1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Quantum Mech deterministic?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by questfortruth, Mar 26, 2020.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,077
    Ratings:
    +174
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
  2. MNoBody

    MNoBody Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    311
    Ratings:
    +111
    maybe they get contradictory results due to a bad theoretical model?
    Einstein himself wasn't happy with his theory, which got kind of taken over and run the way that management group decided.....off into odd theoretical land where the theories are used to substantiate even more out there theories
     
  3. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    27,730
    Ratings:
    +11,673
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Until it's shown not to be, one has to assume it is---the default position.

    .

    .
     
  4. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    No, quantum mechanics is not deterministic.

    Next..................
     
  5. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    14,151
    Ratings:
    +5,020
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Is Quantum Mech deterministic?

    I'm voting 'No' from the quantum observer effect and the double-slit experiments it seems consciousness is a player in reality in a way that makes no sense in the materialist-determinist worldview.
     
  6. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,077
    Ratings:
    +174
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Have you read the Dr. Martila's arguments in the first page of the paper? If no, then do I need to quote him?
     
  7. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    It is a popular misconception that QM involves a role for a conscious observer. Virtually no modern physicist thinks that. It is "measurement" that converts probabilities into a specific outcome, via interaction of the means of measurement with the QM system being measured. The means of measurement is a detector of some sort, i.e. a physical thing. Not consciousness.

    But QM is indeed certainly non-deterministic, since the outcome of an individual measurement cannot be exactly predicted. QM explicitly forbids this, in fact, as shown in such concepts as the uncertainty principle, which are intrinsic to the theory.
     
  8. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,077
    Ratings:
    +174
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Have you read the Dr. Martila's arguments in the first page of the paper? If no, then do I need to quote him?
     
  9. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    14,151
    Ratings:
    +5,020
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    I think you are trying to bypass an important point, Why should passive measurement (just looking without interacting) affect anything in our normal understanding of reality. That is why the effect of an observer in Quantum Mechanics is counterintuitive to how we think about reality. When I look at the moon with my passive eyes (eyes only receive information they don't interact) I don't affect them moon. So why does not my passive observation force an electron to set itself in a certain state?
     
  10. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Your passive observation does not cause an electron to set itself in a certain state.
     
  11. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    14,151
    Ratings:
    +5,020
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Well, it certainly appears to be the case. What is your better explanation then?

    My thought is that this is so amazing that some people won’t believe it even if it’s true.
     
  12. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    I addressed that in post 7. For you to detect the electron, it has to interact with your detector. It is this that determines its state. It occurs whether or not you are watching the dial.
     
  13. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    14,151
    Ratings:
    +5,020
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Well we will have to end disagreeing on the implications of things like the double-slit experiment.

    When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.

    Eugene Wigner




    Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.

    Pascual Jordan
     
  14. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Wigner went a bit funny towards the end. Nobody nowadays subscribes to that view. Consider: for consciousness to be involved, it would mean the needle on the dial changed when the experimenter went to get a cup of coffee. Do you really think that is what happens?

    And what do you think happens if the dial is observed by a consciousness that is not human, for example the laboratory cat, or a passing wasp? It's absurd.

    The prevailing modern view is that the interaction is what does it, not the mind of an observer.
     
  15. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    14,151
    Ratings:
    +5,020
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    I know for a fact that is not true about many modern physicists. I can spend the rest of the day producing quotes.

    "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

    Bernard d'Espagnat
     
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    6,164
    Ratings:
    +5,101
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    He died in 2015, at the age of 93. He is by no stretch a modern physicist.

    I'll be more impressed by quotes from people currently practising physics who think consciousness is involved. As I say, I do not think you will find many of those.
     
  17. MNoBody

    MNoBody Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    311
    Ratings:
    +111
    personally I think based on what I have been seeing over the decades that if the tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still has an effect phenomenologically, existentially.....even if no people were there to witness it..
    people die every day and the construct still carries on regardless of the presence of humanoids
    which at the height of arrogance still carry on believing the entirety of the vast ALL was made just for them
    man could go extinct entirely and the whole universe would continue.
    is that wrong?
    It may be right?
    and the rub is there is no "human" authority which could absolutely validate that.
     
Loading...