Are probabilistic theories necessarily falsifiable?

  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Theories
In summary: Most of the current work on real computability and recursion comes from work with the BSS machine, a conceptual computing device introduced by by Blum, Shub, and Smale in 1989.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Karl Popper asserted, in brief, that all theories are eventually falsifiable. What of a theory (quantum mechanics?) that embodies probabilities such that its truth and falsity are apparent a priori (a violation of Goedel's logic?) If probabilistic theories are proved necessarily falsifiable, such a proof would indicate a method of generalizing quantum mechanics, I believe.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Karl Popper asserted, in brief, that all theories are eventually falsifiable. What of a theory (quantum mechanics?) that embodies probabilities such that its truth and falsity are apparent a priori (a violation of Goedel's logic?) If probabilistic theories are proved necessarily falsifiable, such a proof would indicate a method of generalizing quantum mechanics, I believe.

Did you mean "not apparent a priori"?

No physical theory is apparent a priori, they all depend on facts from experience. For example the theory of quantum spin, with all its beautiful relationship to group theory, is a _constructed_ system to explain certain experimental facts (double lines in spectra, Stern-Gerlach behavior, etc). This is the very opposite of a priori.

QM makes definite predictions and can be falsified. For example John Bell, in developing his inequalities, was attempting to falsify QM (he was a proponent of Bohm's theory). He showed that QM would have a higher correlation betwen states of separated entangled particles than would be consistent (on a naive view) with special relativity. But subsequent experiment showed that in fact nature does behave just this way, and relativistic locality has to be catered for with a more nuanced view. So this attempt to falsify QM failed. But the next attempt might just succeed!
 
  • #3
Thanks for your correction, selfAdjoint. (So much for my four years of Latin.)

I meant to say that a theory which predicts a definite outcome is falsifiable (a la Popper), whereas a probabilistic theory might not be. It may be argued that such a probabilistic theory (which embodies falsifiability as part of its theory) can be totally self-consistent. Perhaps the more general successor to quantum mechanics will include its own falsifiability through a process with probability of truth.
 
  • #4
Perhaps a TOE could be post-Popperian. We have post everything else. <rant> When I was a kid the only thing that was Post was Toasties</rant>,
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Thanks for your correction, selfAdjoint. (So much for my four years of Latin.)

I meant to say that a theory which predicts a definite outcome is falsifiable (a la Popper), whereas a probabilistic theory might not be. It may be argued that such a probabilistic theory (which embodies falsifiability as part of its theory) can be totally self-consistent. Perhaps the more general successor to quantum mechanics will include its own falsifiability through a process with probability of truth.
Question of self-consistency in one physical theory is valued by its new predictions (forced part which I liked more) and confirmations or better understanding of known but yet not so well described phenomena in nature.Of course ,the experiment /observations always say last word of validity.I guess no physical theory except TOE (maybe?) is totally selfconsistent.
Sort of Philosophical question:
Might be right time to introduce kind of Godel theorem (math logic) in modern physics?
 
  • #6
[tex]G\ddot{o}del[/tex] is not the last word anymore for real-valued systems. See http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/bms/Bulletin/bul971/meer.pdf , especially things like this from the discussion after theorem 5.4 on page 132:

"Conversely assuming that R is an ordered field of infinite transcendence degree which is dense in its real closure, they show that all definiable (in the sense above) subsets of R are decidable over R if and only if R is real closed."

It is possible to build computational systems over subrings of the real numbers that are decidable, that is, not subject to [tex]G\ddot{o}del's[/tex] theorem.
 
  • #7
Thank you for providing the link,
I affraid I don't have enough time right now to study it (background of my knowledge in this field is moderate I admit).
Could this paper results reflect somehow new algorithmic theory of quantum computers?Just curious to know...
 
  • #8
I don't personally know of any connection made between this work and quantum computing. Most of the current work on real computability and recursion comes from work with the BSS machine, a conceptual computing device introduced by by Blum, Shub, and Smale in 1989. It is modeled on the famous Turing machine, but instead of digital operation it executes real computations and instead of a linear tape it has direct access to a continuum.
 

1. What is a probabilistic theory?

A probabilistic theory is a scientific framework that uses probability to explain and predict outcomes of events. It takes into account the inherent uncertainty and randomness of certain phenomena.

2. What does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable?

A theory is considered falsifiable if it can be tested and potentially proven wrong through observation or experimentation. This is an important aspect of the scientific method, as it allows theories to be continuously refined and improved.

3. Are all probabilistic theories falsifiable?

No, not all probabilistic theories are necessarily falsifiable. Some may make predictions that are difficult or impossible to test, making them unverifiable. However, a good scientific theory should strive to be falsifiable.

4. How do probabilistic theories differ from deterministic theories?

Probabilistic theories take into account the element of chance and randomness, whereas deterministic theories assert that all events are determined by preceding causes. In other words, probabilistic theories allow for the possibility of multiple outcomes, while deterministic theories only predict one outcome.

5. Can probabilistic theories be considered valid if they are not falsifiable?

No, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot be considered scientifically valid. This is because it cannot be tested and potentially proven wrong, which is a crucial aspect of the scientific method. However, a probabilistic theory may still hold some value if it can make accurate predictions and is supported by other evidence.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
843
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
991
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
729
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top