On 4/17/2022 7:11 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
A simple example of your point is a gas at some temperature and
pressure, confined in some volume. For a given particle in the
ensemble, we can't determine its exact path because we lack
information about its interactions. But if we had that knowledge, we
could determine its exact path, and any uncertainties in that
information would translate into uncertainties in its path. But
inherent randomness in QM is different and probably has nothing to do
with the UP.
Did you read the paper I cited?: https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0953v3
Brent
For example, for a small uncertainty in position, there is a large
uncertainty in velocity, so we *can* get simultaneous measurements of
position and velocity, but the latter will manifest large fluctuations
for succeeding measurements. Thus, the "inherent randomness" in QM is
the assumption that every individual trial or outcome of a measurement
is UNcaused; that is, the particular outcome can't be traced to some
prior state -- what AE called God playing dice with the universe. AG
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 6:34:51 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:;
Consider the converse. When you comprehend some physical
evolution, is it essential that it be deterministic. Every event
has many causes, do you have to know every one of them to
comprehend it? Think of all the things you would have to say did
NOT happen in order that your comprehension be complete. The way
I look at it, we call classical mechanics deterministic only
because /most of the time/ there are a few (not a bazillion)
factors we can /approximately determine/ in advance, so that
an/almost/ certain prediction, /within a range of uncertainty/, is
possible. Even within strict determinism there are at this very
moment gamma rays from distant supernova approaching you and which
cannot be predicted but which might influence your thoughts and
instruments.
Brent
On 4/16/2022 5:08 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
I think you're fooling yourself if you think a non-determinsitic
process is comprehensible. AG
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:46:09 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
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 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
I find that remark unintelligble. I don't think
"intelligble" means what you think it means.
Brent
It means there exists no definable physical process to
account for the outcome of a single trial. AG
That's what is usually called "non-deterministic".
"Unintelligble" means not understandable or incomprehensible.
Brent
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f873f226-b8f7-40db-9036-ceb8b31427een%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f873f226-b8f7-40db-9036-ceb8b31427een%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d3b652e-8a5d-4755-962f-52a5d7691f71n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2d3b652e-8a5d-4755-962f-52a5d7691f71n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24e6cd68-7a54-2b8a-b060-2f0a9af92e53%40gmail.com.
