• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I remember watching a lecture about probability, and the professor said that only quantum processes are really random, the rest of things that we call random is just the human inability to measure the variables that affects the random outcome. I’m an actuarie, and it’s made me change the perspective on how I see and study random processes and how it made think on ways to influence the outcome of random processes.

      • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Even quantum just appears random I think. it’s beyond our scope of perspective, it works in multiple dimensions. we only see part of the process. That’s my guess though it could be totally wrong

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          it’s a matter of interpretation, but generally the consensus is that quantum measurements are truly probabilistic (random), Bell proved that there can’t be any hidden variables that influence the outcome

          • K0W4L5K1@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Interpretation for sure. Bells theory and then it being proven winning a Nobel prize to me only proves more we really don’t understand the world around us and only perceive what we need to survive. And that maybe we should be less standoffish to ideas that change our current paradigm, because we obviously have a lot to learn.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Bells inequality is a statement about math, it gives an inequality that could only be violated if there were no local hidden variables (read: if measurements were truly random). That was a statement of math, which is rigorously provable. It took experimental confirmation, but we can now say with high confidence that there are no local hidden variables (i.e. there is no information hidden that we simply cannot measure, instead the outcome is only decided the moment you measure).

              Global hidden variables are still an option, but they would require much of the rest of physics to be rewritten

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        …which is kind of a hilarious tautology, because “quantum processes” are by definition “processes that we are unable to decompose into more basic parts”.

        The moment we learn about some more fundamental processes being the reason for a given process, it stops being “quantum” and the new ones become “it”.