Blueskyboris

"What do you make of the fact that there are no simultaneous eigenstates of both position and momentum? Or the x- and z-components of angular momentum?"

And?

I am not interested in theoretical debate as to why these processes happen. I am only interested in the fact that the debate is still WIDE OPEN in physics and that Randomness and Non-Randomness are still plausible philosophical propositions for a basic essence to the universe. My point of departure, philosophically, is based on three philosophical points: A) Macro-Level processes are the result of proved and predictable laws of physics, therefore micro-level processes must be predictable, because if they were not, there would be no coherence to Macro-Level existence. The macro-level world is made up atoms, folks! B) Cause and Effect, which are fundamental concepts of science, would become null and void in a random universe, thus opening the gates for all sorts of radical relativist nonsense in moral issues to take command c) Logic and mathematics, two navigational tools humanity has upheld since Pythagoras as Objective and Eternal, would become meaningless because they are predicated on processes that are random!

I would much rather let the debate continue until somebody finds a way to prove it either way.

pintpi

All of the macro-level experiments I has seen (including a few I have done myself) have a certain error value. Meaning even in the macro-level there are no experiments that can be predicted with absolute accuracy. I don't know if this lends any support to a fundamental randomness but it does at least show we have no evidence that there are any processes that are completely predictable.

Blueskyboris

Black Cap:

Your primary error is linguistic in nature, because you falsely assume that words apply to all concepts simultaneously.

Not really. I do not assume that the set name "Love" means every single one of its many subdefinitions. Each is a "concept" that should have a different name.

While "theory" can mean "speculation" in every day language, it means something totally different in science.

I am not concerned with the concepts "theory" and "speculation".

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Whoa! Slow down! Einstein's mathematical theory of relativity was proved by observation. The ability of Einstein's theory to explain the perihelion of the planet Mercury's 38' advance every century proved that the Theory of Relativity was no longer a theory. It was now fact.

Likewise, interpretation can have a different meaning in quantum physics than it does in every day language.

I know this. That is why I used "biochemistry" and "Quantum Mechanics" as examples in my argument.





A theory is but a theory. Newton's theory of gravitation is not a theory. It is a body of proved facts inhabiting the hallowed halls of scientific magnificience.

Blueskyboris

Hey Pintpi,

All of the macro-level experiments I has seen (including a few I have done myself) have a certain error value. Meaning even in the macro-level there are no experiments that can be predicted with absolute accuracy. I don't know if this lends any support to a fundamental randomness but it does at least show we have no evidence that there are any processes that are completely predictable.

What level of sophistication are these experiments? If they assume many, many variables I would argue the error margin is the result or our inability, as limited biological existents, to take into account every last causal variable. Since we are limited, our experiments will result with a +/- error rating in relation to actually happening phenomena.

Tetlepanquetzatzin

You did strongly indicate that you wanted to discuss Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, but you are of course entitled to change your mind.
It is wide open in that there is a dozen or so informed and thoughtful main types of interpretations, and there is not yet any consensus on which, if any, is the correct interpretation. It is not wide open in the sense that all interpretations are equally plausible---it is difficult to come up with something on par with main interpretations we already have.
Point A) is a mistaken conclusion. We generally do not observe the world at microscopic details. We usually only see the average of something like 10^24 atoms. The microscopic world could be random in a way that still gives classical physics as an approximation. In fact, we know from Ehrenfest's theorem that the average values of quantum mechanical quantities satisfy the classical equations of motion (at least when a corresponding classical quantity exists). If the probability distributions are sharply peaked around the averages, we would not ordinarily notice the spreads in the distributions. It must also be noted that there are examples of macroscopic quantum effects, such as SQUIDS:
B) Cause and effect are not fundamental notions in physics. Some would argue that the notion of causality (by which we mean the principle that causes always preceed their effects, not that every event has a cause) is fundamental. Modern science has moved beyond archaic and vague notions of cause and effect and replaced them with more precise notions, such as the principle of least action, symmetry principles, etc.

David Hume taught us that we shouldn't confuse statements about how the world is with statements about how the world ought to be. The vague principle that every event has a cause is not per se relevant to moral issues.

C) Logic and mathematics are not predicated on random process. Rather, we use logic and mathematics to describe and reason about random process (e.g. probability theory and algorithmic information theory are two mathematical formalisms that lets us study aspects of randomness).

pintpi

Hey, how you doing?

Any level you want, I don't believe there is any experiment that can be done that will have repeatable absolute accuracy.

All of our macro-level theories (general relativity, etc..) as far as we can tell are just approximations. Now we can look at this and say that these macro-level theories are actually absolutely accurate (or there is some more fundamental theory that is absolutely accurate) and there are just some other variables that are interfering with the predictability but I am just pointing out, if we do that we are just making a theoretical guess about absolute predictability. We have no evidence there is anything that is actually absolutely predictable.

So one could argue that the concept of absolute predictability is just a madeup human concept as we have no evidence that it exists in reality. Ofcourse that doesn't prove that absolute predictability isn't possible but since we do have abundant evidence that the universe is not absolutely predictable, I think the argument would go, the burden of proof is on the person that claims there is a true absolute predictability.

I'm just trying to clarify the problem here, as I also tend to believe in some kind of underlying absolute predictability but more from the fact I can't seem to wrap my head around a concept of true randomness. It seems to me there has to be some kind of order hiding down there somewhere but that certainly could be a result of my mind having an innate need to understand the processes of the universe.

Blueskyboris

Tet,

You did strongly indicate that you wanted to discuss Heisenberg's uncertainty relations, but you are of course entitled to change your mind.

No, I strongly indicated that I wanted to discuss what in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle proved randomness as a basic essence of the universe.

It is wide open in that there is a dozen or so informed and thoughtful main types of interpretations, and there is not yet any consensus on which, if any, is the correct interpretation.

Excellent. Then we have nothing more to debate.

It is not wide open in the sense that all interpretations are equally plausible

How a theorist (in this case a QM theorist) views the plausibility of a theory depends 1) on what set of assumptions that theorists upholds and 2) the body of factual and mathematical works that theorist has dealt with in relation to his or her imagination.

under suitable conditions, a macroscopic object with many microscopic degrees of freedom could behave quantum mechanically, provided that it was sufficiently decoupled from its environment.

This is ridiculous. A cat is not decoupled from its environment, with the cat not-made-of-atoms and the enivorment made-of-atoms. A cat is made up of biological cells, which are made up of atoms. If you say subatomic reality is random, you are saying the macro level world is built on sand.

Cause and effect are not fundamental notions in physics. Some would argue that the notion of causality (by which we mean the principle that causes always preceed their effects, not that every event has a cause) is fundamental.

That causes always preceed their effects? That sounds exactly like what I was talking about! My mother was the principle that caused me to live. To say that some things are caused, while others are not, is pure nonsense. Either there is causality or there is not. Sure, my "mother" is a mindboggingly complex body of causes, but her complexity does not negate the fact that she caused me as an entity. Some would argue? Who are these "some"? Other physicists with different interpretations?

David Hume taught us that we shouldn't confuse statements about how the world is with statements about how the world ought to be.

Who said anyone was? You yourself said the issue is open to interpretation.

Logic and mathematics are not predicated on random process. Rather, we use logic and mathematics to describe and reason about random process (e.g. probability theory and algorithmic information theory are two mathematical formalisms that lets us study aspects of randomness).

The human brain understands Logic and Mathematics. The human brain is made of atoms. The atomic world is random. Therefore, Logic and Mathematics are predicated on a random process.

Blueskyboris

Hey Pint,

Now we can look at this and say that these macro-level theories are actually absolutely accurate (or there is some more fundamental theory that is absolutely accurate) and there are just some other variables that are interfering with the predictability but I am just pointing out, if we do that we are just making a theoretical guess about absolute predictability. We have no evidence there is anything that is actually absolutely predictable.

True, but if I accept such a non-absolute model of the universe, I am stuck with a model that says 90% of the macro-universe is absolute and predictable, while that annoying 10% is not. Fair enough, if the Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental aspect of the universe. I can live with the fact that we have to use statistics to get a rough idea of what is happening subatomically. But I am not comfortable with the idea that the universe is random in essence.

So one could argue that the concept of absolute predictability is just a madeup human concept as we have no evidence that it exists in reality. Ofcourse that doesn't prove that absolute predictability isn't possible but since we do have abundant evidence that the universe is not absolutely predictable, I think the argument would go, the burden of proof is on the person that claims there is a true absolute predictability.

Absolute predictability might be a anthropocentric concept, I suppose.

I'm just trying to clarify the problem here, as I also tend to believe in some kind of underlying absolute predictability but more from the fact I can't seem to wrap my head around a concept of true randomness. It seems to me there has to be some kind of order hiding down there somewhere but that certainly could be a result of my mind having an innate need to understand the processes of the universe.

We are friends, eh?

BioBeing

General request to keep things civil.

And a general reminder -- If you spot a potential personal attack, please bring it to the attention of all the mods by using the "report post" button. There is no need to discuss it in-thread.

BioBeing
S&S Moderator

Blueskyboris

nukular,

Sorry about responding to your post so late. I realized that your calm and steady prose could wait until later. Here goes:

Perhaps a better question to address is whether predictability is a "fundamental property of the universe" before discussing randomness. The Heisenberg uncertainity principle concerns the predictability for measurement of various properties of quantum objects and states that states that various complimentary quantities can only be measured with certain limits, handicapping any notion of determinism. This handicap is well demonstrated in the tests of Bell's theorem.

This is exactly what I wanted to discuss in the first place. The Uncertainty Principle is fundamental to atomic physics, because light quantums are the only way to measure the present positions and velocities of particles. When one uses the smallest quantum of light possible, this quantum of light is too big to measure the particles and hence disturbs the particle by changing its velocity. Therefore, atomic particles can not be measured with accuracy if E=mc2 is the fundamental ether equation of the universe.

While the Uncertainty Principle does handicap any notion of determinism, it does not kill it. In fact, all it does is put a mesh screen over the face determinism. That mesh is statistics.

Blueskyboris -- Are there any physical reasons why you question the constancy of the light in vacuum? There is little controversy regarding this idea, although there have been those who have recently questioned this idea regarding supernovae spectra but various people (see John Bahcall's page here ) have roundly criticized the priors used to arrive at this conclusion.

Heh. You got me.

My point is that those who are questioning are on the cutting edge of theory. Those scientists who questioned the speed of light in relation to supernovae spectra are doing the right thing. And those who roundly criticized them are also doing the right thing. Debate is a fundamental part of the scientific process. Those who do not want to debate are no better than the clergy who charged Galileo with heresy.

Bluesky.