On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:57 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 12/9/2013 12:44 AM, 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
> 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, but only as a result
> of a long and winding process of experiment, conjecture and so on.
> But it isn't. As Roland Omnes says, quantum mechanics is a probabilistic
> theory so it predicts probabilities - what did you expect? Among apostles
> of Everett there's a lot of trashing of Copenhagen. But Bohr's idea was
> that the classical world, where things happened and results were recorded,
> was *logically* prior to the quantum mechanics. QM was a way of making
> predictions about what could done and observed. Today what might be termed
> neo-Copenhagen is advocated by Chris Fuchs and maybe Scott Aronson. I
> highly recommend Scott's book "Quantum Computing Since Democritus". It's
> kind of heavy going in the middle, but if you're just interested in the
> philosophical implications you can skip to the last chapters. Violation of
> Bell's inequality can be used to guarantee the randomness of numbers,
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3427v3.pdf, assuming only locality.
Bell's theorm proves that local hidden variables are impossible which
leaves only two remaining explanations that explain the EPR paradox:
1. Non-local, faster-than-light, relativity violating effects
2. Measurements have more than one outcome
In light of Bell's theorem, either special relativity is false or
many-world's is true.
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.