> On 19 Dec 2020, at 11:18, Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 19, 2020 at 1:30:17 AM UTC-7 sce...@libero.it wrote: > https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07068> > Randomness? What randomness? > > Klaas Landsman > <https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=Landsman%2C+K> > This is a review of the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics, with > special emphasis on its ambiguity; for example, randomness has different > antipodal relationships to determinism, computability, and compressibility. > Following a (Wittgensteinian) philosophical discussion of randomness in > general, I argue that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics > (like Bohmian mechanics or 't Hooft's Cellular Automaton interpretation) are > strictly speaking incompatible with the Born rule. I also stress the role of > outliers, i.e. measurement outcomes that are not 1-random. Although these > occur with low (or even zero) probability, their very existence implies that > the no-signaling principle used in proofs of randomness of outcomes of > quantum-mechanical measurements (and of the safety of quantum cryptography) > should be reinterpreted statistically, like the second law of thermodynamics. > In appendices I discuss the Born rule and its status in both single and > repeated experiments, and review the notion of 1-randomness introduced by > Kolmogorov, Chaitin, Martin-Lo"f, Schnorr, and others. > > This might be helpful, but more likely over my head. What I want to know is > WHO originally came up with the interpretation of QM that it is irreducibly > random
Born > -- meaning that in principle there is no way to predetermine outcomes of > experiments -- and WHAT was the justification. That the wave described some intensities, together with the fact that the wave described also unique system. Like Feynman and Deutsch say: you need already this to explain the (thought) experiment with two slits, and with the particles sent one by one. The wave amplitude seems to be a wave of probability, but eventually it is the square of the wave which has to be interpreted as a probability. With the MWI it is a probability on relatively accessible computational state, confirming the Mechanist consequence in physics: physics is the science of the probability on our continuations in arithmetic (or in any Turing universal machinery). Bruno > I think it was Bohr, and what was his reasoning for this interpretation, > which is the "end of the road" for any theory better than QM. AG > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8829438e-9fe9-42fe-93fe-4f028fbdd420n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/B4C362EE-BD24-440C-B3E7-A63E80136694%40ulb.ac.be.
