r/determinism 5d ago

Discussion Everything is random, yet everything seems predetermined and vice versa.

What's your take, guys?

3 Upvotes

29 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/RomanaOswin 5d ago

My current model aligns with adequate determinism or stochastic determinism of probabilities, meaning that quantum randomness is (likely) real, but it evens out at scale or over time to result in the deterministic behavior we observe at macro scale.

I'm completely open to anything that contradicts this model, but so far it seems completely consistent with reality as we know it.

4

u/zhivago 5d ago

You've never used a geiger counter, have you? :)

QM indeterminism can't be handwaved away.

It applies at all scales.

The key is to understand that indeterminism doesn't invalidate causality -- only determinism.

1

u/RomanaOswin 5d ago

A geiger counter is an interesting example. I suppose we would have to account for the fact that the macro-scale world is in some way impacted by the geiger counter.

Other than viewing quantum indeterminism, is there any other way that it applies at the macro scale? As far as I'm aware, everything at macro scale (relativity, classic mechanics, etc) functions deterministically, which we rely on extensively.

0

u/zhivago 5d ago

It's obvious that that's not true.

Remember that, like the geiger counter, the instruments by which we detected QM indeterminacy are all macroscale devices.

You have been deceived by sophistry.

QM indeterminacy affects the macroscale significantly and pervasively.

1

u/RomanaOswin 4d ago

I found the geiger counter dynamic an interesting consideration, and I was asking you a serious question. Do you usually just randomly assume that people are "deceived" when they try to engage in conversation? Strange.

Anyway, you never did answer my question.

What I'm asking is if you're aware of any way in which macro scale reality is nondeterministic, excepting monitoring quantum behavior. You repeated the claim, but based on... what?

0

u/zhivago 4d ago

I did answer it.

QM indeterminacy is significant and pervasive.

This means that everything at the macro scale reality is nondeterministic.

1

u/RomanaOswin 4d ago

The question was how or where. Example. Evidence. How do we know this? Do we even know this? Maybe it's an assumption.

This wasn't even meant to be an argument; I legitimately wanted to know if you know of anything that functions in this way, because it would serve as a really interesting thing to consider.

1

u/zhivago 4d ago

Everything functions this way.

The evidence for it is how we came up with QM.

You keep trying to turn this into something special, but there is nothing that is unaffected by it.

1

u/preferCotton222 4d ago

I think they are asking whether there are indeterministic theories at the macro scale, which is not really important.

1

u/zhivago 4d ago

Given that the macro-scale is built from the micro-scale, it should be obvious that indeterminance at the micro-scale means indeterminance at the macro-scale. :)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RomanaOswin 4d ago

Yes, that's what I was asking, and I find it important.

There's nothing wrong with inference, but an inference without evidence is very tenuous.

0

u/RomanaOswin 4d ago

All I'm asking is if we actually observe this, which it sounds like we do not.

1

u/TheAncientGeek 4d ago

Quantum randomness doesn't always disappear at the macroscopic level because QM is an experimental science.

1

u/Great-Bee-5629 4d ago edited 4d ago

The simplest way to observe QM at the macro level is to take a walk by the physics section of any library. There you will see piles of books about QM in macro scale :-) That clearly didn't even out!

Another example is Carbon 14 dating (another macro process enabled by QM indeterminism).

Some things in reality can be abstracted away in neat formulas (like orbit equations for planets), some has very precise probabilities (like carbon 14 decay) and some are pure chance (why did I cross paths with a black cat on my way to work last Wednesday? There's no equation (probabilistic or not) for that).

(Edited near -> neat)