On 4/17/2022 6:33 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
I was aware of the limitation on *precision* implied by the HUP. I was
addressing whether *simultaneous* measurements are possible despite
the HUP. I think they are possible.
The HUP directly refers ideal measurements which are preparations. Each
destructive measurement can simultaneously measure conjugate variables
to arbitrary precision. But repeating the destructive measurements on
exactly the same prepared system will then give a scatter of answers
which satisfies the HUP.
But my main point is that acausality is tantamount to unintelligible.
IMO, there's a huge difference between being unable to perfectly
predict the time evolution of a system, and it being uncaused. AG
Is there? Even if the unpredicitability is in-principle? What is the
huge difference?
Brent
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
The authors point out that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
limits the accuracy of determining initial conditions even if the
physics of evolution is perfectly deterministic.
I addressed your issue because you posted it here...as a
courtesy. If you don't want it addressed...why post it.
Brent
On 4/17/2022 4:11 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
No. I didn't read your original post on this thread. But I see
the authors assume quantum fluctuations, and therefore deny
causalty. You get what you pay for. In my example, there surely
are *caused* probabilities, even if we don't have complete
understanding of the initial conditions. But why address my issue
if a link satisfies you? AG
On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 4:01:03 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com
wrote:
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-li...@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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfc653e0-ddf1-4d17-a1ac-cd6a69ecc209n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cfc653e0-ddf1-4d17-a1ac-cd6a69ecc209n%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/7328a59a-777a-4a04-bea6-3cf46e9b1836n%40googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7328a59a-777a-4a04-bea6-3cf46e9b1836n%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/2479f70e-8f3b-d636-b1a8-68c1ddc7015e%40gmail.com.
