How Randomness Can Arise from Determinism

No, it's starting from a phenomena and providing a possible hypothesis for why that phenomena is occurring. This is explaining an existing, untested hypothesis.

> There is lots of experimental evidence that on a quantum scale there is inherent randomness.

No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists).

In short, this is explaining the "Team E" position:

> [W]e debated whether randomness or determinism lies at the heart of quantum mechanics, which I characterized as team B (Niels Bohr) versus team E (Albert Einstein). Team B sees the unpredictability of particle behavior as evidence that at the fundamental level of the universe, determinism is replaced by intrinsic, objective randomness. Team E contends that this randomness is merely a sign of our ignorance of a deeper level of deterministic causation.

To be clear, I'm not saying that quanta are deterministic. I don't know.

> One thought experiment that comes to mind is, imagine a perfect Galton board where all the pegs are perfectly identical in a closed perfectly isometric system. Without subtle factors like air currents or imperfections in the pegs or the marbles, where does the marble land? I think personally if all other factors are ruled out the thought experiment reduces to the double slit experiment.

Assuming a perfectly drop as well, my hypothesis is that the ball would land on the top peg and balance there, perhaps after bouncing if we're assuming some elasticity in the components of the system. A "perfect drop" being in this case, one where the ball is perfectly centered, with no spin or side-to-side motion.

But I think this is getting into why analogies aren't a very good way to talk about science--analogies don't prove anything, and always fall apart on some details.

There is no hypothesis presented, merely that there are deterministic factors that we don't know of. That's not a hypothesis.

> No, there isn't, at least not as far as I know. The experimental evidence I'm aware of shows that we cannot, with current measurements, model the phenomena on a quantum scale, except probablistically. It does not show that there isn't any determinism, it only shows that, with current techniques, we don't have access to the determinism (if it exists).

I think you are presenting a semantics argument that has little value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

> the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology

Science doesn't work backwards from conclusions. If you think that there is determinism, there needs to be a testable theory that explains what these deterministic factors are. Like I said, we can simply attribute this supposed determinism to invisible unicorns and it'd be an equally valid explanation.

In conjunction with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance

Lorentz invariance has not shown to be violated despite many tries experimentally and from observation.

"For a Galton board with any given number of rows, the number of different paths a marble can take to reach a bin placed at a given row is exactly equal to the corresponding number in Pascal’s triangle"