• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 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 variable. 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
        ·
        8 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
          2
          ·
          8 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

          • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Didn’t Bell just put that up as a theory and it got proven somewhat recently by other researchers? The 2022 physics Nobel Prize was about disproving hidden variables and they titled their finding with the catchy phrase “the universe is not locally real”.

                • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  No problem! Interpretations of quantum mechanics are also still very much under discussion, and Bell’s inequality only says that there are no local hidden variables. While QM very accurately describes observations so far, it’s by no means solved, and there’s a good chance that a new theory will upend much of it in the future

      • jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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”.