For so-called Quantum Randomness to be so-called "truly random" that would imply there is no knowable cause for the effect. Because if there were a knowable cause, then there could be a knowable effect. But there is no cause. How can you have no cause but an effect? The cause is the state of the system which determines the result. The effect is the resultant state, i.e. the "spin" or whatever attribute is "truly random."methinks scientists need to rethink this quantum.Lol.
>>17062183>Because if there were a knowable cause, then there could be a knowable effectYou're assuming hard determinism, which is absolutely not proven. There could just be true randomness in the universe. You have rejected this possibility without even realizing it because it's unintuitive, but there's no reason the physical laws of the universe couldn't just work that way.
>>17062183>How can you have no cause but an effect?I mean that's what the big bang is innit? so every random event is like a big bang thing
>>17062183Sorry, I am not following you. Let me try to refute your argument not on physics terms (though I have a background on physics) but on basic terms.>to be so-called "truly random" that would imply there is no knowable cause for the effect. Because if there were a knowable cause, then there could be a knowable effect. But there is no cause. How can you have no cause but an effect? Let’s say I drop an egg off the counter. It may break or it may stay in tact, depending on how far it falls and onto what it lands and in what orientation it makes contact, etc. etc. This is purely classical but at this level in classical physics there would be no way to determine its outcome. It would look just as in deterministic as QM. I think this refutes your very simplistic argument that “if there is a knowable effect then there is a knowable cause”. The egg bounces off the counter unbroken— what caused it to survive rather than to break? In most cases this is unknowable within scientific abilities, even if you had great measurements, because it depends on very small (maybe even quantum?) effects in the eggshell
>>17062183We would know the cause its just that the outcome would be random. Your problem is that you have certain intuitions which were bequeathed to you by evolution, and as it turns out those intuitions weren't based on being able to reason on the quantum level. So now instead of abandoning your inferior intuitions you cling to them patheticaly using confused language.
There are loads of random effects. Science autists just see something happening, then start measuring it, calculating it's speed, charting it's paths, studying it, predicting it and then eventually trying to replicate it and then declaring it not a random event any more because we have figured it out.Mean while, the shit we are studying is just randomly vibrating around the galaxy doing it's thing not knowing sceince voyeurs are trying to prove it's not random.
>>17062423>Your problem is that you have certain intuitions which were bequeathed to you by evolution, and as it turns out those intuitions weren't based on being able to reason on the quantum level.This NPC opinion, unsurprisingly, follows a self-contradicting statement. How can "we" (who? your reddit horde?) know what determines an outcome that isn't determined by anything, by definition?
>>17062535i will accept your extremely angry, emotional response as a concession on his behalf.
>>17062538How can "we" (who? your reddit horde?) know what determines an outcome that isn't determined by anything, by definition?I will accept your extremely botlike, empty response as a concession on behalf of the brainlet collective.
>>17062539didn't read, i accept your concession.
>>17062541I accept your circumcision.
>>17062542but i'm not circumcised.
>>17062543Yes, you are. I just circumcised you.
>>17062183>How can you have no cause but an effect?There's absolutely no reason to assume an effect requires cause.
>>17062546>There's absolutely no reason to assume an effect requires cause.If it is an effect, it has a cause by definition. No reason to "assume" anything.
>>17062549No reason to define it that way either
>>17062550>there's no heckin' reason to have a concept of cause and effect>t. tar-black gorilla
>>17062535You are again showing that your peanut brain cannot comprehend anything other than the intuitions about Newtonian scales which you rely on for everything. You should be able to imagine a situation in which a cause determines a probability distribution over possible effects, rather than determining one specific effect.. That is still a cause and effect just without determinism.
>>17063139>a cause determines a probability distribution over possible effectsThat's not a coherent proposition. You can have a structure determining a probability distribution over possible outcomes, not a cause "determining" its effect without actually determining the effect.
>>17063139>a cause determines a probability distribution over possible effects, rather than determining one specific effectI've yet to see any evidence to support this claim
>>17063256>I've yet to see any evidence to support this claimIt is not a claim it is showing that OPs conception of what constitutes a cause is based on his intuition of what a cause must be which is based on something which needn't be true.>>17063170 A causal mechanism can fix the probability distribution of possible outcomes without fixing which individual outcome occurs. Calling that mechanism a “structure” instead of a “cause” seems like a terminological distinction rather than showing that probabilistic causation is incoherent. And again your choice to say that is a structure and not a cause is due to the limits of your intuitions
>>17063379>A causal mechanism can fix the probability distribution of possible outcomes without fixing which individual outcome occurs.That makes the probability distribution an effect, not the actual outcome. And the distribution doesn't "cause" the outcome, either, so you can't attribute it to your "cause" by transitivity either.Retarded pledditor.
>>17063379>It is not a claimYou just claimed it, retard
>>17063491A peer-reviewed expert fact is not a claim. You can't claim something if it's true.
>>17063508>A peer-reviewed expert fact
>>17063514You have a misconception about science. Science is not about claims, it's about facts. And facts are determined by experts.
>>17063527BAZINGA! One Reddit upgold for you my heckin' science friend!!
>>17063538This whole sub has reddit derangement syndrome.
>>17063542It's where you belong, they love popsci articles that suck off "da experts" and don't provide any actual evidence for the things they say.
>>17063547I've been here for 10 years. Maybe you're the redditor.
>>17063577I don't care, if you have no proof you're a poof.
>>17062539reddit derangement syndrome
>>17064022We did it, reddit. We won.
>>17062542This made me laugh outloud and i am neither person in the argument. Good one.>>17062406QM says Quantum randomness has either no process which determines an outcome other than pure randomness, or the outcome is never knowable. If there is no mechanism by which an outcome is determined, from whence cometh the outcome?Let me set an example into imagery:I give you a box with either an egg or no egg. You open it and find an egg. Now, to you it was random, as you knew not until you opened. But there must have been that egg in the box before you opened it, otherwise, from whence did it come? Lol.
>>17062406If I spin a bottle, it will come to a stop at a rotation based on the force with which it was spun and the initial state of the system (ie the bottle and gravity and every other relevant actor). Quantum Randomness says, you spin the bottle and it stops where it feels like with no outside influence. But how does it decide where to stop if there is no decider? Lol.
>>17064144>>17064142>>17062406Is ur answer really just that my monkey brain cannot fathom the mathematical reality of nature lol.
>>17062183>How can you have no cause but an effect?You can just do things
>>17064144>Quantum Randomness says, you spin the bottle and it stops where it feels like with no outside influencebottle is not a quantum system
>>17064259still governed by randomness. one can argue the cause of everything is the big bang itself. it set the stage for everything, laws and all.in the case of the cat dying, who's at fault? well it's not the atom decaying, it's the piece of shit that put the cat in the box and set up the experiment lol. but even him and the atom that decays can be traced back to the initial cause, the big bang.
>>17064362>is made of quanta>is a systemSounds like a quantum system to me, you can even draw the wavefunction of the bottle in space
>>17064448everything is made up of quanta, don't mean everything is a quantum system.
>>17064459>electrons tunnel>thus humans tunnel
>>17064463>thus humans tunnelYes? That would be doable within a very specific scenario. All matter, including you, is just a field of complex wave modulation.
>>17064466>Yesit was a shot in the dark but I nailed it
the root of the universe is obviously supernatural, thats why logic breaks down and stops being useful, all you need to do is witness one miracle and you will then concede this fact, or you can just infer this truth by verifying the failure of casualty to explain the universes existence
>>17064958*causality
>>17062183>Because if there were a knowable cause, then there could be a knowable effectDoes not follow.
