What the shit is all of this?

[hooplala]

Consider me schooled!

[LMNO]

Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

[Cramulus]

wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

[hooplala]

wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

I was under the impression Schrodinger was making fun of the Copenhagen interpretation with the cat analogy...

[LMNO]

wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

In part, yes.  But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment.  The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways.  The only way to figure it out is to go look.

As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yep.  Me too.

Below the subatomic level, there is nothing but randomness.  This is as readily apparent as the earth being flat by observers around the world!  Until of course, we see around the world.

LOGICAL CHECKMATES!

Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "Alright!"
Person 1: "Hmmm..."

both scratch their heads...

Person 1: "Think for Yourself!"
Person 2: "No!"

both scratch their heads...

Person 1: " Think for yourself!"
Person 2: "Shut up."

Person 2 goes back to their e-sodoku.
Person 1 is butthurt because nobody's fighting the power with them.

This reminds me of  my recent discovery that about the most offensive thing you can say to a person, be they religious, atheist, vegan, or whatever, is "I don't want to talk about your beliefs because I don't care". This is, for reasons I have not yet explored, much more offensive to most people than "I think you're wrong and I'm going to tell you why".

Yeah, I've seen that for a few years, but it took the advent of the SJW to really drive it home.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It also, coincidentally, completely sums up my reaction to everything said by any philosophy student ever.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sadly, no.  It's that damn Heisenberg.  The "instrument" we're using is pure math.  When that fails you, you know the universe is cheating.

Doesn't happen.  The math never fails.  It just doesn't always give you the result you want.

ETA:  and sometimes it gives you more than you really wanted.

[Faust]

wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing



Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

In part, yes.  But in the original experiment, the poison gas was triggered by whether or not a radioactive isotope decays at a certain moment.  The point being, when we do the math, we have no idea whether or not that decay happened at that moment, because the math goes both ways.  The only way to figure it out is to go look.

As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

Exactly, and even on the quantum scale there are the upper and lower thresholds on the uncertainty of energy and position. I cant remember what the maximum energy/position uncertainty was but it was something tiny like planks constant over pi or something.

Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

I wasn't really saying that they would break that relationship, maybe it was a bad example I was just describing how many of the "unknowables" vanished with renormalisation.

[hooplala]

To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that. 

Naw.  When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement.  She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."

Notice the subtle difference?  I don't think she did, and I no longer care.  Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing.  Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.

[Cramulus]

As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

isn't the fact that we represent it via a probability indicative that we're glossing over what's really happening?

I mean, a die rolls a given number 16.6% of the time - but it's not truly a random event, it's completely predictable if you know enough about the roll, physics, etc.

it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?

[hooplala]

To consider someone wrong, you'd first have to consider them, at all.  It's almost like to refuse to even consider the position, you've denied their personhood - it would seem negation of the self is worse than possibly being wrong.

I do not deny the person hood of SJWs, philosophy majors, etc.  They are people.  I just don't care to listen to what they have to say, which is a different thing altogether, BECAUSE what they are SAYING is not what they are SAYING that they're saying.  If you know what I mean.

I can acknowledge someone's existence and agency without putting up with their shit.

Oh, absolutely... I meant that as the view from their side, if that makes sense.  I just didn't think to actually add that. 

Naw.  When St Mae and I had our falling out, it was because of a disagreement.  She didn't say, "Dammit, Roger, I don't want to hear it", she said, "You're just a troll and this isn't the time."

Notice the subtle difference?  I don't think she did, and I no longer care.  Being told to SHUT UP by someone you respect, for example, is one thing.  Being told you don't actually HAVE an opinion is another.

Hey, I never claimed they were correct. 

[LMNO]

it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?

No, the universe is knowable, just not in the way you'd like it to be.