On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 9:16:34 PM UTC-6 [email protected] wrote:
> > > 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 > So what, in your view, bugged AE about probability in QM? AG > > > On Sunday, April 17, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-6 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] >>> 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 [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/16/2022 4:24 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6 [email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 4/16/2022 2:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>> >>> 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 [email protected]. >> >> 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 [email protected]. > > 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/48a0a13b-0706-4c75-b123-d19c60128f92n%40googlegroups.com.
