On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote:
> > > On 4/16/2022 8:34 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Of course I favour the first version of the argument, using the many-world >> formulation of collapse, to avoid the "God plays dice" nightmare. >> >> >> Why this fear of true randomness? We have all kinds of classical >> randomness we just attributed to "historical accident". Would it really >> make any difference it were due to inherent quantum randomness? Albrect >> and Phillips have made an argument that there is quantum randomness even >> nominally classical dynamics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3 >> > > True randomness implies *unintelligibility*; that is, no existing > physical process for *causing *the results of measurements. AG > > > "It happened at random in accordance with a Poisson process with rate > parameter 0.123" seems perfectly intelligible to me. There is a physical > description of the system with allows you to predict that, including the > value of the rate parameter. It only differs from deterministic physics in > that it doesn't say when the event happens. > > I always wonder if people who have this dogmatic rejection of randomness > understand that quantum randomness is very narrow. Planck's constant is > very small and it introduces randomness, but with a definite distribution > and on certain variables. It's not "anything can happen" as it seems some > people fear. > > Brent > Every single trial is unintelligible. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29484c7c-767b-476b-ab73-97c2359d4c32n%40googlegroups.com.
