A human walking through a wall, which is impossible, would violate the very law of identity that makes science and the study of subatomic physics possible. A human cannot walk through a wall and there is no god. Don't let that quantum phantasmagoria replace reason. Just because something appears random to our very young eyes, doesn't mean it actually is. Science, in general, wouldn't make much sense if things could act independent of the forces upon them.
The simple fact is that quantum behaviours do occur and are scientifically demonstrable.
And they also contravene laws of logic.
I think the question that needs answering is why the two principles contradict each other.
This seemingly contradictory evidence only comes about at the limit of our perception, when we look at the very very small and very very precise. Hidden variable, I don't know, but not magic. It can't be shown to contradict the very laws that cognition, conversation and science rely on, which is what walking through a wall suggests.
Of course, 'walking through walls' and 'passing hands through tables' are really just a crude metaphors to help illustrate a much more complex system, as is 'Schrodinger's cat'.
No, certainly not magic. Hidden variable, yes, perhaps. I mean, there must be a hidden variable if we agree that the impossible and magical are not possible.
But, whichever way you spin it, the laws of logic cannot give us any real insight into why, in nature, seemingly paradoxical events do occur which contravene those laws (granted, at the microcosmic level).
If something is going to make sense, then it will be through reason and logic.
so, you're saying any findings in quantum physics must be de facto incomplete because they do not agree with laws of logic?
Current findings are incomplete because they do not agree with the law of identity. I think to acquire an objective understanding of particle physics, it will require ever increasing amounts of energy. A true limit to our perception. I think it makes very little sense, if any, to probe smaller than we can possibly see or to talk about something smaller than a string. I am perfectly OK with QM being a very useful tool to measure extreme metaphysical exactitude, but not as a foundation for epistemology. Since our ability to learn and gain knowledge of the world is dependent on identity.
The randomness is a demonstration of an incomplete theory, not a demonstration of the fallibility of logic.
I think it is very possible that eventually, with advancements in our understanding, say if we are able to measure the geometries of the extra dimensions in string theory, things will stop appearing random.
You make the assumption that there is not a resolution of abstraction as there would be if we were a simulation. hence the the possibilities would not be infinite but just practically infinite.
MCT I agree, absolutely. Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, makes no sense to me ... until he tells stories! OH! I see what he means. Maybe I am capable of understanding you.
MCT, And, reason and logic are necessary and not sufficient to understanding nature. There is more to the story of the universe to be recognized. We have not ended our discovery with reason and logic, there is more to learn. At 75, I won't be around to bear witness to those coming discoveries, but I surely have enough from the past to keep me interested until the day of my last breath.
David, Yes, Why?