I’d start with Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science. You sound like you’ve probably read A Brief History of Time - but there are edits in later editions and we’ve learned more since Hawking’s death.
Then: Rethinking Causality in Quantum Mechanics. And: Nothing, put out by New Scientist in 2013 — pretty cool, but doesn’t really deal with causality. I just liked that one.
Anyway, you’re arguing in favor of a deterministic universe, but as far as I know with my (limited) understanding, that’s more of a philosophical question that can’t be proved or disproved. We lack the ability to track every particle to its origin, and the inverse is a negative — and you can’t prove something doesn’t happen, only it’s likelihood.
I think you missed my point. The same conditions, even in physics, don’t always produce the same result.
Then they aren’t the same conditions.
Would you like to read a book? I could recommend several.
Go ahead, let’s see if I’ve already read them.
I’d start with Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science. You sound like you’ve probably read A Brief History of Time - but there are edits in later editions and we’ve learned more since Hawking’s death.
Then: Rethinking Causality in Quantum Mechanics. And: Nothing, put out by New Scientist in 2013 — pretty cool, but doesn’t really deal with causality. I just liked that one.
Anyway, you’re arguing in favor of a deterministic universe, but as far as I know with my (limited) understanding, that’s more of a philosophical question that can’t be proved or disproved. We lack the ability to track every particle to its origin, and the inverse is a negative — and you can’t prove something doesn’t happen, only it’s likelihood.