3 ms·

Can you supply a non-deterministic process, where the non-determinism is fundamental and not a way to quantify a lack of information about the system?

adrianN 8y ago
Anything that is best described by quantum mechanics.
- enkid 8y ago
  That's only according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics. (I.e. Copenhagen) Other interpretations, such as Many Worlds or Pilot Wave are deterministic.
  - joycian 8y ago
    Many worlds is deterministic, but not in the same sense that people might think of, right. The evolution of the wavefunction (which never collapses like in Copenhagen) is deterministic, but in any given world, random draws are appearing.
- joycian 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism What do you think of ideas like this then?
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere. That is more complicated that the normal interpretation of QM but doesn't explain more.
    - joycian 8y ago
      Isn't it simpler? There are just a few rules and everything works? For the normal QM you have to get some randomness from somewhere else. edit: I mean I agree it's problematic for experimental science, but I think Occam's razor cuts the other way in this instance. edit2: Isn't the entire history encoded anyway in the current state of the universe in the deterministic case. I don't understand what the problem is there.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        To get rid of the randomness you have to have prepared the result of every decision that is currently attributed to randomness in a big lookup table.
        joycian 8y ago
        Why would that be necessary if there are local deterministic propagation rules, that have been there since the beginning?
        adrianN 8y ago
        Because local, deterministic rules don't agree with experimental observations as far as I understand quantum physics. You can have either local, or deterministic, but not both without superdeterminism, i.e. the giant lookup table, or instant communication.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by 't Hooft https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
      - adrianN 8y ago
        That's really interesting, I like CAs a lot. However the author himself states in the introduction that Bell's inequality and related theorems very strongly suggest that his theory is not correct.
coleifer 8y ago
The big bang/creation
csomar 8y ago
Yep. That's the question. Some quantum processes are indeterministic. However, one might ponder if it is because of ignorance of the inner-workings on the said process. One also might conclude that non-determinism is ignorance or lack of information. It is an unanswered question as far as I know.

adrianN 8y ago

Anything that is best described by quantum mechanics.

enkid 8y ago
That's only according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics. (I.e. Copenhagen) Other interpretations, such as Many Worlds or Pilot Wave are deterministic.
- joycian 8y ago
  Many worlds is deterministic, but not in the same sense that people might think of, right. The evolution of the wavefunction (which never collapses like in Copenhagen) is deterministic, but in any given world, random draws are appearing.
joycian 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism What do you think of ideas like this then?
- adrianN 8y ago
  I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere. That is more complicated that the normal interpretation of QM but doesn't explain more.
  - joycian 8y ago
    Isn't it simpler? There are just a few rules and everything works? For the normal QM you have to get some randomness from somewhere else. edit: I mean I agree it's problematic for experimental science, but I think Occam's razor cuts the other way in this instance. edit2: Isn't the entire history encoded anyway in the current state of the universe in the deterministic case. I don't understand what the problem is there.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      To get rid of the randomness you have to have prepared the result of every decision that is currently attributed to randomness in a big lookup table.
      - joycian 8y ago
        Why would that be necessary if there are local deterministic propagation rules, that have been there since the beginning?
        adrianN 8y ago
        Because local, deterministic rules don't agree with experimental observations as far as I understand quantum physics. You can have either local, or deterministic, but not both without superdeterminism, i.e. the giant lookup table, or instant communication.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by 't Hooft https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548
    - adrianN 8y ago
      That's really interesting, I like CAs a lot. However the author himself states in the introduction that Bell's inequality and related theorems very strongly suggest that his theory is not correct.

coleifer 8y ago

The big bang/creation

csomar 8y ago

Yep. That's the question. Some quantum processes are indeterministic. However, one might ponder if it is because of ignorance of the inner-workings on the said process. One also might conclude that non-determinism is ignorance or lack of information. It is an unanswered question as far as I know.