13 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyThat was a boat load of projection!
because I don't have the delusional arrogance of believing I know better about a subject than most experts on the subject much better qualified in it than myself.
There are many people much smarter than you and I (many on this forum) who know many things you and I don't; suck it up.
14 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistright, and your original assertion was;
As quantum mechanics developed, it became necessary to base it on probability theory. This confused many scientists, since they believed reality is deterministic. So they proposed the existence of hidden variables. You already know this,
.
"..hidden variables are required to rescue your system...."
by which you meant quantum physics system, not determinism. That still means your above statement was gibberish.
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by humydeterminism required hidden variables to rescue the quantum physics system from probabilism, yes you are right.
right, and your original assertion was;
"..hidden variables are required to rescue your system...."
by which you meant quantum physics system, not determinism. That still means your above statement was gibberish.
You are right humy, everything is okay, please calm down, relax, there is no threat here. Deep breath, control yourself, You are right, you are never wrong, you are so right, so right, so right. You are the best.
14 Jun 17
4 edits
Originally posted by apathistI never said/implied/believed the quantum physics needs to be 'rescued' from probabilism so apparently you are not saying I am right even if you think you are.
[b]determinism required hidden variables to rescue the quantum physics system from probabilism, yes you are right.
/b]
Since probabilism doesn't contradict quantum physics and vice versa, in what sense "rescue"? -you are not making any sense.
This is what probabilism means;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilism
" ...in the absence of certainty, probability is the best criterion..."
...and how do you think this probabilism relates to (let alone contradicts or is in some way is at adds with) quantum physics ?
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistNo, this is incorrect. Determinism does not require hidden variables, as I explained in my previous post.
determinism required hidden variables to rescue the quantum physics system from probabilism, yes you are right.
You are right humy, everything is okay, please calm down, relax, there is no threat here. Deep breath, control yourself, You are right, you are never wrong, you are so right, so right, so right. You are the best.
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou had said that 'we have a deterministic description of non-interacting particles already that appears to work just fine (the Schrödinger equation for non-relativistic massive particles for example.
No, this is incorrect. Determinism does not require hidden variables, as I explained in my previous post.
That is hardly an explanation, it is just an assertion. It's over my head. But I've heard that since the Schroedinger equation is non-relativistic, it won't give you the correct results for relativistic quantum systems. And you say 'non-interacting'. What happens when the particle reacts with other stuff?
Anyway, hidden variables were invented in order to provide a deterministic explanation for probabilistic quantum events. I didn't make this up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
Historically, in physics, hidden variable theories were espoused by some physicists who argued that the state of a physical system, as formulated by quantum mechanics, does not give a complete description for the system; i.e., that quantum mechanics is ultimately incomplete, and that a complete theory would provide descriptive categories to account for all observable behavior and thus avoid any indeterminism.
14 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistWe have a good description for relativistic non-interacting particles as well, the Dirac equation. You can add interactions to the Schrödinger or Dirac equations too, but that tends to become a cumbersome description.
You had said that 'we have a deterministic description of non-interacting particles already that appears to work just fine (the Schrödinger equation for non-relativistic massive particles for example.
That is hardly an explanation, it is just an assertion. It's over my head. But I've heard that since the Schroedinger equation is non-relativistic, ...[text shortened]... ptive categories to account for all observable behavior [b]and thus avoid any indeterminism.[/b]
Hidden variables are one way, but not the only way to salvage determinism.
Indeterminacy enters quantum theory whenever "measurements" are involved - but we don't yet have a good description of what a "measurement" really is and we haven't derived the Born rule from microscopic principles. Work to achieve this is currently ongoing. This is a very difficult task because "measurements" involve interacting many-body systems which are notoriously difficult to describe theoretically and intractable through brute-force numerical computation from microscopic principles. Some approaches to the measurement problem, such as decoherence theories of measurement, are potentially compatible with determinism.
14 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis seems like a lot of work to "salvage" an unprovable philosophical principle that is useless to practicing scientists.
We have a good description for relativistic non-interacting particles as well, the Dirac equation. You can add interactions to the Schrödinger or Dirac equations too, but that tends to become a cumbersome description.
Hidden variables are one way, but not the only way to salvage determinism.
Indeterminacy enters quantum theory whenever "measuremen ...[text shortened]... oblem, such as decoherence theories of measurement, are potentially compatible with determinism.
A scientist is quite content with the knowledge that the events which interest him are enmeshed in a causal network. But indeed, even that knowledge is either futile or unnecessary: futile because it cannot tell him what the causes are, and unnecessary if he already knows them- Abraham Kaplan
15 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by wildgrassI didn't say that there are many people looking to "salvage determinism." Rather, the work on the decoherence approach to the measurement problem (and other approaches), which is not mainly done for philosophical reasons but primarily to understand the measurement problem, may lead to a resolution of the measurement problem that is consistent with determinism.
This seems like a lot of work to "salvage" an unprovable philosophical principle that is useless to practicing scientists.
A scientist is quite content with the knowledge that the events which interest him are enmeshed in a causal network. But indeed, even that knowledge is either futile or unnecessary: futile because it cannot tell him what the causes are, and unnecessary if he already knows them- Abraham Kaplan
I don't think that understanding where the Born rule comes from is "useless."
15 Jun 17
12 edits
Originally posted by wildgrass1, the vast majority of scientists, including, most modern physicists, are totally unconcerned with "salvage" any philosophical principle. What exactly do you really think we typically do with our time? Do you really think we are all constantly philosophizing!
This seems like a lot of work to "salvage" an unprovable philosophical principle that is useless to practicing scientists.
2, as far as I am aware, all philosophical principle I personally know of are 'unprovable' since the best you can do is show them to be both merely clearly defined (i.e. not vague ) and merely logically self-consistent (and you can have something that is both self-consistent and wrong! ) ; I have been trying to think of an exception to this (just one philosophical principles I personally know of that can be 'proved' in some other sense other than merely be shown to be self-consistent ) but so far failed, but, I will keep trying because I may well have missed a consideration of one.
---
Actually, now I think about it, you could argue that if you DID find a said philosophical principle that can be proved correct other than in the sense of merely be shown to be self-consistent, then it is not a philosophical principle but rather a scientific principle therefore all philosophical principles are 'unprovable' by definition! But this would entirely depend on exactly how you would define "philosophical" and "scientific".
15 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyHow does this connect with the philosophy of science? twhitehead advised me to check out some philosophers, many of whom are pragmatic, logic-building scientifically-oriented men and women (such as my good friend Rudy Carnap and Abe Kaplan). These guys thought it was really silly to think that free will could not exist, as it was an observable phenomena with supportive evidence. They were philosophers who believed that any philosophy which purports to disprove the existence of something that is well-grounded in empirical evidence must be fundamentally flawed. Rather than constructing concepts which cannot be proven (like determinism), these guys established philosophical concepts that could be proven.
1, the vast majority of scientists, including, most modern physicists, are totally unconcerned with "salvage" any philosophical principle. What exactly do you really think we typically do with our time? Do you really think we are all constantly philosophizing!
2, as far as I am aware, all philosophical principle I personally know of are 'unprovable' since th ...[text shortened]... But this would entirely depend on exactly how you would define "philosophical" and "scientific".
15 Jun 17
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes. You're right. This is an important, specific question. You have a poorly understood phenomenon with an cause that isn't clear. What is the mechanism?
I don't think that understanding where the Born rule comes from is "useless."
But the doctrine of determinism isn't relevant to solving the problem. As the quote indicates.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by wildgrassI didn't say that it is. All I'm saying is that the knowledge that we have at our disposal at the moment is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about whether or not the universe is deterministic in nature.
Yes. You're right. This is an important, specific question. You have a poorly understood phenomenon with an cause that isn't clear. What is the mechanism?
But the doctrine of determinism isn't relevant to solving the problem. As the quote indicates.