Did God Create Chaos?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ah. Wikipedia again. And I just wrote on this:

Stapp, in Mind, Matter, & Quantum Mechanics includes what is largely a paper he wrote in the 70s on the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and quantum mechanics. While I can't include the book for you, I have attached the original paper. It includes his correspondence with Heisenberg, who both commented on drafts of Stapp's paper and was a huge player in forming the CI. In the first reply, Heisenberg writes:
"I agree completely with your view that the Copenhagen interpretation is not itself a complete overall world view. It was never intended to be such a view."

Now, in addition to the fact that the CI is regarded in the literature as somewhere in between a myth that never existed and a vague & vaguely wrought interpretation of measurement as well as the wave-function, nothing in the writings of its would-be founders suggest that things exist only in the "instant of observation".

Spoiler: On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood

On the continuum of interpretations of the CI from "myth" to mostly meaningless and/or misunderstood see e.g.,

Camilleri, K. (2009). Constructing the myth of the Copenhagen interpretation. Perspectives on science, 17(1), 26-57.

Howard, D. (2004). Who invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 669-682.

Schlegel, R. (1970). Statistical explanation in physics: The Copenhagen interpretation. Synthese, 21(1), 65-82.

Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267.

Busch, P., Lahti, P. J., & Mittelstaedt, P. (1996). The Quantum Theory of Measurement (Lecture Notes in Physics). Springer.

Teller, P. (1980, January). The projection postulate and Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (pp. 201-223). Philosophy of Science Association.

Dickson, W. M. (1998). Quantum Chance and Non-Locality: Probability and Non-Locality in the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

Jaeger, G. (2014). Quantum Objects Non-Local Correlation, Causality and Objective Indefiniteness in the Quantum World (Fundamental Theories of Physics Vol. 175). Springer.

Mittelstaedt, P. (2004). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process. Cambridge University Press.

Norris, C. (2000). Routledge. Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics (Critical Realism: Interventions)

Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.) (1983). Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics). Princeton University Press.

While this is only a tiny sample of my literature and my literature a tiny sample of the literature, it should suffice. Also, while I obviously I can't attach books to posts, if you're interested in any of the papers cited I can upload them here.


However, we observe moth all the time. What we don't observe are certain processes in quantum mechanics, and Bohr's solution was to interpret the quantum realm primarily as a mathematical one because quantum mechanics in one form is a procedure for deriving probabilities of outcomes given a particular preparation of some quantum system. In other words, Bohr (and by extension the CI, and by extension the orthodox/standard interpretation that almost nobody believes) viewed the wave-function as a mathematical entity that should not and cannot be understood physically, because (for him) it made no sense to speak of the properties or nature of a physical system that "collapsed" into a different state independently of the state of the quantum as given by the wave-function. Neither he nor Einstein like this problem with our inability to relate the formalism of quantum mechanics to a physical interpretation, but each "resolved" it differently. Einstein argued that QM was either incomplete or it wasn't a theory of physics (no more a description of reality than classical statistical mechanics).

Nobody argued then or since (well, not in the physics or even philosophy of physics literature, anyway) that the measurement problem or any other aspect of QM meant that matter doesn't exist until measured.



That was true in classical physics. The only difference was that in classical physics it was believe we could obtain arbitrarily(read, perfectly) precise observation values by using sufficiently "gentle" measurements so as not to disturb the system.


There is no way to prove it's there when you observe it either. This has nothing to do with QM and no relation to quantum physics.



This is antithetical to the CI and standard/orthodox interpretations of QM, as well as basically any interpretation of physics that exists apart from some very extreme views held almost entirely by non-scientists (let alone non-physicists).



Quantum nonlocality, and the demonstrations of it that you refer to, require both space and time to be real. In fact, the fundamental observables in QM are the position and momentum operators and Schrodinger's wave-equation evolves over time through space.



No. First, once you do something with e.g., one of two entangled photons or electrons you fundamentally disturb that system making it impossible to then check whether what you did to it affects the other in the same way. Rather, you are confusing measured correlations between entangled systems that show something quite different and that does not imply a causal direction. What EPR, Bell, and finally Aspect (in the first of many empirical realizations of violations of Bell's inequality) showed, along with others later (particularly Gisin) was that given certain assumptions, particularly realism, the correlations between space-like separated quantum systems couldn't be explained via hidden variables.


Then we'd be living an infinite-dimensional mathematical space with an inner product. In classical physics, the mathematical representation of systems and their observable properties exist in what we call the phase space of the system. However, for every observable in the phase space (momentum, position, velocity, mass, energy, etc.) there is a direct, one-to-one correspondence with the value obtained by measurement and the property of the system. In QM, these observables are never represented by values but by Hermitian operators (they are mathematical functions used to extract information via the statistical structure of quantum mechanics). There is no one-to-one correspondence as in classical physics, and the standard interpretation is that QM is irreducibly statistical.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the basics of modern physics, including QM. I'm curious what kind of sources you're using.

I've provided you some real sources you can use to educate yourself.

 

[roger1440]

It is the absence of God that is chaos.

 

[Gambit]

Ah. Wikipedia again. And I just wrote on this:


I've provided you some real sources you can use to educate yourself.

"The central feature of the quantum theory is indeterminism. The old physics linked all events in a tight chain-mesh of cause and effect. But on the atomic scale the linkage turns out to be loose and imprecise. Events occur without well-defined causes."

(source: pg. 135, "The Myth Matter" by Paul Davies - physicist and noted writer on popular science)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Note that you referred to determinism, which is what I originally said in my post that quantum "randomness" referred to: ontological indeterminism as opposed to the epistemic indeterminism of classical physics. I have already stated that this is why it is important to define random, and in my reply to you told you how you should understand "random" in quantum physics, and have now provided you with much more. Yet you choose not to learn and appear uninterested in correcting your misconceptions. Tell me, why is the wave-function deterministic? Why are quantum systems described entirely by deterministic models, yet quantum mechanics indeterminate? Can you speak to the mathematical structure that is in no small part what QM consists of (as there is no ready physical interpretation of the formalism)? Do you know or have you ever used this formalism?

 

[Thief]

Let's try....chaos as an action not predictable.....just repeating.

 

[Gambit]

Note that you referred to determinism, which is what I originally said in my post that quantum "randomness" referred to: ontological indeterminism as opposed to the epistemic indeterminism of classical physics. I have already stated that this is why it is important to define random, and in my reply to you told you how you should understand "random" in quantum physics, and have now provided you with much more. Yet you choose not to learn and appear uninterested in correcting your misconceptions.

I am the one who is correcting you of your misconceptions.

"The essence of quantum randomness is simply this: identical physical situations give rise to different outcomes. Once you get down to the quantum randomness level, no further explanation is possible. You can't go any deeper because physics stops here." pg. 118

"Critics who object...fail to appreciate the nature of quantum randomness: identical situations give different results. That's all there is to it. pg. 119

(source: "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert)

 

[Gambit]

Tell me, why is the wave-function deterministic? Why are quantum systems described entirely by deterministic models, yet quantum mechanics indeterminate? Can you speak to the mathematical structure that is in no small part what QM consists of (as there is no ready physical interpretation of the formalism)? Do you know or have you ever used this formalism?

The collapse of the wave function is the indeterminate aspect.

However, the advent of quantum mechanics removed the underpinning from that approach, with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically. This comes from the collapse of the wave function, in which the state of a system upon measurement cannot in general be predicted. Quantum mechanics only predicts the probabilities of possible outcomes, which are given by the Born rule.

(source: Wikipedia: Indeterminism)

 

[Brandon Brossett]

Chaos was dealt with in creation, so what y'all are really referring to is the curse bc of sin God cursed the ground

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am the one who is correcting you of your misconceptions.

Yes, because you can read wikipedia and popular science. Tell me, what is represented by the squared mod of the amplitude in QM and how do we use it (hint: this is easy: your reliance on wikipedia should still give you the answer)?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The collapse of the wave function is the indeterminate aspect.

I said, in my original response, that the use of "random" was not "truly random" but merely reflects the ontological indeterminacy in QM (compared to the epistemic of classical physics). I introduced the notion of indeterminacy in my response to your use of "random", because QM isn't "truly random" but probabilistic. All you've done is throw out my response, use the term I originally used, and cite Wikipedia and Davies (you can search my posts, as I've referred to him more than once; while you are at it, you might try learning something about QM as I've explained it here in some detail on multiple occasions).

 

[Gambit]

I said, in my original response, that the use of "random" was not "truly random" but merely reflects the ontological indeterminacy in QM (compared to the epistemic of classical physics). I introduced the notion of indeterminacy in my response to your use of "random", because QM isn't "truly random" but probabilistic.

It's truly random because it's truly probabilistic - at least, according to the Copenhagen interpretation.

"Critics who object...fail to appreciate the nature of quantum randomness: identical situations give different results. That's all there is to it. pg. 119

(source: "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics" by Nick Herbert - physicist)

Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events. It is the opposite of determinism and related to chance. It is highly relevant to the philosophical problem of free will, particularly in the form of metaphysical libertarianism.

(source: Wikipedia: Indeterminism)

In science, most specifically quantum theory in physics, indeterminism is the belief that no event is certain and the entire outcome of anything is a probability. The Heisenberg uncertainty relations and the “Born rule”, proposed by Max Born, are often starting points in support of the indeterministic nature of the universe.[1]

(source: Wikipedia: Indeterminism)

 

[chinu]

Of course, God created all these chaos because it was demand by we people to happen.
With no doubt's God created all these chaos. But, as all this was created on the demand of we people, thus.. he doesn't see himself responsible for this happening.

 

[Thief]

Of course, God created all these chaos because it was demand by we people to happen.
With no doubt's God created all these chaos. But, as all this was created on the demand of we people, thus.. he doesn't see himself responsible for this happening.

Chaos as in ...dominion....by Man.....but not well played?

That portion is Man's fault.....not God's.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It's truly random because it's truly probabilistic

Were we talking about some finite set of outcomes (say, the possible outcomes of the roll of dice), then we can equate such an outcome with randomness. For example, in an idealized roll of dice all possible outcomes are equally likely and the one we get is "random" in both one of the mathematical senses of the word and in the way we generally think of random (i.e., as being utterly, completely unpredictable). We are not, though, and this is obvious merely by seeing the way "random" is defined in physics (both quantum and classical, as classical physics is filled with random outcomes). It pretty straightforward:
“Let us recall some of the basic elements of the mathematics of random processes, because these play an important role in quantum mechanics and the hidden-variables theories sometimes considered as possible alternatives to standard quantum theory. Expectation values are defined for random variables, such as the measurement outcomes in experiments on quantum systems; a random variable is a measurable deterministic function from a given sample space S, that is, the set of all possible outcomes of a given experiment, the subsets of which are known as events with those containing only a single element being the elementary events, to the real numbers” (emphases added; italics in original)
Jaeger, G. (2009). Entanglement, information, and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Springer.

Note that
1) Random variables "such as measurement outcomes" are defined by expectation values. Consider the normal probability distribution (the bell-shape graph). Sampling from some population normally distributed is probabilistic but most certainly isn't "random" in the colloquial sense. Human height, for example, is at least approximately normally distributed. Thus if I sample at random from the population of humans I expect my sample to include people whose height is near the "average" (the expectation value), and not people who are extremely short or tall.
2) In order for measurement outcomes in experiments on quantum systems" to have an expectation value, we require in advance that there be particular possible outcomes, some of which are very unlikely and others that are very likely.
3) Not that, as in elementary probability a random variable is given by a "deterministic function." This is why random variables and random events occur all the time in classical physics. By "random" we mean "a known set of mutually exclusive outcomes from some sample space that determines exactly the probability of any event/outcome of a 'random variable' distributed according to a probability function." We do not mean "truly random."

To make this more clear, I scanned and cropped a question from an elementary quantum physics textbook:

Note especially part (b) of the question, which asks us to find the probability of locating a quantum "particle" given its wave-function. Were QM "truly random", this question would be meaningless. The probability of finding the particle in any interval would be "truly random" and thus 1/n for discrete outcomes and 0 for continuous.

Which is why it is better to think not in terms of random but likelihood or statistics:
“What quantum mechanics ‘adds up to’ is that it is an irreducibly statistical theory”
Silverman, M. P. (2008). Quantum superposition: counterintuitive consequences of coherence, entanglement, and interference. Springer.

at least, according to the Copenhagen interpretation.

"it is, according to the orthodox interpretation, meaningless to speak of the state of the system as having any definite value of the observable at all."
Schlosshauer, M. (2005). Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(4), 1267.


I uploaded at least two papers for you on demonstrating that there really is no such thing (both referred to it as a myth). However, to the extent that it is meaningful to refer to the CI or the standard/orthodox view, we still find you are wrong. You've confused indeterminacy with randomness and the colloquial sense of "random" with the "random" of mathematics (as used in both classical and quantum mechanics). The standard/orthodox interpretation holds quantum systems to be mathematical entities we form by transcribing the preparation of some system into the formalism of QM such that after an experiment we can relate the outcomes to the mathematical formalism using the statistical structure of quantum mechanics:
"The standard interpretation of the wavefunction was that its mod-square provided the particle’s probability density, and both Einstein and de Broglie strongly objected to this interpretation: de Broglie continued to be convinced that his waves were real, material things, not mathematical devices for computing probabilities."
Binney, J., & Skinner, D. (2014). The Physics of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

 

[`mud]

hey Legion,
WOW ! that was quite inventive, now I'm really impressed.
CL ? QM? endless progressions of inventive hypothesis.
Where to start and where to end, confusing to me.
I'm going to read it again..........
now in the meantime I'll ask some simple questions...
in the next post.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

Do most people believe that the Big Bang really happen ?
Now given that thought, did God cause the Big Bang ?
Now with that thought, why do collisions amongst galaxies occur ?
If the Big Bang started at one infinitely small point,
with God or without,
and everything from the Bang screaming in all directions away from the source,
how can there be any collisions ?
From where does the chaos come ?
~
I have to believe that there are collisions in the Cosmos amongst galaxies,
and between a lot of things that are in motion, from all different directions.
Are these collisions really chaos ?
Or did God do it all ?
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

Forgive me.... I'm still confused !!
~
'mud

 

[Gambit]

Were we talking about some finite set of outcomes (say, the possible outcomes of the roll of dice), then we can equate such an outcome with randomness. For example, in an idealized roll of dice all possible outcomes are equally likely and the one we get is "random" in both one of the mathematical senses of the word and in the way we generally think of random (i.e., as being utterly, completely unpredictable). We are not, though, and this is obvious merely by seeing the way "random" is defined in physics (both quantum and classical, as classical physics is filled with random outcomes).

You obviously don't understand the difference between a pseudorandom process and a truly random one. Hopefully the following definitions will help you to understand the difference.

A pseudorandom process is a process that appears to be random but is not. Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process.

(source: Wikipedia: Psuedorandomness)

A random process is a sequence of random variables describing a process whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions.

(source: Wikipedia: Randomness)

Quantum mechanics describes a truly random (not a pseudorandom) process (at least according to the Copenhagen or standard interpretation of QM). We can predict the probabilities of a quantum event, but we cannot predict the actual outcome of one. This is not due to our ignorance, but to the fact that quantum events are truly random events. That is, they occur by pure chance without any cause.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if you place a single unstable atom in a controlled environment, you cannot predict how long it will take for the atom to decay—only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

(source: Wikipedia: Randomness)

 

[Ouroboros]

Forgive me.... I'm still confused !!
~
'mud

Confusion is the ultimate randomness. Perhaps confusion is causing chaos? In other words, you're chaos, Mud!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You obviously don't understand the difference between a pseudorandom process and a truly random one. Hopefully the following definitions will help you to understand the difference.

I do, actually. Because the word "random" goes back to Middle English and featured prominently in debates over the nature of chance, cause, and probability from the early modern period onward, "pseudorandom" is from computability theory:
From the OED:
"pseudorandom, adj.

Pronunciation:
Brit. /ˌs(j)uːdə(ʊ)ˈrandəm/ , U.S. /ˌsudoʊˈrænd(ə)m/
Etymology: < pseudo- comb. form + random adj.

Math.

Satisfying one or more statistical tests for randomness but produced by a reproducible mathematical procedure.

1949 Seminar on Sci. Computation, Nov. (International Business Machines) 104/2 A random number c lying between 0 and 1 is selected from a store, or a pseudo~random number c lying between 0 and 1 is computed arithmetically.

1954 Jrnl. Assoc. Computing Machinery 1 88 It is desirable that the machine..be able to manufacture its own random or pseudo-random numbers.

1973 Sci. Amer. May 19/1 The recipient of a coded message can then be provided with a generator that operates exactly like the one used to add pseudorandom digits to the original message.

1977 Aviation Week & Space Technol. (Nexis) 25 July 22 The joint program office..uploaded navigation data into the satellite by readjusting the phasing of the pseudo random noise signal.

1999 R. Bloch in I. B. Cohen & G. W. Welch Makin' Numbers iii. 201 He had recently obtained a systems patent embodying a number-theoretical technique for generating a pseudo-random sequence of digits of huge periodicity."

Also, as computability theory related to my field (and I find it interesting anyway) I happen to know that even here there are different kinds of randomness. The most well-known is Martin-Löf, but we also have Schnorr randomness, Demuth randomness, non-monotonic randomness, computable randomness, weak randomness (and variants), not to mention the entire class of constructs of "relative randomness".

Quantum mechanics describes a truly random (not a pseudorandom) process (at least according to the Copenhagen or standard interpretation of QM).

The fact that you know no more about computability theory than quantum physics or its development doesn't license the misuse of concepts from both. In particular, you haven't even supplied any indication you are aware of what the Copenhagen interpretation is, its relationship to the orthodox/standard interpretation, and why (as in the papers I uploaded for you) it is generally held to be either a myth or just plain vague but in its most consistent form renders your statement nonsensical.

According to the CI/standard interpretaion, insofar as the one feature shared by various descriptions of it is the statistical interpretation, randomness isn't a feature of nature but a consequence of QM's mathematical structure; the mathematical/formal transcription of the system prepared in a particular way to the outcomes of values from the application of "observable" operators after measurement of specified kinds to obtain values. This gives us the same kind of results as classical statistical mechanics except that indeterminism is built into this process rather than being a result of complexity. However, as the CI/standard interpretation holds that quantum systems are basically probability functions that allow us to predict the outcomes of particularly prepared systems with specified measurements, the "randomness" is procedural. It is a product of the statistical structure of the theory.

We can predict the probabilities of a quantum event, but we cannot predict the actual outcome of one.

According to the standard interpretation there are no actual quantum events, there is only the values obtained by applying observable operators to measurements and relating these to the methods of preparation. This gives us a particular method of generating necessarily probabilistic outcomes that are indeterministic, but does not (and a central motivation for the CI was to ensure this) mean that there is anything about the physical world that is random.

That is, they occur by pure chance without any cause.

There are several models of causality that are consistent with QM indeterminism, and you should know that not all physicists believe QM is indeterministic. Regardless, unless you want to apply algorithmic randomness (in which case classical physics is filled with randomness), then you still don't get QM by confusing a modern class of definitions of random with "truly random".