167 replies to this topic

[Julia36]

Determinism Vs Quantum Theory

 

Ask any scientist this question:

 

"Is the universe governed by laws?"

 

If they reply "Yes." then their view is necessarily one of cause and effect: no other laws are possible.  The moment only laws exist, determinism is the case.

 

This isn't my out-of-date view, it is requirement of logic.

 

 

Anything that is forced to behave solely according to laws necessarily has a determined, causal and definiate history and future. Even when Time is not used in the model everything that can exist is utterly inevitable in every part of its being. True for the insect and true for the star...and true for balls on a games table:

 

 

There are more things in the world than position and speed eg fields, but they are all manifestations of laws, and when you know enough of them you can predict accurately, and even easier, you can plot the past accurately.

 

Althoigh it is likely there will always be more of the world to calculate than we can ever know, the better techniques like measurement and maths we have, the greater detail you'll be able to plot.

 

 

A very few thinkers like Nobel physicist Geradus tHooft (left) can be acused of pullinjg quantum theory apart, but he is returning it to Cause and Effect.

 

http://www.staff.sci...H_lectures.html

 

We scratch the surface of knowing the world but we can know some things, arguably subjectively: subjecive for you, and subjective for the species, or group.

 

Cause & Effect are not finished as one quantum theory enthusiast asserted, they are the philosophy by which we understand and govern our world.

 

The place may be too big for Man to answer important questions of philosophy, and may have to wait for post human artificial general intelligence.

 

Many questions have been answered that baffled philosophers: 'Is there Free Will' has been replaced by 'How many degrees of freedom does a system have?'

and  "What is consciousness?" by " How many decision-actuation systems can a syetm be engineered for?"

 

Logician George Boule's great-great-grandson Geoffry Hinton (left) pointed out that such questions are pre-science issues (and calculation power enables solutions to fundamental questions).

radio interview May 2015 1/2 hour.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ra...9621,2666350952

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 16 July 2015 - 02:51 PM.

[Julia36]

This philosophy isn't tail casing. It has specific uses like ideating future technolgy like resurrecting

 

http://www.longecity...topgams-thread/

[Mind]

You might enjoy this paper and discussion. http://www.longecity...uman-condition/

[YOLF]

Is this another attempt at making a digital copy of a person the same as that person? I want to say from the outset that this is an inhumane idea that I've argued over and over. A digital copy, if it can be legitimately a person is another person who you've saddled with the responsibility of being you and who has to deal with being you... It of course also has the option, which is very likely, to overwrite itself into what it wants to be, thereby deleting "you.: Such can't be said to be "you."

 

If this is actually about ideating legitimate technologies to improve the human condition and make our meat sacks fit and young with no end, I'm down to chat about it. Just want to make sure I'm not getting into an old argument I wouldn't waste my time on.

[platypus]

Nothing at all prevents the possibility of "laws" having a fully and truly random component. 

[Julia36]

You might enjoy this paper and discussion. http://www.longecity...uman-condition/

 

Thanks Mind,

 

The links dont seem to work in the opener on Kip Werking, so I'll respond in ignorance

 

I've concluded that whether a system is described by Quantum or Deterministic science is irrelevant:

 

We can instead ask

 

1. Is the system opperating by laws,

 

&

 

2. How accurately can we make predictions about the system?

 

 

I dont think anyone is arguing laws are not governing the world. So the issue is how accurately we can calculate, and this seems almost completely about size of calcualtions we can do.

 

Longer term artificial intelligence is going to dramatically assist ie about 2022 when ibm expects Quantum Computers to have overcome the error problem (the more they calculate the greater their errors), when supercomputers will have passed exaflops, when much of the human brain will have been reverse engineered, and when weak specialised A.I. will have been driven to solve loads of science & maths problems

[Julia36]

Nothing at all prevents the possibility of "laws" having a fully and truly random component. 

 

Hello platypus That is word play. 'Randomness' occurs nowhere in Nature, and randomness cannot be created by Man (von Neuman  he states correctly - that the random systems we generate are in fact just very big or complex numbers and it would be impossible for Man to create random numbers). Random number generators and other appearances in maths are not random. I know you hold that there is such a thing and it can run alongside lawfulness.

 

 

 

 

Science has erred redifining words in common use like randomness and chaos.

There's a real problem in QT Vs. D, but I think the reply to Mind is one solution:

we can ask what laws a system operates by and what predictions we can make.

 

Edited by the hanged man, 17 July 2015 - 06:23 PM.

[Julia36]

Is this another attempt at making a digital copy of a person the same as that person? I want to say from the outset that this is an inhumane idea that I've argued over and over. A digital copy, if it can be legitimately a person is another person who you've saddled with the responsibility of being you and who has to deal with being you... It of course also has the option, which is very likely, to overwrite itself into what it wants to be, thereby deleting "you.: Such can't be said to be "you."

 

If this is actually about ideating legitimate technologies to improve the human condition and make our meat sacks fit and young with no end, I'm down to chat about it. Just want to make sure I'm not getting into an old argument I wouldn't waste my time on.

 

No. One could write down the person at a given instant, as a series of equations and maths. But I share your concern that sentient computers may be capable of great suffering.

 

 

 

Just to be clear in reply

This mthread started as an equirey in the conflict between Cause & Effect physics and Quantum Physics - whose's philosophies are in cnflict. They cant both be right.

 

ie everythiung cant be cause and effect and also  cause and effect dont work..

 

But a solution may be to assume everythng behaves laws, and see how much rediction you can get out of your model for a systm under enquirey. That systm can never be 'everythhng - except in a general sense,  as we think the multiverse is infinitre

 

Edited by the hanged man, 17 July 2015 - 06:58 PM.

[platypus]

Human thought does not constrain nature in any way. Therefore, philosophy cannot rule true randomness out. 

[Julia36]

Human thought does not constrain nature in any way. Therefore, philosophy cannot rule true randomness out. 

 

 

Quantum Indeterminancy (below)

 

Non sequiteur. That therefore doesn't follow!

Further, because something cannot be shown not to exist does not mean it therefore exists.

 

It also depends on the terms of the argument. If we admit anything is possible, then

of course true randomness is possible, but so is Russell's teapot:. we might have had this argument last week inside it?

 

But if we only admit consensual reality -  defined as the maximum number of true axioms about a world - some things are less dense than others as they have less true axioms.

 

True propositions cannot ever be in conflict.

That is one tenant of logic.

My arguemnts are intended to be contingent:

 

https://en.wikipedia...vism#Principles

 

apols, linux spell checker dpoesn't woprk here for some reason.

Edited by the hanged man, 18 July 2015 - 03:51 AM.

[YOLF]

 

Is this another attempt at making a digital copy of a person the same as that person? I want to say from the outset that this is an inhumane idea that I've argued over and over. A digital copy, if it can be legitimately a person is another person who you've saddled with the responsibility of being you and who has to deal with being you... It of course also has the option, which is very likely, to overwrite itself into what it wants to be, thereby deleting "you.: Such can't be said to be "you."

 

If this is actually about ideating legitimate technologies to improve the human condition and make our meat sacks fit and young with no end, I'm down to chat about it. Just want to make sure I'm not getting into an old argument I wouldn't waste my time on.

 

No. One could write down the person at a given instant, as a series of equations and maths. But I share your concern that sentient computers may be capable of great suffering.

 

 

 

Just to be clear in reply

This mthread started as an equirey in the conflict between Cause & Effect physics and Quantum Physics - whose's philosophies are in cnflict. They cant both be right.

 

ie everythiung cant be cause and effect and also  cause and effect dont work..

 

But a solution may be to assume everythng behaves laws, and see how much rediction you can get out of your model for a systm under enquirey. That systm can never be 'everythhng - except in a general sense,  as we think the multiverse is infinitre

 

 

Great! I'll follow.

[Julia36]

This concludes IMO. We ignore questions of determinism Vs. quantum indeterminancy if favour of asking

 

1. Is the system opperating by laws?

 

&

 

2. How accurately can we make predictions about the system?

Edited by the hanged man, 18 July 2015 - 02:55 PM.

[platypus]

So why exactly randomness cannot exist? The laws of nature may very well allow for sourced of true randomness, philosophy cannot rule it out even in theory, and so far physics hasn't done it either. 

[YOLF]

This concludes IMO. We ignore questions of determinism Vs. quantum indeterminancy if favour of asking

 

1. Is the system opperating by laws?

 

&

 

2. How accurately can we make predictions about the system?

 

You lost me, I'm still listening though. Very new to this, but here's what I can see so far, and I haven't read nearly enough of the material on the theories, just thinking about it while I watch your discussion if it continues...

 

Even in a system of laws, determinism is a good way to understand things. Each even in the result of a previous event going back to the big bang if that's right and maybe even before that. The precise distribution of matter and energy, had it been different would have produced a different combination of results. So the laws governing the genesis of the universe ultimately project the outcome until something sentient comes around and has a reason to work against the system of laws. On the humanist side, the action of expending energy and doing work can redirect the laws, but they still function and are determined by previous or unknown conditions.

 

The accuracy of the predictions depend on the amount of influence and understanding one has on the laws. If we are able to manipulate something though the law we have a better understanding of it, especially where ours is the impetus upon something that would otherwise have been static or continued on a particular determined path. The balls on the billiards table are at rest until we act upon them and once moving will or may be influenced by gravity, and atmospherics such as a strong wind. The simpler the system, the better the higher the accuracy. We've created a durable billiard table and relationship between the balls and table and have determined all factors affecting it (closing the windows, turning off the AC, or when and at what angle the Q ball is struck etc), so that only those things we can't effect such as gravity for the most part and our action produce outcomes and the system we arranged so as to be governed a certain way is aligned to be mostly unaffected by it (is there variation in gravity from moment to moment that would shift something out of balance?)

 

Now, float the pool table on the ocean during a storm and all bets are off. We now have more competing forces than we can handle in real time. So the accuracy of the outcome is determined by how much control we've exerted over the laws and how pristine we are able to maintain the conditions that we wish to operate in. So it's about doing work, the more effort we put into the conditions, the more we can predict the outcome and the more we can learn about the law to further improve our accuracy.

 

Moving to statistics, we may be able to predict more within certain margins, but ultimately have a limited view of the situation or system. We can apply a drug expecting a result, but the result may be differ from what we expect because it or it's effects are being affected by systems we're not  fully aware of, and don't have as much control of.

 

Randomness is just what we don't or can't understand or lack datasets to project with. I suppose I can't say it doesn't exist, but it seems that most of what was once random can be determined. Exceptions seeming to be those things we haven't understood yet. The probability seems to go with all randomnesses eventually becoming determined. 

 

Am I missing anything? Making any improper assumptions? I have a feeling that not knowing as much physics, I'm not operating with as large a dataset. Will need examples.

[Danail Bulgaria]

How can we get more information on this topic? Topics like this one make me think.

[Julia36]

 

This concludes IMO. We ignore questions of determinism Vs. quantum indeterminancy if favour of asking

 

1. Is the system opperating by laws?

 

&

 

2. How accurately can we make predictions about the system?

 

You lost me, I'm still listening though. Very new to this, but here's what I can see so far, and I haven't read nearly enough of the material on the theories, just thinking about it while I watch your discussion if it continues...

 

Even in a system of laws, determinism is a good way to understand things. Each even in the result of a previous event going back to the big bang if that's right and maybe even before that. The precise distribution of matter and energy, had it been different would have produced a different combination of results. So the laws governing the genesis of the universe ultimately project the outcome until something sentient comes around and has a reason to work against the system of laws. On the humanist side, the action of expending energy and doing work can redirect the laws, but they still function and are determined by previous or unknown conditions.

 

The accuracy of the predictions depend on the amount of influence and understanding one has on the laws. If we are able to manipulate something though the law we have a better understanding of it, especially where ours is the impetus upon something that would otherwise have been static or continued on a particular determined path. The balls on the billiards table are at rest until we act upon them and once moving will or may be influenced by gravity, and atmospherics such as a strong wind. The simpler the system, the better the higher the accuracy. We've created a durable billiard table and relationship between the balls and table and have determined all factors affecting it (closing the windows, turning off the AC, or when and at what angle the Q ball is struck etc), so that only those things we can't effect such as gravity for the most part and our action produce outcomes and the system we arranged so as to be governed a certain way is aligned to be mostly unaffected by it (is there variation in gravity from moment to moment that would shift something out of balance?)

 

Now, float the pool table on the ocean during a storm and all bets are off. We now have more competing forces than we can handle in real time. So the accuracy of the outcome is determined by how much control we've exerted over the laws and how pristine we are able to maintain the conditions that we wish to operate in. So it's about doing work, the more effort we put into the conditions, the more we can predict the outcome and the more we can learn about the law to further improve our accuracy.

 

Moving to statistics, we may be able to predict more within certain margins, but ultimately have a limited view of the situation or system. We can apply a drug expecting a result, but the result may be differ from what we expect because it or it's effects are being affected by systems we're not  fully aware of, and don't have as much control of.

 

Randomness is just what we don't or can't understand or lack datasets to project with. I suppose I can't say it doesn't exist, but it seems that most of what was once random can be determined. Exceptions seeming to be those things we haven't understood yet. The probability seems to go with all randomnesses eventually becoming determined. 

 

Am I missing anything? Making any improper assumptions? I have a feeling that not knowing as much physics, I'm not operating with as large a dataset. Will need examples.

 

 

 

 

I'm suggesting we aim at finding the laws and making better predictions ignoring general explanations (that are in conflict in any case) and just accept

 

there are laws and see how much we can use measurement, statistical techniques, and maths and those laws to make predictions.

Because when we can make predictions we can manipulate events eg manufacture stuff.

 

 

Sidney Harris' famous cartoon is where Quantum Mechanics is:

 

 

There are different ways of looking at things. Present pracrtice iof to set up models and test experiments seeing how they have been faithful to the model's requirements. That way you test for consistency.

 

What matters is how accurately you can make predictions. That's the whole conflict.

 

 

2012 Nobel Prize Winner Serge Haroche explaining Quantum Physics

 

 

10 minutes in

Edited by the hanged man, 19 July 2015 - 04:32 PM.

[Julia36]

So why exactly randomness cannot exist? The laws of nature may very well allow for sourced of true randomness, philosophy cannot rule it out even in theory, and so far physics hasn't done it either. 

 

 

If random once existed how could you know it? You would have to observe (eg measure) something.

 

If randomness was there but you couldn't know it, how could you speak about it?

 

In every experiment we have understood in detail, (which means reverse engineering down to the isometric building blocks of the scale of the system you are studying), there is no randomness.

 

There is often great complexity which looks unfathomable, so people call it random.

 

The randomness in Quantum Theory which interests you is really a presently 'unknown' and this must be assumed as it has applied elsewhere for millennia, and we cant yet observe the whole system under study.

 

I asked you in stopgam's thread to give one example of randomness anywhere. You suggested number sequences verified by distribution graphs, and argued this showed all numbers were being used randomly since they had equal distributions. But I replied this only proved that the man-made system was programmed to corrected for equal distribution.

 

Statistician philosophers like Descartes note bias in so-called random games, and take advantage of them.

 

Also I reiterate Von Neuman stated randomness could not exist, nor be created by men.

 

A random number sequence which was true would be 1, 2 3 4 Apple, void, explosion which wiped everything out etc Otherwise you have confined your experiment to numbers...which means it is not random.

 

Randomness means "unpredictable absolute" ie "Then a Miracle Occurs" cartoon above).

 

Randomness is a pre-science.

 

In my view science began down a false pathway since Max Planck, an originator of Quantum Theory wrote:

 

1. "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

 

2. "We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

 

3. "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'

 

Einstein's position was that of a Determinist. He believed everything was Cause & Effect.:

 

1. "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust.... "

 

2. “We have become Antipodean in our scientific expectations. You believe in the God that plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover, a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility.No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.”

-Albert Einstein, from a letter to Max Born, September 7, 1944, [Born-Einstein Letters]

 

Some general quotes on Cause & Effect:

 

http://sillysutras.c...or-determinism/

 

But I re-issue the challenge to point to anything at all that is random, and I will show a system that is either not observable, or not random but mega-complex.

 

I think Quantum Theory will be a laughing stock in years to come, if it insists on explanations before it has achieved observations, in defiance of Galileo's first maxim:

observare primo postea explicare.

 

see this great article:

 

http://sententias.or...n-on-free-will/

 

Edited by the hanged man, 22 July 2015 - 01:52 PM.

[YOLF]

Looking forward to more.

[platypus]

Double-slit experiment is truly random for each single particle. I do not think you can rule true randomness out with physical arguments, can you?

[Julia36]

Double-slit experiment is truly random for each single particle. I do not think you can rule true randomness out with physical arguments, can you?

 

As a philosopher I have concluded to my own satisfaction, on this very interesting presumed dichotomy between Determinism and Quantum Theory.

 

 

I come in a different way to the same conclusion that the great Frank J Tipler comes, albeit by a different path and have stated it above.

 

I often feel comments on new physics imply curiosity into the premises of theology and there is a seemingly dichotomy between science and religion as well as Quantum Theory and  Determinism.

 

As Bertrand Russell wrote: "Search earnestly for the facts, and be guided in your judgement by just what the facts are"

 

other quotes of Bertrand Russell

 

https://en.wikiquote...ertrand_Russell

 

though none of them guessed that resurrection of the dead was possible through science. Impossible to argue against conclusively, quantum resurrection must modify man's actions through fear as pragmatism, and give meaning to a life that could otherwise be tied only to the present or personally pointless.

 

Walt Disney had an interesting way of doing thinking. He divided into into a few major types of thinking and used a different room for each. Many of us use this a little, eg I'm going to the library now, to the study to sit at the computer, but his was more complete.

 

One has t be ruthless admitting or dismissing fondnesses into one's world view or the whole could crumble.

 

My conclusion is

1. Look for the laws of the cosmos.

2. Calculate from knowns to useful counter-intuitives using them.

 

You them confirm by experiment when your observation and measuring technology is advanced.

 

We aim to live, to resurrect, to change history: this much is foreseeable. Anything not demonstrably true must be dismissed or put in a 'dont know' pile

Edited by the hanged man, 31 July 2015 - 07:37 PM.

[Julia36]

Just to be clear Platypus, I reiterate "true randomness" does not exist in any model I use, and I have never heard a convincing case for it's existence.

[platypus]

So "true randomness does not exist" is an unproven axiom in your model. That's fine but let's not pretend it has been proven true. 

[Danail]

Each computer language has a command for generating random numbers.

 

And the command, that generates these numbers is...a code, e.g. a set of instructions. Does this mean, that if you know very well the code, youcan predict the randomnumbers of the computer?

[Duchykins]

Hanged Man, I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted in this thread.  

 

However, it is my impression that the stench of religion covers your semi-philosophical musings and interpretations.

 

I will say one thing, though, to address something specific.  You say "laws" are "governing" the universe in a way that implies the laws are entities separate from the universe.  You seemed to be initially talking about physics laws, and then switch over to logic laws, or at least the law of non-contradiction.

 

The law of identity, this pattern that we observe in nature as opposed to our label and description of this pattern, is an intrinsic property of existence.  It is not something that is separate from existence that "governs" it.

 

Is this true for other "laws" of logic?  Not really, especially since the excluded middle has so many problems and is thrown out in certain logic systems.  Perhaps noncontradiction.  

 

 

**This topic also has problems with the idea of pitting determinism against "quantum theory" as if there is only one monolithic theory.  Just no.

[Julia36]

Hanged Man, I don't know anything about you other than what you've posted in this thread.  

 

However, it is my impression that the stench of religion covers your semi-philosophical musings and interpretations.

 

ad hominem is against the rules of this forum.

 

FYI https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ad_hominem

 

 

I will say one thing, though, to address something specific.  You say "laws" are "governing" the universe in a way that implies the laws are entities separate from the universe.  You seemed to be initially talking about physics laws, and then switch over to logic laws, or at least the law of non-contradiction.

 

 

Interesting question what a law of physics is.

 

Here's wiki citing the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

"A physical law or scientific law "is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

 

We have to modify them when better ones are discovered, but they are our best calculations on unbreachable behaviours of physical things - including fields like gravity or electromagentism.

 

I dont see the laws of physics as seperate from the universe just the observations of patterms, limits and behaviours of things we have classified - arguably anthropcentrically. And fifferent laws are thought to exist in different universes.

 

I dont intend to be inconsitent by moving from physics laws to logic. But it is a requirement in logic that where two statements are in conflict they both cant be true.

Logic, as i undertsnd your challenge, is indeed a set of laws, and laws can indeed take many forms eg rules, unwritten rules, science laws etc

 

Oh I see. No I mean the theories..ie classical and quantum physics are in conflict. The theories therefore cant both be true, and yes i am assuming the laws of physics have to be true, which is a standard working assumption.

 

The law of identity, this pattern that we observe in nature as opposed to our label and description of this pattern, is an intrinsic property of existence.  It is not something that is separate from existence that "governs" it.

 

Is this true for other "laws" of logic?  Not really, especially since the excluded middle has so many problems and is thrown out in certain logic systems.  Perhaps noncontradiction.  

 

 

**This topic also has problems with the idea of pitting determinism against "quantum theory" as if there is only one monolithic theory.  Just no.

Could you cite the law of identity as you reference it because there is one of the classical laws in logic called that.

 

RE the patterns that exist ion Nature being there whether we observe it or not is an old chestnut in philosophy "Does a tree make in a sound in the forest if no-one ois there to hear it?"

 

Einstein dismissed this question as devoid of common sense " I prefer to think the moon is there even when I'm not looking at it" in response to a challenge on Quantum Theory.

 

I cant pronounce on your view nay or yeah. It's matter of personal choice which model/s you chose to use. You csay it's an intrinsic propert oif existence. Great Others dont.

I dont use classical logic but my own system of logic developed over years which suits me, and woulodn't be qualified to debate classical logic with you. Except to say this: many people have searched for a flawless system of logic and mathematical logic and mathemetics and none have found it. Wittgenstein for example. I use simple atomic logic and simple deduction from posit to posit. One can spend a lifetime looking at different schools of logic and never concluding to a best, or finding a perfect system.

 

Not even computers are following best logic.

 

"Just no".---> can you be specific?

 

But this question is closed for me. I have concluded to my own satisfaction that

 

1. What are physics laws?

 

2. What accurate predictions can we make?

 

and to ignore the conflict in the theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by the hanged man, 03 August 2015 - 08:42 AM.

[Duchykins]

 

 

Could you cite the law of identity as you reference it because there is one of the classical laws in logic called that.

 

I wasn't even aware there was more than one law of identity.  I said law of identity and then I said "is it true for other laws of logic"  so I am speaking of the the law of identity in the context of logic.

 

 

 

 

RE the patterns that exist ion Nature being there whether we observe it or not is an old chestnut in philosophy "Does a tree make in a sound in the forest if no-one ois there to hear it?"

 

 

I have no idea why is relevant to anything I said because I never talked about whether something exists or not if no one is there to observe it.  In fact I would have argued the opposite, that the law of identity would still "exist" as an intrinsic property of existence whether or not there were any self-aware creature in the universe at all.

 

 

 

 

I dont use classical logic but my own system of logic developed over years which suits me,

 

 

Those two laws are set apart from the construct of logic (the system) that is built upon the laws.  This is not about finding some impossibly perfect system.  If you try to reject the laws of identity and noncontradiction then you have excused yourself from any intelligible discussion of any kind, whatsoever.  Because that would mean nothing we say would have any meaning, we could have something exist and not-exist in the same sense and at the same time, we could have square circles and married bachelors and all kinds of nonsense.  You, your person, in a discussion, could be a dog and a coffee cup at the same time, whatever else you can think of.

 

You are not the first person I've met who irrationally claims not to be bound by those two laws (they're usually religious and trying to shield their ideology from reason by saying you can't apply logic to it or that it supersedes logic).  You won't be the last either, I expect.  But when it happens, it means it's time for me to stop wasting my time with them.

 

 

Edited by Duchykins, 03 August 2015 - 04:38 PM.

[platypus]

There's already some rather strong evidence for "local realism" being violated by nature:

 

http://phys.org/news...al-realism.html

 

 

 

 

[Duchykins]

There's already some rather strong evidence for "local realism" being violated by nature:

 

http://phys.org/news...al-realism.html

 

While I'm not saying the journalist got anything wrong about the study, I would advise caution with science journalism.  You are reading the journalist's interpretation.  Phys.org has a long history of posting articles about studies and interpreting the results with irreligious and liberal bias  (for the record, I am an atheist, so this is not about lambasting it because I am a Christian or a conservative).  

 

You can also see the article's conclusions being challenged in the comments section, with references.

 

However, I am eager for scientific laws to be proven false if they are false.  It is still a step forward in knowledge.

 

In the meantime, we usually have no choice but to use what works best until a better tool comes along.  At the moment no other system outperforms QM in usefulness. 

[platypus]

I'm simply making the point that the classical worldview (with regards to local realism) might well be proven incorrect in the coming years.
 

[platypus]

I'm guessing the poster known as the hanged man could be an advocate of Superdeterminism:

 

https://en.wikipedia...uperdeterminism

 

This interpretation of QM is quite unpopular at the moment.