The key to understanding the Bohm solution is the quantum potential. There is a lot there so rather than actually studying it, people just copy errors.

Similarly for the Many-World interpretation the key is to understand the ontological implications of an Infinite World Meta-World and deciding whether it has any ontological meaning in the world and universe we live in - it doesn't.

You are choosing the words, but you are choosing based on all of your previous choices and experiences. — CasKev

The words are influenced by memory but my mind makes the decision in what words to use and how to use them into sentences. If you don't believe me, I'll construct the same idea in a different sentence. Exactly what do you believe is creating these sentences?

@Rich You have the ability to choose, but you had no hand in creating yourself, nor the original environment you were born into.

If I can choose then that is it. If course, outcomes are always uncertain.

2) Science says that events are non-deterministic. If they were we could throw out Schrodinger's equation and replace it with Newton's. But, alas, science decided 100 years ago that Newton's Laws do not correspond to experimental evidence including Bell's Inequality which demonstrate non-locality. — Rich

1. The Schrodinger equation uniquely determines a system's quantum state at a future time. It is instead measurements of the system that are (sometimes) uncertain. The relationship between the determined quantum state and measurement uncertainty is the interpretational issue.

2. Bell's inequalites actually demonstrate that counterfactual definiteness and locality can't both be true. So locality can still be true if counterfactual definiteness is false.

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment shows how both of those points play out. When the reflection and transmission paths between the beam splitters are the same length, a single photon directed through the interferometer will always arrive at detector 1 and never at detector 2.

This is easily explained in local, deterministic terms. But can you (or anyone else) explain the result in terms of probabilities or non-determinism?

The key to understanding the Bohm solution is the quantum potential. There is a lot there so rather than actually studying it, people just copy errors. — Rich

To be frank, I am still skeptical that many people, including physicists who should know better, are prone to this error. Some part of me suspects that there are different versions of Bohmian Mechanics, one which is commonly known to be deterministic and one which, according to Bohm, is not (this is what he calls the "Causal Interpretation"). Bohm apparently has gone through different phases in his thinking over the course of his life, having taken a mystical approach in his later years. The fact is, he did explicitly describe the Bohm interpretation as being deterministic when he introduced it in the 50s, your quote having been made in the late 80s. This would explain his spiritual sounding language in your quote, but this is just speculation from a lay reader who currently can't really determine the technical details of it all.

Either way, I have not mentioned this earlier, but you have only responded to two-three of the seven interpretations which allow for determinism. You still haven't demonstrated that QM is inherently indeterministic. And no, the Bell Inequality Tests do not demonstrate indeterminism, only the falsity of local realism.

1. The Schrodinger equation uniquely determines a system's quantum state at a future time — Andrew M

Quantum state??? And how does that figure into determinism? You mean that state that is spread out as a probabilistic wave function?

This is easily explained in local, deterministic terms. But can you (or anyone else) explain the result in terms of probabilities or non-determinism? — Andrew M

What you are omitting, conveniently is what happens when an additional slit is opened after the photon passes through the first slot. I've experiment doesn't make determinism. However, one experiment does destroy it. Determinism is all our nothing.

Are you figuring on proving that Quantum is deterministic and local in this thread?

To be frank, I am still skeptical that many people, including physicists who should know better, are prone to this error. — Mr Bee

They don't study Bohm, instead they just copy errors. Bell actually took the time to study the equations and came up with a way of understanding it better. Bell favored Bohm's approach. Of course others later on tested Bell's equation later in the laboratory.

As I have said in other thread, scientists are human and they are full of biases. Bohm should have received a Nobel Prize for doing the impossible, but instead he was ostracized and marginalized - by everyone except Bell.

I count four deterministic interpretations. Bohm no. Many-Worlds, Many-Mind, still probabilistic in our world and universe. And the last one I never heard of.

I would like you to consider the silliness of Many-Minds. Observe to what extent scientists will go to deny choice in humans. It's bizarre.

You can find the pdf for this paper, "Can Mind Affect Matter
Via Active Information?", By Basil Hiley who worked with Bohm and coauthered several books and papers with him. In it, he describes the problems of consciousness and how "active information" can affect processes. It's a good read and it's from the source, not from some lazy scientist who throws off labels such as mysticism.

Quantum state??? And how does that figure into determinism? You mean that state that is spread out as a probabilistic wave function? — Rich

The quantum state is analogous to the classical state in Newtonian Mechanics. Quantum states evolve deterministically according to the Schrodinger equation. Do you dispute this?

The wave function describes states that produce real interference effects such as the states describing the two paths in the the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment. Mere probabilistic states cannot interfere.

What you are omitting, conveniently is what happens when an additional slit is opened after the photon passes through the first slot. I've experiment doesn't make determinism. However, one experiment does destroy it. Determinism is all our nothing. — Rich

All experiments have a deterministic explanation if quantum states are physically real.

Are you figuring on proving that Quantum is deterministic and local in this thread? — Rich

No, only that a coherent explanation is available. Do you have an explanation of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer result in non-deterministic terms?

They don't study Bohm, instead they just copy errors. Bell actually took the time to study the equations and came up with a way of understanding it better. Bell favored Bohm's approach. Of course others later on tested Bell's equation later in the laboratory.

As I have said in other thread, scientists are human and they are full of biases. Bohm should have received a Nobel Prize for doing the impossible, instead he was ostracized and marginalized - by everyone except Bell. — Rich

As if Bell and Bohm were the only Bohmians around. And everyone else is simply biased against Bohm? I'm sorry, but there have been plenty of physicists who have written papers analyzing Bohmian Mechanics in detail and a number of them that I've glanced over acknowledge that they are discussing it as a deterministic interpretation.

I count four deterministic interpretations. Bohm no. Many-Worlds, Many-Mind, still probabilistic in our world and universe. And the last one I never heard of. — Rich

There are also the agnostic ones as well. Like I said all of these positions are compatible with a deterministic position.

I would like you to consider the silliness of Many-Minds. Observe to what extent scientists will the to deny choice in humans. It's bizarre. — Rich

Your arguments against MW and MM apparently stem from it's non-intuitiveness. However, for one, intuition is rarely a good guide to understanding reality, so you need something more substantial than that. In addition, it's hard to single out the strangeness of MWI when pretty much every interpretation suffers from a certain degree of non-intuitiveness itself.

The quantum state is analogous to the classical state in Newtonian Mechanics — Andrew M

Yes, I dispute this.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae392.cfm

They aren't close to being analogous. It's like saying a jump rope is analogous to baseball.

Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That waves are the same as baseballs?

ok. I think we are done. You want to be a robot and play the "I have no choice, only illusions iof choices" game for the rest of your life, go right ahead, just don't use it as an excuse because no one will have it. The truth of the illusion have not been revealed to them as it has been to you. Something gone haywire with the Laws of Nature (which should not be questioned because they cannot be fully understood).

Future scientist.

The quantum state is analogous to the classical state in Newtonian Mechanics
— Andrew M

Yes, I dispute this. — Rich

Okay, let's agree that they are different. Do you agree that quantum states evolve deterministically according to the Schrodinger equation?

Um, since when did choice become a part of all this? Our discussion mainly had to do with determinism and its compatibility with QM, and not with free will. But if you're not interested in having a discussion, then I can't really do anything about that.

Yes, let's agree.

You are using quantum states as if they are baseballs. Are you being deliberately disingenuous? I'm only interested in learning more about nature, not playing games. You know what quantum states are and they have nothing to do with determinism. The only way to bring determinism back is in what Bell described as the "extravagant" Many-Worlds Interpretation, which still leaves us in a probabilistic world only now "we" have been also smeared over an infinite, every growing number of worlds. Everett's interpretation makes Copenhagen downright sensible.

You don't understand how all of what I've said about real choice, including the paper I've cited by Hiley, had anything to do with the OP.

The reason I am ending out discussion is because while I go through all of the effort of providing you with source information, you just recite to me articles of your faith. I'm tired and I don't really care if you believe your whole life is fated. Sit back, observe, and enjoy the life that God has laid out for you.

You are using quantum states as if they are baseballs. — Rich

Actually baseballs are described by quantum states (just as photons are).

The only way to bring determinism back is in what Bell described as the "extravagant" Many-Worlds Interpretation, which still leaves us in a probabilistic world only now "we" have been also smeared over an infinite, every growing number of worlds. Everett's interpretation makes Copenhagen downright sensible. — Rich

There's no need for an infinite number of worlds. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment can be explained by two relative states (or worlds). The states don't continue to split but instead merge into a single state at detector 1 which is why the photon is detected there with certainty.

You might not like it, but it is a coherent explanation. As opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation which doesn't offer an explanation at all.

As you wish. You know quite well there is a ton more. But for you it's just a baseball. Go for it. You just proved, with a single experiment, that quantum theory is deterministic. How did I miss it? Heck, Newton was right after all. It's all baseballs knocking into each other - until there are TWO slits.

You just proved, with a single experiment, that quantum theory is deterministic. How did I miss it? — Rich

It's not a proof but it is a possible explanation.

Can you (or anyone else) outline a non-deterministic process that explains the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment?

Bohm's model would simply say that the quantum potential is at near certainty at the point of the slit. However, the quantity potential is subject to "information fluctuations", for example: the Delayed-Choice scenario. Note the use of choice. It is causal but not deterministic.

Bohm's model would simply say that the quantum potential is at near certainty at the point of the slit. However, the quantity potential is subject to "information fluctuations", for example: the Delayed-Choice scenario. Note the use of choice. It is causal but not deterministic. — Rich

In the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment there's no slit, only two beam splitters, two mirrors and two detectors.

In a single beam-splitter experiment, a photon that is directed through the beam splitter is detected on either the reflection or transmission path with 50% probability of each.

For a one-world explanation of the MZI experiment, there must be a photon that passes through the second beam splitter either from the left path or from the lower path. Yet the photon always arrives at detector 1 and never at detector 2. So the second beam splitter doesn't seem to be behaving like a beam splitter.

How does quantum potential or information fluctuations explain the above discrepancy? Do the photons always choose to go to detector 1 despite the presence of the beam splitter?

Someone would have to analyze and compute the quantum potential effects throughout the apparatus. I have not found a specific study on this problem. However, to revert to some deterministic, many-works interpretation based upon this one situation, given all of the other issues regarding quantum measurement problems, would be slightly "extravagant".

This paper discusses a way to analyze the experiment utilizing the concept of quantum erasing. No deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is required.

Single photon quantum erasing: a demonstration experiment
T L Dimitrova1 and A Weis

Someone would have to analyze and compute the quantum potential effects throughout the apparatus. I have not found a specific study on this problem. However, to revert to some deterministic, many-works interpretation based upon this one situation, given all of the other issues regarding quantum measurement problems, would be slightly "extravagant". — Rich

The MZI experiment is a simple and crystal-clear demonstration of quantum behavior without any stochastic elements. The point is that introducing stochasticity or indeterminism into a theory doesn't actually help explain quantum behavior.

This paper discusses a way to analyze the experiment utilizing the concept of quantum erasing. No deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is required.

Single photon quantum erasing: a demonstration experiment
T L Dimitrova1 and A Weis — Rich

The paper doesn't describe any mechanism by which the experiment works (which wasn't the purpose of the paper, it was only to demonstrate the phenomenon of single photon quantum erasing which all interpretations would accept anyway).

The MZI experiment is a simple and crystal-clear demonstration of quantum behavior without any stochastic elements. — Andrew M

It is not. I've read enough about it to understand there are lots of questions and issues to consider when using the apparatus and setting up the device depending upon what the experimenter is studying. But for some reason, you are using this as evidence of what??

In any case MZI is just an apparatus, not an experiment.

Try to fly and see what happens. Try to make a choice and see what happens. — Rich

How can you know what choice you will make before you actually make it (hint: you can't). Once you've made a choice, how do you know that some component of hard free will could have allowed you to choose otherwise? (this differs from the compatibilist sense of having options and being un-coerced)...

How can you know what choice you will make before you actually make it (hint: you can't). Once you've made a choice, how do you know that some component of hard free will could have allowed you to choose otherwise? (this differs from the compatibilist sense of having options and being un-coerced)... — VagabondSpectre

Everyone feels they are making choices every day of their lives.

Then the determinists come along and claim, no it's all an illusion (Hinduism retread), that there are Natural Laws (the Calvinist God) making all the decisions for you, and your entire existence is fated through some space-time come (Einstein Relativity forbids any preferred frame of reference). As for evidence of this very religious, biblical like story: none, zero, zilch.

Take you pick. And if one chooses the religious option, just let things happen and enjoy life. It's all in the hands of the gods.

No choice is fated or necessarily predictable (because of the infinite level of complexity involved in thought), but you can definitely say that everything is determined by what precedes it.

The main knee jerk reaction to determinism is to somehow feel that because our choices are predetermined they are therefore less valuable or important to perform well. Eating a bar of chocolate is a pleasurable experience for me, even if it's just a determined chemical reaction in my brain, and so more chocolate bars is what I'll try to get. It might be pre-determined how successful I will be, but I do know that if I don't try success is impossible.

to say a choice is fated is to say its determined by what precedes it. "predictable" on the other hand is an entirely different sack of eels. We cannot make deterministic predictions because of the level of complexity that would be required to do so even if we could get our hands on those pesky hidden variables...