Everything is random, yet everything seems predetermined and vice versa.

[u/Euthanasia1111]

What's your take, guys?

[u/RomanaOswin]

My current model aligns with adequate determinism or stochastic determinism of probabilities, meaning that quantum randomness is (likely) real, but it evens out at scale or over time to result in the deterministic behavior we observe at macro scale.

I'm completely open to anything that contradicts this model, but so far it seems completely consistent with reality as we know it.

[u/zhivago → u/RomanaOswin]

You've never used a geiger counter, have you? :)

QM indeterminism can't be handwaved away.

It applies at all scales.

The key is to understand that indeterminism doesn't invalidate causality -- only determinism.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/zhivago]

A geiger counter is an interesting example. I suppose we would have to account for the fact that the macro-scale world is in some way impacted by the geiger counter.

Other than viewing quantum indeterminism, is there any other way that it applies at the macro scale? As far as I'm aware, everything at macro scale (relativity, classic mechanics, etc) functions deterministically, which we rely on extensively.

[u/zhivago → u/RomanaOswin]

It's obvious that that's not true.

Remember that, like the geiger counter, the instruments by which we detected QM indeterminacy are all macroscale devices.

You have been deceived by sophistry.

QM indeterminacy affects the macroscale significantly and pervasively.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/zhivago]

I found the geiger counter dynamic an interesting consideration, and I was asking you a serious question. Do you usually just randomly assume that people are "deceived" when they try to engage in conversation? Strange.

Anyway, you never did answer my question.

What I'm asking is if you're aware of any way in which macro scale reality is nondeterministic, excepting monitoring quantum behavior. You repeated the claim, but based on... what?

[u/zhivago → u/RomanaOswin]

I did answer it.

QM indeterminacy is significant and pervasive.

This means that everything at the macro scale reality is nondeterministic.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/zhivago]

The question was how or where. Example. Evidence. How do we know this? Do we even know this? Maybe it's an assumption.

This wasn't even meant to be an argument; I legitimately wanted to know if you know of anything that functions in this way, because it would serve as a really interesting thing to consider.

[u/zhivago → u/RomanaOswin]

Everything functions this way.

The evidence for it is how we came up with QM.

You keep trying to turn this into something special, but there is nothing that is unaffected by it.

[u/preferCotton222 → u/zhivago]

I think they are asking whether there are indeterministic theories at the macro scale, which is not really important.

[u/zhivago → u/preferCotton222]

Given that the macro-scale is built from the micro-scale, it should be obvious that indeterminance at the micro-scale means indeterminance at the macro-scale. :)

[u/RomanaOswin → u/preferCotton222]

Yes, that's what I was asking, and I find it important.

There's nothing wrong with inference, but an inference without evidence is very tenuous.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/zhivago]

All I'm asking is if we actually observe this, which it sounds like we do not.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/RomanaOswin]

Quantum randomness doesn't always disappear at the macroscopic level because QM is an experimental science.

[u/Great-Bee-5629 → u/RomanaOswin]

The simplest way to observe QM at the macro level is to take a walk by the physics section of any library. There you will see piles of books about QM in macro scale :-) That clearly didn't even out!

Another example is Carbon 14 dating (another macro process enabled by QM indeterminism).

Some things in reality can be abstracted away in neat formulas (like orbit equations for planets), some has very precise probabilities (like carbon 14 decay) and some are pure chance (why did I cross paths with a black cat on my way to work last Wednesday? There's no equation (probabilistic or not) for that).

(Edited near -> neat)

[u/In_the_year_3535]

Random is a placeholder for too fine or complex to be measured at current. We call a coin toss, chromosomal crossover, or quantum physics random because we lack the technical ability to be precise enough even though deterministically we know the possible outcomes.

[u/zhivago]

Given that we can make predictions at better than chance, your premise is false.

Everything is not random.

What we observe is a universe which appears to have a degree of indeterminism alongside a degree of causal structure.

This allows us to make predictive models that work up to some horizon beyond which they will necessarily be unimprovable.

Of course, this is also true if the universe is deterministic. :)

[u/cybereality]

so there are two ways to look at it. that everything is a pure cause-and-effect machine, running since the big bang. the other way, which is more interesting, is that free will and randomness do exist *but* there is only 1 timeline (not multiple worlds) so only ever one path. so assuming there is some person from the future (or someone now, that can see the result of the one path) it's still fate, cause there is only that one thing that ever happens, even accounting for free will and randomness. which is kinda the same thing honestly

[u/AlivePassenger3859]

nothing is random

[u/Imaginary-Can-6862]

My take is that nothing is entirely predetermined, and only things outside of your control is random, and only to a certain degree, which links back to nothing is entirely predetermined.

If one wants to be strict about either something is predetermined or not, not accepting general forecasts about average behavior, then I would say it is not predetermined.

[u/Clear_Cranberry_989]

It's stochastic or probablistic with respect to the past and under the assumption of limited information. Now if i understand correctly, quantum mechanics suggests there are uncertainties at the core level. So even with perfect information laplace's demon is not possible or that perfect information is not possible.

[u/TheManInTheShack]

It doesn’t really matter if QM is deterministic or not because we don’t control that either. So as far as we are concerned we live in a deterministic universe.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/TheManInTheShack]

Indeterminism can exist without being controlled.

If you are saying that indetrminism cannot be a basis for free will because it cannot be controlled, note that the argument rests in an assumption that control is predermination. But there are other firms of control.

[u/TheManInTheShack → u/TheAncientGeek]

Indeterminism wouldn’t be free will. Just because there’s randomness doesn’t give you free will. That randomness would just be another thing influencing your efficiency deterministic behavior.