Quote
In biology or medicine, if we note that an effect E (for example, muscle contraction, phototropism, digestion of protein) does not occur unless a condition C (nerve impulse, light, pepsin) is present, it seems natural to infer that C is a necessary causative agent for E. [...] But suppose that condition C does not always lead to effect E; what further inferences should a scientist draw?
In the biological sciences, one takes it for granted that in addition to C there must be some other causative factor F, not yet identified. One searches for it [...]
What is done in quantum theory today is just the opposite; when no cause is apparent one simply postulates that no cause exists– ergo, the laws of physics are indeterministic and can be expressed only in probability form. [...]
[...] . Quantum physicists have only probability laws because for two generations we have been indoctrinated not to believe in causes– and so we have stopped looking for them. [...] any attempt to search for the causes of microphenomena is met with scorn and a charge of professional incompetence and ‘obsolete mechanistic materialism’. Therefore, to explain the indeterminacy in current quantum theory we need not suppose there is any indeterminacy in Nature; the mental attitude of quantum physicists is already sufficient to guarantee it.
JaynesProbabilityTheory.pdf (mcgill.ca)
Quote
In biology or medicine, if we note that an effect E (for example, muscle contraction, phototropism, digestion of protein) does not occur unless a condition C (nerve impulse, light, pepsin) is present, it seems natural to infer that C is a necessary causative agent for E. [...] But suppose that condition C does not always lead to effect E; what further inferences should a scientist draw?
In the biological sciences, one takes it for granted that in addition to C there must besome other causative factor F, not yet identified. One searches for it [...]
What is done in quantum theory today is just the opposite; when no cause is apparent one simply postulates that no cause exists– ergo, the laws of physics are indeterministic and can be expressed only in probability form. [...]
[...] . Quantum physicists have only probability laws because for two generations we have been indoctrinated not to believe in causes– and so we have stopped looking for them. [...] any attempt to search for the causes of microphenomena is met with scorn and a charge of professional incompetence and ‘obsolete mechanistic materialism’. Therefore, to explain the indeterminacy in current quantum theory we need not suppose there is any indeterminacy in Nature; the mental attitude of quantum physicists is already sufficient to guarantee it.
In Nature this month:
Quote
Hartle suggested that quantum mechanics can solve this complexity problem. Because a quantum object’s wavefunction is spread out across many ‘classical’ states (cat alive or cat dead, for instance), you could propose a simple initial condition that includes all the complexities as emergent structures in the quantum superposition of these states. All the observed complexities can be regarded as partial descriptions of a simple fundamental reality: the Universe’s wavefunction. [...]
In this perspective, the quantum Universe has two basic laws: a deterministic one of temporal evolution and a simple one that picks an initial wavefunction for the Universe. [...] The physical laws permit exactly one cosmic history of the Universe, albeit one described by a wavefunction that superposes many classical trajectories. There is no contingency in what the Universe as a whole could have been, and no alternative possibility for how it could have started. Every event, including the first one, is explained; the entire wavefunction of the Universe for all times is pinned down by the laws. The probabilities of quantum mechanics do not exist at the level of the basic physical laws, but can nonetheless be assigned to coarse-grained and partial descriptions of bits of the Universe.
[...] Several researchers have considered the controversial idea that quantum states of closed systems, including the Universe, need not be restricted to wavefunctions, but instead can come from a broader category: the space of density matrices [...]
Density matrices can be thought of as ‘superpositions of superpositions’, and they provide extra options for the initial condition of the Universe. [...] if we regard the density matrix as the initial state of the Universe and accept that it is specified by a law, then this choice, together with the deterministic von Neumann equation (a generalization of Schrödinger’s equation), can satisfy strong determinism. However, in this case, the laws fix a cosmic history of a quantum Universe that has many evolving branches — a ‘multiverse’.
Does quantum theory imply the entire Universe is preordained? (nature.com)
Quote
[...] Victoria Bridgland and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of trigger warning. [...]
[...] found that trigger warnings have no significant impact on response affect, avoidance, or comprehension of material. However, trigger warnings consistently increase anticipatory anxiety. This suggests that while warnings might initially affect emotions, this effect dissipates upon exposure to the actual content. The anticipation period likely does not involve effective emotional preparation, as indicated by limited use of coping strategies among individuals.
Further, trigger warnings do not seem to increase avoidance of material. Instead, they may even enhance engagement, possibly due to a “forbidden fruit” effect. Trigger warnings do not enhance learning or comprehension. On the contrary, they might increase anxiety about attending classes, contradicting claims that they create a safer learning environment.
[...] The authors write, “Although many questions warrant further investigation, trigger warnings should not be used as a mental-health tool.”'
Trigger warnings do not work, according to recent meta-analysis (psypost.org)