Quantum mechanics and causality/determinism.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between quantum mechanics (QM) and concepts of causality and determinism. Participants explore whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic, particularly in the context of quantum phenomena and statistical interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that while the universe may not be deterministic at the quantum level due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) and entanglement, it can still be described statistically in a deterministic framework.
  • Another participant acknowledges that there are deterministic interpretations of QM, such as Bohmian mechanics and the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), indicating that QM does not definitively resolve the issue of determinism.
  • A participant draws an analogy with coin flipping, suggesting that repeated trials lead to predictable statistical outcomes, which may relate to the discussion of determinism in QM.
  • One participant argues that the existence of deterministic interpretations of QM leads them to believe that reality is ultimately deterministic, though they acknowledge the complexity of these interpretations.
  • Another participant questions whether the randomness observed in evolution is truly random or simply a result of chaotic variables that are difficult to track, paralleling the discussion of randomness in QM.
  • A participant raises a point about the nature of quantization, suggesting that in a quantized world, there may be limits to how small a difference can be, which could relate to the discussion of determinism and causality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of determinism in quantum mechanics, with some advocating for a deterministic interpretation and others highlighting the indeterministic aspects of QM. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various interpretations of quantum mechanics and their implications for determinism and causality, indicating a complex interplay of ideas without consensus on the ultimate nature of reality.

SeventhSigma
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Would this be accurate:

We can say that our universe is not deterministic because we can't identify, with arbitrary precision, what will happen with each particle on the quantum level (due to HUP, entanglement, etc). However, they are all part of a statistical framework/wavefunction which we can describe deterministically.

In other words, it'd be like if we couldn't predict the roll of a die (random), but could describe it statistically (deterministically). Would this be accurate?

Does this mean that causality doesn't exist on the macro level (technically-speaking), but rather just a large probability where things causally turn out due to statistical projections at near-100% levels?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What you are saying is more or less in accordance with what a lot of people view QM as.

However no one really knows what QM is really telling us about nature, there are several fully deterministic models of QM. (Bohm, MWI, other hidden variables, t Hooft etc.)
So QM is really agnostic about this issue.
Just the fact that we indeed can construct 100% deterministic interpretations is enough to convince me that reality is 100% deterministic, we just don't know all the details yet.
 
Flip a coin, the more times you flip it, the closer you will get to 50/50. Hope this helps.
 
Fyzix said:
Just the fact that we indeed can construct 100% deterministic interpretations is enough to convince me that reality is 100% deterministic
Just the fact that we indeed may imagine green elephants with two heads is not enough to convince me that such monsters are even a part of reality.

Don't forget about the price you must pay for those deterministic interpretations. Is indeterminism more difficult to accept than idea that each humble event depends on everything else in the Universe? Or exponentially (with pretty big exponent) growing number of parallel Unverses is easier to accept than indeterminism?
 
Would we say the same thing about evolution?

We say evolution is very much non-random, but mutation is random. Is it still technically random, or just so chaotic that we can't keep track of the variables, but if we could, it wouldn't be "random"?
 
When we think of real numbers or complex numbers nothing is too small to get a number.
If we think of a quantized world needs something - probably - be too small to make any difference.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Understanding Randomness in Brownian Matter
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Causal Nonseparability: Quantum Mechanics & Causal Principles
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Question regarding quantum mechanics from relativity perspective
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Graduate Why is this Pilot-wave model on a discrete spacetime stochastic?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Understanding Barandes' microscopic theory of causality
  • · Replies 456 ·
16
Replies
456
Views
27K
Graduate Cause of spontaneous emission?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
High School Quantum Entanglement: Hidden Information vs. Time
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Undergrad Causality and quantum physics
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Determining the Number of Points in the n-Space
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Graduate Quantum Field theory vs. many-body Quantum Mechanics
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K