If they can rule out any hidden variables, then Bell's theorem proves there is randomness in the universe. This makes sense with regard to entropy anyway — Gregory
Spooky action at a distance was proved in Einstein's day I thought. It all pretty confusing. Faster than light action can be explained, or explained away, by geometry and super-dimensions. But determinism would be hard to disprove given that people could subscribe to compatibilism if needed — Gregory
Spooky action at a distance was proved in Einstein's day I thought. It all pretty confusing. — Gregory
They pick random samples sometimes in physics — Gregory
I had a thread on randomness and I think you making a joke lol, because you did participate with some great observation. — Gregory
I don't know how they can rule out all non-local variables because with "many worlds" couldn't another world influence the entangled pair? And if the communicate faster than light, to save relativity they posit wormholes and these might be connected to other worlds and so there is then even more territory we have to rule out — Gregory
Interesting that at thread on good physics so quickly became a thread on bad physics. — Banno
I'm thinking about starting a thread to prove that force does not really equal mass times acceleration. — T Clark
Quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily successful scientific theory. It is also completely mad. Although the theory quite obviously works, it leaves us chasing ghosts and phantoms; particles that are waves and waves that are particles; cats that are at once both alive and dead; and lots of seemingly spooky goings-on. But if we're prepared to be a little more specific about what we mean when we talk about 'reality' and a little more circumspect in the way we think a scientific theory might represent such a reality, then all the mystery goes away. This shows that the choice we face is actually a philosophical one.
Action at a distance is Newtonian gravity. — Banno
I don't suppose you have any reflections on the actual topic in the video? — Wayfarer
not trying to burden you with work. :yikes: Besides, it’s bookmarked to the specific topic I’m referring to and that section about <10 minutes. — Wayfarer
Sloppy errors like that undermine my confidence in the narrator. — T Clark
Baggott writes very well and has a very direct and clear understanding of the metaphysics of science. — T Clark
Which brings us to what he calls the realist interpretations. For me, the big question, the only question, is whether or not there is an empirical method to determine which is correct even in theory. I believe that is a pretty controversial subject now. It is my understanding that no method for testing the interpretations have been developed. My intuition is that no testing is possible, although I can't justify that scientifically. — T Clark
metaphysics is the stage on which physics plays out, the conventions we have established to allow us to talk about reality. — T Clark
Same narrator! — Wayfarer
And there can't be an empirical method to decide on the differing interpretations - because they're interpretations! — Wayfarer
I don't see it like that. The cosmos is the stage on which physics plays out - provided you confine physics to the observable, which I think is proper. Metaphysics considers the implications of physics in terms of what must be the case in light of certain observations.
I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.