Thread 16716120

Explain to me how a fundamentally nondeterministic quantum world can create our deterministic macroscopic world.
How is determinism created/ where is it introduced?

Law of large numbers

>>16716120 (OP)
Step 1: model each particles behavior as a bell curve.
Step 2: understand that the majority of behavior is going to follow the middle of the bell curve
Step 3: there's a fuckton of particles doing their thing at the same time

What you see at macroscopic scales is basically the sum of all particles involved and "average" behavior is going to be the overwhelming majority of that.

So this: >>16716144

>>16716120 (OP)
That's just how God created it

Proof that this is rhe case?

>>16716120 (OP)
it doesnt.

/thread

>>16716153
So from probability emerges absolute rigid logic?
Why don't the laws of classical mechanics account for these probabilities?

>>16716398
Because the probability that any object is going to deviate from the behavior predicted by classical mechanics any more than microscopically is approximately zero in nearly all cases.

If you throw a ball, every particle in that ball is doing quantum stuff. But it all kinda evens out to follow F=MA.

>>16716120 (OP)
It's hardly proven to be fundamentally non-deterministic. Your question doesn't have a complete answer at this time.

>>16716416
>Your question doesn't have a complete answer at this time.
How very quantum!
Try to hold on that question for when the time comes where you have the answer.

>>16716420
Why don't you try to find the answer then? It's an open question. You seem like a smart guy.

>>16716153
>>16716144
Total pseud shittery

>>16716120 (OP)
Here's a simple model:
Let's say you're on a line. Every second, any particle wants to go either 1 step right, or 1 step left, with probability 1/2. So if you have an object that's just 1 particle, it's random as fuck.

Now let's say you have n particles acting as a group. They move an average of what each particle in the group wants. So if (x) want right, and (n-x) want left, you get it to move (x - (n-x)) / n to the right. The larger the number of particles acting as a group, the closer the probability of the group moving with exactly the average inclination each time (in this case, being stationary).

TLDR. an individual having preferences is unpredictable, a group of individuals averaging those preferences is not. (the larger the group, the more predictable).

>>16716440
Nice example of creating deterministic behaviour for a number of particles.
But where does this probability come from?
Can it be known beforehand or is it measured afterwards? Is it a known, deterministic quality of a particle?

>>16716120 (OP)
>our deterministic macroscopic world
Our macroscopic world is not deterministic. What are you smoking?

>>16716120 (OP)
LOTS of cancellations

Determine deez nuts

>>16716120 (OP)
its been proven that classical newton laws can be derived from principle of maximum caliber which is just the generalization of maximum entropy for trajectories. the newtonian path is just the most likely path when this is maximized and so you can imagine when you are talking about large systems with lots of particles they are just going to be moving through the average trajectory of the system ans if you blur over all the degrees of freedom it looks like determinism

why am i supposed to believe every nondeterministic thing in existance is an issue of information-limitation on the part of an observer, *except* for quantum mechanics, which is totally real and uniquely stochastic?

>>16716120 (OP)
>can create our deterministic macroscopic world.
Can you distinguish between deterministic & 99.99999999% accuracy?

Slepian wrote a paper on the concept of "indistinguishable". Very well written; Idk if you can understand it without strong engineering background, but it was intended to plain english understandable.

>>16716153
This is the worst kind of knowledge; you think you are right because you will be proven right the vast majority of the time. You wont have the opportunity to learn from your ignorance; when it does happen youll dismiss it.

>>16716120 (OP)
Decoherence makes macroscopic superposition indistinguishable from the collapsed form.
Even so, interference from superposition was observed in large molecules like C60.
Our macroscopic world is not determinist, simple things like nuclear decay demonstrate this.

Quantum quacks really think there are no non-local hidden variables lmfaooo

>>16716120 (OP)
>Explain to me how a fundamentally nondeterministic quantum world
I wouldnt go so far to say that quantum event are non-deterministic.

>>16720528
It’s absolutely non-deterministic to the quantum quacks to seem to think they’ve found the root of everything. That something comes from nothing. They’re that arrogant.

>>16720550
>t. highest achievement in academia: community college physics 1

>>16716120 (OP)
dumb frog thread

>>16720828
Admit it. He’s got a point. Quantum uncertaintists are gay.

>>16722735
No u

Lol…

>>16716398
The biggest eye opener for me was doing the calculations of the quantum harmonic oscillator at large values of N. You really need to do this shit for yourself to believe it. Just taking other people's word at face value, it's hard to accept.

>>16716120 (OP)
Non-linear. Universe/creation is a singular continuity. Wheel of Samsara and all that. Step outside of it and look. In higher and higher dimensions it goes infinitely, and lower and lower. Turtles. So what you end up with, is something that is irreconcilable with linear time or thinking. It's that you are trying to find the curve of a flat plane. It is there, potentially, but is not obvious when looking at it in that configuration you are placing it in.

>>16716153
What percentage of interactions have been measured to trust this statistic approach?

>>16716120 (OP)
https://youtu.be/D3P6o2BQC10

>>16716398
>Why don't the laws of classical mechanics account for these probabilities?
Because it treats many things as an infinitely divisible continuum. Which for practical purposes at a macroscopic scale is good enough given the amount of fundamental particles making up any object.

>>16725358
Not sure about percentage. But you observe billions of these interactions occur every second.

>>16717152
Wtf

>>16725498
I do not observe any interactions of this sort. What a strange claim to make on my behalf.

>>16716398
Because then it wouldn't be classical mechanics.

>>16720528
NOOOO
SILENCE HIM
SILENCE THIS ONE

>>16716120 (OP)
Non deterministic cannot be used with deterministic. They are two different things.

So what you just said doesn’t make any sense.

Quantum mechanics uses statistical calculus. Which is a stachoastic form of calculus. These are by definition non deterministic measurements because it’s once you do the math you get probabilities and not definite answers.

The future cannot be predicted there is no such thing as a chance of something happening there are only two outcomes.

it happens or it doesn’t.

Stop listening to mainstream science it makes you sound crazy.

>>16728028
Brand the witch!

Sigh

>>16716153
>overwhelming majority
That still implies there should be exceptions at some point. Where are they?

>>16716120 (OP)
Determinism is created through opposition with indeterministic things. It is introduced where things are not indeterministic. For example, at the macroscopic level. You're welcome.

You have a pathetic bias against the macroscopic. Assuming the quantum creates it. How about this? The macroscopic creates the quantum. Ever think about that? Probably not because you're too obsessed with your LEGO building block baby brain.

>>16731022
Microscopic. Quantum effects are happening all the time but you just don't see them.

>>16716120 (OP)
>Explain to me how a fundamentally nondeterministic quantum world can create our deterministic macroscopic world.
The macroscopic world is also non-deterministic. People who claim that it is, are simply setting arbitrary goalposts for what counts as a prediction so that their predictions are repeatable despite inherent uncertainties and so that any unexpected failures of their procedure are discounted as external interference.

>>16716120 (OP)
the quantum world is specifically determinant tho?

why is ebery thread on this board bait?>>16728033
its not just statistics, there are literally experiments/measurements of quantum mechanics. its not just on paper, double slit/half life/gravity are all real bub

God does not play dice

>>16731888
checked!

>>16731888
he doesnt play dice with the Universe. you dont know what he does to unwind, he might be a gambling degen in his free time

>>16716501
>Our macroscopic world is not deterministic.
Do you really think the moon isn't there when you look away from it.

>the universe is a simulation!
>everything only exists when you look at it!
“What if it’s a shared simulation?” -and then I’m told to shut up

>>16716120 (OP)
Beautiful painting

>>16716120 (OP)
Is that a frog I see

>>16736676
Transcendent Pepe that Permeates All

>>16731888
Why not?

>>16716120 (OP)
As you move to large numbers of deterministic objects, behavior becomes probabilistic.
As you move to large numbers of probabilistic objects, behavior becomes deterministic.
In other words, describing a system as deterministic or probabilistic is mostly a matter of convenience.

>>16738082
Sounds too simple and beautiful to be true.
What about the double slit experiment? A large number of photons (probabilistic objects) will still act probabilistic.

>>16716120 (OP)
I've been contemplating this question as well for the last few months. I'm open to being proven wrong but so far it seems most sensible to a strictly deterministic explanation for quantum events. so either hidden variables or MWI.

If you actually think existence is probabilistic, or that something comes from nothing, you are sadly insane.

>>16720528
Best response.

>>16739028
>you are sadly insane
says the guy having imaginary friends

>>16716120 (OP)
Determinism is an assumption that happens to be very fruitful for scientific inquiry. There is no way of knowing if determinism itself is true or not.

Hm

easily
>randomness at small scales
>drowned out by large scales

>>16741546
No.

>>16716120 (OP)
>deterministic macroscopic world
the macroscopic world is not deterministic

>>16716120 (OP)
beautiful

>>16716120 (OP)
we live in a simulation

investigating details below the precision of the simulation reveals nothing about the simulation itself

no

deterministic behavior requires a nondeterministic source

>>16716144
I think maybe central limit theorem is just a bit more directly applicable, but desu your answer is good enough for government work