[QuantumClue (OP)]

Just making a reference for myself with these symbols, ignore me

▲ ▼ h

[yor_on]

Ah yes, it's best to treat it as a game, with quite interesting 'rules'. If I started to put all that I believe into a practical setting I would look at every piece of matter with the highest suspicion, whispering. "So you think you can fool me huh?" And also carry a scuba tube. Just in case all that oxygen would get it into its 'mind' to move to some corner.

[Foolosophy]

Perhaps you claim that the world is non deterministic because of your literal interpretation of the conclusions that QED generates?

Even, but not only for this. The determinism we are discussing here is related, for example, to the fact that a quantum system as an elementary particle had an exact position in space before being measured. Do you agree with it?

This is precisely the Quantum point and only half the Heisenberg story.

You may well claim that an elementary particle has an exact position before being measured, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that if you know a particles position with infinite accuracy then its velocity can NEVER be known or measured.

Can you extract these nuerotic conclusions from the insane stochastic based quantum depiction of the atomic world and apply them to the real world of flesh and bones, stars and planets, galaxies and nebulae??

Why not?

Are both inadeqaute at this point of time>?

[Foolosophy]

If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.

I said that I dont dislike QM - I use it often in my professional work environment.

I have philosophical and logical objections to the stochastic nature of QM and its reliance on nuerotic probability functions.

This objection does not dismiss some of the predictive powers of QM and its practical applications.

In my opinion QM is stochastic empiricism in its extreme form. Its predictive power comes from the probability functions pertaining to populations.

Once you isolate an individual in that population sample and try to make specific predictions relating to what that individual (particle) will do at some future time, you get non sensical uncertainty.

This is why Quantum physicsts have a faith that the atomic world is non deterministic.

there is absolutely no basis in making this assumption - in theory or practise

(apart from ignorant arrogance - a very common human trait seen throughout history)

[JP]

If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.

I said that I dont dislike QM - I use it often in my professional work environment.

Out of curiosity, what work do you do that you use QM often?

[Foolosophy]

If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.

I said that I dont dislike QM - I use it often in my professional work environment.

Out of curiosity, what work do you do that you use QM often?

Why the sudden interest in how my pay is generated?

[JP]

If you don't have a scientific reason for disliking it, that doesn't leave much to discuss on a science forum.

I said that I dont dislike QM - I use it often in my professional work environment.

Out of curiosity, what work do you do that you use QM often?

Why the sudden interest in how my pay is generated?

I'm curious about what kind of work you do that uses QM regularly in their work, since I'm a trained physicist and find it fascinating. It's rare to find anyone who uses QM outside of academia, so when you brought it up, it piqued my curiosity.  If you'd rather not talk about it, that's fine.

[lightarrow]

The determinism we are discussing here is related, for example, to the fact that a quantum system as an elementary particle had an exact position in space before being measured. Do you agree with it?

This is precisely the Quantum point and only half the Heisenberg story.

You may well claim that an elementary particle has an exact position before being measured, but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that if you know a particles position with infinite accuracy then its velocity can NEVER be known or measured.

Can you extract these nuerotic conclusions from the insane stochastic based quantum depiction of the atomic world and apply them to the real world of flesh and bones, stars and planets, galaxies and nebulae??

One of the main differences between a quantistic system and a classical one (usually the first are microscopic and the second macroscopic, but not always) is that in quantum systems some coherence is preserved, while in the classical ones is lost, so, for example, you can't have, in the last case, a train of waves with so much indetermination in position.

[QuantumClue (OP)]

Foolosophy,

Promise me you won't raid my page like you did with this.

[yor_on]

I see it as true that if we discuss individual objects they become more indeterminate the smaller we make them. And then when looking at it macroscopically becomes more 'deterministic', But it all depend on how you look. For example, although we can define a trajectory to high precision we can not define where a planets exact location will be over a extended time period. It becomes indeterministic too.

I think at those kind of things as 'emergences' myself, defining different 'properties' depending on from 'where' you choose to look at it?
==

Well, I'm not sure when it comes to planets position as seen over a longer time period, but when it comes to QM contra Macroscopic I look at it that way. It depends on how to view time the one with 'positions' I guess?

[yor_on]

JP

Schrodinger equation is it.

Go for it QC
Will be fun looking at.