Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.math Subject: Re: a piece of folk-lore - really on randomness Message-ID: <1844@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 21:18:20 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1844 Posted: Tue Oct 1 21:18:20 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 02:19:52 EDT References: <1799@psuvax1.UUCP> <9600018@uiucdcsp> <1342@kestrel.ARPA> <10480@ucbvax.ARPA> <93@unc.unc.UUCP> <504@ecsvax.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 22 This quibbling over the distinction between randomness and probabilities is beside the point. Quantum mechanics has the additional feature, not found in classical probability theory, of addition of complex probability amplitudes when possible alternative system states are considered. This makes the real probabilities not obey the classical (Bayes) rules, which raises some real questions about what it all means. (I hope I can forestall responses that do no more than state an operationalist frequency interpretation of the resulting probabilities; I know that already, thank you.) The interesting questions are "Why probability AMPLITUDES?" or more generally "Why aren't the classical laws of probability being obeyed?" The reason for asking the latter is that the classical laws are a direct result of counting alternative outcomes, which somehow doesn't work for QM (quite apart from the issue of whether identical particles are distinguishable). Note that I am not asking whether it works, but why it works. The trouble with the prevalent attitude that every theory is just a mathematical model is that such an attitude makes one quit trying to understand things; instead one just starts cataloging their behavior. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com