On 09 Dec 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote:

On 9 December 2013 20:56, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/8/2013 4:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 December 2013 07:41, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Determinism is far from "well established".

> It's a basic assumption in almost every scientific theory.

In the most important theory in physics, Quantum Mechanics, no such assumption is made, and despite a century of trying no experiment has ever been performed that even hinted such a deterministic assumption should be added in.

I believe the two-slit experiment hints that QM is deterministic by implying the existence of a multiverse.
Wasn't it you, Liz, that pointed out this was circular. Everett assumes a multiverse in order to make QM determinsitic.

I did say something like that, didn't I? [insert embarrassed emoticon here].

I think I was saying that it was too strong to say that QM "follows the principle of determinism" (or something like that) because it appears to be indeterminate and only becomes deterministic thanks to Everett. However, the two-slit experiment does suggest the multiverse as a valid explanation, in that any other explanation requires other principles to be violated (causality, locality...)

I think I was attempting to position myself between John and Jason - to say that determinism is reasonably well established,

I am not sure we can establish anything about nature (nor even that it exists in some ontological) sense. But we can say that up to now, all our theories are deterministic, which is assuming less than to assume the existence of something non deterministic, which for me is close to a fairy tale idea (just looking more serious, but belonging to the same kind of insanity, to use Einstein's wording).

Obviously, for people believing in both QM and a unique physical reality (a mono-universe), it looks like there is a 3p indeterminacy, but computationalist have an easy theory explaining this necessary indeterministic first person (even plural with QM) appearance.

QM (without collapse) makes going away any 3p indeterminacy, and 3p non locality. Comp makes this into statistically predictible explained appearance. But then comp adds once important thing: the SWE (i.e. QM itself) *must* be deduced from a larger statistics on all computations. And "all computations" makes sense through the "miracle" of the Church- Turing-Post-Kleene thesis.

Once you accept, like John C., that there are events without cause, I think you believe in magic.

Bruno





but only as a result of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on.


--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to