Dunno. I cannot read the mind of God - what Einstein wanted. But the other CS did not testify. (We should read their minds.)
OFF:
However I got some progress…
Einstein used “God” metaphorically to refer to the deep, elegant laws of nature that govern the universe. For Einstein, “reading the mind of God” meant uncovering the fundamental principles behind reality—like relativity and quantum mechanics—not divine revelation.
Einstein’s famous quote—“God does not play dice with the universe”—was his poetic way of rejecting the randomness at the heart of quantum mechanics.
What he meant:
- Einstein believed the universe operates through deterministic laws, not chance.
- He was responding to physicist Max Born, who supported the probabilistic nature of quantum theory.
- Quantum mechanics suggests that particles behave unpredictably, governed by probabilities—not certainties.
- Einstein found this unsettling, saying it undermined the “lawful harmony” of nature.
Niels Bohr believed the observer makes the wavefunction to collapse at a glance. Max Born defined probabilistic rules - which Einstein denied. Einstein believed deterministic rules. Recently we think the decoherence (interaction with the environment) makes a correlated state.
Challanging our minds: in a single particle experiment the statistics is strictly followed, what we didn’t know why and how. It refuses classical logic: neither chain nor fork of reasons.
Now I pull the chaos out of my pocket. Chaotic systems are fully deterministic, but the daemon of Laplace cannot calculate precisely. So the apperant result seems complete randomness - still following a given statistics.
Gotcha! It is the chaotic behaviour of decoherence which makes the statistical fork of reasoning. The elusive term of “categoric insufficiency” dies out. Tada!
Here’s a refined version with improved grammar and flow, while preserving your voice and flair:
Niels Bohr believed that the observer causes the wavefunction to collapse in an instant. Max Born introduced probabilistic rules—which Einstein famously rejected. Einstein held firm to deterministic principles. More recently, we propose that decoherence —the interaction with the environment—produces a correlated state.
Challenging our minds: in single-particle experiments, statistical patterns are strictly followed, though we still don’t fully understand why or how. This defies classical logic: there’s neither a causal chain nor a branching fork of reasons.
Now I pull chaos out of my pocket. Chaotic systems are fully deterministic, yet Laplace’s daemon cannot compute them precisely. The apparent result is complete randomness—still obeying a defined statistical distribution.
Gotcha! It’s the chaotic nature of decoherence that creates the statistical fork in reasoning. The elusive notion of ‘categoric insufficiency’ fades away. Tada!