crm@duke.UUCP (09/14/83)
This is addressed to the net in reply to McEwan's question (sorry I lost your first name already) about non-determinism... The suggestion that you make (just because we can't figure it out doesn't mean it isn't determined) is really an example of the argument against non-determinism that is generally called the 'hidden variable' argument. You're are in good company on this one -- it is a favorite of a number of determinists, among them Albert Einstein. (I want to ask him NOW!) The problem is that modern QM *seems* to suggest a much stronger result: that being that the universe is not simply not determined by anything that we know, but that the universe simply cannot *both* work as we understand *and* be deterministic. In other words, not a lack of data, but data that *contradicts* the hypothesis that the universe is deterministic. The big problem with the "hidden variable" in my mind is that the argument seems to be circular: we want to believe that the universe is firmly deterministic, so when we see evidence that suggests otherwise, we say "yeah, but if we knew more about it, we'd see that it's completely determined anyway." The two Einstein quotations that are used in reference to all this are: "God is subtle, but he is not malicious" and "God doesn't play dice with the Universe." I see this as a couple of suggestions that AE was firmly *faithful* in his belief that the universe was deterministic. The problem is -- as we have seen on the net in other settings, say for example the Book of Mormon controversy -- once a person developes *faith* in a concept, it seems to eliminate the consideration of the evidence. You know, this net stuff is fun -- I've probably managed to offend religious types, determinists, Einstein fans and physicists all in one little buffer. This is a philosopher's answer, not a physicist's. Are there any physics people out there that want to *defend* the non-deterministic view? Charlie Martin ...!duke!crm
emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer) (09/14/83)
The term 'determinism' means different things, depending on who you are. To a physicist, it refers to the possibility of determining, given the current state of the universe, future states. And QM does seem to imply that this is impossible. When referring to predestination, though, the claim is that God has determined what will happen, independent of the state of the physical universe. Quite a different thing. As to Einstein and QM -- he found the notion that the universe could be undescribable at its most fundamental levels to be extremely disquieting, and felt that it was a question of the math being used for the description being inadequate. And this was based on his philosophical beliefs. He never said, though, that the results in QM could not be useful as far as they went. Sort of like it is possible to chart planetary motion using epicycles. For that matter, I find it hard to read QM stuff without thinking of epicycles! -Joe P.
rf@wu1.UUCP (09/16/83)
Most great physicists were and are religious, though not necessarily formally so. Certainly both Newton and Einstein were. The clockwork universe of classical physics, which both Newton and Einstein believed in, was developed after the Northern European theologians declared that free will did not exist. It is fascinating to think that the form of physical theories was derived from religious considerations. Of course, it may also be wrong. Any scholars like to take up the argument? Randolph Fritz Western Union Telegraph