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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to