My simple uncontroversial claims: A) indeterminism means natural/observable causes are not sufficient to explain all experimental results, B) plenty of physicists (most) believe in indeterminism. Then my funny claim for the craic was C) you can use the word ‘supernatural’ to describe those effects because they are not natural (“Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.”)
When you say my claims are “not even remotely true”, and you want me to “support what you are proposing”, which of these claims is it?
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism like. What is your counter-claim? If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
An example in a textbook: “If the world is genuinely indeterministic in this way, then it isn’t possible to provide a dynamical explanation of how a system produces a particular outcome in a quantum measurement — the outcome is intrinsically random.” – that’s from Ch.7 of Quantum [Un]speakables II, edited by Bertlmann and Zeilinger. You can also read section 3 of Ch.1 of Dirac’s 1930 textbook.
link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing
I have linked two papers and an encylopædia entry already; you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
Here is an example of indeterminacy being “certified” in experiment that you might find interesting: Pironio, S., Acin, A., Massar, S., Boyer de la Giroday, A., Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T.A., Monroe, C.: Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature 464, 1021 (2010)
I’m tired of fighting unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I make.
I have not dodged anything. I’m not sure what “point” you’re making. You seem to be saying that indeterminism doesn’t mean “things aren’t determined by observable causes” but yep that’s what indeterminism means.
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn’t even well-defined. I’d argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I’m going to demonstrate.
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I’m fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something “unexplainable” (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
the outcome is intrinsically random.
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren’t really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I’ve shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you’ve given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.
Haven’t you identified this casino as an element of the universe, and observed how it works?
I can’t predict exactly where the ball will fall, but i don’t think roulette is supernatural. I can understand the non-deterministic process and chacterise the probability density. And test and observe over many trials to confirm the stochastic model is right.
Uncertainty, randomness, even entaglement and action at a distance can be observed right? with some degree of preision?
When you start to pin them down with experiments and describe the probability distribution experimentally, repeatedly, testably then hey presto; I’d call that a “natural” obsrervable random or non-deterministic process.
Maybe it’s natural with some more uncertainty than usual , but as you said about Heisenberg everything is at least a bit uncertain, so it’s really just a matter of how big is the variance of the probability distribution of your explanation or prediction.
I know you’re just trolling by trying to use “supernatural” as a term for, unknown / uncertain / not fully explained / non deterministic.
For me supernatural might be be predicting that the roulete wheel will come up 6 black next time.
A way to determine the exact oucome of a process we believe to be non-deterministic.
Of course that supernatural thing (like magnetism was back in the day) will become mundane if and when science can pin it down experimentally. Develop a model with a lower variance estimator.
I’d argue entanglement has beein going through a process from supernatural and spooky when it was only theoretical. To natural now that it’s been proven, but theres still a lot of uncertainty. so you might call it peri-natural?
I see the whole process of scientific explanation being moving our understanding of phenomena out of the mystical magical and supernatural realm, into the mundane natural world once we understand more about them and have some well understood (even if weak and incomplete) predictive power.
???
I think I am misunderstanding you.
My simple uncontroversial claims: A) indeterminism means natural/observable causes are not sufficient to explain all experimental results, B) plenty of physicists (most) believe in indeterminism. Then my funny claim for the craic was C) you can use the word ‘supernatural’ to describe those effects because they are not natural (“Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.”)
When you say my claims are “not even remotely true”, and you want me to “support what you are proposing”, which of these claims is it?
It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism like. What is your counter-claim? If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?
An example in a textbook: “If the world is genuinely indeterministic in this way, then it isn’t possible to provide a dynamical explanation of how a system produces a particular outcome in a quantum measurement — the outcome is intrinsically random.” – that’s from Ch.7 of Quantum [Un]speakables II, edited by Bertlmann and Zeilinger. You can also read section 3 of Ch.1 of Dirac’s 1930 textbook.
I have linked two papers and an encylopædia entry already; you have not substantiated your claims with anything.
Here is an example of indeterminacy being “certified” in experiment that you might find interesting: Pironio, S., Acin, A., Massar, S., Boyer de la Giroday, A., Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T.A., Monroe, C.: Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature 464, 1021 (2010)
Heisenberg proved in Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik in 1927 that there is an uncertainty associated with measurement. There are deterministic interpretations (e.g. many-worlds: “The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness” or Bohm’s interpretation of nonlocal hidden variables) and indeterministic interpretations (e.g. Copenhagn: “Today the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly regarded as synonymous with indeterminism”)
I have not dodged anything. I’m not sure what “point” you’re making. You seem to be saying that indeterminism doesn’t mean “things aren’t determined by observable causes” but yep that’s what indeterminism means.
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn’t even well-defined. I’d argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I’m going to demonstrate.
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I’m fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something “unexplainable” (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo. As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren’t really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I’ve shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you’ve given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.
Ok, we are in agreement on everything.
Haven’t you identified this casino as an element of the universe, and observed how it works? I can’t predict exactly where the ball will fall, but i don’t think roulette is supernatural. I can understand the non-deterministic process and chacterise the probability density. And test and observe over many trials to confirm the stochastic model is right.
Uncertainty, randomness, even entaglement and action at a distance can be observed right? with some degree of preision? When you start to pin them down with experiments and describe the probability distribution experimentally, repeatedly, testably then hey presto; I’d call that a “natural” obsrervable random or non-deterministic process.
Maybe it’s natural with some more uncertainty than usual , but as you said about Heisenberg everything is at least a bit uncertain, so it’s really just a matter of how big is the variance of the probability distribution of your explanation or prediction.
I know you’re just trolling by trying to use “supernatural” as a term for, unknown / uncertain / not fully explained / non deterministic. For me supernatural might be be predicting that the roulete wheel will come up 6 black next time. A way to determine the exact oucome of a process we believe to be non-deterministic.
Of course that supernatural thing (like magnetism was back in the day) will become mundane if and when science can pin it down experimentally. Develop a model with a lower variance estimator.
I’d argue entanglement has beein going through a process from supernatural and spooky when it was only theoretical. To natural now that it’s been proven, but theres still a lot of uncertainty. so you might call it peri-natural?
I see the whole process of scientific explanation being moving our understanding of phenomena out of the mystical magical and supernatural realm, into the mundane natural world once we understand more about them and have some well understood (even if weak and incomplete) predictive power.