or if i'm on the right track here, macro(world) orders the randomness of the micro(quantum).Originally Posted by ASEIStill, it's hard to believe that absolute reality would vanish as a principle. Everything we see macroscopically, all the way down to quantumn physics, seems to be based on conservation laws and regular descriptions of something there. That it would all go fuzzy for a reason not due to our instruments or knowledge, on a small scale, is hard to wrap my mind around. Why isn't the integration of fuzzy microscopic components into macroscopic components not more fuzzy? How can a well-defined macroscopic realm be composed of ill defined quantum components?
If we can no longer describe position, or momentum as being absolutely there, in terms of particle properties, could we possibly still hold to some absolute properties? After all, the electron is there right? If it cannot have properties such as position or momentum theoretically defined, could you at least hold the various probability fields as absolute properties of the particle?
my current world-model goes something like this:
Where's the error in this model?
in my classically specific model:
vector position, velocity, acceleration, ect...;
double mass, various energies, charge, ...;
could this be swapped for:
giant vecor/scalar fields of position and momentum probability;
double mass, charge, ect...;