Is there any reason to believe in uncaused events?

[Sleeppy]

How so? Please give more details why you think this if the results of the measurements are probabilistic.

Math. Probabilities are an attempt to understand deterministic values, not spontaneity. Spontaneity is antithetical to the scientific process. It's antithetical to what's observable; and certain scientists would rather subscribe to that larger realm of fantasy. As a result, how many blatantly ridiculous theories are constantly being afforded to the Copenhagen "interpretation"?

 

[Polymath257]

Math. Probabilities are an attempt to understand deterministic values, not spontaneity. Spontaneity is antithetical to the scientific process. It's antithetical to what's observable; and certain scientists would rather subscribe to that larger realm of fantasy. As a result, how many blatantly ridiculous theories are constantly being afforded to the Copenhagen "interpretation"?

Quantum mechanics is an inherently probabilistic description of the universe. The values given are NOT and cannot be the result of underlying locally deterministic features.

What 'blatantly ridiculous theories' do you think are afforded by the Copenhagen interpretation?

 

[Sleeppy]

Quantum mechanics is an inherently probabilistic description of the universe. The values given are NOT and cannot be the result of underlying locally deterministic features.

What 'blatantly ridiculous theories' do you think are afforded by the Copenhagen interpretation?

"Locally deterministic." Why is there this assumption that it must be local or non-local? It's both.

 

[Polymath257]

"Locally deterministic." Why is there this assumption that it must be local or non-local? It's both.

No hidden variable theory that has definite properties and influences traveling no faster than light can be consistent with observations.

Moving faster than light leads to significant problems with causality also (the future causing the past).

The universe is probabilistic and not deterministic at the fundamental level.

 

[Sleeppy]

No hidden variable theory that has definite properties and influences traveling no faster than light can be consistent with observations.

Moving faster than light leads to significant problems with causality also (the future causing the past).

The universe is probabilistic and not deterministic at the fundamental level.

That's "interpretation", being presented as absolute fact.

 

[Polymath257]

That's "interpretation", being presented as absolute fact.

No, as I stated it, it is fact. No local, realist theory can be consistent with observations.

Any effect outside of the past light-cone (so effects acting faster than light) are equivalent to effects going backwards in time.

 

[Sleeppy]

No, as I stated it, it is fact. No local, realist theory can be consistent with observations.

Any effect outside of the past light-cone (so effects acting faster than light) are equivalent to effects going backwards in time.

You can claim to know the absolute facts that have eluded the most notable scientists to date. Debatable.

I didn't limit anything to either locality or non-locality.

 

[Polymath257]

You can claim to know the absolute facts that have eluded the most notable scientists to date. Debatable.

I didn't limit anything to either locality or non-locality.

Bohmian mechanics doesn't work relativistically; it is only a classical extension. If you dispense with locality, then there are even more issues with being able to conduct science.

But, even if you can find a Bohmian version that is compatible with relativity, you still have the issue that it is perfectly equivalent observationally to the Copenhagen interpretation. So the differences are trivialities. The upshot is that even in the Bohmian version, all we can ever have is the probabilities.

 

[Milton Platt]

Don't particles pop into and out of the quantum field all the time, for no apparent reason?

We should be careful of extrapolating our experience of the everyday, sensory world onto Reality.

Not a proponent of anything theistic, but just because we don't know of a reason does not imply there is no reason

 

[Willamena]

No, as I stated it, it is fact. No local, realist theory can be consistent with observations.

Any effect outside of the past light-cone (so effects acting faster than light) are equivalent to effects going backwards in time.

No theory can be consistent without observations.

 

[Polymath257]

No theory can be consistent without observations.

QM *is* consistent with observations. No local realist theory can be.