You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Scientific approach: Does randomness really exist?

in #steemstem8 years ago

This is an interesing post, but I wish you would have gone into more detail about the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics.

First, I'm happy that you pointed out that the roll of dice are not random, insofar as random means uncaused and indeterminant. Clearly, the roll of the dice is determined by many factors, as you point out. It is only that we can't track these factors that we call it random.

That being said, it's hard for me to see why this same reasoning does not apply to quantum mechanics.

Here's my understanding - and it is admittedly severely limited: it is the act of observation that causes problems in predicting anything in quantum mechanics. By observing, it necessitates a probabilistic outcome.

If that understanding of mine is true, then to me this only speaks of our limited comprehension of the thing, and it does not show that in reality such events lack a cause. We are back to the LaPlace Demon - only this version of the demon happens to be able to know all of the quantum events as well.

Let's put it another way: let's say X (on the quantum level) has an 80% chance of happening, and 20% chance not. Even if those percentages are a statement of fact in the moment, rather than a statement of guesswork by an observer, it does not change the fact that something caused X, or not-X. This event - X - leads to another probabilistic outcome, Y or not-Y, and so on. Each event causing the next probabilistic possibility, which causes the next event, etc. But this chain of probabilities is no less deterministic than the pre-quantum understanding.

It is likely I do not fully understand quantum physics. But I also think it's possible you are confusing a problem of perspective with a statement of objective fact.

Sort:  

I could be wrong here (I probably am) but from my understanding is this...

then to me this only speaks of our limited comprehension of the thing

I think this is at the heart of quantum uncertainty and I think the reasoning goes something like "reality exists only insofar as be observe it... therefore if we cannot observe without certainty, then there is no certainty"

I think the difference between objective fact and simple observation of that fact is an argument that's argued heatedly on the border of theoretical physics and philosophy.

The classic question is "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" and the answer is that no, it does not. Because something which is not observed does not exist. We can go and observe that the tree has fallen after it falls, but we cannot go an observe the sound it makes.

Again this is not my area of expertise and is well beyond my intellectual capacity, it's more of an understanding I've pieced together from books I've read over the years...

I'd love to hear thoughts from someone who knows more?

Thanks for the response! I have to say, if that's really what some scientists are saying - that a thing is not real unless it is observed - they aren't sciencing right. :)

I have a feeling though, that most quantum physicists would never say that. I think this is something that the New Age mystics say when they're trying to come across as sciencey...

deepak.jpg

This is something I read about in A Brief History of Time, so I think it's pretty legitimate.

Heh, admittedly I didn't finish that book. But I think I could say with certainty that Stephen Hawking believes that reality existed before life - and therefore any organism which can perceive things - existed.

Therefore, that would conflict with:

"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" and the answer is that no, it does not. Because something which is not observed does not exist.

Here's a more interesting question:

If a tree surrounded by 200,000 people falls in a forest where the air has been vacuumed up out of the atmosphere, does it make a sound?

Yeah, I agree, this is why I don't understand the theory or how it applies outside of quantum uncertainty...

I'm pretty sure sound requires a medium to travel? So unless the air was replaced with something else then I guess not... also it'd be 200,000 bodies :/