/sci/ - Science & Math

I have always held this to be true. It literally cannot be otherwise. Einstein and Bohm will be vindicated at last

>>15079685
I dont understand any of it because im a mathlet but i never understood how its possible to prove randomness that has no hidden variables, it pisses me off. Team determinism bros, please kill it

>>15079694
>>15079703
Based, keep fighting the good fight, kings. Carry that Einsteinian torch forward until we reach ultimate understanding of the universe. Never let that hope die!

>>15079685
Superdeterminism sounds like something Daniel Dennett would promote

>>15079735
Dennett is a strange character. No self-respecting determinist defends free will, but he is a determinist who does. For this reason, I dislike him.

>>15079685
Stopped at that nonsensical second paragraph. It was the beginning of the end for caring about whatever nuanced arguments OP may have had up their sleeve..

>>15079763
Where is the nonsense within the paragraph 2? Please elaborate.

I believe whatever sciences has the least amount of jews associated with it

>>15079777
Well, Einstein, the true and arguably smartest pioneer of this idea was a Jew, ethnically speaking. Not a practicing one though. To me what counts is the practice, not the lineage. Einstein was fully focussed on physics, a much more fruitful field than any religion will ever be.

>>15079685
Does he put forward a local superdeterministic model, even a toy one, that reproduces the results?

>>15079685
>All 3 of the Bell-theoretic assumptions implicitly assume that counterfactual situations are physically real.
No? Literally nothing about bell theorem is involved with many worlds non-sense.

>>15079777
What if the jew is working together with a Nazi?

>>15079741
Was you finding a reason to dislike Dennett predetermined by the arrangement of matter at the big bang? And why do you bother to let us know?

>>15079785
Sabine and Tim each have their own models, but none of the superdeterministic models presently suffice. They have other papers which detail their models. It is a work in progress. The important point is realising that Bell's Theorem is flawed, and that statistical independence assumption within the theorem is a highly suspect assumption.

>>15079788
Except it does. This is exactly what Sabine's and Tim's crucial paper 'Rethinking Superdeterminism' has shown. They also reference another recent paper called 'Bell's theorem for temporal order' which also implicitly highlights this issue. I strongly recommend you read 'Rethinking Superdeterminism'. Ctrlg+F 'clap' will shortcut you to the section where they focus on this problem.

>>15079795
Yes indeed. I let you know, because why not? You invoked Dennett, so I will provide to you my opinion of him. I have a passionate hatred for free will and its supporters, so he annoys me.

>>15079828
What underlying factors of the universe's origin caused you to form those behavioral responses towards Daniel Dennett?

>>15079866
It's too complicated for me to know at present. But with enough development of the theory, this should be answerable

>>15079741
what's the difference between "making a choice" and "arriving at a decision"? there is none; they are logically equivalent. "does free will exist?" is a nonsensical question.

https://pdfhost.io/v/3GlK8g6TR_Rethinking_Superdeterminism for convenient browsing. This is such a great read, thanks for the recommendation anon

>>15079876
There may be no difference, but it depends on how you define the terms. I would say the former phrase isn't good because the word 'choice' has connotations of free will.

I disagree that it's a nonsensical question. We can confidently answer that the libertarian sense of free will doesn't exist.

>>15079685
>The universe does not play dice.
it has little to do with that and everything to do with causality. QM leads to an interpretation of reality devoid of causality, because of wave function collapse.

>>15079941
We need an account of how the present evolves into the future (because it clearly does) and QM can't do that, because it has no way to collapse the wavefunction. This just highlights a weakness of QM

>>15079946
>because it has no way to collapse the wavefunctio
your mind is creating reality through it's own consciousness and and free will.

>>15079949
I guess this is bait, lol

>>15079950
>I guess this is bait
it's QM.

>>15079954
LOL

>>15079957

Many of the originators of quantum mechanical theory held that humans can effectively interrogate nature through interacting with it, and that in this regard quantum mechanics is not different from classical mechanics.[18][19][20] In addition, Werner Heisenberg maintained that wave function collapse, "The discontinuous change in the probability function", takes place when the result of a measurement is registered in the mind of an observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

there is no spoon

>>15079958
Of you're serious? Damn man...bro you're so far off the mark that you're "not even wrong", as they say. This rubbish could never solve the measurement problem.

If this is Marco, then fuck you.

>>15079962
>you're "not even wrong"

I'm quoting Heisenberg, Brainiac. Who the fuck are you?

>>15079958
>In addition, Werner Heisenberg maintained that wave function collapse, "The discontinuous change in the probability function", takes place when the result of a measurement is registered in the mind of an observer.
Didn't a lot of the original Copenhagen school subscribe to the cope that the wave function was a description not of reality but of the observer's knowledge of reality? So according to them this discontinuous change was only a change in the observer's knowledge.

>>15079958
Quote in context. It's from "Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution In Modern Science."

>>15079958
(Cont.) I don't even necessarily disagree that consciousness plays a role in collapsing the wavefunction, as this idea isn't obviously in conflict with superdeterminism aka determinism.

But Sabine's suspicion (which I agree with) is that the wavefunction isn't a real thing with a physical presence in spacetime, rather it's "some sort of statistical average" which describes a spread of hidden variables. Under this so-called 'psi-ensemble' interpretation, the wavefunction never actually collapses because it's just an average for many multiple definite, but variable variables.

both bullshit.

I calculated that with the experiment done with realistic separation, the positron electron pair interacts with force making them having acceleration of 200-300 m/s^2!

>>15079782
>To me what counts is the practice, not the lineage.
most Jews in sciences don't practice Judaism

>>15079685
both deterministic and probabilistic universe models are wrong imo. humanity has proven time and time again that our simple theories don't hold, nature is always more complex than it seems. it would be extremely naive to assume that we completely figured out a property of our universe at this stage.

>>15080658
>both are wrong
>refuses to elaborate further
Gigachad post.

>>15079685
Don’t be stupid, this is all fixed with Many Worlds Interpretation, no need for superdeterminism or fundamental probabilities.

>>15080754
many worlds is dumber than super determinism which is itself dumber than copenhagen

>>15080764
How so? And is there an interpretation you would say is better (less dumb) than Copenhagen?

>>15080771
no system can support the conditions required for either interpretation; be it space in many worlds, or time in super determinism

>>15080655
Ok, what's your point

>>15080658
No, determinism and indeterminism are the only options, now and forever. One of them has to be correct. A indeterminism makes no sense because it posits things emerging from nothing, which is contradictory.

>>15080754
Copenhagen is nonsense because it's indeterministic, postulating the spontaneous creation of new stuff from literally nothing.

>>15080764
>>15081341

>>15080754
Many-worlds doesn't solve the measurement problem.

>>15080771
MWI benefits from not having collapse, and collapse is an ad hoc addition that doesn't show up in the Schrodinger Equation in the first place.

Various "It From Bit," versions avoid reals being somehow computed by a universe that lacks the information capacity to compute continuous variables that require infinite information. These get around having eternal Platonic mathematical laws that somehow exist outside reality and which are unaffected by them. Embracing such Platonic laws is the orthodox, conservative position in physics, and often championed more by atheists (along with determinism), but ironically the idea was interjected into physics based on religious appeals to support versions of Christianity where God was a divine "clock maker."

QBism is the most consistent, and has none of the seeming contradictions of all the other interpretations, but does this by making quantum mechanics and all of science "about" the limits of what can be known by a rational observer. Nothing is definite, there is only observations and the rational bounds for predictions of future observations.

Bear in mind that the mathematics required to describe QM also isn't grounded though. So all projects are, in some way, free floating, resting on assumptions. Dialectical gets you out of incompleteness and undefinability (Tarski's) as a ground for logicialism at the cost of no real working formal system (halting advances in category theory are cool but not a system).

QBism is also neat in that it isn't affected by philosophical and cognitive science related arguments for idealism (pic related).

I think QBism and information theoretic approaches (maximum entropy) can work just as well with super determinism as with MWI, or even Absolute Idealism. It's ontologically neutral.

>>15081408
That is, QBism "work with," these in that it's tenants can be true if any of the ontologies, or none of them were somehow ontologically true.

Despite being the dominant thesis embraced by the laity, physicalism seems fairly shot to shit as an ontology. Once you go digging and see the deep problems with it from a philosophical level, a totally epistemological take on physics seems like less of a sacrifice to make.

I like the papers written by "It From Bit," folks the most though. Constructor Theory is cool too.

>>15081341
Copenhagen is incoherent in its classical formulation, but this is not the reason why. Someone who embraces Copenhagen would say that it is meaningless to talk about things that cannot possibly be observed.

>>15081338
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. There are multiple deterministic interpretations of QM, e.g., MWI and Pilot Wave. There is more than two choices. They have very different descriptions of "what is real," despite both being deterministic.

>>15081338
Many deterministic interpretations still have the universe existing/begining in a low entropy state (i.e., the past hypothesis) as a brute fact. I don't know many ways people get around this. There is the mathematical universe hypothesis, which gets around this with a form of Platonism, and there is Absolute Idealism inspired takes where the universe is generated by the contradiction of pure undifferentiated being being equivalent to nothing, with the universe being blown into existence by the principal of explosion and the sublation of contradiction. Neither of these are at all appealing to people who dislike explanations that seem to be "metaphysics," for obvious reasons.

>>15081434
It is a reason why. Copenhagen is indeterministic, it dodges answering how the wavefunction collapses, telling us "it just collapses", with the result not being determined by anything. That is something from nothing.

Yes there are multiple deterministic models, but you also mentioned probabilistic aka indeterministic models. I'm saying these are invalid because indeterminism is invalid. Reason: something from nothing.

Of course we have to start with some initial brute fact. Everyone pays this price, no matter the model. How are you going to reproduce what we observe if you start with zero constraints? Not possible.

The idealist take you described sounds nonsensical to me, just like some incoherent word salad.

>>15080754
many worlds is just an untestable, non-predictive, almost tautological deadend

>>15081472
>How are you going to reproduce what we observe if you start with zero constraints? Not possible.

I mentioned two.

The claim that quantum indeterminacy is creating "something from nothing," is not something most physicists are going to agree with. Nor is it the case for Copenhagen. In Copenhagen you have complimentarity undergirding the wave/partial duality.

Anyhow, the idea that you cannot have "something from nothing," isn't logically grounded. It's akin to Decartes argument for the existence of God, which was based on the idea that "an effect must have a cause equal to it."

However, block universe ontologies can be seen as completely acausal. They are complete objects in four dimensions. A prior moment doesn't cause a future one in the same way that 4+4 doesn't "cause" 8.

>>15079685
Too lazy to read, but does this theory make any new predictions that can tested by experiment? Or is it just a new interpretation of the well known experimental data?

>>15081380
Apparently "quantum decoherence" is supposed to explain measurement and collapse. I have no idea how it works though.

>>15081529
All superdeterministic models predict that identical measurement setups will lead to identical measurement outcomes. This isn't the case in QM.

Any superdeterministic theory will not be a merely an interpretation of QM, rather they are all more fundamental than QM, and Mechanical observations should be derived from them.

>>15081546
According to Sabine, decoherence doesn't solve the problem. because it "converts a quantum probability into a classical probability, but it doesn't make the probabilistic prediction itself go away."

>>15080653
Sup schizo

quantum information theory is very cool

God of the Gaps argument
>AHA! look! this unknown phenomenon is clearly and act of God!
>*phenomenon gets studied and better understood*
>*90% of the phenomenon is accurately modeled save for 10%*
>ehmmm.... yes, but you still haven't explained 100% of the phenomenon! The 10% that you can't explain surely is the proof it's a work of God!
Indeterminism/Soul/Consciousness/Free Will of the Gaps argument
>AHA! look! this unknown phenomenon is clearly where Indeterminism/Soul/Consciousness/Free will lies!
>*phenomenon gets studied and better understood*
>*90% of the phenomenon is accurately modeled save for 10%*
>ehmmm.... yes, but you still haven't explained 100% of the phenomenon! The 10% that you can't explain surely is the proof Indeterminism/Soul/Consciousness/Free will exists!

>>15081716
Gottem

>>15081716
100% of the phenomenon is the work of God. In your pride, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

>>15081852
He’s not arguing against god, he’s arguing against using god/freewill/indeterminism as an end all be all explanation for what we can’t yet understand.
Something created the universe, whatever that something is can be called god. We are simply trying to better understand gods creations (the universe)

>>15079685
posting in based bread

>>15079782
Yeah and he is the perfect example of scientist which "discoveries" are not used in real world nor help with anything at all.
Compare that to newton, gallileo, tesla...

>>15079958
Word spaghetti, GPT-1 levels, maybe GPT-2 tops.
That wikipedia article maybe GPT-3 but i wouldn't fool myself that much, GPT-2 too my bets

>>15079685
As a renowned scientist, I had always been fascinated by the fundamental mysteries of the universe. So when I heard about the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, I knew I had to find a way to prove it.

I began by gathering a group of the most respected scientists in the field and presenting my case to them. Using my charisma and eloquence, I was able to convince them that the uncertainty principle was the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe.

I then set out to gather all the necessary evidence to support my theory. I consulted with some of the smartest people I knew, using their expertise and knowledge to bolster my argument. I also utilized a wide range of technical terms and complex mathematical concepts, which impressed my colleagues and added to my credibility.

Finally, after months of research and preparation, I was ready to present my findings to the world. I stood before a packed auditorium of scientists and laypeople, ready to reveal the truth about the uncertainty principle.

Using my best oratorical skills, I explained the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics and how the uncertainty principle was at the heart of it all. I cited numerous studies and experiments that supported my argument, and used a wide range of technical terms and complex mathematical concepts to further impress my audience.

In the end, my argument was a resounding success. The uncertainty principle was accepted as the fundamental truth of the universe, and I was hailed as a hero of science.

Of course, in reality it is not possible to prove the uncertainty principle or any other scientific theory simply by using authority and smart words, without a deep understanding of the subject matter and a solid foundation of evidence. Science relies on empirical evidence and rigorous testing to validate theories and advance our understanding of the world.

>>15082273
>Word spaghetti
so you don't believe in QM. just say so.

>>15082271
Much technology is linked to Einstein's theories of GR and SR. A prime example being GPS. But practical applications is irrelevant to the truth of the theory. If it passes rigorous experimental tests, then it is just how the world works. It is truth.

>>15080653
That's it? That's nothing lmao.

>>15080754
Many worlds is also determinism though, there's still no room for free will.

>>15081943
The concept of god is retarded

>>15081408
The Nielsen ninomiya theorem is a proof that spacetime can't be discretized so yes, the universe is "computing" with real numbers

>>15079685
You need to go back.

>>15079685
No such thing as the big bang. The creation of the universe happened in a perfect spiritual realm or "heaven". In the ensuing "pre-existance' of matter (Genesis 2), God created order and unity in his creation. "Let there be light", etc. At first it was chaotic since it was without structure, but we have never seen that chaotic, "pre-existive" state.

When we fell from God's perfect grace and love from our denying Him, the universe fell and became fragmented, disjointed, and horrific. The Big Bang was created as a means to explain the creation of the universe without God at the center. Things didn't just "appear" one day and start organizing itself by random chance. God is the author of history, fate, and destiny, and He has always been in control of everything, especially our universes existence. The Big Bang denies this because the creators and the people who propagate that theory are scared of the reality of God, full stop.

>>15079685
>God determined the End from the Beginning
The Bible already been there done that almost 2000 years ago

>>15082487
GPS uses time of light and speed of light directly in the calculations, no einstein theory is involved whatsoever because it makes no difference or does not even exist at all, it's just a meme many pseuds spread to give einstein a bit of credit and support that fraud

>>15083636
LOL

>>15083667
The big bang model doesn't really disprove god. you can affirm god whilst also affirming the big bang. personally i don't affirm god as i'm atheist but that's just me

>>15083636
LMAO what the actual fuck, this has to be fake

>>15084046
>>15084115
hi newpseud from academia

>>15084115
No it's real.

>>15084242
This is insane. Reality is a joke

>>15084251
Academia is run by mental patients.

Jesus christ just accept you lost retard, materialism is false.

>>15079741
Most philosophers are compatibilsts, free will and determinism and compatible He's holdingt the majority view. How is that strange?

>>15084302
I don't like compatibilism. It redefines free will to something weaker just to be able to say we humans have it. I accept you can redefine it, but I don't really respect it. The "you can do what you want to do" free will isn't the one worth caring about, imo. Then they will use to phrase to attribute responsibility to others anyway, even though it's not an implication of their definition.

>>15079685
>>15079694
>>15079703
>>15079722
Nigger.

>>15084267
>Academia is run by mental patients.
no. they are just feminine, over-socialized, cowards.

>>15084035
To date, every prediction that Einstein's theories have made, have held up. That counts for a lot

>>15079685
ITT
>Fags crying because they are too weak to embrace randomness and the boundless possibility of free will

Why don't you nerds go make a superdeterminist model on why you don't get any pussy?

>>15084727
none of that happened

>>15084748
>uncertainty principle gives me free will
ok so how do you control it? stupid nigger monkey

>>15084754
>*Laughs in Aion*

>>15084748
t. layman who can't understand, or refuses to accept, that there can be no free lunch

>>15084795
t. pseudo intellectual who refuses to believe that there is any meaning to anything because he can't prove it with a research paper.

>>15079685
>Superdeterminism is
not science or math.
>>>/x/
go back

>>15084810
why are you now talking about meaning? this is about determinism.

>>15084818
how is it not?

>>15081586
>he beliefs in quantum mysteries
>is not a schizo

Pop science consoomer, I...

>>15086360
I don't believe in quantum BS. I believe in determinism