(December 1, 2021 at 3:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(November 23, 2021 at 5:48 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You cant rule out pink pixies as well.
You're quoting me out of context. At the macroscopic level, we do have causality. The so-called uncertainty principle in QM implies that we can't have full information of what happens at the subatomic level. This simply means that we can't detect a violation of causality in the first place, that's my point, and that's why QM is irrelevant, it neither clearly confirms nor rejects causality, because as I said above, there is always room for determinism. Acausality in the context of QM means that we are unable to point out the causes of some effect , this certainly doesn't mean that are no causes of these effects.
In other words, you are saying that causality is a matter of faith and, even if the best theory we have suggests otherwise, you will *insist* that there is always a cause.
But the fact of the matter is that to regain causality in the context of quantum mechanics, you need to go to a version of superdeterminism. It isn't just that we cannot detect causality violations, but that the type of hidden variable theories required to have local causation have been excluded via observation.
Not being able to point out a cause is *observationally equivalent* to there being no cause. And, at that point, the best available thoery is the best thing to go with. And that is quantum mechanics, which is ultimately acausal (and non-realist).
There is literally no cause for the timing of a nuclear decay. There is literally no cause for whether a double slit experiment measures spin up or spin down.
Quote:And because the theory of relativity preserves causality, it's reasonable to assume that the principle is correct.
Actually, relativity is a classical theory, and not a quantum theory. It deals with the macroscopic level and not the quantum level (although quantum mechanics does have a special relativistic version--that is acausal).