I need some help from Quantum Physics experts. I have heard that quantum physics, if taken as truth, makes determinism impossible, that quantum physics introduces complete and utter randomness. Is this in fact true, that quantum physics actually proves complete and utter randomness? My limited understanding of QP was that it merely states its impossible to know all the causal laws of the universe, assuming they exist, but does not disprove them. Also, isn’t it impossible to PROVE something to happen at random? All that can be proved is that we dont know why it happens, and maybe that we can never know, but not that theres no reason that it happens. Dont you need some level of reason to prove something, so how can you provide a reasonable proof of something happening for absolutely no reason? Its like, if theres a puzzle with a piece missing, I dont see how its ever possible to PROVE that a piece can never be found to complete the puzzle. Only if EVERYTHING is known can we say that something cannot happen because it is not included in that EVERYTHING. This is also an argument for agnosticism and skepticism in general isn’t it? Just food for thought.
I must admit that I know very little about quantum theory. But I was under the same impression as yourself - that quantum theory says that we can’t observe a subject without changing it. I suppose this does have some philosophical implications, but it’s not too important given that philosophy doesn’t need empirical data from observations in order to reach conclusions.
Randomness is another matter though. But I’m not sure how/if quantum theory suggests this.
David Bohm developed a consistent framework for quantum mechanics which is completely deterministic. So far, most scientists lean towards non-deterministic models. I suspect that this issue will undergo major transformations as we approach a unification of QM and general relativity.
So, what, do you think scientists are assuming non-determinism because they simply don’t understand how it works yet? Or do they have valid reasons for their position?
I doubt you’ll find any real quantum theory experts here, I’m afraid. Just us armchair types. 
IMO, the crazy nature of quantum randomness makes predestination seem virtually impossible, but that doesn’t necessarily imply we have freewill. The fact that the universe isn’t predetermined doesn’t automatically mean that we’re choosing our own thoughts and actions, just that they aren’t preset.
The answer to both of those questions could very well be “yes.”
I don’t think anybody actually understands quantum mechanics yet. Yet, I think there are valid reasons for choosing a working model of QM that is non-deterministic. Bohm’s interpretation involves postulating a large number of “hidden variables” which are impossible to directly measure. This is not very satisfying to most physicists, even though Bohm’s predictions are just as accurate as those generated by the more mainstream Copenhagen interpretation.
While I’m just a lay person when it comes to this subject, my own tendency is to suspend judgement. I like the fact that Bohm’s interpretation is out there, even if I don’t think it is necessarily “correct.” I optimistically anticipate a unification of QM and general relativity which will provide a more acceptable deterministic interpretation of QM. Developments in string theory may be moving in this direction.
What I find interesting is that, when faced with seemingly random events, they are assumed to actually be random. Usually science would take the opposite position - that we simply don’t understand how it works yet. I have no concept of how anything could support the idea that anything is truly random.
Why not? Are you allowing your emotions and philosophical view of the Universe to cloud your judgements? Science will have to follow the evidence, even when it leads to conclusions that run counter to what we’d like to see.
Does is greatly disturb you that some things truly could be random?
You misunderstand me. The idea that randomness could be provable bothers me. Not emotionally, but in the sense that I think I have some logical issues with the idea that I haven’t articulated yet.
I’m at a loss as to how I can explain it. I’ll have to think about it.
Edit: Ok, I think my main beef is with the idea of evidence. You can collect evidence that appears random, but you cannot collect evidence that directly supports this idea. Why? Because randomness is simply a rule that generates no evidence other than seemingly random events. Essentially what I’m saying is the idea of randomness cannot be anything other than an assumption.
Socratesisdead, I completely agree with you. Randomness can never be logicly explained. We would need to suspend rationality and logic to accept something as truly random. What is logic without reason? Logic seems to run on the very same causal principles that form the foundation of my deterministic beliefs. So how can we provide reason for something without reason? Its a simple contradiction. Randomness is just illogical by definition it seems to me. Evidence is reason, so like you said, how does one provide evidence for the theory that its occurence has no evidence?
I’m not saying randomness is illogical or impossible, just that we can’t prove it.
You’re welcome to try and convince me of the former though 
Edit: To clarify, I was saying we can’t support the idea of randomness logically. Note that this doesn’t disprove it, it simply says that we can’t prove it.
Not exactly… perhaps random might the wrong word (first of all) because of all the connotations it brings. QM deals with probabilities; where an electron is likely to be and the velocity it is likely to be traveling at. So its not completely random. In fact, I believe it has almost perfectly predicted the outcome of experiments (in that the probabilties work out). So it doesn’t deal with complete chaos, obviously. That might be easier to stomach.
Second, you can have evidence that supports randomness. Of course, it won’t be like “well, we can model this data with our random function, so it must be random.” The evidence more runs like “the more and more accurately we can measure this variable, the less and less accurately we can measure this other one”.
Actually, that’s exactly how it runs. This whole debate has been (determinism vs. nondeterminism in physics) going on for a while, originally kicked off by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in 1927. The UP says that the more accurately we can measure the position of particle (usually an electron) the less accurately we can measure its velocity, and vice versa. (I don’t know how exactly he proved this, but would be interested if anyone else knew.) This is central to QM.
From there, QM it gets into electrons being in mutliple places at once, taking multiple paths to the same place, being entagled with another (possibly sending information instantly, literally, over any distance), and lots of other fun stuff that have all sorts of philosophical implications.
Sorry if I’m just sayin’ what everyone knows already, and for any mistakes I might have made. I’m by no means a ‘physics expert’, but like to read about this kinda stuff.
(Russiantank posted while I was typing)
Godel proved (let’s see if I can remember this right) that any sufficiently powerful system cannot prove both its consistancy and completeness. That is to say, if it proves its consistancy, it can’t be known if its complete. If it proves its completeness… (I;m sure someone’s gonna get mad at me for misrepressenting, or misusing, but whatever).
uh, does that speak for itself, or shall I say more?
ah! ok, sounds good. but you can supply evidence for it (which is what I thought you were opposing at first).
then again, can you really prove anything 
(ignore that last comment)
Well, yea, exactly. It would be illogical to accept something as absolutely random. You can accept at as “might as well be random” in that we dont know, so lets consider it random because theres no other alternative. But since like you said, true randomness can only ever be an assumption, and there can never be any evidence to support the assumption, than it isn’t logical or rational.
Actually I would dispute this too
You can gather evidence that may or may not be caused by random events. But you can’t say for sure that they are caused by random events. That’s my assertion.
I think we’re sort of on the same wavelength here. But let me clarify.
I’m suggesting that it is possible that there is true randomness. But the result of that would be that we couldn’t prove it.
"The evidence more runs like “the more and more accurately we can measure this variable, the less and less accurately we can measure this other one”
Quibles, how exactly does this provide evidence for true randomness? All this shows is that we can never know… Not that this happens for no actuall reason. Science contradicts true randomness as well doesn’t it? Doesn’t science search for laws and rules, and… well… the reason behind phenomena, so how can science provide evidence for something having no law, or having no reason.
Soc,
Ofcourse its possible. But the possibility doesn’t make it logical. So I think its safe to say that randomness as a concept is illogical. Just like I think the religious God concept is illogical. Its possible, but still illogical. So yea, I think we agree.
I’m being picky here, but humour me:
I’m not sure that it violates logic per se. If there is randomness, then that randomness just is and so is outside the scope of logical derivation or analysis. I suppose an essentially random universe might break logic, in that it won’t actually work due to inherent randomness. But illogical infers that it contradicts logic, whereas I don’t think logic can consider randomness.
Hope that sort of makes sense. Logically.
Evidence doesn’t have to prove something, only suggest it. Otherwise nothing could be considered evidence 
Second, if we can’t predict something, if it is unpredictable to us, then what does it matter if it is “truely random”?
Finally, no, science does not search for laws and rules(well, not what you mean by laws anyway). Science describes what is observed and then attempts to predict future behaviour based off those observations. Laws, (more accurately, theories) only describe and predict; they have nothing to do with what is ‘really going on’. For instance, objects do not attract each other because of the theory of gravity, the theory gravity is simply a way to describe and predict how objects will act. Objects do not follow rules, or if they do, we can’t be aware of them (not through science anyway); saying that objects follow rules because they are rules is almost teleological in nature, not scientific.
Bingo. Well, sort of. Deduction can’t handle randomness (I don’t think so anyway). Induction however, if one consistantly fails to predict something outcome, or if something repeatedly follows a pattern of neccesary unknowability so to speak (as in Uncertainty Principle), then one may call it unpredictable, which is for all intents and purposes, random (even if it follows probabilities).
Wait a sec, if, inductively, we determine that something eludes induction, then its random? Hmm…