4 ms·

Quantum mechanics has a lot of random variables.

tzakrajs 8y ago
Cipher text can look a lot like randomness to the uninformed observer. If a deterministic system produces results, but the observer cannot model the underlying process from the results, are those results now random?
- cozzyd 8y ago
  Now might be a good time to brush up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
  - uryga 8y ago
    > "Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables, such as De Broglie–Bohm theory, etc)"
    - j1vms 8y ago
      > though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables, such as De Broglie–Bohm theory Though non-local hidden variable theories need to be reconciled with special relativity lest it be possible to transmit information faster than light.
      - leoxvi 8y ago
        Enter the implicate (folded) order of the holoverse ("holographic universe"), which Bohm (among others) developed and supported. See the non-local, higher-ordering properties of true holograms and eg. this mixed fluid experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ-kGII074 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ-kGII074 More on all this in Michael Talbot's amazing book "Holographic Universe": https://wikischool.org/book/holographic_universe https://wikischool.org/book/holographic_universe
roenxi 8y ago
Yeah, but there is an important subtlety. Quantum mechanics has a bunch of things that can be /modeled extremely well/ by random variables. But it might still turn out that that they are deterministic in some complicated way. Then we would be back in a universe where we have an extremely useful concept in the humble random variable, and no examples of anything that is fundamentally random. If I start with a random variable, I couldn't reasonably approximate it with a real phenomenon, because the phenomenon would be deterministic. Compare that to a line - I can define a line between the center of mass of my two hands. We can quibble all day about whether that is a well defined definition (I suppose it isn't), but if I wanted to approximate a real line with two points in space I could. I contend this is an interesting an important difference between subjects like geometry and subjects like statistics. The underpinnings of statistic are _extremely_ philosophical.

Cipher text can look a lot like randomness to the uninformed observer. If a deterministic system produces results, but the observer cannot model the underlying process from the results, are those results now random?

cozzyd 8y ago
Now might be a good time to brush up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
- uryga 8y ago
  > "Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables, such as De Broglie–Bohm theory, etc)"
  - j1vms 8y ago
    > though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables, such as De Broglie–Bohm theory Though non-local hidden variable theories need to be reconciled with special relativity lest it be possible to transmit information faster than light.
    - leoxvi 8y ago
      Enter the implicate (folded) order of the holoverse ("holographic universe"), which Bohm (among others) developed and supported. See the non-local, higher-ordering properties of true holograms and eg. this mixed fluid experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ-kGII074 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ-kGII074 More on all this in Michael Talbot's amazing book "Holographic Universe": https://wikischool.org/book/holographic_universe https://wikischool.org/book/holographic_universe

roenxi 8y ago

Yeah, but there is an important subtlety. Quantum mechanics has a bunch of things that can be /modeled extremely well/ by random variables. But it might still turn out that that they are deterministic in some complicated way. Then we would be back in a universe where we have an extremely useful concept in the humble random variable, and no examples of anything that is fundamentally random. If I start with a random variable, I couldn't reasonably approximate it with a real phenomenon, because the phenomenon would be deterministic. Compare that to a line - I can define a line between the center of mass of my two hands. We can quibble all day about whether that is a well defined definition (I suppose it isn't), but if I wanted to approximate a real line with two points in space I could. I contend this is an interesting an important difference between subjects like geometry and subjects like statistics. The underpinnings of statistic are _extremely_ philosophical.