New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Ontological and epistemological doubt, quantum, and probability

שו”תCategory: generalOntological and epistemological doubt, quantum, and probability
asked 1 year ago

Hello Mikhi, in the liberal sciences you say that there is epistemological doubt that we do not know what reality is. And in a vague reality it is ontological doubt because reality is unclear and not that we lack knowledge about reality. If we have epistemological doubt we can use probability and then we can know what the percentage is that something was like a cube. But if reality is vague then we cannot say what the probability is because there is no probability, like the law of large numbers or in chaos, but it is truly random. But in quantum it is “ontological doubt” and we do use probability. How exactly is this possible? And doesn’t that indicate that it is epistemological doubt and not ontological?


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 2 weeks ago
You are mixing two different planes. In a superposition state, there is a combination of two states in some mixture. There is no probability here. When you make a measurement, you will get one of the two pure results, and the chance of that is the coefficients of the mixture. Here the coefficients represent probabilities. Before the measurement, it is ambiguity and after it is probability.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מקס replied 1 year ago

So superposition is a state that exists but cannot be measured?

מיכי Staff replied 1 year ago

True. But you can tell he was, like in the two-crack experiment.

מקס replied 1 year ago

Or are there hidden variables that we're not aware of, right?

מיכי Staff replied 1 year ago

This is a possibility that has not yet been completely rejected.

מקס replied 1 year ago

How could it possibly be rejected? But Schrödinger's cat is exactly saying that there are such variables unless you tell me that the measurement changes something, and I don't know why but it feels less likely to me that our measurement changes something in the quantum. No?

דוד ש. replied 1 year ago

Probability is about the results of the measurement.
I once heard that the French name for the wave function (or a similar concept from the field) uses the word densite – density (as in density function) and I think that is a great way to look at superposition. As if (or not as if) the particle is everywhere with varying density and where it is most dense – it is most likely to be measured

דוד ש. replied 1 year ago

“Likely to measure” – after the collapse of the wave function.
It is not meant “Likely to measure” – its location will be revealed

Leave a Reply

Back to top button