Hybr1d

Please pick up a physics text book(as I have had to do) and start learning before you make irrational claims about things you don't even understand. Yes at the classical level physics works determinstically, and at the subatomic level they don't. The indeterminancy gives rise to the determinism in the universe. My nine year old nephew understands this. As the brains are classical our neuronal reactions are determinstic yes(most likely, baring any quantum brain pseudoscience), so again as said before the classical determinism is emergent from indeterminate quantum physics. You made the same argument twice, and no it is incorrect, please read up on bayesian probability. After reading this, as with your similar post in the other thread, I'm giving up trying to argue with you. I feel as though I'm debating with a brick wall. You have no argument, please stop fabricating things. Everything you just said is so wrong it clearly demonstrates you lack of integrity in actually reading up on the subjects that you are taking a position on. No FTL is not allowed in ANY probablistic quantum interpretation. Not one. Where did you pull that fact from I wonder? Bell's theorem isn't "wrong", can you prove it is? There's a nobel prize if you do I'm sure, but several expirements have proven it is a substantiated no-go theorem. We do not have freewill, and I never claimed we did. This is so overblown it again shows you simply do not want to, or are intellectually incapable of thinking rationally.

Galileo didn't dispute scientifically verified facts to assert his own preconceived notions about the world and it's interworkings were correct, and in fact he did the exact opposite. Also, "Randomness" as you call it has nothing to do with anything I had previously said we were discussing probability. I already stated that the means of which we derive the probabilities are deterministic, as in the Schrodinger equation, or the Born rule. However the results of these equations are experimentally verified to be probabilistic and as such, random. This demonstrates to me that you simply aren't able to comprehend quantum probabilities, or how they work. Your entire post reenforces the fact that people aren't willing to part with their intial beliefs about the way the universe works, or came to be. Yes, everything is random, no that isn't ridiculous and the issues you presented are non exist in quantum theory. You evidently have no idea what you're are talking about. This is so full of subjective illogical reasoning for determinism it seems to me that you are unable to accept how quantum mechanics actually works. The universe was never assumed to be random. Human beings naturally assume everything must be a cause of a cause, ad infinitum. Due to this kind of reasoning this led many to believe in an all powerful deity, or numerous deity, depending on the society in question. I read what you said as "I don't like the fact that quantum mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so I will purposely obfuscate a bunch of incoherent "facts" that I personally believe about fundamental reality, because probability makes me feel uneasy. I'm done trying to rationalize with irrational people so this is my last rebuttal in this thread.

Non-local hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics have been en masse experimentally ruled out, and the window is getting smaller and smaller. If you had taken the time to read my links and put your cognitive bias aside you may have come to the same conclusion. Also as I stated before whether or not you like the idea of something has no place in science. Disputing a scientifically verified supposal, or a supposal made through non-biased ratiocination simply because you don't want it to be true is morally vacuous, and disingenuous. At this point we can be relatively certain that underlying reality is indeterminate, predicated on experimental evidence at the quantum scale. This has nothing to do with a "conscious" observer, but rather random processes.

As swansont said these are all interpretations of one experimentally proven theory, and there is no interpretation where everything is predetermined that I have not yet discussed; perhaps other than what is referred to as "superdeterminism." Superdeterminism is a gross explanation of the anthopric principle and is more in line with creationism then what I'm arguing for, as all I said was it is in all likelihood completely random, and non-local hidden variables(if you had actually taken the time to read the blogs and documentation that I had linked to) have all but been ruled out already. Fundamental reality is probabilistic, and is in no way, shape, or form predetermined. Just because you want this to be true simply doesn't make it true. There is nothing creationist about probability, if anything it is more aligned with the polar opposite, that everything is in fact the result of blind cumulative processes over time(whether fundamental or emergent/timeless). There is no magic and I never said that protons "know" if they're being observed. That has nothing to do with many of the probabilistic interpretations that I had presented to you; for more information you could read up on Wikipedia, or Google. i also agree with Steven Hawking(not hawkings) that there is no free will, please note that the nondeterministic nature of quantum physics does not allow for freewill at all as you have no control of the underlying neuronal reactions in you brain, much in the same way that you have no control over the inner workings of your thyroid gland. Quantum mechanics is an experimentally verified indeterministic theory, and there really isn't much more room for a deterministic interpretation of it anymore. Please re-read my other posts, and also read the links, as I take it you must have skimmed if you honestly believe that reality is predetermined.

I agree with this, and this is the general mechanism behind the superposition reducing to a single eigenstate upon measurement. One of two ways for quantum systems to evolve over "time", the other being the equally probabilistic Schrodinger equation. Hello LjSpike, You've asked an excellent question, although I'm not entirely certain as to why you chose to call this topic "Hidden Variables" as these have been proven to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bell's theorem directly proves that "no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics." Local realism is a relic of a time that has now since passed. Determinism is the belief that needs to be discarded, as reality is fundamentally indeterminate. I argued in my last post on this site, and also within a thread you posted in titled "Is the future predetermined?". I answered with the only scientifically logical position, and then thoroughly explained why that is.

Coming from a physics major, this isn't at all how reality works. Please take the time to read my post above and understand that this view is now irrational and irrelevant in modern science. This was a poll of 33 physics PhD's and clearly shows a massive favoritism of a probabilistic/indeterminate interpretation to quantum mechanics. Quantum Bayesianism, Objective-collapse, and obviously Copenhagen are all probabilistic. Information based is agnostic, although if all "you" are is information there's no empirical reason why that information could not ever "appear" in another information-based universe which could, in theory, be substantially different from this one(if this interpretation is correct), and as such where you appear would be in essence, random.

Yes, however in response to the topic at hand the future is demonstrably fundamentally indeterminate. In regards to quantum system particles clearly obey the born rule, and evolve via probability distribution. Albeit the equations describing said functions are obviously determinate, otherwise quantum mechanics wouldn't be such a success. I have to agree with swansont here; I would also like to add that it seems as though the vast majority of your "proposition" appears to be utter garbage pseudoscience. Now some pseudoscience is good and logical speculation can be interesting. This is very far from an idea that was formed through honest logical reasoning, or a deduction(s) from objective observations. Literally most of this is inconsistent, but it appears as though you're arguing for a sort of deterministic quantum interpretation. Let me tell you as a physics major this is asinine and futile for the most part. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't in anyway make it the truth. Ad hominems aside it would appear to me that you're insisting upon some sort of time symmetric, retro-causal interpretation. Interpretations like Two-State vector formalism, and the Relational blockworld make these sorts of claims. These retro-causal interpretations are also fundamentally indeterminate(even if the authors of RBW would disagree), and at the end of the day your particularly archaic notion of a "predetermined" universe is no longer objectively reasonable with our new found knowledge of how the world works. The last (real) legs you have to stand on for a deterministic universe view is the many worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics. If you take a deterministic perspective, and the many worlds interpretation, you end up with quantum immortality. You could do away with QI and still have MWI if you take away determinism as well, and I would elaborate more on this but can't at the present time. Also the measurement problem is a large enough hole to render MWI completely futile, along with any other infinite multiverse/parallel worlds trash. The brane multiverse postulated by string theory isn't necessary either, and most inflationary models do not require eternal inflation. Bohmian mechanics are broken and so far removed from objective reality I don't even know what they're trying to say, so many problems. John S. Bell showed that any local realist(determined) theory can not produce the predictions made by quantum mechanics. Non-local hidden variable theory have been taking a beating as well. Links: Bell's Theorem Experimental loophole-free violation of Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3km MWI Links: Many worlds pseudoscience, again Arguments for and against Many Worlds Does it Make Sense to Speak of Self-Locating Uncertainity if the Universal Wave Function? Remarks on Sebens and Carroll Many worlds: A Rozali-Carroll exchange Bohmian Links: Problems with Bohmian Mechanics Bohmian mechanics, a ludicrous caricature of nature Why do people still talk about Bohmian mechanics/hidden variables? Hidden Variable "Theories": It's been a tough week for hidden variable theories Falsifying non-local realism Bell's and sycophants' criticism of von Neumann's hidden-variable no go theorem is misguided