[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 580 KB, 2040x1715, 4chan_vtuber.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11338359 No.11338359 [Reply] [Original]

Is the probabilistic nature of the wave function proof of the existence of "true randomness" in the universe, or is it just a reflection of the limitations of science? Pseuds keep trying to tell me QM disproves determinism, but I'm not so sure.
Pic unrelated.

>> No.11338420

No. QM and the wavefunction are not probabilistic. Some "interpretations" associate probabilities with the wavefunction. However, there is no consensus on the matter of interpretations. Despite that, there is no scientific reason to believe in determinism.

>> No.11338445

>>11338359
QM is completely deterministic up to the point where you want to measure something. What happens then is probably random.

>> No.11338455 [DELETED] 
File: 625 KB, 1036x2498, Determinism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11338455

>>11338359

>> No.11338678

>>11338359
According to the copenhagen interpretation yes, but we don't know that that's the correct one. It only falsifies hard/newtonian determinism, which isn't always what people mean when they say determinism. In arguments about free will for example, determinism is brought up to point out the relationship of the mind and causality, not to say that everything is predetermined.

>> No.11338724

>>11338359
Practically speaking, if you want a truly random number, then you can get one through a measurement of something on a quantum level. This is fundamental. It doesn't disprove determinism, necessarily, but according to some, it do.

>> No.11338735

>>11338359
it does btfo determinism in the usual sense (i.e. cause and effect are determined by probabilistic wavefunction collapse, tunelling, etc.), but does not btfo superdeterminism in the sense that the collapses might be predetermined since the birth of the universe

>> No.11340035

>>11338445
*provably

>> No.11340053

It only seems non-deterministic due to gaps in our knowledge which was Einstein's position and none of you here could even suck the old kikes dick in terms of intellect.

>> No.11341693

>>11340053
And Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger's positions were the opposite. Are we reducing science to 'my favourite scientist can beat up yours'? Or do you have a reason to believe Einstein was right?

>> No.11341700

>>11338420
>there is no scientific reason to believe in determinism.

Care to elaborate?

>> No.11341711

>>11341700
On what? Do you have a scientific reason to believe in determinism?

>> No.11341721

>>11341711
Well, all of our models and theories sort of rely on interactions that are deterministic, in that we can predict them, and the more accurate our knowledge is, the more accurately we can predict the result. The Copenhagen Interpretation claims a non-deterministic aspect of quantum mechanics, but you seem to reject that. So I'm asking you why you don't believe in determinism, if the one broadly accepted, potentially non-deterministic approach to physics is wrong, then why propose that determinism isn't the most reasonable view?

>> No.11341925

>>11341721
All our fundamental theories are deterministic, but determinism usually refers to our actions (as we perceive them) being deterministic. None of these theories account for our perceived decisions or consciousness in any way. So in my opinion they say nothing about determinism.

>> No.11341931

>>11341693
>Or do you have a reason to believe Einstein was right?
Everything on the macroscale is perfectly deterministic. Why would that result from a nondeterministic foundation? Thats Einsteins whole argument.