On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/23/2019 8:59 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > But Laplace was wrong in one very important respect. One can never > > know the exact position and momentum of any particle, let alone the > > entire universe. There are no perfect measurements! > > Laplace knew that. His point was that the future (and the past) were > completely determined by the present state of the world. Even though we > can't measure it perfectly, Laplace assumed that the variables like > position and momentum had definite values. That's what is > fundamentally different about quantum mechanics, they don't have > definite values. > > > Further, the situation is further aggravated by the Uncertainty > > Principle. In sum, using classical mechanics the future is NOT > > determined by its present, imprecise configuration. > > The uncertainty principle is part of QM not CM. Just because you can't > measure it precisely, doesn't mean that the present configuration is not > precise; it means that we are ignorant of the precise values. This was > Einstein's idea, that QM was incomplete and its randomness was just an > expression of our ignorance, as in CM. > > > > Not only is Laplace mistaken, but Carroll as well, who should know > > better. AG > > Neither Laplace nor Carroll is mistaken. > > Brent > > > Both were/are superstitious, basically religiously so, in their fear/rejection of probabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#Quantum_mechanical_irreversibility @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0d915ee2-9bba-4d12-8827-07e49020ee6c%40googlegroups.com.
