0

Does God Play With Dice? by Stephen Hawking

I am no physicists, but I don't get the concept of God playing with dice. Logic shows me that the entire universe is calculated very precisely according to the correct (far more than we know) formulas of physics.

I think that if the universe were to restart today from nothing as an exact replica of it's original origin under the exact same conditions, when the time reached the universe's current age, I would be sitting here again typing up this question.

But if God does indeed play with dice, then this has to be false. It would mean that there are random factors in physics. I'm inclined at this point to believe that any "random" factor in Quantum Physics is simply a factor that hasn't been understood by physicists yet. After all, we're always wrong about something in science.

My question:

In what scenario have physicists observed a truly random factor in quantum physics?

While I was asking for a specific scenario that proves random factors exist in physics, a comment below explained the concept rather nicely, albeit without proving an observable scenario:

I believe that it is accurate to state that if 1) quantum mechanics is true (as it appears to be; the evidence for it to be right is said to be overwhelming) and 2) there are indeed hidden variables or many universes, then 3) "we" in principle cannot and will not (ever) have access to those variables or other universes. Depending on taste you may still consider that indeterministic, as in: in principle (because of QM) unknowable and unpredictable (if even existent) to physicists. – Glen The Udderboat

J.Todd
  • 1,811
  • 3
    The indeterminacy in quantum mechanics is literally everywhere. If you'd bother to look at something as simple as wikipedia, you'd know this. Your hidden variables idea is also old, and Bell's theorem addresses it. I'm voting to close this question for showing insufficient effort. – Danu Oct 27 '14 at 17:11
  • 1
    @Danu I've been thinking about this question for ages, I don't know why it would seem that I haven't put effort into it. I think my question is valid, and my explanation behind it explains what precisely my current understanding is. How could I have improved my question? – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:16
  • I've edited my wording a bit – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:17
  • 2
    This is a very deep question. It certainly looks like what we observe is just chance - but as a matter of philosophy, how can you ever prove that something is truly probabilistic? What does that really mean? "Starting from the same conditions you get the same result" for a deterministic process - but you cannot ever recreate the "same conditions" by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle... – Floris Oct 27 '14 at 17:19
  • @Floris the mere absence of the same conditions is 100% proof. But I don[t understand where that can possibly happen. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:21
  • @Danu I take a different route at physics than Math. I think looking at the logic of physics as a whole, observing things literally (as I do, not liking math very much) is an equally good way of understanding them. Math is just one way of observing physical phenomena. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:23
  • Physics doesn't prove things, it provides a model (e.g. quantum mechanics). There are many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics, some of which are deterministic in a naive sense, but some of those also include a radical reinvention of the meaning of universe, e.g. the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation. The issue with judging interpretations is that - by definition - the difference among them is untestable by experiment and therefore more properly belongs to the philosophy of physics. – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 17:24
  • bottom line, show me how I can improve my question so that it can be answered and I'll change it. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:26
  • 1
    Deal jt0dd, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong for thinking you can skip out on the mathematics and understand what is going on at any serious level. This is precisely because the mathematics is clear and unambiguous: It doesn't allow for opinions like the one you put forth to persist without either a proof or a disproof. – Danu Oct 27 '14 at 17:26
  • @Danu the purpose of the detail in my question is not to try and prove my understandings to be true, but rather to show you my current understanding. The objective is simply to receive an answer to my question which would seem t be a fairly simple one. Whether it be via a mathematical formula or an interpretation of one, that's up to you. I'm not here to debate various subjects brought up in the comments, but to get the answer to my question as simply as possible. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 17:58
  • 1
    There's an implicit assumption with this question that physicists know what the one true physics is. Paraphrasing Tao Te Ching, "the physics that can be described is not the true physics," and that "describes" includes "described mathematically". Scientists of the 16th through 19th centuries liked to think they were discovering the one true physics. Nowadays, physicists lean more toward the opinion they are discovering ever-improving mathematical models of the true physics (whatever that is). – David Hammen Oct 27 '14 at 17:58
  • 1
    I believe that it is accurate to state that if 1) quantum mechanics is true (as it appears to be; the evidence for it to be right is said to be overwhelming) and 2) there are indeed hidden variables or many universes, then 3) "we" in principle cannot and will not (ever) have access to those variables or other universes. Depending on taste you may still consider that indeterministic, as in: in principle (because of QM) unknowable and unpredictable (if even existent) to physicists. – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 18:00
  • @DavidHammen This is only my opinion (based on logic) but I think there must certainly be a tangible model that can describe "true physics", albeit one that may take thousands of years to build correctly. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 18:00
  • @GlenTheUdderboat now that sounds like the 100% beautifully perfect answer to my question, in a single comment. Wow. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 18:01
  • 1
    @GlenTheUdderboat -- Physicists of the mid 19th century thought pretty much the same thing about their physics. 300+ years of experiments showed that it was indeed the one true physics! Then along came Maxwell, Einstein, Planck, and a host of others. Oops. – David Hammen Oct 27 '14 at 18:05
  • @DavidHammen would it be on-topic here for me to ask about the concept that you're talking about? – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 18:08
  • @DavidHammen Are you questioning my 1 or my 2 or my going from 1+2 to 3? If it's 1, then fine, you may question QM being true. If it's 2 or 1+2=3 then I'll challenge you. – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 18:08
  • 1
    @GlenTheUdderboat - Your (1) is the basic problem with science. It relies on inductive reasoning, something that logicians can't stand because it's fundamentally invalid. That science fundamentally works drives logicians even crazier! Your (2) would be better stated as "local hidden variables" rather than "hidden variables." There are some offbeat but definitely not crackpot interpretations of QM such as Bohmian mechanics that allow non-local hidden variables. Your (3) -- What other universes? That's untestable metaphysics. All interpretations of QM have some aspect of metaphysics to them. – David Hammen Oct 27 '14 at 18:39
  • @DavidHammen I think we mostly agree. Except that inductive reasoning is also the explanation of the success of science, which, I repeat, doesn't or claim to (logically) prove anything. About 2: Yes, totally improvable (I think), but also not logically provably false (given QM). (I might add here that Deutsch et al. believe a working quantum computer might be evidence. I don't buy it, but I'm also a layperson. I'm also not well-versed in local vs non-local.) – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 18:44
  • as the authors of the free will theorem observed, "god may not play dice but she doesnt seem to have any problem with free will", as this is mostly where this discussion revolves about – Nikos M. Oct 27 '14 at 18:49
  • @Danu, i will have to disagree (and i'm not stranger to math or science). Let me give you a very simple (but important) example. Group theory would be irrelevant (if not nonsense) if there wrere not physical processes which exhibit the functionality. Not to mention the fact that some (want to) mistake a certain formality with rigor. Btw Goedel et al provided a rigorous answer to that. Anyway 1 cent – Nikos M. Oct 27 '14 at 18:54
  • @GlenTheUdderboat - Maybe too simply put, Bell's inequality says you can't have both locality and causality. The Copenhagen interpretation throws out locality. MWI throws out causality. Bohmian mechanics goes all Alfred E. Neuman on us and asks "can I throw out both?" – David Hammen Oct 27 '14 at 18:56
  • @DavidHammen I believe there are logical loopholes (and I believe there will always be loopholes, making it, even defining it, philosophical). Logic allows for, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism. (But any deeper and I am lost.) – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 18:59
  • Blessed are the believers (and not the researchers :) – Nikos M. Oct 27 '14 at 19:04
  • @NikosM. Fair point. :) I should have written more clearly. My understanding (rather than my belief) is that, logically, there will always be such logical loopholes. (Which, I think, sort of puts me at the other end of the spectrum: a non-believer.) – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 19:09
  • @GlenTheUdderboat, you are right my comment was inspired by yours (but not only, whle discussion revolves here). Second althouhg i understand what you mean, i would disagree with the phrasing as it implies some "fundemental residual inconsistencies", while i would use an evolutionary/dynamic approach – Nikos M. Oct 27 '14 at 19:12
  • @NikosM. Well, let me disagree with that. What kind of logic equates unknowability with inconsistency? – Řídící Oct 27 '14 at 19:15
  • @GlenTheUdderboat, true i understand. Sometimes a subtle variation is used as a truism for what i described above – Nikos M. Oct 27 '14 at 19:20
  • I have to agree completely with Danu; there's no way to truly understand or even appreciate physics without the bedrock which is mathematics. Also, @NikosM, group theory would not be 'nonsense' if it didn't arise in physical systems. – JamalS Oct 27 '14 at 20:42
  • 1
    @JamalS I disagree. Mathematics are simply a written interpretation of physics. One can contemplate any given mathematical model in physics as a three dimensional representation of that model in action. Furthermore, one can reach that understanding without ever creating the mathematical model in the first place, as three dimensional thought / imagination. Mathematics is simply a more efficient method to record and manipulate such models. Math, after all, is simply the manipulation of logical reality, via written symbols. Mathematics are not "the bedrock" of physics, simply our chosen method. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 21:12
  • @Danu ^ I disagree. – J.Todd Oct 27 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    @jt0dd You're saying everything in physics is tractable with the use of 'imagination' and 'three dimensional thought'? That's simply incorrect, and mathematics is more than an 'efficient method' to develop these models. It's simply indispensable; how on earth can you describe Calabi-Yau manifolds, conformal field theories, or countless other rich topics in physics without mathematics? – JamalS Oct 27 '14 at 21:33
  • 1
    Please take this to chat. At this point it has nothing to do with the question. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Oct 27 '14 at 22:18
  • To everyone involved in the discussion: I'll be deleting my comment, perhaps you should consider doing the same (and, as dmckee suggested, we can continue in chat if anyone feels like it) – Danu Oct 27 '14 at 22:31

0 Answers0