On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 12:46:09 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 10:43 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > >> If the measurement problem were solved in the sense being able to predict >> exact outcomes, >> > > That's not the measurement problem, its determining if how and why > observation effects things. > > > >> thus making QM a deterministic theory, would that imply an INCONSISTENCY >> in the postulates of QM? >> > > It's not just Quantum Mechanics, Bell proved that any theory that is > deterministic must be nonlocal or non realistic or both, otherwise it > would be inconsistent with experimental results. > > John K Clark >
Due to the uncertainty principle, it's impossible to know the exact state of any measuring device or any system being measured. This means that no theory of micro reality can be deterministic or realistic, and this shows (without appealing to Bell experiment results) that hidden variables cannot exist to know such states if one agrees that the UP is operating. So it's not that God plays dice with the universe; rather, it's impossible *in principle* to predict the outcome of any micro experiment. Hence, we are forced to develop probabilistic theories of micro reality. Do you agree, and if so, how does this effect our understanding of Bell experiments and non locality? 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
