this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
524 points (87.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43133 readers
1214 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Measuring quantun superpositions can have different outcomes under the same circumstances, right? So therefore, it cannot be deterministic (= what you described) because randomness is involved.
Sounds to me like we lack the understanding as to why there are different outcomes in what we perceive as identical circumstances.
A dice roll appears random too, but it isn't if one understands all of the inputs and variables precisely.
It's not that we don't know, it's that we can't know, via Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Iirc, hidden variable interpretations of quantum physics have thus far failed to explain what's happening. It seems to be probabilistic.
We don't need to know for it to be deterministic.
Outcomes must be knowable/predictable if it is deterministic. Things could have played out differently at least at small scales, which often have large effects.
Fwiw I agree, the concept of "true randomness" never set well with me... often we use probability to model systems that are too complex to understand or calculate directly. However, in this case I defer my personal beliefs to genius scientists and mathematicians who have spent their whole lives exploring just this dilemma. So far we have no deterministic model for quantum mechanics, and no indication that such exists.
(not an expert or formally educated on the subject, but I recommend reading A Brief History of Time for an accessible overview)
A good while back we had no working model for a heliocentric solar system nor any solid indication of it...until we did. But I'm pretty sure the earth was going around the sun even before we realized it, and even before we existed at all.
A Brief History of Time was great! I'd also definitely recommend it to all.