• Rediphile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nope, not really. But even if we did have 2 completely different solved sets of physical rules for minuscule quantum stuff versus everything else, all events would still be casual. It wouldn’t change anything.

    • Flumsy@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Measuring quantun superpositions can have different outcomes under the same circumstances, right? So therefore, it cannot be deterministic (= what you described) because randomness is involved.

      • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds to me like we lack the understanding as to why there are different outcomes in what we perceive as identical circumstances.

        A dice roll appears random too, but it isn’t if one understands all of the inputs and variables precisely.

        • DarkGamer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not that we don’t know, it’s that we can’t know, via Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Iirc, hidden variable interpretations of quantum physics have thus far failed to explain what’s happening. It seems to be probabilistic.

            • DarkGamer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Outcomes must be knowable/predictable if it is deterministic. Things could have played out differently at least at small scales, which often have large effects.

            • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Fwiw I agree, the concept of “true randomness” never set well with me… often we use probability to model systems that are too complex to understand or calculate directly. However, in this case I defer my personal beliefs to genius scientists and mathematicians who have spent their whole lives exploring just this dilemma. So far we have no deterministic model for quantum mechanics, and no indication that such exists.

              (not an expert or formally educated on the subject, but I recommend reading A Brief History of Time for an accessible overview)

              • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A good while back we had no working model for a heliocentric solar system nor any solid indication of it…until we did. But I’m pretty sure the earth was going around the sun even before we realized it, and even before we existed at all.

                A Brief History of Time was great! I’d also definitely recommend it to all.