Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fakesoicansayshit t1_j3d1jev wrote

How do people assume causality when every measured system contains hidden variables?

11

BlindOdyssey t1_j3g0kuk wrote

I agree with what I think you’re asserting, that the number of variables that might contribute to triggering any sort of event is incalculable, but as a matter of practicality, I assume we have to view causality as a gradient of probability. In other words, we account for as many variables as we can, and make a “best guess” based on what we know. We can make “predictions” based on that until we know more, and then we redefine our overall system over time.

Edit: a word

2

rottoneuro t1_j3gnbf5 wrote

the issue of hidden variables is "solved' by perturbation approaches... which are often unfeasible... so as a proxy we accept this limitation and we do our best... I think this is also mentioned in the article

2

fakesoicansayshit t1_j4933r6 wrote

Thank you, 'perturbation' is what I was looking for.

1

rottoneuro t1_j6pgwnp wrote

which approach in particular? I am also interested, can you share the reference?

1

Superschlenz t1_j3et16e wrote

Because the state of the fuse changes less frequently than the state of the switch.

0