Quantum mechanics is "true" insofar as it's useful for some purpose. Until then it's a theory and the jury is still out.

Randomness is something which I feel is a pretty weird phenomenon. I am definitely one of those 'God doesn't play with dice' types.

Randomness is also something that we call things when actually it's random from a subjective perspective. If we knew more about a system the randomness just falls away. E.g. if we knew the exact physical properties of a dice roll we could probably predict it better than random.

What if it's the case that quantum mechanics is similar. I.e. that what we think of as randomness isn't really randomness but only appears that way to the best of what we can observe. If this is the case, and if our algorithms rely on some sort of genuine randomness inherent in the universe, then doesn't that suggest there's a problem? Perhaps part of the errors we see in quantum mechanics arise from just something fundamental to the universe being different to our model.

I don't think this is that far fetched given the large holes that our current understanding of physics have as to predicting the universe. It just seems that in the realm of quantum mechanics this isn't the case, apparently because experiments have verified things. However, I think there really is something in the proof being in the pudding (provide a practical use case).

▲

dekken_ 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Quantum mechanics, is not "just one thing", so to say "it is true" is somewhat wrong I think.

You are probably talking about the Copenhagen interpretation, involving superposition.

Personally, I don't think this is the final theory.

Any theory using calculus, cannot be considered discrete, so is therefore not quantized, and not possibly "physical".

Gerard 't Hooft has more to say on this if you want to hear something from a nobel laureate on the subject.

▲

m101 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, agree that suggesting "true" is unclear, and in fact in science doesn't really talk about true things but rather than ability to predict the way things behave. We are still in the dark about the fundamental nature of reality. Science is still useful of course, but only insofar as it has a useful purpose. It's more like an engineering subject.

I think what I've just said foots with your calculus comment, and also a Wolfram-like interpretation is closer to "truth" and your point on discretisation.

Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"?

What can I search for to find his comments on this subject?

	▲	dekken_ 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Why do you think discretisation/quantisation is necessary for the "physical"? We are trying to explain, the physical reality we find outselves in, so, if the universe is fundamentally quantized, it must be discrete, as continuous math would reify infinities. > What can I search for to find his comments on this subject? You could check Curt Jaimungal's youtube, Hooft was on it recently.

▲

karmakurtisaani 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This has been considered, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

	▲	m101 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I've heard of it but I'm not very familiar, or have a deep understanding of it. I buy into things like Wolfram physics for explaining how the universe actually works, with equations/calculus being limited to approximations to an error in measurement. The hidden variable theory seems to mostly covers physics unlike what Wolfram covers, so it's useful for a purpose but it still seems to be going down a similar rabbit hole to where normal physics ends up.

▲

withinboredom 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most people don’t want to go down this hole. In the end, it means we might not have free will if there isn’t any randomness…

But if you are up for an existential crisis, just google “hidden variable theories”

▲

ryankrage77 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

the 'no randomness = no free will' argument is pretty common, but how does randomness ensure free will? It's still something out of our control, just it can't be predicited. Why is it any better to be a random automaton than a predictable one?

	▲	withinboredom 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's the difference between getting to choose between your favorite and least favorite meal vs. a choice between two random meals. The former is easy to predict, the latter is impossible.

▲

AlienRobot 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Turns out we only have "free as in free beer" will.

Sorry, I was destined to make this joke before I was even born.

▲

dhampi 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, Schrodinger’s equation is entirely deterministic. There is no randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. The perceived randomness only arises when we have incomplete information. (It is another matter that quantum mechanics to some extent forbids us from having perfect information.)

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t think it’s a particularly useful activity to speculate on physics if you don’t know the basic equations.