<p>[Determinism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Determinism - Wikipedia ”>Determinism - Wikipedia )</p>
<p>Okay. My argument still stands.</p>
<p>Math is doing the same thing as religion; making sense out of an inherently senseless universe. People just revere it more, and dissenters are deemed as crazy/ignorant ;)</p>
<p>By the way, just because you can predict something (especially mathematically), that doesn’t mean it’ll necessarily come true.</p>
<p>
Because neither a human nor a computer is able to know or analyze all variables and past events.</p>
<p>^Or because, in the end, math requires a leap of faith, and that leap could be wrong at times.</p>
cjgone
April 9, 2011, 1:26pm
46
<p>
In statistical physics, probability is introduced because the system being studied is too complex to analyze all the causes individually. In quantum physics, the probability is a fundamental aspect of the theory.<br>
</p>
<p>Haha, I was debating determinism with someone in one of my classes like a month ago and he also brought up quantum physics. It’s a limitation of our knowledge, not some inherent limitation of the world. 1000 years ago we wouldn’t know the exact position of planets in the sky but now we can. Just limitations.</p>
<p>
Some have argued[21] that, in addition to the conditions humans can observe and the laws we can deduce, there are hidden factors or “hidden variables” that determine absolutely in which order photons reach the detector screen. They argue that the course of the universe is absolutely determined, but that humans are screened from knowledge of the determinative factors. So, they say, it only appears that things proceed in a merely probabilistically determinative way. In actuality, they proceed in an absolutely deterministic way. Although matters are still subject to some measure of dispute, quantum mechanics makes statistical predictions which would be violated if some local hidden variables existed. There have been a number of experiments to verify those predictions, and so far they do not appear to be violated, though many physicists believe better experiments are needed to conclusively settle the question.
</p>
<p>[Determinism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Determinism - Wikipedia ”>Determinism - Wikipedia )</p>
<p>
In theoretical physics, Bell’s theorem (a.k.a. Bell’s inequality) is a no-go theorem, loosely stating that: no physical theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics
[Bell’s</a> theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell’s_theorem]Bell’s ”>Bell's theorem - Wikipedia )</p>
<p>
In the context of quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a term that has been used for the concept that the universe is completely deterministic. It is one of a few attempts to show that a local hidden variable theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, which if proven, would create a theoretical escape route from Bell’s theorem.</p>
<p>Bell’s theorem assumes that the types of measurements performed at each detector are chosen independently of each other and of the hidden variable being measured. But in a truly deterministic theory, this would not be the case. Although the experimenters might believe they are making a free and independent choice, their choices are really predetermined by the laws of physics. Since the types of measurements at each detector can be known in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light.</p>
<p>John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:[1]
</p>
<p>[Superdeterminism</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism]Superdeterminism ”>Superdeterminism - Wikipedia )</p>
<p>Not that I understand Bell’s theorem very well, but it seems that if it is true (which it supposedly most likely is) than it puts to rest the possibility of other “hidden variables” or underlying deterministic processes being behind the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics.</p>