05 Mar '18 00:30>
Epistomology. We figure we can know stuff.
Ontology! I think this means you exist.
Ontology! I think this means you exist.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI wouldn't say that quantum mechanics necessarily rules out a deterministic universe. In quantum mechanics, randomness comes from the measurement problem and things like (radioactive) decay. But all of these things involve interactions with some macroscopic thing that is too difficult to describe quantum mechanically in its entirety. This leaves open the possibility of deterministic theories that are consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation (or some subset thereof), i.e. deterministic theories that do not assign a definite momentum etc. to particles. I'm talking of course about the fourth, newest school within interpretations of quantum theory: decoherence.
So something like the Newtonian world view. I was wondering if some sort of philosophical position was meant. Quantum mechanics seems to rule out a fundamentally deterministic universe. Of the three major interpretations only deBroglie-Bohm attempts to retain a deterministic world. The many worlds approach is deterministic, but from the point of vie ...[text shortened]... ore room for libetarian free will in a stochastic universe than there is in a deterministic one.
Originally posted by @joe-shmoThere are classical and quantum versions of chaos theory, that's not what this is about.
Ok, a few questions I suppose.
Is Chaos Theory effectively the classical study of imperfect models of imperfect knowledge?
Is determinism an emergent phenomenon? That is, Quantum Mechanics is fundamental and the rest of physics studies the emergent characteristics of the fundamental system? Am I way out in left field?
Lets say you theoreticall ...[text shortened]... re saying it must, so when is the question.
In your opinion is life emergent, or fundamental?
Originally posted by @humyMilk doesn't jump off the floor into the spilled glass.
...
Some people rigidly...
Originally posted by @apathistI think you didn't read my post well enough.
Milk doesn't jump off the floor into the spilled glass.
Originally posted by @humyIt was kinda muddled. It stacked up a lot of assertions.
I think you didn't read my post well enough.
...
Originally posted by @apathistPhysics math implies that time can flow either way. So of course physics math is lacking.
[b]It was kinda muddled. It stacked up a lot of assertions.
...and in which direction it moves....
Originally posted by @apathistTime isn't something that flows, it is something that other things move through. What you seem to be referring to is time reversal invariance in fundamental physics. There are two points to be made, the first is that time reversal invariance is probably not a fundamental symmetry. The second is that even if it were a symmetry of nature the dynamics do not have to be time reversal invariant. So I don't think that this presents a problem for Standard Model physics.
Physics math implies that time can flow either way. So of course physics math is lacking.
Originally posted by @deepthoughtI'm not attacking the standard model. If something works then it works. There is an overview though.
... So I don't think that this presents a problem for Standard Model physics.