Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

I was reading Uncertainty by David Lindley and as the title suggests one of the main topics in the book is that of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. If you are unfamiliar with the Principle, it suggests that for quantum mechanics, there is a limit of information that can be measured and attained on various properties for particles. So for instance, if the position of a particle is measured precisely, then the momentum of the particle will not be able to measured precisely and vice versa. This works on pretty much any properties which are complimentary, if I'm not mistaken.

Conceptually that makes enough sense for me, however what threw me off is that the book suggests repeatedly that this is a blow to determinism. I don't really follow how the inability to measure a property of a subatomic particle necessarily calls determinism into question. I am not sure if I am overlooking some aspect of the Principle or didn't follow it. the type of indeterminacy in this principle would seem to keep open the possibilities for different paradigms, rather than really limiting any of them. Einstein comments about not feeling satisfied with the Uncertainty Principle and saw these types of Quantum Theories that as heavily reliant on probabilities, more so than data, to be a transitory phase in physics at best. Heisenberg and Niels Bohr rally around this principle and feel it kind of ushered a new era of physics.

I got the impression reading this book, that even if one does not understand the data, that there is a conceptual framework here that can be discussed in Philosophical terms, which is why I am posting it here and interested in exploring. I'll provide a link to the Uncertainty Principle which I did not read through, so perhaps there may even be more info in the link.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

My main question is in the thread title but any other views or ideas surrounding the subject(s) is welcome as well.

 

I've noticed some ambiguity in the term determinism..

The first is "linear" determinism, which has a mechanical flavour that we run on forever like clockwork and there's little choice in the way things play out.
Second being a much more "organic" determinism, which builds on what it has already built, but through a process of conscious decision.

Perhaps he's in the process of shattering the "cause and effect" mentality, where everything can be examined and contained within a neatly quantised package that doesn't sprout legs, run around and pull funny faces at you when you're not looking.


I see a parallel of this issue in geometry but I'll refrain for now cos my understanding is still not quite in focus.. but what is similar is that the underlying method of measuring objects in the world shapes a philosophy(a determinism in a sense) that fits that particular gestalt. Anything that challenges that framework is either considered an anomaly not worth dealing with, or a potentially serious existential exclamation mark.



...If I understood your post correctly

 

I think about this often, but if Einstein was driven insane because sub atomical particles did not follow any of his equations and formulas, what does that tell you?

 

obviously we are only seeing part of the big picture. behavior seems to be a bit different at quantum scales than at ordinary scales and at even grander scales there are "anomalies" where things arent quite as expected which leads to ideas like dark matter and dark energy. You can compare it to looking at a picture under magnification of various level, at no magnification it is clearly apparent what the overall picture is but its not clear what the finer structure is. At one level of magnification you may sed just an array of multicolor dots which are the ink which make up the picture, at that point it is clear how the picture is actually composed but yo cant really tell what the overall picture is. At an even gigher level of magnification you mght not even be able to see a single dot anymore and would instead be looking at the structure of the material the picture was printed on in a great level of detail but if this was the only point of view you had you would have no clue that this was actually a picture or what that picture was.

The universe is probably a lot bigger than the observable universe also, the earth is like a tiny spec of dust in relation to the universe, like one of those tiny dots of ink in the picture, looking around at all the other little dots trying to figure out what the big picture is.

 

That all sounds like someones first year uni assignment

You are pitching philosophy against nearly a century old scientific 'principle' which actually isnt correct

Einstein, Bohrs, dont assume any of these guys knew shit. You only think that way becuase its been embedded in the culture your entire life

 

Do you have any evidence that the Uncertainty principle is incorrect?

Also, did you happen to click on the link? It's from a Philosophy Encyclopedia discussing the Principle.

I don't view Einstein as infallible but it would appear he understood a ton when it comes to science and physics in particular.

 

I would hope there is some uncertainty, as if everything is just predetermined and laid out, what is the point of anything?

 

Here is another thought...We have been taught that space is expanding as we know it...What is it expanding into....nothingness? What is that? It has to be something for something to expand into it, doesn't it.....?
What is it? a wall to go no farther?...that is still something.....a wall can be knocked down and then onto into nothingness which is still somethingness,.....yeah....boggling the brain day.

 

and here is a thought...maybe the space is creating the space as it expands....people do that to their waistlines.....I was not trying to be funny, but that made some kind of wacky sense.

 

I think we can still find meaning in our lives in a deterministic universe. I'm not sure that Determinism necessitates a point to anything...

It's interesting you bring that up however, I've posted this video before and I like the distinction between Determinism and Foreknowledge made here. This video is concerning free will specifically but perhaps it is relevant to the topic as well. From a certain view this highlights what I'm kind of stuck on in regards to my understanding of the Uncertainty Principle, if anything, the Uncertainty Principle seems to be more of a knock on foreknowledge rather than Determinism necessarily.

http://youtu.be/iSfXdNIolQA

 

I think that's actually what a lot of scientists seem to believe, that new space is constantly being created in between objects, and that things aren't really moving apart but there is new space coming into existence between them.

 

Uncertainty principle is a frustrator to determinism....

 

That makes sense.

 

In a sense, determinism and uncertainty is a system of checks and balances then.....that would make sense, too.

 

I don't believe there is a school of philosophical thought in-and-of itself that is "uncertainty", the principle would probably yield to an agnosticism of reality or indeterminism but as I mentioned in the OP, I think the implications of it's indeterminacy leaves open a wide range of philosophical paradigms, including determinism.

 

but also, you said that there is a new space coming in between them...and if our space is expanding....what is the object between our space and that object...I mean.....there is an object beyond our space that our space is expanding to in simple terms?

 

Well, yes, there are determinism factors....we know for a fact that a tortoise's life span is so many years, etc.....what we have observed about many things becomes the determining factors.....which become part of our reality now, because we observed certain things to be true.

 

not sure anyone has an answer for that ... it kinda defies imagination doesn't it?

 

Meh, holographic principle is probably a step in the right direction

3D space only looks like 3D space to us, and looks like nothing

Something else going on under the hood, no one has worked out, and we cant see or detect

So no one really has a clue whats going on

Which is why this is all still bulshit, just best guess when we only have 1/4 of the puzzle

And BTW a principle is not a law, need a proof to disprove or prove before it is 'correct'

 

The tortoise resides as a classical or macroscopic animal, the uncertainty principle is primarily in regards to the quantum level of reality.