Randomness at what level?

How does it make sense that there is a difference between the quantum level and then it balances out, after all if everything is random how does it balance out on high scales?!

B.
I see that an electron is half a micron 10^-15, and an atom is also less than a micron 10^-12
And so is a basic molecule. So it is enough for a few random events to mess up the amino acid. And in every living cell there are about 20 amino acids.

You'll probably forgive me if I don't give a course in physics and statistics here. There are a lot of things that don't make sense to someone who doesn't understand the field, and that's only natural.

Okay if the scientist says.

Is it agreed upon by everyone though? Because I saw, for example, regarding free choice that Karl Popper tries to build on the randomness of quantum mechanics.

No. There are those who wanted to hang free choice on quantum. I explained in the article and the book why they are wrong. But everyone agrees that if there are many random occurrences, it reduces their impact, not increases it (the law of large numbers).

It is clear that it is impossible to say that the mechanism of free choice is quantum, but if it were at the level of quantum processes, it would mean that there is no determinism there, and then it would be possible to claim that there is free choice and not randomness, but it is impossible to see this free choice empirically (one can see that the distribution of behavior is like random, but that is true anyway). Since this is not the case, free choice forces us to believe that it is observable at some level, meaning that with sufficiently sophisticated means it would be possible to see activity in the brain that goes against the laws of physics. It seems to me that this is what “some people wanted” wanted to achieve, but as you said, it doesn’t work because the neurons are too big.

Not accurate. If it were on the relevant scale, it would be randomness, but randomness is not free choice either. The distribution determines the outcome. If that were the case, then in principle quantum theory would fail because the outcomes would not be distributed according to what it determines, but according to people's choices.

Indeed, quantum theory can affect biological scales, it seems from the Davidson Institute. Like mutations. And not according to the rabbi's method.
Who is right? ;)?

Moshe
V’, 08/18/2017 – 11:03

…Is it possible that the scales of quantum mechanics can cause such changes [on abogenesis/mutations]?
Or are the scales of randomness much smaller that they can affect abogenesis/mutations at all? (With reasonable probability, without finding Schrödinger's cat or a ball going through the wall)…

Avi Sayeg
A’, 08/20/2017 – 09:20
I forwarded

Hi Moshe, I forwarded your question to Dr. Yossi Elran – who is a greater expert than me in the field of quantum mechanics (which he still researches today). This is the answer he wrote to me (I don't know if you'll like it 🙂 )
“In principle, quantum phenomena on a microscopic scale definitely affect scales on a macro scale. For example, the particle-wave duality together with the collapse of the wave function upon observer intervention are responsible for the observed results (in our world!) of the Young experiment. Quantum mechanics explains the spectrum of all substances, etc.
Of course, this is a philosophical question. What is the difference between an "explanation" and a "cause"?
It is certainly possible that a possible explanation for the mutation phenomenon on the biological scale originates in quantum mechanics. But as mentioned, it may not and has not yet been found. The comment is true for every unexplained phenomenon in the world, so it doesn't have that much meaning…”

http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/askexpert/chemistry/%D7%9E%D7%94%20%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%A8%20%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99%20%D7%A2%D7% 9C%20%D7%A4%D7%99%20%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA%20%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A 7%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%9D%3F%20%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%99

What does the rabbi think?

Sorry, this is a misunderstanding. It is clear that we see quantum phenomena on a macroscopic scale (such as the spectrum of materials, semiconductor phenomena, etc.). What we do not see are phenomena of randomness or uncertainty, such as in the two-slit experiment.
The Young experiment is generally in optics. Its equivalent in electrons deals with single electrons, which is a sufficiently small scale, and therefore quantum uncertainty is really seen there (and even there it is only if you go down to tiny resolutions of distance). Beyond that, in a Yang-like experiment, the experimenter prepares the system in a very deliberate and sophisticated way to obtain the quantum result. This can also happen to Schrödinger's cat, since there too a laboratory experiment is prepared by humans who go to great lengths to do so (and usually still fail). But to say that processes that occur naturally at room temperature without a guiding hand have quantum phenomena of uncertainty is, in my opinion, devoid of any theoretical or practical basis (except for liquids and conductors, and both of these exceptions occur at much lower temperatures). To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing.

I saw today that an answer was received regarding this:

“The answer in the body of the Torah
Quantum theory deals with the interesting phenomena that occur in the very tiny world, and therefore it is clear that one must look at the very tiny world to see them. This is also the reason that the theory was not created until the 20th century, when measuring instruments were sufficiently developed to see all kinds of strange phenomena. As mentioned, even the color of materials heated in fire (spectrum of materials) is a quantum phenomenon that is projected onto the larger world, atomic clocks actually work on a quantum phenomenon – and are again measured in the macro, large world. Regarding statistical quantum uncertainty phenomena – which occur at room temperature without human contact, there are: for example, in ammonia gas, the shape of the molecule is like a kind of umbrella or pyramid, and it is constantly undergoing inversion – like an umbrella that is flipped over in the wind. According to classical energy calculations – it shouldn’t do this, the energy barrier is too high, but the nitrogen atom undergoes quantum tunneling from side to side between the two stable states, this is a probabilistic quantum process: a particle passing through a ‘wall’ / barrier that it shouldn’t pass through at all, with a certain probability of some of the collisions. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_inversion
Again, to measure this you need sophisticated equipment, but there is no experiment with restrictive conditions done by a human here but a natural quantum phenomenon that occurs all the time without human intervention or planning at room temperature. (So this closes the point ‘Do quantum phenomena of uncertainty occur at room temperature without a guiding hand’).
Regarding the implications of uncertainty on the macro world: I personally heard a few years ago in a lecture about one of these from an Israeli scientist: The lecture was generally about short laser pulses. That is, a laser that operates for a short fraction of a second (a picosecond – that is, one part in a trillion, and even a femtosecond – one part in a thousand trillion), now a laser is supposed to emit a very pure single wavelength (light of only one color) – and that is the situation, but as soon as they went down to short pulses they noticed a strange phenomenon: as if the laser had “broken down”, and started emitting a wide range of wavelengths (say – not only green, but also a little yellow and blue). And the reason is quantum, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that suddenly comes into play, as soon as the pulse becomes short in time it inevitably becomes wide in energy (expressed in the emission of many wavelengths).
Kind regards
Dr. Avi Saig
Davidson Institute for Science Education
Weizmann Institute of Science

“

We keep coming back to irrelevant examples. I mentioned phenomena on liquids and on conductors in my remarks.
I haven't checked the ammonia gas example, but I think it's produced by the Haber-Bosch process, which is a meticulous process done by humans. The same goes for laser pulses. It's a very controlled process that lasts a very short time (and I assume at temperatures far from room temperature). You can't escape it.
Beyond that, he himself says that to measure it you need very sophisticated equipment. Did the Grant couple who measured the elongation of the Galapagos pelican's beak use particle accelerators? This strange comparison is completely absurd.

You referred me to Wikipedia. See what they write there about ammonia gas:

For nitrogen inversion to occur:

the nitrogen atom must have one lone pair, and
both isomers must not be under significant strain
(or at least their strain is comparable)

As every physicist knows, a macroscopic quantum phenomenon requires a very large correlation range between the microscopic degrees of freedom. Such a range does not arise naturally. It simply does not happen, and certainly not at room temperatures that destroy this coherence, and certainly not without human touch.
But none of this matters, because even if you find such a case (and so far, as far as I know, no one has found one), anyone who claims that all of the evolution around us is the result of quantum randomness does not know what chess is. People are looking for randomness in candles, and are investing billions to produce it in the laboratory (like Schrödinger's cat experiment), and certainly not at room temperature. According to the author, this randomness appears all the time in the world around us, from the beak of a porcupine to the tails of a lizard (much larger than a single cell, and certainly a single molecule). Schrödinger's cats surround us on all sides and we haven't noticed. This is complete absurdity. I must say that this hallucination is based on much greater speculation than the speculation about the existence of a Creator (if we're already talking about heavenly teapots): the second thesis has no scientific indication, but for the first, all scientific indications say that it is impossible and does not exist. The wonders of atheistic apologetics.

I will just mention one more thing, that I am not making a god of the gaps argument, meaning that the existence of God is due to a gap in scientific understanding. The physico-theological argument remains valid even if a scientific explanation is found for the entire evolutionary process. Therefore, this entire discussion is irrelevant on a substantive level. In other words, this is a scientific, not a theological, argument.