3 ms·

> This article seems to be starting from a conclusion and then working its way up to an explanation. That's not how science works. No, it's starting from a ph

> This article seems to be starting from a conclusion and then working its way up to an explanation. That's not how science works. No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesis. > There is lots of experimental evidence that on a quantum scale there is inherent randomness. No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists). In short, this is explaining the "Team E" position: > [W]e debated whether randomness or determinism lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, which I characterized as team B (Niels Bohr) versus team E (Albert Einstein). Team B sees the unpredictability of particle behavior as evidence that at the fundamental level of the universe, determinism is replaced by intrinsic, objective randomness. Team E contends that this randomness is merely a sign of our ignorance of a deeper level of deterministic causation. To be clear, I'm not saying that quanta are deterministic. I don't know. > One thought experiment that comes to mind is, imagine a perfect Galton board where all the pegs are perfectly identical in a closed perfectly isometric system. Without subtle factors like air currents or imperfections in the pegs or the marbles, where does the marble land? I think personally if all other factors are ruled out the thought experiment reduces to the double slit experiment. Assuming a perfectly drop as well, my hypothesis is that the ball would land on the top peg and balance there, perhaps after bouncing if we're assuming some elasticity in the components of the system. A "perfect drop" being in this case, one where the ball is perfectly centered, with no spin or side-to-side motion. But I think this is getting into why analogies aren't a very good way to talk about science--analogies don't prove anything, and always fall apart on some details.

computerex 7y ago
> No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesis. There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. > No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists). I think you are presenting a semantics argument that has little value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation > the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. How is that not a hypothesis? How is it any less valid a hypothesis than "it occurs randomly"? > Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. And neither does the article. > If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. If you think that there is randomness, that is inherently not a testable hypothesis (nor is it a theory: please do not use "hypothesis" and "theory" as if they are interchangeable--in scientific discussion they are not interchangeable terms). I don't think that there is determinism: that would be a conclusion. I think it's possible that there is determinism. That's a hypothesis. I also think it's possible that there is not determinism. That's also a hypothesis. Given current technology, I don't think we have the means to test either hypothesis. I'll also point out that randomness is inherently untestable. > Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation. This is also a valid argument against inherent randomness. As an atheist with a good amount of atheist reading under my belt, I am quite familiar with this argument, and in general agree with it when applied to i.e. God. The problem in this case is that BOTH hypotheses are untestable: you cannot test whether the underlying mechanism is random OR deterministic. Here's a thought experiment for you: I've generated the following sequence of numbers: 2385355152251270793561664145629697283988594371684899475531490573 2823786386194927922215110087335052193747272459669030480603069080 8421209646110735430316730270075597685536122026199316753888263136 8982777911253921734120343767097551341142139450682090146370225695 I generated this sequence of numbers via a widely-used secure pseudorandom generator, so they are not random. But if I didn't tell you that, you'd have no idea, and these pseudorandom generators are time-tested to be very hard to distinguish from random numbers if you don't know the seed (otherwise you'd be able to break a lot of modern encryption). So by your logic, since you can't tell me what the deterministic factors are, you can only conclude that the numbers are truly random. But that's wrong, the numbers aren't random. EDIT: This was downvoted faster than anyone can read, I'd wager.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > How is that not a hypothesis? It makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore, it's speculation, not a hypothesis.
computerex 7y ago
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem In conjunction with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance Lorentz invariance has not shown to be violated despite many tries experimentally and from observation.
- n4r9 7y ago
  Bell's Theorem is really about locality rather than randomness. It's possible to define quantum theory in terms of deterministic but non-local random variables. In fact, this is a pretty apt description of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.
  - computerex 7y ago
    You are right, but any non-local variable theory cannot be lorentz invariant.
    - n4r9 7y ago
      I don't think it's that simple. A fair amount of work has been done on relativistic extensions of de Broglie-Bohm type theories, e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406173.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406173.pdf

computerex 7y ago

> No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesis. There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. > No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists). I think you are presenting a semantics argument that has little value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation > the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis. How is that not a hypothesis? How is it any less valid a hypothesis than "it occurs randomly"? > Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. And neither does the article. > If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. If you think that there is randomness, that is inherently not a testable hypothesis (nor is it a theory: please do not use "hypothesis" and "theory" as if they are interchangeable--in scientific discussion they are not interchangeable terms). I don't think that there is determinism: that would be a conclusion. I think it's possible that there is determinism. That's a hypothesis. I also think it's possible that there is not determinism. That's also a hypothesis. Given current technology, I don't think we have the means to test either hypothesis. I'll also point out that randomness is inherently untestable. > Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation. This is also a valid argument against inherent randomness. As an atheist with a good amount of atheist reading under my belt, I am quite familiar with this argument, and in general agree with it when applied to i.e. God. The problem in this case is that BOTH hypotheses are untestable: you cannot test whether the underlying mechanism is random OR deterministic. Here's a thought experiment for you: I've generated the following sequence of numbers: 2385355152251270793561664145629697283988594371684899475531490573 2823786386194927922215110087335052193747272459669030480603069080 8421209646110735430316730270075597685536122026199316753888263136 8982777911253921734120343767097551341142139450682090146370225695 I generated this sequence of numbers via a widely-used secure pseudorandom generator, so they are not random. But if I didn't tell you that, you'd have no idea, and these pseudorandom generators are time-tested to be very hard to distinguish from random numbers if you don't know the seed (otherwise you'd be able to break a lot of modern encryption). So by your logic, since you can't tell me what the deterministic factors are, you can only conclude that the numbers are truly random. But that's wrong, the numbers aren't random. EDIT: This was downvoted faster than anyone can read, I'd wager.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > How is that not a hypothesis? It makes no falsifiable predictions, therefore, it's speculation, not a hypothesis.

computerex 7y ago

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem In conjunction with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance Lorentz invariance has not shown to be violated despite many tries experimentally and from observation.

n4r9 7y ago
Bell's Theorem is really about locality rather than randomness. It's possible to define quantum theory in terms of deterministic but non-local random variables. In fact, this is a pretty apt description of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation.
- computerex 7y ago
  You are right, but any non-local variable theory cannot be lorentz invariant.
  - n4r9 7y ago
    I don't think it's that simple. A fair amount of work has been done on relativistic extensions of de Broglie-Bohm type theories, e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406173.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0406173.pdf