Is everything pre-determined in OOTS world?

[Dion]

A bit of a tangent.
How can people believe that determinism and Quantum mechanics are both true in the real world?
I never got that.

*shrug* I have no idea which of the many definitions of “determinism” your question is related to, so it’s impossible for me to give any kind of answer that would make sense.

[Fyraltari]

A bit of a tangent.
How can people believe that determinism and Quantum mechanics are both true in the real world?
I never got that.

The uncertainty principle only affects the extremely small. The probabilistic effects aren't important enough to be noticeable on larger structures such as molecules.

[brian 333]

Because we experience time in a linear fashion it does not mean the universe does. The big bang and the long runout may have happened simultaneously. In that case every event, no matter how small, has already happened. It is not fated, or even determined: our choices matter. But we've already made those future choices using our free will.

[deuterio12]

The uncertainty principle only affects the extremely small. The probabilistic effects aren't important enough to be noticeable on larger structures such as molecules.

On the contrary, they do affect all larger structures, just that usually the probabilities average out when you multiply them by millions of atoms.

However statistical aberrations can and do happen. Quantum mechanics state that basically anything is possible at any moment at any scale, just that most "impossible" events at our scale have absurdly low probabilities. But still greater than zero.

However a small random fluctuation can cascade to bigger events. Like the classic Schrödinger’s Cat experiment makes use of a radiation detector that only has a 50% chance of detecting a specific radioactive sample to trigger the poison. The cat is at our scale, but has 50% odds of dying or living thanks to quantum mechanics randomness.

[Fyraltari]

On the contrary, they do affect all larger structures, just that usually the probabilities average out when you multiply them by millions of atoms.

However statistical aberrations can and do happen. Quantum mechanics state that basically anything is possible at any moment at any scale, just that most "impossible" events at our scale have absurdly low probabilities. But still greater than zero.

However a small random fluctuation can cascade to bigger events. Like the classic Schrödinger’s Cat experiment makes use of a radiation detector that only has a 50% chance of detecting a specific radioactive sample to trigger the poison. The cat is at our scale, but has 50% odds of dying or living thanks to quantum mechanics randomness.

The entire point of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is that quantum superposition does not happen at our scale. Erwin Schrödinger was opposed to Quantum Theory. There are several proposed explanations for why the cat isn’t undead.

[Peelee]

The entire point of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is that quantum superposition does not happen at our scale. Erwin Schrödinger was opposés to Quantum Theory. There are several proposed explanations for why the cat isn’t undead.

Indeed, everyone leaves off the last line of "clearly this is ridiculous so that interpretation must be wrong."

Whether or not that interpretation is wrong is another thing, but Schrödinger certainly thought it was.

[Squire Doodad]

Wait, didn't this thread die twice already?
Maybe I'm just getting to old for this

Indeed, everyone leaves off the last line of "clearly this is ridiculous so that interpretation must be wrong."

Whether or not that interpretation is wrong is another thing, but Schrödinger certainly thought it was.

The cat isn't dead because there were airholes, fresh water, and a nice big dead stoat in there with the cat. The cat's fine. Maybe a bit perturbed and feeling claustrophobic, but quite alive.

[RatElemental]

Indeed, everyone leaves off the last line of "clearly this is ridiculous so that interpretation must be wrong."

Whether or not that interpretation is wrong is another thing, but Schrödinger certainly thought it was.

Of course, the analogy is flawed from the beginning, trying to ratchet up quantum effects that only work on that scale to a macro one. The detector is observing the radioactive sample, the waveform is collapsed.

[Peelee]

Of course, the analogy is flawed from the beginning, trying to ratchet up quantum effects that only work on that scale to a macro one. The detector is observing the radioactive sample, the waveform is collapsed.

True, but that's because it's stupidly hard to come up with good analogies for quantum mechanics, as I'm sure Schrödinger would be the first to agree. In fact, I've always thought it sad that his other famous claim about quantum mechanics never got quite as big - “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.”

[Dion]

The Oracle’s powers are not incompatible with quantum mechanics, since we have been shown that The Oracle exists. QED.

[vegetalss4]

Counterargument we have not been shown that quantum mechanics exist in the Stickverse

[Fyraltari]

Counterargument we have not been shown that quantum mechanics exist in the Stickverse

Spoiler: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished

Show

thog schrödinger's antagonist! yay!

[KorvinStarmast]

Spoiler: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished

Show

thog schrödinger's antagonist! yay!

The frame of reference of that remark is in our verse, not stickverse. Thog is writing / speaking the intro in the book in our -verse. As with anything when dealing with physics, first check your frame of reference.

[Devils_Advocate]

As I already pointed out in this thread, it is not necessary for something to be random for it to be essentially unpredictable. The weather is an entirely deterministic system, but we cannot reliably predict it more than a few days in advance.

Yes, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to be relevant. Unless you mean to conflate free will with unpredictability itself.

Perhaps one gets previews rather than spoilers, to use an analogy.

Aren't previews a type of spoiler?

A bit of a tangent.
How can people believe that determinism and Quantum mechanics are both true in the real world?
I never got that.

I think that the Many-Worlds interpretation is the main one that does away with the contrivance "waveform collapse", which was always rather a vague handwave.

The entire point of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is that quantum superposition does not happen at our scale.

Isn't it an argument that small-scale superposition implies large-scale superposition? And Schrödinger denied the consequent based largely on his own preconceptions? But the available evidence supports affirming the antecedent, so doing that understandably seems to be more common? Or something like that?

[HorizonWalker]

Isn't it an argument that small-scale superposition implies large-scale superposition? And Schrödinger denied the consequent based largely on his own preconceptions? But the available evidence supports affirming the antecedent, so doing that understandably seems to be more common? Or something like that?

Schrodinger's Cat as a thought experiment is sarcastic and intended to scan as ridiculous- "If we accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, then this is true. Since we clearly see that this is not true, then the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is patently ridiculous."

The problem is that whoever wrote it down forgot to also write down the tone of sneering contempt with which the thought experiment was intended to be delivered with.

[Peelee]

Schrodinger's Cat as a thought experiment is sarcastic and intended to scan as ridiculous- "If we accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, then this is true. Since we clearly see that this is not true, then the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is patently ridiculous."

The problem is that whoever wrote it down forgot to also write down the tone of sneering contempt with which the thought experiment was intended to be delivered with.

Frankly, it's not even the most scathing thing Schrödinger even said relating to quantum mechanics.

[RatElemental]

Isn't it an argument that small-scale superposition implies large-scale superposition? And Schrödinger denied the consequent based largely on his own preconceptions? But the available evidence supports affirming the antecedent, so doing that understandably seems to be more common? Or something like that?

The thing is, "Observing" a particle doesn't mean a human being has to look at it and that's observation. In fact, a human probably couldn't even see it. Anything at all interacting with it is observing it. The atoms in the cat are observing each other. The atoms in the poison are observing each other. The air molecules around the cesium are observing it, and so on. You can't 'scale up' the concept of superposition because in doing so you create billions of mini systems that are collapsing each other.