= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheAncientGeek comments on Is Determinism A Special Case Of Randomness? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (88)
Any "fundamentally" random process can be seen as a deterministic process. Since it will have a single outcome, we can set it as the only outcome possible, and yield a fully deterministic process which is indistinguishable from the original, random, process. In other words, we can say that a fundamentally random process is a deterministic process which relies on hidden variables which are unreachable for us.
Which is why discussions of fundamental indetermimism in QM always involve hidden variables. Proponents of fundamental indetermimism are invoking Occams razor.
OTOH, you can never have certain evidence that a given law is deterministic, only that it holds in t99%, .or 99.9%of cases.