Warren wrote:
Quote:
|
For another, it implies that the quantum realm is unlike anything else in experience: it implies that the quantum realm is naturally indeterministic and apparently partless. Indeterminism and partlessness maybe mathematically simple to model, but they are ontologically huge bells and whistles--it's not at all clear to me at least such an explanation is the more parsimonious.
|
I will agree that parsimony is a tool, not an absolute rule. But I must ask why different realms of experience must be
assumed to follow the same rules, that the rules are scale-invariant (one that comes to mind is symmetry-breaking in the fundamental forces as a function of temperature/energy).
My own wonder-switch is flipped by flipping a coin a thousand or two times and watching the accumulated runs of heads and tails approach the binomial distribution. No matter how you try, as long as you don't cheat the result is the same, a reproducible pattern arising from individually indeterminate outcomes. I think the most I've done is about two thousand.
Now, if you were to argue that the individual flip is in principle predictable if you had a perfect understanding of the masses and forces involved, I suppose we would be back to the origin of the discussion. Or I could use my double-headed quarter.