🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct3.012308.21645@unixg.ubc.ca>, ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay) writes:
> In article <303@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> >In QM there is a disconnect between the theory, which talks only about
> >probabilities, and experimental observations. It is this disconnect
> >that is the source of the problems of interpretation. One literally
> >does not know what one is talking about when one starts discussing
> >inherently random processes, as opposed to statistical models that result
> >from incomplete knowledge or an incomplete model.
> 
> I'm afraid that all I can get out of these comments (and the ones
> which followed) is that you, seemingly, agree with Einstein that "God
> does not play dice with the universe". 

There is no such thing in mathematics as a random process. This is why
interpretations of the QM are needed.  One has to establish a connection
between a model that predicts only probabilities and experimental
observations. No one knows how to do this because there is no mathematical
framework in which to do it.

> But what if the universe just *has* randomly behaving components,
> anyway, in spite of your wanting a theory which is deterministically
> linked to observations?

Physics has gone beyond what can be formalized. Maybe this
is necessary, but at the least it should be reason for concern and doubt.
I regard the assertion that no more complete theory is possible as
antiscientific. I see no difference between it and religious claims that
certain things are God's will and we cannot understand them. Either
assertion may be true, but the success of science depends on assuming they
are false and trying to figure things out.

> What if it there simply is no correct
> deterministic theory? Then asking for a probabilistic theory to be
> "formalized" so as to take the form of a deterministic theory is
> not necessary.

I am not asking that it be formalized to take the form of a deterministic
theory. I am saying only deterministic theories can be formalized with
existing mathematics. Physicists have a theory that cannot be formalized.
Maybe there exist physical effects that are beyond mathematical formalization.
Maybe there will be some new addition to set theory that allow
nondeterministic models to be formalized. I doubt it, but I certainly cannot
prove that either is impossible. I am only saying the existing state of
affairs is a red flag that a problem exists.

Paul Budnik