A deterministic clockwork universe vs a lawless universe (see Svozil, Arxiv,2000). I think QM is in between. -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android Lunedì, 18 Aprile 2022, 02:35PM +02:00 da Alan Grayson agrayson2...@gmail.com :
> > >On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >>On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson >> wrote: >>>I was aware of the limitation on precision implied by the >>> HUP. I was addressing whether simultaneous measurements >>> are possible despite the HUP. I think they are possible. >>The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations. >> Each destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate >> variables to arbitrary precision. But repeating the destructive >> measurements on exactly the same prepared system will then give a >> scatter of answers which satisfies the HUP. >> >> >>>But >>> my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible. >>> IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly >>> predict the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG >> >>Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is >> the huge difference? >> >>Brent > > So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG >> >>> >>>On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at >>> 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty >>>> principle limits the accuracy of determining initial >>>> conditions even if the physics of evolution is perfectly >>>> deterministic. >>>> >>>>I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a >>>> courtesy. If you don't want it addressed...why post it. >>>> >>>>Brent >>>> >>>> >>>>On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>No. I didn't read your original >>>>> post on this thread. But I see the authors assume quantum >>>>> fluctuations, and therefore deny causalty. You get what >>>>> you pay for. In my example, there surely are caused >>>>> probabilities, even if we don't have complete >>>>> understanding of the initial conditions. But why address >>>>> my issue if a link satisfies you? AG >>>>> >>>>>On Sunday, April 17, >>>>> 2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>A simple example of your >>>>>>> point is a gas at some temperature and pressure, >>>>>>> confined in some volume. For a given particle in >>>>>>> the ensemble, we can't determine its exact path >>>>>>> because we lack information about its >>>>>>> interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we >>>>>>> could determine its exact path, and any >>>>>>> uncertainties in that information would translate >>>>>>> into uncertainties in its path. But inherent >>>>>>> randomness in QM is different and probably has >>>>>>> nothing to do with the UP. >>>>>>Did you read the paper I cited?: https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3 >>>>>> >>>>>>Brent >>>>>> >>>>>>>For example, for a small >>>>>>> uncertainty in position, there is a large >>>>>>> uncertainty in velocity, so we can get >>>>>>> simultaneous measurements of position and >>>>>>> velocity, but the latter will manifest large >>>>>>> fluctuations for succeeding measurements. Thus, >>>>>>> the "inherent randomness" in QM is the assumption >>>>>>> that every individual trial or outcome of a >>>>>>> measurement is UNcaused; that is, the particular >>>>>>> outcome can't be traced to some prior state -- >>>>>>> what AE called God playing dice with the universe. >>>>>>> AG >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On Saturday, >>>>>>> April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 >>>>>>> meeke...@gmail.com wrote:; >>>>>>>>Consider the converse. When you >>>>>>>> comprehend some physical evolution, is it >>>>>>>> essential that it be deterministic. Every >>>>>>>> event has many causes, do you have to know >>>>>>>> every one of them to comprehend it? Think >>>>>>>> of all the things you would have to say did >>>>>>>> NOT happen in order that your comprehension >>>>>>>> be complete. The way I look at it, we call >>>>>>>> classical mechanics deterministic only >>>>>>>> because most of the time there are a >>>>>>>> few (not a bazillion) factors we can >>>>>>>> approximately >>>>>>>> determine in advance, so that an almost >>>>>>>> certain prediction, within >>>>>>>> a range of uncertainty , is possible. >>>>>>>> Even within strict determinism there are at >>>>>>>> this very moment gamma rays from distant >>>>>>>> supernova approaching you and which cannot >>>>>>>> be predicted but which might influence your >>>>>>>> thoughts and instruments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Brent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>I think you're >>>>>>>>> fooling yourself if you think a >>>>>>>>> non-determinsitic process is >>>>>>>>> comprehensible. AG >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>> Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 >>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>> UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan >>>>>>>>>> Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, April 16, 2022 at >>>>>>>>>>> 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 >>>>>>>>>>> meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, April >>>>>>>>>>>>> 16, >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022 at 1:44:09 >>>>>>>>>>>>> PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>> meeke...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 4/16/2022 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:34 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Grayson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course I favour the first version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many-world >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collapse, to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid the "God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plays dice" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nightmare. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why this fear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kinds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "historical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accident". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Albrect and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phillips have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nominally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>True >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unintelligibility ; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causing the results >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"It happened at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> random in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a Poisson >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.123" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> system with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> predict that, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the rate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differs from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't say >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> event >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I always wonder if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogmatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of randomness >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> narrow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Planck's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very small >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduces >>>>>>>>>>>>>> randomness, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> variables. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can happen" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fear. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Brent >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Every single trial >>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> unintelligible. AG >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I find that remark >>>>>>>>>>>> unintelligble. I don't >>>>>>>>>>>> think "intelligble" >>>>>>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>>>>>> what you think it means. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Brent >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It means there exists no >>>>>>>>>>> definable physical process >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> account for the outcome of >>>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>>> single trial. AG >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>That's what is usually called >>>>>>>>>> "non-deterministic". >>>>>>>>>> "Unintelligble" means not >>>>>>>>>> understandable or >>>>>>>>>> incomprehensible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Brent >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>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-li...@googlegroups.com . >>>>>>>>>To view this >>>>>>>>> discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f873f226-b8f7-40db-9036-ceb8b31427een%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>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-li...@googlegroups.com . >>>>>>>To view this discussion on >>>>>>> the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d3b652e-8a5d-4755-962f-52a5d7691f71n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>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-li...@googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>>>To view this discussion on the web >>>>> visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfc653e0-ddf1-4d17-a1ac-cd6a69ecc209n%40googlegroups.com >>>>> . >>>> >>>-- >>>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-li...@googlegroups.com . >>>To view this discussion on the web visit >>>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7328a59a-777a-4a04-bea6-3cf46e9b1836n%40googlegroups.com >>> . >> >-- >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/48a0a13b-0706-4c75-b123-d19c60128f92n%40googlegroups.com > . -- 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/1650307535.970920635%40f31.my.com.
