-
Zweistein
5If I throw a dice the chance that I throw any of the six numbers is 1/6. The dice rolls determined towards its destined number.
Our lack of knowledge gives rise to chances. If we somehow could know the initial state of the dice and the exact interactions with its environment then the final numbeŕ could be known.
Well, that's the naive argument. In practice, it can't be known in priciple. Which doesn't mean that the process is not determined. It is.
You can say that chance is a subjective feature that we project to, for example, the world of dice. A dice has a 1/6 chance of showing one of the six (if the dice is ideal).
Then quantum mechanics shows it face. There nothing is determined except the evolution of the wavefunction. If we throw a quantum dice, each outcome has still 1/6 chance of appearing. But the process leading to an outcome is simply not there. We don't project chances because lack of knowledge but the chances are objective properties. That's the main difference with the classical view.
But how can this be? Einstein ask this question by means of a statement: "Der liebe Herr Gott würfelt nicht". How can there be a pure chance, without a deterministic substrate giving rise to our ignorance? The usual reply is that the quantum world is so much different than the everyday experienced world. But why should that be? That's just a presupposition. The wavefunction might be weird, like the collapse of it. That's true. This gives rise to the "shut up and calculate" attitude. Only math, predictions, and observations (values) and their distributions matter. This attitude doesn't look at the heart of the matter and sometimes even denies its existence.
What's the heart of the matter? The heart is that which is actually going on. How can there be no determined process going on behind the chances? Giving a new kind of chance. -
Hermeticus
181There nothing is determined except the evolution of the wavefunction. If we throw a quantum dice, each outcome has still 1/6 chance of appearing. But the process leading to an outcome is simply not there. — Zweistein
This is if we look at the quantum dice as an isolated system. There are no isolated systems in reality though (except maybe the universe itself - we don't know).
So when we throw the dice in reality, what we're looking at is not just the wavefunction of the dice - but the wavefunction of our throw, the wavefunction of the air, the wavefunction of the table, etc. interacting with each other, is it not?
Now, I'm a donkey when it comes to math but I'd imagine if we were to add up all those wavefunctions that interact with our dice, the result would be something like the determination of our dice throw, no? -
Zweistein
5
I was talking about a metaphorical quantum dice. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Thanks anyway! :smile: -
Hermeticus
181It seems at the macro-level, at least, the more likely events occur more of the time.
At the scale of the very small, that rule seems violated. — tim wood
I think that goes along rather well with what I said.
So when we throw the dice in reality, what we're looking at is not just the wavefunction of the dice - but the wavefunction of our throw, the wavefunction of the air, the wavefunction of the table, etc. — Hermeticus
It's obvious then that a higher number of influencing factors (more particles interacting at macro-level) is more determinable than very few, or no influencing factors (micro-level, singular particles). -
Neoconnerd
10
In fact, we can know. An experiment has been planned to discern between hidden variable and pure chance. It's a though experiment and not yet possible to actually perform, but the idea is to measure arrival times. -
sime
1.1kIf I throw a dice the chance that I throw any of the six numbers is 1/6. The dice rolls determined towards its destined number.
Our lack of knowledge gives rise to chances. If we somehow could know the initial state of the dice and the exact interactions with its environment then the final numbeŕ could be known.
Well, that's the naive argument. In practice, it can't be known in priciple. Which doesn't mean that the process is not determined. It is.
You can say that chance is a subjective feature that we project to, for example, the world of dice. A dice has a 1/6 chance of showing one of the six (if the dice is ideal). — Zweistein
The subjective interpretation of probabilities as representing ignorance which you appear to be assuming, is a logical fallacy in my understanding. Lack of knowledge should give rise to possibilities only. Moreover, it is impossible for anyone to distinguish ignorance from objective uncertainty before the fact. Such distinctions can only be drawn after the fact.
To represent uncertainty in terms of probabilities isn't to assign a particular distribution, but to assign a set of distributions, which is sometimes referred to as assigning "imprecise probabilities". In the case of complete ignorance of a thrown die, one should assign the entire set of distributions with six possible outcomes, which amounts to saying that one only knows that there are six possible outcomes.
Furthermore, having described one's state of ignorance by using a set of distributions, one shouldn't then average over the set, as Bayesians often do, to obtain a precise "ignorance prior", for this fallacious practice amounts to an attempt to extract information from ignorance. -
Neoconnerd
10Why not possible yet to perform the question. — tim wood
What do you mean? Perform the question? Untill now it's just a thought experiment, like all experiments are first. -
Neoconnerd
10Anything you yourself can describe in a few well-crafted sentences? — tim wood
I'll give it a try. A deterministic reality behind QM (like van 't Hooft or Bohm suggest and me too) will lead to different trajectories of particles. This results in different arrival times than pure chance gives you. If you start with pure chance calculations and from this result different times are measured, then there is a process behind the chances, as is more reasonable. -
sime
1.1kWhat is imprecise about assigning 1 - 6 as possible outcomes of the throw of a die? — tim wood
It is imprecise because probability intervals are assigned to outcomes, rather than numbers.
e.g. P ( dice throw = six) = (0,1)
Which only express the fact that throwing a six is possible, but not certain. -
sime
1.1kWhat does this mean? In words? — Neoconnerd
It is saying that the physical propensity for obtaining the respective possible outcome, is above zero and less than 1. Without additional information, or assumptions, a more precise set cannot be assigned to the outcome. -
AlienFromEarth
43Quantum fluctuations. Quantum theory has already proven that while we can certainly make good estimates of things that may happen in the future, you can't really predict the future.
Quantum interactions are physical, therefore, they affect the physical world, therefore they affect you and me, in turn making us ultimately not truly predictable.
Again, being able to guess that someone is going to do something and they actually do it at about the same time you thought they would and in the same manner, that's just a good estimation. Some things are eventualities because nature has laws and it works a certain way. You can't change the fundamental laws. So yes, you can "predict" if you will, that eventually this and that will happen, because that's natural law. But you CANNOT predict EXACTLY how and EXACTLY when it will occur. Beyond that though, lies the abyss of uncertainty and chance.
IT works like this. If logic says A + B = C. Then we must first figure out how we got to A and then B in the first place. And so on, and so on. A never ending chain of questions, which leads us back to the only answer - that is: You cannot predict the future. Yes, logic can help you understand things, but you cannot perfectly control or predict how or when you are going to use it -
Hooman
2I think the Quantum dice and normal dice are quite different. If I drop a ball it certainly falls and ends up at a predictable place, no blow up of location owing to Quantum mechanic. For the dice, the physical process and the final variable that you are observing are very sensitive to the initial conditions and accuracy of calculations in a non-continuous way. This is like what is observed in chaotic dynamic systems when even round-off errors change the outcome. -
AlienFromEarth
43no that's just a good estimation. YOu can't predict quantum fluctuations, therefor eyou can't predict *exactly* what the ball is going to do at any given time. These fluctuations can vastly affect the trajectory of the ball. Yes, most of the time it's kinda estimatable perhaps, but even then it's not the same every single time. Those fluctuation are ALWAYS HAPPENING.
-
TheMadFool
13.8k
The Achilles' heel of determinism is the problem of induction.
Determinsim seems wedded for all eternity with the so-called laws of nature (go to the science section) but, for better or worse, all causal patterns are, it seems, severely undermined by Hume's coup de grâce, delivered mid-18th century. I don't know what the fuss is all about! Determinism is predicated on the laws of nature but the laws of nature have no leg to stand on. -
T Clark
14.8kWell, that's the naive argument. In practice, it can't be known in priciple. Which doesn't mean that the process is not determined. It is. — Zweistein
The pragmatists rebuttal to this is that if a specific outcome is not predictable, even in principle, then it is meaningless to call the phenomenon determined. I think this is a good way of looking at things. This argument can be extended to include phenomena that are completely impractical to predict accurately, e.g. the winner of the 2024 Super Bowl. I think the dice example is somewhere in the middle - highly impractical in most cases, but not impossible.
And this is all before quantum mechanics and chaos theory are taken into account. -
T Clark
14.8kHume's coup de grâce, delivered mid-18th century. I don't know what the fuss is all about! Determinism is predicated on the laws of nature but the laws of nature have no leg to stand on. — TheMadFool
Apparently you haven't gotten the word. Hume was full of it. Of course induction works. This is probably not the right thread to discuss it further.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
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.
Categories
- Guest category
- Phil. Writing Challenge - June 2025
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum