepts involved here and you're not interested in changing your mind, so I'm done arguing about this. I really suggest you read up on decoherence.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  The subject was whether Facebook's stock price going down could be predicted based solely on classical physics. I am arguing that it cannot. I am arguing that classical physics can not in general predict human behavior. Publishing a paper on quantum mechanics is a human behavior. Classical physics cannot predict whether someone will publish a paper on quantum physics, so clearly it cannot predict all human behavior. This in itself is not enough to prove that classical physics cannot predict Facebook's stock price, but since Facebook's stock price is dependent on a vast number of human behaviors, it should cast serious doubt on the idea that the stock price could be predicted using classical physics. Is there some part of this that you disagree with?
  - kakarot 9y ago
    I am arguing that classical physics can not in general predict human behavior. That has nothing to do with determinism, and everything to do with incomplete information. Your postulate was such: It seems readily apparent that the future is not predictable solely using classical physics That means the future is not deterministic, but our current standard model says otherwise on scales that matter for this kind of situation. The inability to predict human behavior and other external events is entirely because of lack of complete knowledge about the system. That doesn't mean it's not deterministic, nor unpredictable given the right knowledge. You fundamentally misunderstand these concepts you are arguing, and again I recommend further reading before you continue to engage in such debates.