Quote:
Originally Posted by Og  Quantum processes (such as the emission of photons) are indeterminent processes. If I take a radiation detector and measure something with a half life over a period in which it has a 50/50 chance of emitting a photon (i.e. probability of dropping to a lower energy level) and then base an action off the result of that emission, I have broken the causal chain (if you could even say that one existed in the first place). |
I don't see how this proves causality to be false. If anything it confirms causality because the photon emission is the cause of you taking one particular action over another meaning the entire scenario is completely deterministic and at the same time unpredictable from the point of the observer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og The world that we see ALL is the product of quantum mechanical interactions on a massive scale where probabilities average out to produce what seem to be coherent phenomena. The notion of a deterministic chain of events just doesn't match observation. |
Observation is entirely subjective, but I'm not speaking about the nature of things from the point of observation. I'm using logic to reach absolute certainty about the nature of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Strike that.... It matches pre-scientific/pre-QM observations because we didn't have the instruments to measure such effects. It matches the observations that people would make given that they lived in ignorance of quantum phenomena. But given what we know today, an unbroken causal chain into the future is false. The only reason to make such a stance is because of theories constructed out of ignorance. I'm not saying that our current theory may not be equally constructed out of ignorance, but it certainly casts determinism out the window. |
Well like I said, I'm not using theories or observations based on empirical data like science does. Logic is the only tool we have when it comes to realizing absolute truth. Of course this doesn't mean scientific theories aren't beneficial or worth while, it just means science is inadequate when it comes to absolute certainty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Correct. Nor do scientists make attempts to prove their theories. In fact they try to do the opposite.... The whole process of science is an attempt to disprove theories. What remains after the exercise of science, must contain the truth. I'd tack on "but its the best we have" after "inherently unreliable" in your above statement. |
If science is done with a pure heart I agree, but I think it's naive to say that all scientists only attempt disprove theories. Science is just as likely to be corrupted by money and status as any other aspect of humanity is. Millions are spent each year trying to prove theories true because of special interests, and many more scientists spend their lives trying to prove their theories right for no reason except to gain prominence in the scientific community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og There is no distinction between the quantum realm and some other realm. Quantum mechanics is a description of the interactions of matter.... PERIOD. It tends to have issues when you get up towards black holes.. Hence the continuing search for a unified theory (something like string theory) but that's a ways off. Hopefully the new colider in europe will open some insights on this one.
I'll restate this because it's important. Quantum mechanics is a description of the behavior of matter. All matter. There's no realm where it doesn't apply (except in the above case where you have to move to general relativity). |
Quantum mechanics is the study of all matter yes, but it studies it at the quantum, i.e. subatomic level. That's why it is called quantum mechanics and not matter mechanics. Quantum mechanics is useful in it's particular area of study, but it doesn't help me test how hot something is, how far away it is, or what its mass is, and it certainly can't toss out determinism with absolute certainty. This would imply that quantum theory is in fact not a theory at all, but absolutely true. And I think we both agree that is absolutely false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Bottom line is that its the best that we have. Whatever the truth is, determinism doesn't mesh with it. Schroedinger's cat is the classic thought experiment that illustrates the reality of this. I recommend following up on this. The state of the cat is literally NOT determined. |
All Schroedinger's cat does is show the inherent limitations of quantum theory when it is applied beyond the subatomic level. Which if it is applied beyond that level means that something can be two different things simultaneously violating the law of identity, or A=A. It certainly doesn't discredit the fact that all finite phenomena have been infinitely determined.