On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:44:09 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 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
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.
Every single trial is unintelligible. AG
I find that remark unintelligble. I don't think "intelligble" means
what you think it means.
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 view this discussion on the web visit