Indeterminancy principle

[auswiq]

The Indeterminancy principle, a fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics( the sub-atomic realm) concerns the unpredictability of both the position and momentum of a 'particle' at same moment. Instead, interpretation is given as a 'probability distribution' or wave function, to describe it's properties.

Probability itself, as far as I currently understand, is a mathematical process; e.g, a die has six faces(a 3D cube); so the probability of throwing any number (1 to six) is 1/6, a mathematical outcome.

Now, what am I getting at? If we are to view the cosmos as indeterministic, would this lead some to the conclusion that there is no God at the controls?   However, from what I stated above, the aforesaid principle is based upon a mathematical paradigm, which speaks of an inherent Logic; albeit, in this case, 'fuzzy logic'. Existence of inherent logic, implies something more than blind interplay of forces, wouldn't it?  Just thought I'd throw this into the ring for consideration.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Quantum indeterminacy has occasionally been used as an argument for theism or various forms of mysticism. According to some views, in the clockwork universe, there is not much room for the "soul" - a person's thoughts and actions are completely determined by the physical laws and the the original state of all particles and energy in the universe - in theory "completely predictable", and therefore without "free will."

To some, indeterminacy gives God or the human soul or spirit, wiggle room to change thoughts, actions, and events.

I think both views are hogwash, but I don't care to go too deeply into it.

 

[sulphur]

Why do dolphins herd fish.Nobody taught them

 

[notto]

The Principle of Indeterminacy is related to our ability to measure characteristics, not the actual characteristics themselves. Just because we can't measure the true value of a characteristic because our measuring technique would affect it does not mean that it doesn't have a real, single, absolute value for the characteristic.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by auswiq
Now, what am I getting at? If we are to view the cosmos as indeterministic, would this lead some to the conclusion that there is no God at the controls?  

No.  See Chapter 6 in Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.  Miller persuasively argues that an indeterministic universe is necessary and even what we would expect if God wanted to create a universe that has meaning.

A perfectly deterministic universe leaves out meaning because any decisions or actions we take are determined by what has gone before.

Now, does indeterminancy somehow mean that we have to conclude a deity exists?  Miller is equally firm in arguing "no" to this one. All Miller claims is that indeterminancy is consistent with the idea of God, but does not compel it.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto
The Principle of Indeterminacy is related to our ability to measure characteristics, not the actual characteristics themselves. Just because we can't measure the true value of a characteristic because our measuring technique would affect it does not mean that it doesn't have a real, single, absolute value for the characteristic.

Sorry, Notto, but this is counter to all the data we have been able to gather.  It doesn't matter how we measure or how precise we measure, Indeterminancy means that we can never know both  the position and momentum of an electron, for instance.  Einstein tried to get around Indeterminancy during the 1920s and 1930s.  He and Bohr repeatedly looked at this. Einstein always lost.  All that he accomplished was to make himself a laughingstock in the physics community and remove himself from any more productive work during the rest of his career.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by lucaspa
Sorry, Notto, but this is counter to all the data we have been able to gather.  It doesn't matter how we measure or how precise we measure, Indeterminancy means that we can never know both  the position and momentum of an electron, for instance.  Einstein tried to get around Indeterminancy during the 1920s and 1930s.  He and Bohr repeatedly looked at this. Einstein always lost.  All that he accomplished was to make himself a laughingstock in the physics community and remove himself from any more productive work during the rest of his career.

I think we are saying the same thing. By measuring a phenomena, we affect the phenomena so yes, we can never measure the position and momentum of a particle but that does not mean that the position and momentum of the particle are not "real". They only have one solution at any given point in time, we just can't know what that solution is because of the two variables involved and the effect of measuring them.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by notto
I think we are saying the same thing. By measuring a phenomena, we affect the phenomena so yes, we can never measure the position and momentum of a particle but that does not mean that the position and momentum of the particle are not "real". They only have one solution at any given point in time, we just can't know what that solution is because of the two variables involved and the effect of measuring them.

Sorry, I didn't say what I wanted to say right.  They have several solutions, which is why they are probabilistic. 

Take another example: if you shine a light on a mirror, 95% of the photons are reflected but 5% go through.  There is no way to determine which photon will go through and which will be reflected. It is totally indeterministic.  What gives the appearance of determinism at the macroscopic level is that the probability is constant: always 95% reflected, 5% going through.

Another example: decay of radioactive atoms.  In a given sample, half the atoms will decay in a half-life, but there is no way to determine which individual atoms those will be. Completely indeterministic.  Not a measurement problem.  Again, what gives us the appearance of regularity is that the proportion is always the same.

Now, you can hook the indeterminancy of the micro world to the macro world. Miller tells one way to do this: hook the inputs of a computer mouse to a vial of radioactive atoms. As the atoms decay, they cause the mouse to move.  The movement is completely indeterministic.  You can't predict it even in principle. 

 

[notto]

Lucaspa,

Thanks, I guess we were talking about two completely different things.

Uncertainty vs indeterministic. Thanks for expanding. It's been about 10 years since I took physics and it's always nice to get a refresher.

What you stated certainly makes sense and jives with what I remember. Now, if I could just find my old lab books to confirm it . . .

 

[DNAunion]

Lucaspa: Einstein always lost. All that he accomplished was to make himself a laughingstock in the physics community and remove himself from any more productive work during the rest of his career.

DNAunion: Well now, if that's true, sounds like, in their respective fields, Einstein and Sidney Fox had some things in common