The universe may have random characteristics. I don’t know for certain but don’t think so.
What I do know as well as many others is that it has not been proven, only that observation meets definition. Sure looks and smells like it.
So naturally a distrust arises over any explanation that makes claim. It might be true, randomness permeates the universe, but not for any of the reasons thus far given.
It's just intrinsic. Existence is a haze of probability. The probability has the possibility of being two different things. The waveform could be a notional, statistical one ... that is, in our minds because we don't understand the reality and it is the only way to explain it, at least for the moment. Or the probability is real in that it refers to an actually existing situation where an elementary particle is spread all over whilst conforming to basic rules about intensity and the missing dimension. Or both, for that matter.
But, if you're read a good description of Young's experiment ... the one with the two slits .... where two different types of probability correlate with one-another .... the apparently random pattern of hits at the other side of the slits, together with the complete knowledge blank before the particle is emergent.
Elroch was saying, and I agree with him, that the alternative is that reality is deliberately playing tricks on us. Except he didn't put it so simply.
nice. we can easily troubleshoot this if you keep working with me. but i think it would be best if you allow me to point you in the right direction and make your own discovery.
can you pinpoint the one major difference between your own definition of D and the one bellow?
" all events are determined completely by previously existing causes."
Without being too fussy, the two are compatible. However, if you try to define "cause" in yours, you may find you get to the notion that there are things in the past about which sufficient information is known to be able to deduce the event in question. And that can be rephrased compactly by saying it is possible to predict the event.
It's worth mentioning that the observability of information about past causes is extremely important. Without this, you can imagine that in the past there is a complete recipe for the results of all future possible experiments, which happens to be carefully designed to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, but that this recipe is impossible to directly detect in any way (it just permeates all of space-time after its creation).
The reason this is not a way round the key results disproving determinism is that in order to get the right results, when you do a Bell's experiment and make two observations of entangled photons at random angles, in order to get the right results, at each of the observations you need to know what angle the other observation was made. This is a breach of causality (since the choices of angle can be made simultaneously (in any frame) so there is no time to communicate them between the two points).
It has the same effect as the unclosable loophole that says that although it might appear that you have complete choice of the angles you pick (eg by using any source of randomness of your choice at each location) they are really all predetermined by a global conspiracy.
good. but they are not compatible at all. lets not argue about it yet. instead.. lets talk first about 'real determinism', and once we get over that, we can compare it to yours.
here's a quote i just grabbed from stanford:
"Traditionally determinism has been given various, usually imprecise definitions. This is only problematic if one is investigating determinism in a specific, well-defined theoretical context; but it is important to avoid certain major errors of definition. In order to get started we can begin with a loose and (nearly) all-encompassing definition as follows:
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law. "
Agreed
Things are fixed by natural law, but’s it’s more. Fixed by its own nature.
For science it becomes how
For philosophy it becomes to what extent.
Religion and a few random posters will tell us the Why’s, but we all are fully capable of recognizing and smelling baloney.
Gotta love that 2 slit light experiment. Why just last week it helped solve the mystery of my missing sock. It was found inside the boxer shorts. Unbelievable until it was explained how something can be in two places at the same time. I do say they’re a bit confused about the time thing and not so much about the wave/partical thing.
"A contrarian argues that modern physicists' obsession with beauty has given us wonderful math but bad science
Whether pondering black holes or predicting discoveries at CERN, physicists believe the best theories are beautiful, natural, and elegant, and this standard separates popular theories from disposable ones. This is why, Sabine Hossenfelder argues, we have not seen a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics for more than four decades. The belief in beauty has become so dogmatic that it now conflicts with scientific objectivity: observation has been unable to confirm mindboggling theories, like supersymmetry or grand unification, invented by physicists based on aesthetic criteria. Worse, these "too good to not be true" theories are actually untestable and they have left the field in a cul-de-sac. To escape, physicists must rethink their methods. Only by embracing reality as it is can science discover the truth."
interesting
Lee Smolin was one of the original thinkers at the beginnings of super string theory. He was greatly enthusiastic about its potential as being a Unified Theory. He became discouraged not only by the untestable aspects but with colleagues all jumping on the latest grant monies. Sabine is correct-there have been no dramatic/ major breakthroughs in unified theory for 40 years due in large part to the physicists themselves wandering about in beautiful swamps of their own making.
“The Trouble With Physics” - The rise of string theory, the fall of science and what comes next by Lee Smolin.
Chapter 1. The five great problems in theoretical physics.
Chapter 2. The Beauty Myth
The read is as relevant today as it’s 2006 publication.
Lee Smolin works on an untested mathematical theory of quantum gravity. Sabine Hossenfelder works on another untested mathematical theory of quantum gravity.
Both berate untestable mathematical theories.
Perhaps the theories they berate have been proven as such over a great deal of time and exhausting work. It’s time to move on. Search for more workable answers. With all new theories comes the problem of developing repeatable testing. It wouldn’t be a theory now would it- if verifiable tests existed! Perhaps over time these new ideas of quantum gravity will be shown to be missing the mark. But it is creative work. Not the humdrum constant noise of a fan and it’s ungreased bearings.
heisenberg uncertainty principle
Has absolutely nothing to do with randomness.
This has been explained several times over the last pages.
"Sabine Hossenfelder works on another untested mathematical theory of quantum gravity"
its a good reason to read her. she probably has a lot of experience in the field and familiar with the problems and nuances. are we all clear on determinism now?
The researchers would clearly think their new theory to be testable. Finding a test that verifies theory Is the work they are involved in.
E goes ahead and labels their theories as untestable. Well, this may prove to be so on down the road but serious inquiry is being made.
E believes in the multi- verse theory. Not that it’s possible but almost a certainty. The idea gets used for many an explanation of “how things are or might be”. All well and good. Point to make is many people would say the MV theory is untestable thereby making refutation. But surely E thinks one day the MV Theory will be testable. Many a modern physicist have given up in testing string theory, yet a few die hards will never dispense of it as being a unified theory as one day the right test will be found.
i like MV (not MW). infact i have a luvfest with it. lol
Multiverse is the same as Many Worlds though. Two names for the same thing.
opti they are very different. not sure what you refer to
It is impossible to test Multiverse/Many Worlds scientifically. Saying "one day" is a way of keeping it on the agenda dishonestly. There's no sign that one day will happen and in fact it is impossible that it could ever be scientifically tested for. That is because another universe is not part of this one. We inhabit this one. If we could test for another universe then it wouldn't BE another one.
says you ....