How flexible is the principle of causality?

[tor]

It sounds like I agree, but sorry if I'm a bit dense, what's "decided upon the action" supposed to mean?

I have a random number generator in front of me.
I click the button and it shows me a random number.
True random generator shows me number which does not exist until I press the button.
The determinist number generator shows me number which was generated some time ago.

[Alex K]

It sounds like I agree, but sorry if I'm a bit dense, what's "decided upon the action" supposed to mean?

I have a random number generator in front of me.
I click the button and it shows me a random number.
True random generator shows me number which does not exist until I press the button.
The determinist number generator shows me number which was generated some time ago.

Thanks. Ok, yeah, it's hard to tell the difference in practise. In theories, some explicitly tell you where the information in your "random" number came from (deterministic interpretations of QM) and others prescribe complete agnosticism towards this. I would argue that the Copenhagen interpretation describes natural processes as being truly random, since it denies that there exists anything in nature carrying this information. But this is something I'd like to discuss deeper.

[tor]

It has nothing to do with carrying information.
All uncertainty principle is telling us that we can't measure quanta properties without affecting it which is why we can't know for sure both position and momentum. It tells us NOTHING about if movement of particles is TRULY random or deterministic in nature. But since we can't measure that it will remain a mystery forever.

[Alex K]

It has nothing to do with carrying information.
All uncertainty principle is telling us that we can't measure quanta properties without affecting it which is why we can't know for sure both position and momentum. It tells us NOTHING about if movement of particles is TRULY random or deterministic in nature. But since we can't measure that it will remain a mystery forever.

I agree that we will not know, unless we discover a way to measure hidden variables. But I'm saying - in the framework of the copenhagen interpretation, what is its stance?

[tor]

It has nothing to do with carrying information.
All uncertainty principle is telling us that we can't measure quanta properties without affecting it which is why we can't know for sure both position and momentum. It tells us NOTHING about if movement of particles is TRULY random or deterministic in nature. But since we can't measure that it will remain a mystery forever.

I agree that we will not know, unless we discover a way to measure hidden variables. But I'm saying - in the framework of the copenhagen interpretation, what is its stance?

To know if true randomness is possible you must disprove determinism completely. And to do that you must measure all the data there is which is not possible in my opinion.
As for copenhahen principle hawking thinks it's determined. But it's just speculation both ways. I have no idea if it's determined or not.

[Alex K]

As for copenhahen principle hawking thinks it's determined. But it's just speculation both ways. I have no idea if it's determined or not.

Do you by any chance have a reference handy, that would interest me

[tor]

http://www.sociology.org/featured/when-y...eterminism

[Alex K]

http://www.sociology.org/featured/when-y...eterminism

Ok, so if I read the quotes correctly, he does not think at all that the quantum physics (Copenhagen interpretation?) is deterministic in the conventional sense, they just widen the definition of determinism to include predictions of probabilities, but seem to admit that clockwork-like determinism is out of the window.

But that sounds way too simplistic, as you rightly say, impossibility of prediction in the theory does not reliably tell us that it is impossible in a more complete theory, or that there may be determinism in nature that is simply hidden from our view.

I can but suspect that those are simplified statements for a popular science book, and the discussion in this thread is actually deeper than what can be read from these blurbs.

[tor]

The discussion is that there is not even hypothetical known way to distinguish probabilistic universe from a deterministic one.
How do you tell the difference between chance which is set and stone and real one? There is no way to tell the difference.

[Alex K]

The discussion is that there is not even hypothetical known way to distinguish probabilistic universe from a deterministic one.
How do you tell the difference between chance which is set and stone and real one? There is no way to tell the difference.

I think this is undeniable in one direction, but it could be possible to rediscover a deterministic universe, don't you think?