Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3good5you t1_jd7h63v wrote

Reply to comment by TheBeardofGilgamesh in In-depth interview with Gregg Caruso, free-will skeptic by fatsosis

Except quantum mechanics only predict probabilities and sub atomic processes are - with regard to these probabilities - truly random, so I'm not sure what you mean.

0

Michamus t1_jd7ttar wrote

We don’t understand QM well enough to know if they’re “truly” random. They appear random, but that doesn’t mean they are random.

2

3good5you t1_jd7vs34 wrote

That is true, however you could say that about any scientific theory. As long as there is no sign of it not being true and the theory withstanding every known test, it might as well be true. The philosophical standpoint could be that we never know the truth but only get better models, which fit our observations, and I would agree, but I don‘t see how that is helping anyone and what to learn from it.

Maybe I‘m just not made to discuss with your philosophical standpoints, being heavily biased with a masters degree in particle physics. This is my first time reading some comments in this sub and actually commenting, so I‘d love to hear what you think and why. :)

1

Michamus t1_jd8td42 wrote

Saying it is truly random has a higher burden of proof than saying it appears random. Sure, it may truly be random, but currently we just don’t know enough to say one way or another. If it really is random, it’ll be our first discovery of a truly random event.

1

3good5you t1_jd8zqzf wrote

I see what you mean, in general, but that would lead us to basically not being able to say anything is something, wouldn't it?

1

Michamus t1_jd90n5g wrote

Not really. We just don’t have enough data to conclusively make a claim like that. Especially since historically when claims of true randomness have been made, they’ve turned out to not be the case. It would be interesting if it turned out to actually be the case, though. Once we actually start relying on it functionally, we’ll know for certain if it’s really the case.

1

TheBeardofGilgamesh t1_jd8enxx wrote

It’s good that we live in a probabilistic universe, id hate to live in a universe where your fate is sealed before it even happens

1

Michamus t1_jd8vfyb wrote

Hate it or not, that’s very likely the case. If QM events turn out to actually be random, it’ll be the first truly random event we’ve ever observed.

1

TheBeardofGilgamesh t1_jd9w1an wrote

Wait so you’re saying that there is almost certainly hidden variables? Because every experiment so far has failed to reveal any hidden variables and it really does appear that particular states really do randomly fall within a probability distribution. So yes the past and state of the universe does limit the possible future states but only within the probability distribution.

1

EatThisShoe t1_jdj7q61 wrote

Just to be clear, there are experiments that show that quantum entanglement is not the result of a hidden variable. See this video for how those experiments work.

So there is evidence against hidden variables. And you are essentially arguing that this evidence is wrong or misinterpreted. The only deterministic interpretation of this is that entangled particles have faster than light communication, which as far as I know, does not have evidence supporting it.

1

Michamus t1_jdk1wsn wrote

>Veritasium

lol. Okay.

0

EatThisShoe t1_jdk2owu wrote

It's just an explanation of the experiment, it's not like it was his research. Do you have an actual criticism of the experiment or my interpretation of it?

1

Michamus t1_jdk6cx2 wrote

>It's just an explanation of the experiment

In my experience, Veritasium loses accuracy in his effort toward simplicity. I watched the video and learned nothing new and rolled my eyes on a few parts. That's why I prefer just reading the paper.

If you're genuinely interested in the paper, here it is with confounding factors included.

>Strictly speaking, no Bell experiment can exclude all conceivable local-realist theories, because it is fundamentally impossible to prove when and where free random input bits and output values came into existence13. Even so, our loophole-free Bell test opens the possibility to progressively bound such less-conventional theories: by increasing the distance between A and B (for example, to test theories with increased speed of physical influence); by using different random input bit generators (to test theories with specific free-will agents, for example, humans); or by repositioning the random input bit generators (to test theories where the inputs are already determined earlier, sometimes referred to as ‘freedom-of-choice’9). In fact, our experiment already enables tests of all models that predict that the random inputs are determined a maximum of 690 ns before we record them (Supplementary Information).

2

EatThisShoe t1_jdkb7d8 wrote

That paper's finding still appears to confirm the original Bell experiment though. So that's still evidence against that position.

There's always the potential for other models, but you argue as you expect further research to overturn these interpretations.

New models will inevitably come up, but that doesn't mean they will be deterministic. A deterministic model has a higher burden of evidence because it would still have to explain these experiments.

1

Michamus t1_jdkdzoc wrote

>New models will inevitably come up, but that doesn't mean they will be deterministic.

You asked for the confounding factors of the experiment and I provided them from the paper authors themselves. I don't see any point in discussing this further. See ya.

1

TheBeardofGilgamesh t1_jd8ee76 wrote

I was being sarcastic both with the glasses joke and the deterministic worldview of the glasses man.

1