Can Randomness and Causality Coexist Logically?

[jadrian]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

 

[jadrian]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

i guess not

 

[DrChinese]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

Yes, there is. It is called Bohmian Mechanics. I would recommend you reading up on it a bit, and there are several here that can help you to understand it better. I should point out that has a drawback that may or may not bother you. In the Bohmian view, causes can propagate faster than light.

 

[friend]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

Keep in mind that there is no consensus that physics is derived from logic, although I know of some efforts to do so. In such an effort, causality would somehow be linked to the relationship of material implication in logic, where cause and effect is just a form of consequences from premises. Time would just be a marker to indicate where one is in a sequence of causes and effects. I suspect that uncertainty would come in because there would be multiple sequences of events that get you from one cause to some final effect. We would not be able to say that any particular path was taken, so we would be left to calculate the probabilities for various paths. Hope this helps.

 

[jadrian]

Yes, there is. It is called Bohmian Mechanics. I would recommend you reading up on it a bit, and there are several here that can help you to understand it better. I should point out that has a drawback that may or may not bother you. In the Bohmian view, causes can propagate faster than light.

i don't have to much of a problem with causes propagating faster than light, because to my knowledge there are tons of tiny wormholes on the quantum scale, which would allow for this, while large scale wormholes are not apparently common/spontaneously existent. that would explain why uncertainty only arises at a quantum scale in my mind. but thanks for the post. very interesting.

 

[genericusrnme]

you only see randomness as wrong because you're use to the macroscopic experience of determinism

If you took a completely different standpoint, say an alien from a bizare world where there is something other than randomness and determinism, then determinism and randomness are both absurd.

 

[jadrian]

from wiki on bohmian mechanics

The argument is that, because adding particles does not have an effect on the wavefunction's evolution, such particles must not have effects at all and are, thus, unobservable, since they cannot have an effect on observers.

i like this interpretation, because it fits with my personal view that there is something bumping the curtain but we can never see it because we can't exit the universe, unless you like spagetti

 

[questionpost]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

The point of randomness is that it isn't logical at all, there isn't an actual reason for it to occur, it just occurs, and when it occurs, it does nothing more than occur. I'm pretty sure our knowledge in QM has figured this out. The entire macroscopic world is built from randomness and chaos, we just don't see it as much because things happen to happen at a slow enough rate that we can predict where things are "probable" to be at large distances where the probability of wave-functions approach 0.

 

[StevieTNZ]

i guess not

It seems you were expecting someone to reply within the 41 mins you posted the thread and that comment. Patience is good.

 

[jadrian]

the probability of wave-functions approach 0.[/QUOTE]

so wave functions are not 100 percent probabliistic?
im ok with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent likelyhood that the wavefunction is random. that could provide accurate qm predictions. maybe its asymptotic. 100 percent has serious implications.

 

[alsor]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.

Just like a shadow: it does not exist as an independent entity, but it is just absence of light.

 

[jadrian]

Keep in mind that there is no consensus that physics is derived from logic, although I know of some efforts to do so. In such an effort, causality would somehow be linked to the relationship of material implication in logic, where cause and effect is just a form of consequences from premises. Time would just be a marker to indicate where one is in a sequence of causes and effects. I suspect that uncertainty would come in because there would be multiple sequences of events that get you from one cause to some final effect. We would not be able to say that any particular path was taken, so we would be left to calculate the probabilities for various paths. Hope this helps.

then why was possibly the grandest discovery in history derived from Alberts logic?

 

[jadrian]

Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.

Just like a shadow: it does not exist as an independent entity, but it is just absence of light.

thats the way i feel and its about the most logically and mathematically sound statement than can be made.

 

[jadrian]

It seems you were expecting someone to reply within the 41 mins you posted the thread and that comment. Patience is good.

yes i was afraid that at 42 minutes the thread would randomly decay

 

[Joncon]

Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.

It seems people have different ideas of what the word "random" means. Personally, I don't like the definition of random as "lack of information", especially when you're talking about QM. I would define random as something which happens without cause, which I'm guessing is where the OP is coming from.

 

[jadrian]

you only see randomness as wrong because you're use to the macroscopic experience of determinism

If you took a completely different standpoint, say an alien from a bizare world where there is something other than randomness and determinism, then determinism and randomness are both absurd.

i don't know how many pounds of acid i would have to do to believe we have a quasiexistence

 

[StevieTNZ]

the probability of wave-functions approach 0.

so wave functions are not 100 percent probabliistic?
im ok with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent likelyhood that the wavefunction is random. that could provide accurate qm predictions. maybe its asymptotic. 100 percent has serious implications.

I think you've mis-understood the original statement. The wave function is what gives the probabilistic predictions for various measurement results on a quantum system. It does provide accurate QM predictions.

 

[jadrian]

It seems people have different ideas of what the word "random" means. Personally, I don't like the definition of random as "lack of information", especially when you're talking about QM. I would define random as something which happens without cause, which I'm guessing is where the OP is coming from.

yeah ur definition of randomness is what i would call true randomness, and is why i have issues with it...particles doing things because they want to...

 

[friend]

then why was possibly the grandest discovery in history derived from Alberts logic?

Reality is the ultimate arbiter between theories. And it was not clear from the beginning how one could derive physics from logic. So we have settled on using a trial and error method for finding mathematics for curve fitting the data from experiment. Thus our theories are contingent on future experiments not falsifying them. So we can never really know, by this method, that a theory is true beyond all doubt. The ONLY way to derive a TOE beyond all argument is to derive it from logic, the very rules of argument themselves.

 

[questionpost]

Randomness is only lack of information about the causes of events.

Just like a shadow: it does not exist as an independent entity, but it is just absence of light.

That's what I use to think when I was maybe 10-12, but some things just actually don't occur for a reason as well as the fact that there may be infinite factors or infinite levels of determinism making things on any specific level not deterministic or strictly incalculable with 100% accuracy, possibly because of fractal symmetry which mathematically goes on infinitely or an infinitely large universe. As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.

 

[alsor]

As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.

Of course, because QM is a statistical model only.
Pure statistics do not considers the reasons (methods of realisation) the observed events.

Therefore, any desired statistics can be generated in many different ways.
It is this 'freedom' which is revealed in the statistics as uncertainty - indeterminacy of states.

 

[edguy99]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

You are suggesting that if there is no randomness then there must be complete causality. I would disagree.

If you view the world as some sort of solution to an equation with time as a variable, then you are stuck with this. But if you view the world as sequences of moments like frames in a movie where you set the distance zoom and the frame rate, you get a very different view of the world. Never can you simply show the orbit of a planet as a solution to an equation, but now you must do many sequental calculations over a specific time scale to calculate the orbit. You can start with Newtons law, and it works well for a view orbits. But as you zoom out on the time scale you find you must deal with the precession of Mercury and you have to add the calculations of relativity. As you zoom in on a distance scale, you start to see coulombs law break down and principles of quantum physics must be applied (ie paulis principle).

You never have complete causality in this world because you can always zoom in for more detail either on a time scale or a distance scale to resolve apparent randomness. There is not a "complete" picture that will ever emerge, only an ongoing quest for knowledge. In this world, God does not play dice, but there seems to be an infinite amount of detail.

 

[friend]

You never have complete causality in this world because you can always zoom in for more detail either on a time scale or a distance scale to resolve apparent randomness. There is not a "complete" picture that will ever emerge, only an ongoing quest for knowledge. In this world, God does not play dice, but there seems to be an infinite amount of detail.

This is resting uncertainty on the inability of humans to measure accurately. This does not address what might in theory be uncertain. It's imaginable that there be a theory which IS exact except we cannot practically calculate to an infinite degress of accuracy nor measure with an infinite degree of accuracy, even though the theory itself might be infinitely accurate.

I think the inherent inaccuracy comes from the fact that there may inherently be many possible sequences of events that lead from a cause to the same effect, which introduces probability from any cause to any effect.

 

[questionpost]

Of course, because QM is a statistical model only.
Pure statistics do not considers the reasons (methods of realisation) the observed events.

Therefore, any desired statistics can be generated in many different ways.
It is this 'freedom' which is revealed in the statistics as uncertainty - indeterminacy of states.

A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position. As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality.

This is resting uncertainty on the inability of humans to measure accurately. This does not address what might in theory be uncertain. It's imaginable that there be a theory which IS exact except we cannot practically calculate to an infinite degress of accuracy nor measure with an infinite degree of accuracy, even though the theory itself might be infinitely accurate.

I think the inherent inaccuracy comes from the fact that there may inherently be many possible sequences of events that lead from a cause to the same effect, which introduces probability from any cause to any effect.

Have you ever heard of irrational numbers? Well it's sort of impossible to have 100% accuracy with those around.

 

[jadrian]

That's what I use to think when I was maybe 10-12, but some things just actually don't occur for a reason as well as the fact that there may be infinite factors or infinite levels of determinism making things on any specific level not deterministic or strictly incalculable with 100% accuracy, possibly because of fractal symmetry which mathematically goes on infinitely or an infinitely large universe. As QM explains, there is no real reason for a particle to appear in the place that it does, and you also cannot base where it will be next based on where it is now, so information to carry a cause-and-effect pattern is not preserved, and this is the realm that everything is built from.

how could infinite determinism lead to nondeterminism?

 

[jadrian]

You are suggesting that if there is no randomness then there must be complete causality. I would disagree.

If you view the world as some sort of solution to an equation with time as a variable, then you are stuck with this. But if you view the world as sequences of moments like frames in a movie where you set the distance zoom and the frame rate, you get a very different view of the world. Never can you simply show the orbit of a planet as a solution to an equation, but now you must do many sequental calculations over a specific time scale to calculate the orbit. You can start with Newtons law, and it works well for a view orbits. But as you zoom out on the time scale you find you must deal with the precession of Mercury and you have to add the calculations of relativity. As you zoom in on a distance scale, you start to see coulombs law break down and principles of quantum physics must be applied (ie paulis principle).

You never have complete causality in this world because you can always zoom in for more detail either on a time scale or a distance scale to resolve apparent randomness. There is not a "complete" picture that will ever emerge, only an ongoing quest for knowledge. In this world, God does not play dice, but there seems to be an infinite amount of detail.

im pretty sure there isn't an infinite amount of detail per unit volume. also, your zooming in or out is a cause in itself which you can't ignore

 

[jadrian]

A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position. As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality.



Have you ever heard of irrational numbers? Well it's sort of impossible to have 100% accuracy with those around.

i understand a particle is not a point, but that does mean the wave has some defined shape, that we will never be able to measure.

also irrational numbers to me just represent maths failure to model reality with100 percent certainty, also representing limits on the info we can acquire. a true perfectly curved sphere for example, may be a human intuition creation, and may not exist in reality.

 

[connornm777]

Yea, I'd have to say I'm with jadrian on this one. Quantum Mechanics always bugged me, especially when it's interpreted as literally random and not just an approximation.

Does anybody know any equations from Quantum Theory that may make it easier to understand (and if possible explained to someone who's extent of mathematical knowledge is calculus)?

 

[Zarqon]

To the OP: Why do you expect randomness to conflict with causality at all?

They are two different properties and I don't see how randomness would in any way imply a failure of causality. The cause of an event can be random, but as long as the effects of that event happen after the cause there is no problem?

 

[questionpost]

i understand a particle is not a point, but that does mean the wave has some defined shape, that we will never be able to measure.

also irrational numbers to me just represent maths failure to model reality with100 percent certainty, also representing limits on the info we can acquire. a true perfectly curved sphere for example, may be a human intuition creation, and may not exist in reality.

You can come up with whatever reasoning you want for causality you want but experiments in reality say otherwise. So far no lower levels of particles have been discovered, and even if we somehow detected manifolds, I doubt scientists would say anything so small would act predictably. If you say there's a causality, then you will have to define infinite factors, which is impossible.

 

[alsor]

A particle in its normal state doesn't occupy a single point, it's a wave, which means it has no definite position, which means no definite results based on position.

Of course, because wave is a statistical entity too - statistical particle has only a statistical position.

As far as evidence is concerned, there is no other "thing" that makes up particles that determine what it does, and even if we found something, we would have to ask what's making it determine the things that it does. If there are somehow factors that determine things in QM (which there isn't really any evidence to support), then you just keep asking what's making that thing determine results and what's making that thing determine the thing that determines the results, and it would never end, which is kind of like a paradox, and paradoxes have a hard time of existing in reality.

In the QM does not exist these parameters, because it is just statistics - minimalistic model.

 

[questionpost]

Of course, because wave is a statistical entity too - statistical particle has only a statistical position.
In the QM does not exist these parameters, because it is just statistics - minimalistic model.

Saying the property of a particle being a wave is just statistics and isn't anything to do with reality at all is like saying if I have one apple then add another, then I don't actually have two apples just because it's mathematically modeled by 1+1=2.

 

[alsor]

Apples have more features...
The waves are a series of correlated events, not vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

[questionpost]

Apples have more features...
The waves are a series of correlated events, not vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

This property of interference can be seen even with classical waves, and the equations for both the particles and the waves of the surface of water can be modeled by the same types of equations. This leads to the connection that particles are waves in at least some respects.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation) <--- copy and paste
If you scroll to the bottom it even has some of the same words about quantum interference.

 

[luckis11]

In probability theory each roulette result is considered indepedent from any past events, however this assumption does not disagree with the possibility that all future events are predetermined by past events (determinism) like the orbits in an elastic collision simulator. The question is whether all events are determined by past events, or a human has the freedom to choose more than one choices like an elastic collision simulator where the future orbits of the spheres are not determined by the past orbits because some balls can choose to go up or down instead of the otherwise predetermined down orbit. Double slit experiment indicated nothing more than determinism, because indeed it's impossible to predict where each next "electron" or "photon" (dot on the film) will appear, but after many dots appear, the wave interference tossils shape on the film. So, quantum seems a little useless to answer the question, it's better to think on it supposing that where the roulette ball landed, was determined from the moment it left the hand of the dealer (which is rather false), and then wonder, was that dealer's choice predetermined by the events that took place an hour ago?

 

[questionpost]

In probability theory each roulette result is considered indepedent from any past events, however this assumption does not disagree with the possibility that all future events are predetermined by past events (determinism) like the orbits in an elastic collision simulator. The question is whether all events are determined by past events, or a human has the freedom to choose more than one choices like an elastic collision simulator where the future orbits of the spheres are not determined by the past orbits because some balls can choose to go up or down instead of the otherwise predetermined down orbit. Double slit experiment indicated nothing more than determinism, because indeed it's impossible to predict where each next "electron" or "photon" (dot on the film) will appear, but after many dots appear, the wave interference tossils shape on the film. So, quantum seems a little useless to answer the question, it's better to think on it supposing that where the roulette ball landed, was determined from the moment it left the hand of the dealer (which is rather false), and then wonder, was that dealer's choice predetermined by the events that took place an hour ago?

There's a lot of factors that are "probable" and would be relatively predictable but only because they happen in such slow rate of time. If you throw a ball, you can predict a relative area that it's likely to land even thought there's plenty of air molecules that could fractal-ly distribute energy in random ordinances as to cause it to move slightly one way or another and it's really not that much force and speed, so there's smaller parameters for where it could go. Or say I launch a rocket. If it uses virtually no energy to lift itself off the ground, you can predict with like 99% certainty it won't even make it off the ground, and so the area it will end up in is where it started. However, if you give it a ton of NO2, there's like a 1 mile radius of where it could possibly end up.
I suppose at this point there just isn't enough evidence to really determined it's either, but so far there is no evidence that there is actually something that determines with 100% certainty where particles move and where everything will ultimately end up, and since there's nothing determining them, things are free to happen in random orders as far as our evidence shows.
You'd also have to consider how probability dies how, but also how force and energy distribute through an object. At macroscopic distances, particles don't really appear and disappear much because their wave function's die down at those distances. However, the exchange of energy and force happens on a molecular levels and so how energy and forces distribute is still random with areas of probability.
As far as our consciousness goes, we don't really know if it occupies the classical realm or the macroscopic realm or really what it is, so it's hard to say how it effects things.

 

[juanrga]

not to be impolite, but i truly view randomness in reality as something you can trick your kids into accepting along with santa, the tooth fairy etc.

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

First, randomness is perfectly compatible with causality.

Second, science is based in data and scientific method, not in personal beliefs/ruminations. Yes that ancient Pope was incredibly sure that Earth did not turn around Sun but...

 

[jadrian]

First, randomness is perfectly compatible with causality.

Second, science is based in data and scientific method, not in personal beliefs/ruminations. Yes that ancient Pope was incredibly sure that Earth did not turn around Sun but...

what are you doing here. random is defined as something of which we cannot see its cause. so true randomness would have no cause. do you think thinks through?

 

[jadrian]

First, randomness is perfectly compatible with causality.

Second, science is based in data and scientific method, not in personal beliefs/ruminations. Yes that ancient Pope was incredibly sure that Earth did not turn around Sun but...

are you still holding fast to the free will axiom haha of the copenhagen interpretation?

do you think the chemistry in your body has magic involved, as opposed to a burning flame?

heres some info that might cause indigestion


Originally Posted by kith View Post

Just out of curiosity: how do you decide what to do in a given situation? ;-)

my respons- everything that occurs in my body is a chemical reaction. all the chemical reactions are mediated/controlled via enzymes which are produced in quantities resulting in positive and negative feedback chemical reactions which ultimately react with dna as the homeostatic instruction manual.

my brain has developed partly through instinctual developments from my dna ie arachnophobia, and partly as a response to my environment, always ultimately controlled by dna which grows our brain into a tool to cope with a complex environment, always looking out for its survival, and eventual reproduction, not because the genes goal is reproduction, but because our genes are replications of genes that had a proclivity to reproduce. do you know why jealosy is one of the strongest and most violence producing emotion? its because our dna has strongly embedded in our brains development a defense against somebody else impregnating your reproductive partner with other than your genes, resulting in your genetic death if you do not reproduce because of foreign adultery.

my choices are the end result of a causal continuum of millions of neural interactions, ultimately leading me to make the best decision in the interest of my genes. why does a male preying mantis let itself get eaten by the female after mating? because the added nutrition to the female will result in a more favorable genetic outcome (more eggs with its genes inside) than running away.

we are exercising our brains on a website because of complex psychological reasons that ultimately benefit our many aspects that could be considered in the genes interest.

why am i writing this post? because my self sustaining chemical reaction has effectively directed me to do it for reasons you can ask an evolutionary minded psychologist.

the chemical reactions that occur in my body and brrain are fundamentally indistinguishable from a burning flame or pouring acid into a buffer solution.

so to think that there is somebody behind the wheel in my brain calling the shots is an infantile notion. i have no more choice than any other chemical reaction that we would regard as nonliving.

let me ask you a question. Do you think you are alive?

 

[juanrga]

what are you doing here. random is defined as something of which we cannot see its cause. so true randomness would have no cause. do you think thinks through?

Random is not that. You confound determinism with causality.

 

[questionpost]

Random is not that. You confound determinism with causality.

Ok, well "spontaneousity" is in an event which we can't see a cause, but randomness is that we can't see a clear pattern to predict future information off of, and if there's no way to predict future information, how could everything be determined? And if you say "well that's just because we don't know what's determining everything", then maybe this thread should be moved to the speculation section.

 

[juanrga]

Ok, well "spontaneousity" is in an event which we can't see a cause

I do not know what you mean by "spontaneousity", but the standard term spontaneous to refer to certain kind of processes (spontaneous processes) is causal. The cause of spontaneous evolution A→B is traced to the instability of the initial state A, which can be quantified.

 

[questionpost]

I do not know what you mean by "spontaneousity", but the standard term spontaneous to refer to certain kind of processes (spontaneous processes) is causal. The cause of spontaneous evolution A→B is traced to the instability of the initial state A, which can be quantified.

Except if it's spontaneous how did "A" get there in the first place? We see atoms in random statistical locations with no apparent cause for them being in the specific location that we measure them in.

 

[juanrga]

Except if it's spontaneous how did "A" get there in the first place? We see atoms in random statistical locations with no apparent cause for them being in the specific location that we measure them in.

"Spontaneous" refer to the process, not to the initial state. In any case, the initial unstable state is also obtained in agreement with causality. That is the reason which scientists are able to prepare systems in unstable states in their labs.

It seems that you also confound randomness with causality: A→B is deterministic and causal; A→{B₁,B₂,B₃,...} is not deterministic but causal.

 

[ThomasT]

when compared to causality the idea of true randomness existing in reality seems incredibly weak to me.

is there any logical way to reconcile the two?

First, please follow the conventions of written English. Capitalize where necessary (eg., wrt the first letter of the first word in a sentence).

To reply to your question, yes, the experience of randomness and the assumption of determinism are reconcilable/compatible.

 

[questionpost]

"Spontaneous" refer to the process, not to the initial state. In any case, the initial unstable state is also obtained in agreement with causality. That is the reason which scientists are able to prepare systems in unstable states in their labs.

It seems that you also confound randomness with causality: A→B is deterministic and causal; A→{B₁,B₂,B₃,...} is not deterministic but causal.

Is "if you flip a coin there's a 50% chance of heads or tails" causal? In either case, there's still not evidence for something actually "causing" us to measure particles in the specific locations we measure them in.

First, please follow the conventions of written English. Capitalize where necessary (eg., wrt the first letter of the first word in a sentence).

This is not an English forum which you'd know if you knew how to read well. As long as you understand what's being said it doesn't matter.

 

[juanrga]

Is "if you flip a coin there's a 50% chance of heads or tails" causal? In either case, there's still not evidence for something actually "causing" us to measure particles in the specific locations we measure them in.

Maybe you would read your own phrase: "if you flip".

I do not know what you mean by "evidence", but the available theories of localization are causal (although non-deterministic).

 

[jambaugh]

I thought that I would weigh in on the OP question. This question has been under debate from the inception of QM. As with the twin "paradox" in relativity the first step in resolving it (other than dismissing QM) is to carefully parse the question under the new definitions of the new theory.

What does one mean by "causality" or "determinism"? Here are some formal operational definitions based on the understanding in QM that we do not speak about values we do not observe.

1.) determinism of effect: Given a well defined quantum system and a known intermediate dynamic, can we assure a given future measurement of a specific value by controlling the initial conditions? In QM the answer is yes.
2.) determinism of cause: (Dual to the above) Given a well defined quantum system and a known intermediate dynamic, can we be assured of a specific value of a given past measurement by a future observation? In QM the answer is yes.

These two seem to say the same thing but not quite.

3.) complete determinism i.e. classical determinism: Given a well defined system and known intermediate dynamic, can we know the outcome of every possible future measurement by controlling the initial conditions? or equivalently ...can we know the values of every possible past measurement by future observations? In orthodox QM this is not possible since it violates complementarity.

The equivalence here and its lack in the first two shows how complementarity invalidates the classical notion of a system state. Even asking the question of whether the universe is a clockwork is invalidated in QM. It isn't that the answer is "no" (or "yes") but that the question is invalid. It is like asking "which twin is older" in SR negating the relativity of time and simultaneity.

In QM one has relativity of state or relativity of "reality" in that one can only parse classical questions when working in a particular frame of commuting observables. In SR you can transform between inertial frames mixing time and space, showing how different observers answer the question of "which twin is older at a given t value on my time coordinate". In QM the transformation between "reality frames" mixes certainty with spontaneity, i.e. it mixes information with noise. The QM transformation rules don't tell us how what one set of measurements yield transform to what another set of measurements yield, but rather how the expectation values of one set of measurements transform to the expectation values of another set of measurements. These expectation values include such things as variance which express degrees of uncertainty in the measurement.
(e.g. E(x^2) \ne (E(x))^2

One may feel less than satisfied with the loss of certainty, i.e. Einstein's worry of incompleteness, however QM is complete in a different way, it is a theory formulated in a more complete context (probabilistic descriptions which allow for P=1 certain subcases).

In summary, QM is deterministic ( 1 and 2 above) in that dynamic evolution maps the three entities: {system,observable, measured value} in a 1 to 1 way between past and future cases. It indeed maps all such triples to correspondents. But it also conserves the logic of complementarity and the uncertainty principle when we consider what measurements we made/are making/will make and what expectation values were/are/will be associated with them. In the above mapping only one such triple (for complete observables or one set of compatible triples) is valid in a given instance of the system.

 

[questionpost]

Maybe you would read your own phrase: "if you flip".

I do not know what you mean by "evidence", but the available theories of localization are causal (although non-deterministic).

Finding the location of a particle or seeing perfectly how energy will distribute is like flipping a coin. Also, at this point, there is no evidence that we can see "causes" everything to act the way it does, because that would require us to find out what "causes" particles to appear in the exact locations that they do, and there isn't really a predicted lower-level of matter that can create quarks and electrons. A particle appearing in a location or even throwing a ball can cause something, but there isn't a specific causation pattern which you can always depend upon in which you even know of a specific probability of outcomes. So it's chance that A->{B, C, D...}

 

[jadrian]

Finding the location of a particle or seeing perfectly how energy will distribute is like flipping a coin. Also, at this point, there is no evidence that we can see "causes" everything to act the way it does, because that would require us to find out what "causes" particles to appear in the exact locations that they do, and there isn't really a predicted lower-level of matter that can create quarks and electrons. A particle appearing in a location or even throwing a ball can cause something, but there isn't a specific causation pattern which you can always depend upon in which you even know of a specific probability of outcomes. So it's chance that A->{B, C, D...}

in order for randomness to be true in a sense you might have to regard the electron to be moving not at c, but at INFINITE speed to result in the conclusion that it is undefined. also the assumption of randomness in qm leading to what we consider very precise compared to everyday measurement but might be grossly imprecise compared with absolute prediction, does not mean we should be forced to accept randomness