The Uncertainty Principle, Day and the Cosmological View
Good afternoon!
The accepted interpretation of the uncertainty principle is that there is indeed no causality at the subatomic level.
And so K. Lee: 1- How can we assume that there is no causality, when causality is not the result of observation, but is forced upon our cognition a priori, and so on?
On what basis was it decided that there are no reasons, and at most we claim that we are unable to identify what they are?
2- To the extent that we do learn that only in the macro world is there causality (which is generally only statistical), the cosmological view falls apart, because
Is there no reason to assume that there is? That is, all causality exists in our perception of the world only on an everyday level.
3- Some argue that there is no need to argue about the choice of determinism because of the uncertainty principle. And that to the extent that this is used to justify
Questions of causality, so it is claimed that there is no causality at all on the cosmological view, and how can one dance on two weddings?
Isn’t it simpler to assume that there is causality, and it is still possible to intervene and change it (although I suppose Heisenberg had good reasons to deny it)?
Thanks, Bra!
. I never said anywhere that it is forced upon us. God is also without cause. I said that the truth of the principle of causality is a priori. That does not mean that it is certain or necessary nor that it has no exceptions. It is still the default.
2. As above. In my opinion, there is also causality in quantum mechanics, just not in the conventional sense. I explained in the science of freedom and God playing dice. First, the quantum nature of the world is a cause, second, there is a distribution of the results, and this is itself a cause.
3. I didn’t understand the question. In the liberal sciences I explained that quantum has nothing to do with the question of choice.
In the S”D
The rabbi wrote that the body of the statistical distribution in our case (distribution of results) is the cause. But does that only mean that in nature itself there is no cause at all, but only in us from the side of the phenomenon so that we can get along, but there is no causality at all in nature itself?
No. A distribution indicates something in nature. Think of an unfair die, where the distribution of results is a quarter chance of an even result and three quarters of an odd one. Why does this happen? Because the structure of the die (the distribution of weights) is certain.
Compare it to another die with a different distribution, for example a quarter for odd and three quarters for even, this means that the structure of this die is different from the structure of its predecessor.
Every distribution has a root in reality that only describes its results.
So, what is the assumption that there is no causality in quantum mechanics (after all, this is the accepted interpretation)?
I wrote that this is a different kind of causality. It acts on the wave function and not directly on the measurement result.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
