I am sometimes amused (and other times irritated) when inexplicable phenomena are ascribed to “quantum” manifestations.
It may well be that, at some level, there are physical causes that are inscrutable not only in practice but in principle — whether or not there is any theory that would allow one to distinguish practice from principle is unknown to me.
But reflexively assigning anything that’s too hard to explain to “quantum” phenomena is uncomfortably analogous to invoking ghosts or spirits, be they malevolent or benevolent, as causes of bad or good “fortune”: It’s a way of saying “I don’t know” without saying “I don’t know.”
I don’t believe in chance, randomness, causelessness nor purposelessness.
I can’t prove this intuition except in the sense that the author does so above; logically not knowing the cause of an event does not mean it is causeless, only that I am ignorant.
"What is randomness?" Something difficult to achieve. But something that occurs naturally over time all things being equal.
I remember designing equipment to life cycle product in a past life for ceramic motor starters at high AC current. We used a programmable logic controller to randomly drive a DC motor that then alternately engaged contacts at a slow speed. Why such a complicated contact scheme?
Because if we used AC anywhere to drive the decision of on then off.. it would have been subject to behavior in line with a 60Hz waveform. The life cycle testing would then have not been random; and therefore invalid.
As a self-described social critic, I try to poke holes in things that people say.
And, each time you declare that probability or randomness or chance is dead (dead to the world in the ontological sense of not having true existence in the world), then I start jumping around like a witch-doctor, all jacked-up on psychedics, with loud chanting meant to bring them back to life.
I identify with the witch-doctor Billy Crystal played in the movie, The Princess Bride, when I declare that probability and randomness and chance are only "mostly dead." Here is my latest tease:
In all of the dice rolls which have ever taken place on planet Earth, it has always been knowably true of the world that rolling a "7" has been more probable than rolling a "2." If it can be known to be true of the world, as I claim, then it is merely semantics to say that it is not "actually" a feature of the world that "7 has the "inherent" property of higher probability versus "2."
Note how it is that loaded dice are not exempted from my claim, because loaded dice have always been only a tiny majority of all dice ever made. Even with their existence on Earth, my claim is still 100% true. With sufficient variability in initial conditions (majority of dice are not loaded, majority of people shake the dice before rolling them), the dice rolls have always had a "certain" chance of coming up "7."
Follow-up: What phrase could ever substitute for "the play of chance" when describing games of chance?
Briggs has bestowed yet another nun picture to remind me of those good ol' Catholic Schooldaze! Wow. At this rate I'll soon have a world class collection.
I think randomness is a fundamental property of nature.
Let’s consider the spins of two electrons, A and B. Each has a wave function that determines the probability of measuring up or down: A(u/d), B(u/d). Before measurement, they are each in a superposition of up and down. Measuring collapses the wave function from indetermined, to either up or down. Just like flipping a coin. Measuring one does not affect the other.
Now let’s entangle the two electrons so that their spins are opposed. This yields a single wave function for the pair: AB(ud,du). The probability of measuring up or down is 50/50 for each election, but measuring one election does affects the other – “spooky action at a distance”. If A measures up, we know B is down. If A measures down, we know B is up
John Bell proved that any attempt to explain this with hidden determinism will not work. Aspect experimentally verified Bell was correct.
The outcome of a coin that has been vigorously flipped could plausibly be affected by the quantum effects of the particles it collides with, or even the particles comprising the coin. There is no such thing as a rigid object, everything is wavy. In nature, there is no such thing as determinism.
Literally everything is determined at the macro scale in which we inhabit and what matters. You just don’t have the measuring capacity to calculate your input coin flip angle and power combined with the air atoms, etc. it’s always a terrible example. Doors aren’t just randomly flying open or morphing into lettuces because of quantum effects (or free will or Jesus or ghosts or any other unproven thing you lot think of next). The sun doesn’t rise and then set randomly. I can’t reply to silly comments until they’ve occurred. The thought to eat a donut doesn’t pop into my head unless I see them on an advert or a random memory is triggered of recently eating one after my homeostatic neuronal networks trigger that idea because my stomach told my brain I am hungry. The sea is wavy, yes, but it’s determined also. Same old tides, same old patterns just innumerable variables that you and our best computers don’t have the capacity to track or model. Inability to model/predict is not the same as random. Even the quantum scientists don’t believe in fully random because theirs a bounty available for modelling the quantum foam fluctuations - necessitating potentially deterministic properties even down there someday rather than the region we inhabit.
“Literally everything is determined at the macro scale in which we inhabit and what matters.”
Nothing is determined at the macro scale. Every macro event was determined at the quantum level. Classical ideas can only estimate a coin flip.
The coin and all the parts in the coin flipping machine are non-rigid bodies that are undergoing quantum fluctuations. The initial conditions of the coin toss are not determined until the coin is flipped, and they are different for each flip. These fluctuations are small, but their effect will be amplified by a vigorous coin toss. They can affect the outcome of the flip.
“It is very likely that all serious probabilities, be it a coin landing heads-up or a child being female, are manifestations of quantum chanciness,” he says. “Indeed we have devices, such as Geiger counters, that show how big results are often caused by chancy micro-events.”
Classical ideas have failed miserably to explain the mind. Philosophers like Daniel Dennit have only brought speculation and just so stories to the table. Scientists like Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose have innovative ideas that make the case that wave function collapse in microtubules is behind decision making in the mind, including when to flip a coin. Information coming into the mind can influence the decision, but it doesn’t fully determine it. We can argue whether this should be called free will, but it is not determinism. The idea of quantum entanglement maintained in microtubules is now mainstream.
“The crystal-like structure of microtubules makes them attractive candidates for the role of a medium in which quantum entanglement is supported and transmitted. Apparently the tryptophans located in microtubules can support the entangled states transfer process in them.”
Quantum mechanics is the operating system of the universe. Probability is part of its language. Probability is likely fundamental, not merely due to the inability to access information in the environment.
Perhaps not exactly on point, but your essay brought this to my mind. The link to the entire article is provided below and, I think, one which you will appreciate.
"John Archibald Wheeler, pioneer of black-hole and worm-hole theory, famously suggested that the world requires an observer in order to exist. He called his theory ‘It-from-Bit’:
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1918, stated:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
What it brought to my mind was “oh no the nun is going to crack that kid with the pointer!” Forgive me for 1-12 Catholic school and not being a star, or even well behaved, student.
I am sometimes amused (and other times irritated) when inexplicable phenomena are ascribed to “quantum” manifestations.
It may well be that, at some level, there are physical causes that are inscrutable not only in practice but in principle — whether or not there is any theory that would allow one to distinguish practice from principle is unknown to me.
But reflexively assigning anything that’s too hard to explain to “quantum” phenomena is uncomfortably analogous to invoking ghosts or spirits, be they malevolent or benevolent, as causes of bad or good “fortune”: It’s a way of saying “I don’t know” without saying “I don’t know.”
I don’t believe in chance, randomness, causelessness nor purposelessness.
I can’t prove this intuition except in the sense that the author does so above; logically not knowing the cause of an event does not mean it is causeless, only that I am ignorant.
The only thing I believe in is providence.
"What is randomness?" Something difficult to achieve. But something that occurs naturally over time all things being equal.
I remember designing equipment to life cycle product in a past life for ceramic motor starters at high AC current. We used a programmable logic controller to randomly drive a DC motor that then alternately engaged contacts at a slow speed. Why such a complicated contact scheme?
Because if we used AC anywhere to drive the decision of on then off.. it would have been subject to behavior in line with a 60Hz waveform. The life cycle testing would then have not been random; and therefore invalid.
As a self-described social critic, I try to poke holes in things that people say.
And, each time you declare that probability or randomness or chance is dead (dead to the world in the ontological sense of not having true existence in the world), then I start jumping around like a witch-doctor, all jacked-up on psychedics, with loud chanting meant to bring them back to life.
I identify with the witch-doctor Billy Crystal played in the movie, The Princess Bride, when I declare that probability and randomness and chance are only "mostly dead." Here is my latest tease:
In all of the dice rolls which have ever taken place on planet Earth, it has always been knowably true of the world that rolling a "7" has been more probable than rolling a "2." If it can be known to be true of the world, as I claim, then it is merely semantics to say that it is not "actually" a feature of the world that "7 has the "inherent" property of higher probability versus "2."
Note how it is that loaded dice are not exempted from my claim, because loaded dice have always been only a tiny majority of all dice ever made. Even with their existence on Earth, my claim is still 100% true. With sufficient variability in initial conditions (majority of dice are not loaded, majority of people shake the dice before rolling them), the dice rolls have always had a "certain" chance of coming up "7."
Follow-up: What phrase could ever substitute for "the play of chance" when describing games of chance?
Judas went off to become a frequentist?
Briggs has bestowed yet another nun picture to remind me of those good ol' Catholic Schooldaze! Wow. At this rate I'll soon have a world class collection.
I think randomness is a fundamental property of nature.
Let’s consider the spins of two electrons, A and B. Each has a wave function that determines the probability of measuring up or down: A(u/d), B(u/d). Before measurement, they are each in a superposition of up and down. Measuring collapses the wave function from indetermined, to either up or down. Just like flipping a coin. Measuring one does not affect the other.
Now let’s entangle the two electrons so that their spins are opposed. This yields a single wave function for the pair: AB(ud,du). The probability of measuring up or down is 50/50 for each election, but measuring one election does affects the other – “spooky action at a distance”. If A measures up, we know B is down. If A measures down, we know B is up
John Bell proved that any attempt to explain this with hidden determinism will not work. Aspect experimentally verified Bell was correct.
The outcome of a coin that has been vigorously flipped could plausibly be affected by the quantum effects of the particles it collides with, or even the particles comprising the coin. There is no such thing as a rigid object, everything is wavy. In nature, there is no such thing as determinism.
Literally everything is determined at the macro scale in which we inhabit and what matters. You just don’t have the measuring capacity to calculate your input coin flip angle and power combined with the air atoms, etc. it’s always a terrible example. Doors aren’t just randomly flying open or morphing into lettuces because of quantum effects (or free will or Jesus or ghosts or any other unproven thing you lot think of next). The sun doesn’t rise and then set randomly. I can’t reply to silly comments until they’ve occurred. The thought to eat a donut doesn’t pop into my head unless I see them on an advert or a random memory is triggered of recently eating one after my homeostatic neuronal networks trigger that idea because my stomach told my brain I am hungry. The sea is wavy, yes, but it’s determined also. Same old tides, same old patterns just innumerable variables that you and our best computers don’t have the capacity to track or model. Inability to model/predict is not the same as random. Even the quantum scientists don’t believe in fully random because theirs a bounty available for modelling the quantum foam fluctuations - necessitating potentially deterministic properties even down there someday rather than the region we inhabit.
“Literally everything is determined at the macro scale in which we inhabit and what matters.”
Nothing is determined at the macro scale. Every macro event was determined at the quantum level. Classical ideas can only estimate a coin flip.
The coin and all the parts in the coin flipping machine are non-rigid bodies that are undergoing quantum fluctuations. The initial conditions of the coin toss are not determined until the coin is flipped, and they are different for each flip. These fluctuations are small, but their effect will be amplified by a vigorous coin toss. They can affect the outcome of the flip.
https://physicsworld.com/a/the-quantum-coin-toss
“It is very likely that all serious probabilities, be it a coin landing heads-up or a child being female, are manifestations of quantum chanciness,” he says. “Indeed we have devices, such as Geiger counters, that show how big results are often caused by chancy micro-events.”
Classical ideas have failed miserably to explain the mind. Philosophers like Daniel Dennit have only brought speculation and just so stories to the table. Scientists like Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose have innovative ideas that make the case that wave function collapse in microtubules is behind decision making in the mind, including when to flip a coin. Information coming into the mind can influence the decision, but it doesn’t fully determine it. We can argue whether this should be called free will, but it is not determinism. The idea of quantum entanglement maintained in microtubules is now mainstream.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0303264723001429#:~:text=The%20crystal%2Dlike%20structure%20of,of%20the%20work%20are%20determined.
“The crystal-like structure of microtubules makes them attractive candidates for the role of a medium in which quantum entanglement is supported and transmitted. Apparently the tryptophans located in microtubules can support the entangled states transfer process in them.”
Quantum mechanics is the operating system of the universe. Probability is part of its language. Probability is likely fundamental, not merely due to the inability to access information in the environment.
I would rephrase that to "Uncertainty is a fundamental property of nature."
I see (here and at Twitter) that I have to do a better job explaining this.
Thanks.
Wow. Seems they completely missed the point.
Perhaps not exactly on point, but your essay brought this to my mind. The link to the entire article is provided below and, I think, one which you will appreciate.
"John Archibald Wheeler, pioneer of black-hole and worm-hole theory, famously suggested that the world requires an observer in order to exist. He called his theory ‘It-from-Bit’:
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1918, stated:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
https://chriswaldburger.substack.com/p/the-best-thing-i-wrote-during-all?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=33911&post_id=142880305&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=i6km6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Yes, this is an excellent essay.
What it brought to my mind was “oh no the nun is going to crack that kid with the pointer!” Forgive me for 1-12 Catholic school and not being a star, or even well behaved, student.
From the sublime to the humourous, thank you🤣
William, how did you get this picture? That's my first grade teacher Sister Aileen Mary who used to hit me with that pointer becuase I am left handed.
Googled nuns teaching kids.