Even the most carefully controlled experiment can produce some variant results. Perfect clones of an A and a B interacting at the same time, for example, would occur in different space and are therefore subject to non-identical conditions. Similarly, confounding can appear for the same A and the same B interacting the same way at a different time. Because everything is changed by space and time it's impossible to perfectly replicate any scenario.
There is also the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would basically mean that a single cause *has* multiple outcomes. Wild, isn’t it?
Are you asking a question of causality?
Well in that scenario there are interpretations of causation that are locally oriented. It isn’t merely that whenever C, then E, but rather that C causes E given the relevant structural conditions S are met.
For example, there’s a gene in mice known as the agouti gene which does not always activate. But if certain methylation conditions, breastfeeding habits, etc. occur - the baby mice become huge, fat, and have yellow fur. Without those relevant structural factors they just appear as ordinary mice.
I’m unsure if this answers your question as it’s honestly pretty vague.
In practice, trivially yes, because regardless of determinism/indeterminism/whatever, chaotic systems definitely exist, and replicating exactly the same initial conditions is impossible.
In terms of what's mathematically possible, also trivially yes, because non-deterministic dynamic systems can be formulated and quantum mechanics is such a system.
It may not be possible in principle, given this theory or that, but keep in mind that the whole point of applying mathematical models in the natural sciences is to exploit the proof calculus of the metalanguage to compute empirical predictions. For any model to be even remotely useful it therefore must constrain the set of possible outcomes of any initial condition in the appropriate empirical domain.
The face-value fact of causality is simply the fact that it's possible to construct a mapping from an initial condition to a nontrivial probability distribution over possible outcomes at all, and it seems at least superficially like it's always possible to refine a theory such that it can take in more information to produce sharper predictions. Determinism then amounts to the idea that this pattern extrapolates maximally; at some limit, there is some theory that predicts exactly one outcome for any and every situation given all of the necessary information.
This can only be a thought experiment since it's not possible to recreate identical scenarios exactly (or even to know for certain that they are identical). But let's say we have two perfectly isolated identical systems where we observe that cause C produces effect E in one system and effects E and F in the other system. Wouldn't that be the same thing as to conclude that event F occurred spontaneously, without any cause, for no particular reason? The timing could be just coincidence. After all, what defines an event is what it does, so what defines event C is that it produces event E; event F is not needed to define C because in one system it is already fully defined as "what causes E". The occurrence of F in the other system could be seen as unrelated.
At bottom what you’ve asked (given your clarifications elsewhere) is “is it possible for a single cause to produce more than one effect?”
The answer to that is obviously “yes”. Lots of things produce multiple results at once. For example, A + B causes C & D.
I suspect that what you want to ask is whether a given can cause can produce mutually exclusive effects: A + B causes C & ! D and also causes !C & D. But that’s tautologically impossible.
I had to look this up and I’m having to do some reading to deal with it. My first impression is that it is a theoretical curiosity that might not translate well from model to reality. That said, I can’t actually find flaws in it, so I’ll have to think a bit more. It doesn’t seem like a real effect, but I certainly can’t dismiss it.
The Schrödinger equation (the math) is deterministic and shows that instead, quantum interactions produce superpositions. It produces the same outcomes every time. However, any individual who takes a measurement also goes into superposition of having interacted with each branch and found each outcome.
This is completely wrong, the double slit experiment and Quantum Mechanics in general are very often misrepresented. There is no actual literal simultaneous/paradoxical movement through one, the other, or both. The superposition is just a mathematical probability for where it might be. There is zero spiritual/consciousness/woo woo or anything going on here. And the photon is not literally in two places at once. Again, Quantum Mechanics is routinely misrepresented and used to support ideas that in reality it simply doesn’t.
Sure, but quantum fuzziness still has something to say.
Even if QM is deterministic (which I believe is still debated depending on interpretation) the fact that we can never know everything about an event due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means we can't even know if two events are completely identical. OP's question contains a faulty assumptions.
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not a woo woo person (anymore) but had the impression that there is a math that tries explaining superposition which leads to the conclusion of several possibilities happening at once.
You’re welcome! What you’re thinking of, and the fundamental way in which this whole thing is frequently distorted, is a specific philosophical interpretation of the math behind quantum mechanics which fallaciously assumes that the math is a literal picture or representation of what is actually happening in physical, external, objective reality, which it simply isn’t and never was meant to be. The math of quantum mechanics, superposition, etc. is a prediction/measurement tool. That’s it. I suggest looking into how Niels Bohr specifically explained quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, superposition, and all the supposed weirdness surrounding it as he had the most accurate and scientifically grounded understanding of what was actually going on. This all comes down to the fundamental methodology, epistemology, practical limits, and Logical foundations of the scientific method, what science fundamentally is and what it can and can’t tell us.
It’s not. They are. You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re committing the exact error I was pointing to. I’ve heard this all before. In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard. That mathematical interference allows us to predict the final distribution of the dots on the screen. The probability wave is what is interfering on paper. There is no physical wave interfering in the room. To say a probability wave cannot form an interference pattern is to confuse a topographical map for the literal dirt of a mountain. The contour lines on a map can intersect or show elevation, but you can't hike on the paper. The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
Then be specific. Surely if you know what you’re talking about, when I ask you to explain how a probability forms an interference pattern, you aren’t about to run away from the question.
I actually added this to my original comment but you must not have seen it so here you go
In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard. That mathematical interference allows us to predict the final distribution of the dots on the screen. The probability wave is what is interfering on paper. There is no physical wave interfering in the room. To say a probability wave cannot form an interference pattern is to confuse a topographical map for the literal dirt of a mountain. The contour lines on a map can intersect or show elevation, but you can't hike on the paper. The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
> In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard.
What I asked was how probabilities rather than realities produce the real interference patterns that appear in real life.
> There is no physical wave interfering in the room.
Here is the physical wave interfering in the room.
> The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
I guess I’ll try this approach: hypothetically, what would you do if you found out that there really was a physical interference?
I love the map and mountain analogy. Drawing a roadblock on a paper map doesn't physically stop a hiker on a mountain.
Imagine we fire a single physical photon at a beam splitter. It has two physical paths it can take (Path A and Path B) before they merge back together at the end. Because of interference, the photon will always hit detector 1. It will never hit detector 2.
Now, we put a physical brick in path B. We fire another single photon. The photon travels down path A. But suddenly, because path B is blocked, the interference is gone, and the photon has a 50% chance of hitting detector 2.
If the photon went down Path A, and the 'interference' is just math on a chalkboard, how did the physical photon know that we put a physical brick in Path B?
In a purely mathematical model, putting a roadblock on the map doesn't change the dirt on the mountain. But in this experiment, putting a brick in an empty hallway physically forces the photon to hit a different detector. Doesn't that prove that something physically traveled down Path B to "feel" the brick?
By putting in the brick, you are altering the system to such a degree that might not be apparent from your perspective. This changes the conditions of the experiment, and the photon is now interacting with a different setup. On the tiny quantum scale, things effect other things due to movement and energy to degrees that might seem non-local to us, but really aren’t. Furthermore, you are committing the reification fallacy or misinterpreting math as a picture of literal, physical, external reality. The superposition in the math is just an abstract calculation tool on paper.
Wanted to add perhaps the most critical aspect is what you said at the end, yes, something is moving the object. However, what that something is we really don’t know. To assert it is a literal wave, and to assert the math of superposition represents what reality actually is ontologically speaking is a particular philosophical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It is not proven to be “the correct interpretation”. We know the math works functionally, we create technology with it obviously. But there are several competing interpretations of what’s fundamentally going on and you seem to be asserting yours is like the officially proven one, like it’s a forgone conclusion what you’re saying it totally correct ontologically speaking when it’s not.
Your interpretation refers to the explanation of QM you gave and the opinions you espoused which I disagree with. Now, do you care to specifically respond to the specific explanation I gave, that you specifically asked for, which I provided in another reply? You aren’t about to run away from that are you?
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Everything you’re saying is more right than it is wrong. I’m just trying to add some nuance.
What happens is that “the photon” is actually a wave. And waves can be in superpositions — meaning you can take the components of the wave and break them up mathematically. It’s like how a chord in music is a single sound but you can also think of it as two or more different notes being played at the same time.
Different components move through each of the slits and when they interact with a detector (or an observer) it breaks the detector up into its components — sending the detector into superposition of different states as well.
Virtual-Squirrel-725 | 10 days ago
There is no such things as identical A's and identical B's in the real world so you can, and do, get this outcome.
radiodigm | 10 days ago
Even the most carefully controlled experiment can produce some variant results. Perfect clones of an A and a B interacting at the same time, for example, would occur in different space and are therefore subject to non-identical conditions. Similarly, confounding can appear for the same A and the same B interacting the same way at a different time. Because everything is changed by space and time it's impossible to perfectly replicate any scenario.
[OP] spiralrf17 | 10 days ago
Ok, what about in any given singular event. Is it possible that a cause could have multiple outcomes that are random?
cosmopolitanScience | 10 days ago
Yes. Our best description of nature is quantum mechanical, where measurements on identical systems in general give different results.
flasticpeet | 10 days ago
Perhaps Norton's Dome, which outlines indeterminism in classical physics, is what you're looking for?
ipreuss | 10 days ago
There is also the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would basically mean that a single cause *has* multiple outcomes. Wild, isn’t it?
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
Sort of. The outcomes aren’t random in that case. They are deterministic.
What is random is any given answer to the “but which world am I in question”?
ipreuss | 10 days ago
Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that they are probabilistic?
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
No. But many would say that nevertheless.
If you look at the actual math, no probabilities are involved. Instead, superpositions are overlapping components. Both occur.
PvtRoom | 10 days ago
yup.
take a star. take a big planet. get the planet orbiting the star .
at a point between them, the stars gravity and the planets gravity cancel out. put a moon or a planet there.
nudge that moon. - it heads for the sun,, the planet, or it wobbles around.
to a person on the planet: - moon gets any combo of smaller/bigger/behaving oddly
Akaii_14 | 10 days ago
Are you asking a question of causality?
Well in that scenario there are interpretations of causation that are locally oriented. It isn’t merely that whenever C, then E, but rather that C causes E given the relevant structural conditions S are met.
For example, there’s a gene in mice known as the agouti gene which does not always activate. But if certain methylation conditions, breastfeeding habits, etc. occur - the baby mice become huge, fat, and have yellow fur. Without those relevant structural factors they just appear as ordinary mice.
I’m unsure if this answers your question as it’s honestly pretty vague.
Keikira | 10 days ago
In practice, trivially yes, because regardless of determinism/indeterminism/whatever, chaotic systems definitely exist, and replicating exactly the same initial conditions is impossible.
In terms of what's mathematically possible, also trivially yes, because non-deterministic dynamic systems can be formulated and quantum mechanics is such a system.
It may not be possible in principle, given this theory or that, but keep in mind that the whole point of applying mathematical models in the natural sciences is to exploit the proof calculus of the metalanguage to compute empirical predictions. For any model to be even remotely useful it therefore must constrain the set of possible outcomes of any initial condition in the appropriate empirical domain.
The face-value fact of causality is simply the fact that it's possible to construct a mapping from an initial condition to a nontrivial probability distribution over possible outcomes at all, and it seems at least superficially like it's always possible to refine a theory such that it can take in more information to produce sharper predictions. Determinism then amounts to the idea that this pattern extrapolates maximally; at some limit, there is some theory that predicts exactly one outcome for any and every situation given all of the necessary information.
sohcahtoa | 9 days ago
This can only be a thought experiment since it's not possible to recreate identical scenarios exactly (or even to know for certain that they are identical). But let's say we have two perfectly isolated identical systems where we observe that cause C produces effect E in one system and effects E and F in the other system. Wouldn't that be the same thing as to conclude that event F occurred spontaneously, without any cause, for no particular reason? The timing could be just coincidence. After all, what defines an event is what it does, so what defines event C is that it produces event E; event F is not needed to define C because in one system it is already fully defined as "what causes E". The occurrence of F in the other system could be seen as unrelated.
Edgar_Brown | 9 days ago
Causation is epistemological, it’s quite simply a temporal correlation with an explanation attached.
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
At bottom what you’ve asked (given your clarifications elsewhere) is “is it possible for a single cause to produce more than one effect?”
The answer to that is obviously “yes”. Lots of things produce multiple results at once. For example, A + B causes C & D.
I suspect that what you want to ask is whether a given can cause can produce mutually exclusive effects: A + B causes C & ! D and also causes !C & D. But that’s tautologically impossible.
flasticpeet | 10 days ago
What about Norton's Dome? Would this be a good example of indeterminism in classic physics?
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
I had to look this up and I’m having to do some reading to deal with it. My first impression is that it is a theoretical curiosity that might not translate well from model to reality. That said, I can’t actually find flaws in it, so I’ll have to think a bit more. It doesn’t seem like a real effect, but I certainly can’t dismiss it.
i8theapple_777 | 10 days ago
Yes.
If you read the mathematical description of the double slit experiment.
☯️
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
That’s not actually what happens mathematically.
The Schrödinger equation (the math) is deterministic and shows that instead, quantum interactions produce superpositions. It produces the same outcomes every time. However, any individual who takes a measurement also goes into superposition of having interacted with each branch and found each outcome.
i8theapple_777 | 10 days ago
I'm not specifically speaking about Schrodinger's equation, yet i can't deny 100% that the information i drew this from is based on his equation.
As i have learned the photon moves through one, the other, both and no slit simultaneously and OPs question reminded me of that. Did I get it wrong?
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
This is completely wrong, the double slit experiment and Quantum Mechanics in general are very often misrepresented. There is no actual literal simultaneous/paradoxical movement through one, the other, or both. The superposition is just a mathematical probability for where it might be. There is zero spiritual/consciousness/woo woo or anything going on here. And the photon is not literally in two places at once. Again, Quantum Mechanics is routinely misrepresented and used to support ideas that in reality it simply doesn’t.
TimeGrownOld | 10 days ago
Sure, but quantum fuzziness still has something to say.
Even if QM is deterministic (which I believe is still debated depending on interpretation) the fact that we can never know everything about an event due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means we can't even know if two events are completely identical. OP's question contains a faulty assumptions.
i8theapple_777 | 10 days ago
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not a woo woo person (anymore) but had the impression that there is a math that tries explaining superposition which leads to the conclusion of several possibilities happening at once.
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
You’re welcome! What you’re thinking of, and the fundamental way in which this whole thing is frequently distorted, is a specific philosophical interpretation of the math behind quantum mechanics which fallaciously assumes that the math is a literal picture or representation of what is actually happening in physical, external, objective reality, which it simply isn’t and never was meant to be. The math of quantum mechanics, superposition, etc. is a prediction/measurement tool. That’s it. I suggest looking into how Niels Bohr specifically explained quantum mechanics, the double slit experiment, superposition, and all the supposed weirdness surrounding it as he had the most accurate and scientifically grounded understanding of what was actually going on. This all comes down to the fundamental methodology, epistemology, practical limits, and Logical foundations of the scientific method, what science fundamentally is and what it can and can’t tell us.
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
This is incorrect. Superpositions are not statements of probability. Statements of probability cannot form interference patterns.
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
It’s not. They are. You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re committing the exact error I was pointing to. I’ve heard this all before. In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard. That mathematical interference allows us to predict the final distribution of the dots on the screen. The probability wave is what is interfering on paper. There is no physical wave interfering in the room. To say a probability wave cannot form an interference pattern is to confuse a topographical map for the literal dirt of a mountain. The contour lines on a map can intersect or show elevation, but you can't hike on the paper. The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
Then be specific. Surely if you know what you’re talking about, when I ask you to explain how a probability forms an interference pattern, you aren’t about to run away from the question.
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
I actually added this to my original comment but you must not have seen it so here you go
In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard. That mathematical interference allows us to predict the final distribution of the dots on the screen. The probability wave is what is interfering on paper. There is no physical wave interfering in the room. To say a probability wave cannot form an interference pattern is to confuse a topographical map for the literal dirt of a mountain. The contour lines on a map can intersect or show elevation, but you can't hike on the paper. The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
> In the mathematics of quantum mechanics, we calculate probabilities by using complex numbers called "probability amplitudes." Because these mathematical numbers have a phase, they can mathematically interfere with one another on a chalkboard.
What I asked was how probabilities rather than realities produce the real interference patterns that appear in real life.
> There is no physical wave interfering in the room.
Here ya go
Here is the physical wave interfering in the room.
> The math calculates interference; the physical reality is just individual dots hitting a screen.
I guess I’ll try this approach: hypothetically, what would you do if you found out that there really was a physical interference?
I love the map and mountain analogy. Drawing a roadblock on a paper map doesn't physically stop a hiker on a mountain.
Imagine we fire a single physical photon at a beam splitter. It has two physical paths it can take (Path A and Path B) before they merge back together at the end. Because of interference, the photon will always hit detector 1. It will never hit detector 2.
Now, we put a physical brick in path B. We fire another single photon. The photon travels down path A. But suddenly, because path B is blocked, the interference is gone, and the photon has a 50% chance of hitting detector 2.
If the photon went down Path A, and the 'interference' is just math on a chalkboard, how did the physical photon know that we put a physical brick in Path B?
In a purely mathematical model, putting a roadblock on the map doesn't change the dirt on the mountain. But in this experiment, putting a brick in an empty hallway physically forces the photon to hit a different detector. Doesn't that prove that something physically traveled down Path B to "feel" the brick?
Informal-Savings-463 | 9 days ago
By putting in the brick, you are altering the system to such a degree that might not be apparent from your perspective. This changes the conditions of the experiment, and the photon is now interacting with a different setup. On the tiny quantum scale, things effect other things due to movement and energy to degrees that might seem non-local to us, but really aren’t. Furthermore, you are committing the reification fallacy or misinterpreting math as a picture of literal, physical, external reality. The superposition in the math is just an abstract calculation tool on paper.
Informal-Savings-463 | 9 days ago
Wanted to add perhaps the most critical aspect is what you said at the end, yes, something is moving the object. However, what that something is we really don’t know. To assert it is a literal wave, and to assert the math of superposition represents what reality actually is ontologically speaking is a particular philosophical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It is not proven to be “the correct interpretation”. We know the math works functionally, we create technology with it obviously. But there are several competing interpretations of what’s fundamentally going on and you seem to be asserting yours is like the officially proven one, like it’s a forgone conclusion what you’re saying it totally correct ontologically speaking when it’s not.
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
Your interpretation essentially amounts to platonic mathematical mysticism.
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
What is “my interpretation” that you’re even referring to?
Informal-Savings-463 | 10 days ago
Your interpretation refers to the explanation of QM you gave and the opinions you espoused which I disagree with. Now, do you care to specifically respond to the specific explanation I gave, that you specifically asked for, which I provided in another reply? You aren’t about to run away from that are you?
fox-mcleod | 10 days ago
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Everything you’re saying is more right than it is wrong. I’m just trying to add some nuance.
What happens is that “the photon” is actually a wave. And waves can be in superpositions — meaning you can take the components of the wave and break them up mathematically. It’s like how a chord in music is a single sound but you can also think of it as two or more different notes being played at the same time.
Different components move through each of the slits and when they interact with a detector (or an observer) it breaks the detector up into its components — sending the detector into superposition of different states as well.