[Phys-L] Re: Some Ramblings On Randomness and Casualty

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

On 07/14/05 10:20, Robert B Zannelli wrote:

> 1) The fundamental constituents of reality , let's say particles ,  do  have
> objective properties independent of measurement BUT these properties are  NOT
> the classical properties which they do not posses.The classical objective
> properties are emergent and  not fundamental.
>
> 2) The Determinism of nature is not undermined by quantum theory as is  often
> said ,  though we are limited to only knowing the  probabilities for
> individual events at the quantum scale.  However, these probabilities are themselves
> deterministic and lead to  classical determinism on the macro scale.
>
> The first point is a different take on QT I think while the  second point
> should not be controversial.  This is all I am  trying to say. These are
> interpretive metaphysical assertions ,  hence  propose no new physics.

As to point (1):  Saying the classical objective properties are
emergent sounds, to my ears, like a version of the correspondence
principle ... and therefore not controversial.

As to point (2):  Probably we (almost) all agree that thinking
about the probabilities is the sensible way to do physics.

However, the discussion of "determinism" is highly open to
misunderstanding, because many folks _define_ determinism to
specifically exclude a probabilistic description.

I, for one, would say quantum behavior is lawful but not
deterministic.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l