[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 53 KB, 300x228, nerdsmat[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12402362 No.12402362 [Reply] [Original]

why is there uncertainty, incompleteness, and relativity? what aspect of our reality is missing that makes us unable to formalize and predict it? am I the only one who is unsettled by this?

>> No.12402391

>>12402362
God wanted to keep us humble

>> No.12402407

>>12402362
lmao. reality isn't missing anything. the issue is that we are not and cannot be omniscient

>> No.12402417

>>12402407
neither Godel, Einstein, nor Heisenberg assert this

>> No.12402435

>>12402362
The uncertainty principle does not necessarily point to an ontological feature of the world, relativity's core discovery is simply that there is no universal simultaneity relation, which is surprising, but the consequences of this for time that popular discourse likes to attribute to it are just that, popularized reifications of a formal model. Incompleteness is genuinely earth shattering

>> No.12402483

>>12402435
>relativity's core discovery is simply that there is no universal simultaneity relation
Can you please elaborate? Or point to a source that will get the point across?

>> No.12402493

>>12402435
idk. the fact that subatomic particles disappear and reappear randomly, with no certainty as to their whereabouts beyond bell curves disturbs me. why isn't it then that any old thing doesn't just happen? are there really "timelines" where absolutely nothing happens at all?

>> No.12402502
File: 922 KB, 1836x1823, if my calculations are correct.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12402502

Theoretical physicist here, AMA

All of those 3 things are "formalized" in that we have theory about it and we can use it (quantum mechanics and relativity to design stuff effectively).
There's nothing mystical about relativity, you can view it as a geometric feature affecting synchronicity but nothing else.
Incompleteness is a feature of formal systems - a bummer for some of peoples hopes, but imho pls don't worry about limits set to computation.

>> No.12402548

>>12402417
i didn't imply they did.

op said "what aspect of our reality is missing." there is nothing in reality that is missing. the issue is the limitation on things like our comprehension and interpretation

>> No.12402597

>>12402483
Newtonian mechanics, and all mechanics before it, makes the assumption that simultaneity is global. That what happens "here" is simultaneous with what happens "there". The "relativity" in general and special relativity does not refer to a supposed relativity in space or time, but fatally undermines the idea that there is an absolute simultaneity, that it makes sense to say two things "happen at the same time".

>>12402493
>the fact that subatomic particles disappear and reappear randomly

They don't do this. Nobody has ever seen particles that do this. Nobody has ever seen "particles". It's just math that happens to fit the empirical phenomena we observe. There is no telling whether the entities in our models are things that exist out in the world and it is just as likely that these models will, as in the past, be overturned by new ones with new entities.

>> No.12402713

>>12402493
you mean subatomic particles pass through detection equipment, or their properties become too subtle to be detected by such equipment. dont mistake the limits of human ingenuity as fundamental properties of nature

>> No.12402891

Don't know about the others, but Einstein's relativity is a complete scam, based on the false conclusions of the michelsen morley experiment that there is no aether and light travels at it's own speed. Plus he stole his ideas from Maxwell and some even say his first wife came up with relativity, as Einstein didn't make any significant contributions after divorcing her.
But he's from the tribe, so he can't be wrong

>> No.12402938

>>12402891
low quality schizopost

>> No.12402953

>>12402938
Look up the sagnac experiment

>> No.12403010
File: 55 KB, 429x571, 1547174833289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12403010

Can any physics whizes here come up with an explanation for this? I'm a little spooked by it. I tried asking sci once but got no answer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971164/

>> No.12403033

>>12402597
are you retarded? ever heard of quantum fluctuation?
>nobody has ever seen particles
and neither did you ever see your own brain and still it exists.
also we already saw particles (atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons).
also its not just math if u238 decays to pb205 you will know by the fact that one will radiat and the other wont. and this process is statistcly because it can. decay at any moment but only with a certain propability. also your whole view of the special relativity is flawed. its called relativity because everything observed is relativ with the exception of the speed of light.

>> No.12403035

SCIENCE
MATH
LANGUAGE

None of these describe reality, they only describe our own projection of reality, we have confused the two for too long

>> No.12403047

>>12402953
>someone disproved einstein on thing so that proves other thing wrong
back to bed child

>> No.12403062

>>12402502
Have you read David Bohms "The undivided universe"? i liked his "wholeness and the implicate order" but his last work had too much math and physics. PLS NO LARP

>> No.12403063

>>12402502
What the fuck should I do for grad school? I'm about to graduate this semester and genuinely don't have a specific field I want to get into, other than "not solid state." What do you work in?

>> No.12403631

>>12403047
>disprove one thing so other thing false
That's literally how it works, schlomo
https://youtu.be/PolFadm-lgU

>> No.12403696

>>12402502
Who should I read (scientists, philosophers, mathematicians) to understand where modern science is at.
Is Bergson a blind alley?

>> No.12403892

>>12403696
>reading a “””philosopher””” from the early 1900s to learn about modern science
hopeless

>> No.12404003

>>12403892
>(((Modern science)))
It's hopeless

>> No.12404028
File: 531 KB, 797x365, 1423468930.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12404028

>>12404003
They are actually beginning to realize what mystics have already known for thousands of years

>> No.12404100

>>12404003
>>12404028
unironically kys

>> No.12404117

Varying from near(may be complete) randomness to near(may be complete) certainty, chance plays a part in all processes, such as relationship. Not the relation part of relationship, but the relating part of relationships.
If you aren't a tychist, you're probably doing it wrong.

>> No.12404138

>>12403035
>we have confused the two for too long
How can you be not confused? Are you implying that you know how to describe reality without referring to "your" or "our own projection" of reality?

You are implying that you know what is reality, in a way that allows you to say that nor science, math or language describes reality. What does this mean? How is it done?

Let suppose that we are able to overcome that confusion and make the distinction you are proclaiming. Then what to do? Or are you implying that we cannot describe reality, maybe, we can't know anything?

>> No.12404179

>>12404117
Just to clarify, I think that epistomologically we can not know if anything is certain, though it may be possible for something beneath where we live to be absolutely certain, but I doubt it. Same goes for absolute randomness.

>> No.12404877

>>12402362
The answer to your question, like any other, is in the Bhagavad Gita. This material universe, cosmic manifestation is made out of three qualities ("prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani..."), one of which is ignorance/darkness. This has to do with consciousness being limited to individual experience and stuff. Not that there is incompleteness. This veil is as much part of The Truth as is light

>> No.12404918

OK, so this New Horizons probe just passed and photographed an Oort Cloud object MU69, aka Ultima Thule, which was first detected long after the launch of New Horizons. Did this Ultima Thule thing even exist before the Hubble detected photons bouncing off it?

I suppose that's kind of sophomoric.

I like this stuff though. We are SO FUCKING CLOSE, and there is something right in front of us that we are not seeing, or missing, or misinterpreting. My dick is SO ready for the NEW THING.

>> No.12404939

>>12402362
Space and time are relative but spacetime, as described by the spacetime interval, is absolute. Similar to how speed is relative classically but distance is absolute. I don't really see why something we once considered absolute being interchanged with something else should be cause for concern.
Also I used to have some trouble thinking about the nondeterminism in quantum mechancics until I learned about Popper's propensity interpretation of probability. I don't see why reality can't be such that repeating an experiment under the exact same conditions could lead to different outcomes, but instead have it so there's a disposition to cause certain predictable trends.

>> No.12404958

>>12404100
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/07/india-scientists-claim-ancient-hindus-invented-stem-cell-research-dismiss-einstein

>> No.12404974

>>12404877
fuck off - this nonsense helps no one

>> No.12405054

>>12403033
Hahaha holy shit you actually think virtual particles exist and just pop in and out of the world ex nihilo? Not even physicists think this. It's just an equation that tells us what to expect from our experiments. It doesn't tell us anything about what's "actually happening" behind the scenes to make it work.

>and neither did you ever see your own brain and still it exists.
also we already saw particles (atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons).

We know brains exist because they are observable. I can cut your head open and remove your incredibly tiny brain. Subatomic entities are unobservable, the supposed "pictures" they take of them and show off on pop science sites are just reconstructions. If you think there are little balls of "energy" floating around (whatever enegy is supposed to denote) you are a retard. All we observe are clicks on our detectors. Anything the math tells us is subject to interpretation, I can just as easily be an anti-realist as a scientific realist. Come off it.

Your point about relativity is well taken, but its most counter intuitive consequences are a result of simultaneity's relativization.

>> No.12405065

>>12404974
Eat my shit. You might get smarter if you do ;)

>> No.12405085

>dark energy
>dark matter

How can anyone introduce completely made up stuff that need to account for like 80% of the whole thing and praise science with a straight face?

>> No.12405103

>muh Copenhagen interpretation
>it's just a description bro!

>> No.12405121

>>12405085
At least by calling it dark they are admitting they don't actually know shit. I have a friend who just did his masters thesis in dark energy, and he pretty much admited you have to keep adding numbers to the equation until it shows you what you set out to find. Science alright

>> No.12405124

>>12405085
>God
>How can anyone introduce completely made up stuff that need to account for like 100% of the whole thing and praise religion with a straight face

>> No.12405131

>>12405124
>he thinks in science/god dualism
Not gonna make it bro

>> No.12405132

>>12405121
Calling it dark is pure dishonesty, as it implies it is certainly there, only not visible.
I would have called it unicorn farts

>> No.12405137

>>12405132
>Calling it dark is pure dishonesty, as it implies it is certainly there, only not visible
That's what it implies bc that's what it is stupid nigger. It exists bc it has observable effects but cannot itself be directly observed.

>> No.12405138

>>12402362
Potentiality and sufficiency?

>> No.12405145

>>12405137
This is your brain on scientism.

>> No.12405149

>>12402548
but fucking a hamster is wrong wouldn't you agree?

>> No.12405263

>>12403010
Read up on the quantum eraser, I'll take a look at the article when I get back home

>> No.12405269

>>12403063
Do the contents and general field of your thesis satisfy you? Plan on getting a PhD?

>> No.12405273

>>12403696
Read Einstein's convo with Tagore and Heisenberg's book on philosophy and physics. Then read a pop-sci book by Weinberg, followed by Penrose's "The Road to Reality". You can end by reading Rovelli's essays on LQG, physics and philosophy.

>> No.12405357

>>12405273
Appreciate it mate

>> No.12405420

>>12402362

Maybe there are none of these things, maybe this is just a perspectival defect of the human way of perceiving things, maybe this is the best, most perfect of all possible world - but it is seen as such only when one looks at it with a god's eye.

>> No.12405450

Because radical, unforseen change is completely possible and even normal in the real world. Heraclitus was right all along, you don't step in the same river twice.

>> No.12405473

>>12405273
>how to become a dilettante: the post

>> No.12405950

>>12405473
no

>> No.12405966

>>12405950
yes

>> No.12405993

I find joy in the notion that there will always be mathematical statements we can't prove.
Imagine if we could have proven every truth of arithmetic by some algorithm. Fuck that shit.
I hope P=/=NP too.

>> No.12406018

>>12402435
>Incompleteness is genuinely earth shattering
This is absolutely not true. Mathematics is just some shitty model that we use to describe the world around us, that turned out to be more useful than we could have ever imagined. It by no means is any sort of universal law book.

>> No.12406032

>>12405993
>Imagine if we could have proven every truth of arithmetic by some algorithm. Fuck that shit.
Why..? That would be quite nice I think.

>> No.12406054

>>12406018
you quite confused with the word mathematics and physics. pure mathematics has logical side, incompleteness theorem is about logical aspect of math not the modeling of the universe. what you are saying is very closed to math as the modeling, it's about physics.

>> No.12406179

>>12406032
Once every statement in math can be proven true or false by an algorithm, math becomes a chore.
You can prove every statement in zeroth order logic via an algorithm.
No one is excited about doing truth tables.

>> No.12406813

>>12402891
>Plus he stole his ideas from Maxwell
So when did Maxwell derive the relativity of simultaneity?
Einstein was explicit on where Maxwell influenced him numbnuts. Einstein's special relativity is a result of assuming that Maxwell's equations apply in all frames of reference.
The fact that Einstein used the theories of others as a starting point doesn't make his ideas any less profound than when Newton used the ideas of Galileo and Huygens in his formulation of classical mechanics.

>> No.12407159

>>12406813
Replying to /pol/ schizoids is a waste of time anon, nothing you can say will ever convince him he's wrong.
The Nazis themselves tried to denounce relativity as false jewish physics, then backtracked because they realized they were shooting themselves in the foot. This was a significant part of the reason that they didn't get to the bomb.

>> No.12407386

>>12407159
Also those "german" scientists who all fled to america

>> No.12407424

>>12407386
Operation Paperclip was after the war, anon.

>> No.12407648

>>12402502
Is >>12402597 right in the first part of their post? It it real that nothing happens simultaneously (that is, simultaneity is a spook), and in which sense/what does it mean to be simultaneous?

>> No.12407730
File: 42 KB, 300x306, 300px-World_line.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12407730

>>12407648
Simultaneity is relative, so two events that happen simultaneously in my eyes may not happen simultaneously to your eyes. Simultaneity here means that I receive the information that two events happened (limited by the speed of the light leaving that event) at the same time. An event means something with both a single defined position and a single defined moment in time.
This extends in a couple interesting ways, most notably that if I am farther from an event than the information of that event (i.e., far enough away that its light hasn't yet reached me), then I am causally disconnected from the event and its consequences. It's in a place most commonly just called "elsewhere." Every person has what's called a "light cone" that extends backwards in time to events that causally affected you and extends forward in time to events that you yourself can causally affect. Gravity distorts those light cones, slightly tilting them. If you enter a black hole, they tilt so much that you can never causally affect anything outside the black hole ever again - you are cut off from the universe outside permanently except for other things falling in after you.
Relativity is fun.

>> No.12407862

Now that we're talking about it, have you read that oppenheimer had a thing for the mahā bhārata? After all, his famous quote is actually Krsna in the eleven chapter of the gita.

>> No.12407888

>>12402362
You just scared of freedom, pal. Indeterminacy is a wet dream, nightmarishly (un)real; and we should be thankful for it, even under all its weightless load and confusion and pain.

>> No.12407892

>>12407862
I love that quote because when I took French I realized that the reason his very old translation used "I am become God" instead of what we would say, "I have become God," is that it kept the archaic past tense where some verbs use "I have ____" and some use "I am ____." This was a direct borrowing of the way French still uses "j'ai ____" for some verbs and "je suis ____" for others, but English simplified it over the years and French didn't.

>> No.12407914
File: 94 KB, 525x504, IMG_20190102_005216_682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12407914

>>12404939
>Space and time are relative.
Absolutely not.

>> No.12407953

>>12407914
Yes. Also, Moses was depicted with horns long before the fairly recent image of a horned Satan came about, this is worse than those "IS THAT AN UPSIDE DOWN CROSS???" image compilations in terms of muh secret satanism.

>> No.12408097

>>12407953
Hey, even the red skinned, trident in hand depiction of satan (which, if it means adversary might have derived from sanskrit shatru) is ripped off of Shiva. Or Poseidon. I'm not a retard like that "call for an uprising" guy, who thinks "christ good, foreign religion bad" as if christ preached in america. Yes, i knew moses had horns when the scripture meant halo of light. But i still think jews are of the devil and exodus is, after all, their own account of why they "took the gold and silver of egypt", begging them to leave
It was just a reaction pic for the stupid statement "space and time are relative". Had you said everything is subject to relation would have been better

>> No.12408200

>>12405137
Nigga that's like the air, or gravity, or even the fucking sun can't be directly observed

>> No.12408931

Just to keep the discussion; if there is no air in space, how can the stars burn? Disprove that, atheists

>> No.12409114

Because the sciences by their very nature can only deal with the appearances of reality, rather than the thing in itself of reality.

>> No.12409120

>>12408931
The stars are obviously made of sulphur.

>> No.12409185

>>12402362
Nothing. The world is will to power.

>> No.12409225

>>12409114
No. Science deals with reality, plain and simple. It determines reality through rigorous testing and observations, as opposed to other systems that merely apply biases to perceptions.

Most 'why' questions don't actually exist. For instance some people might say "what is the evolutionary benefit for consciousness. *why* does it exist?" The answer to this would simply be consciousness is merely the intensification of certain material processes across the cortex. Obviously this does not need a 'why' etc. It simply is as it is.

Most people don't like these conclusions and seek refuge in ideological or metaphysical narratives that pander to their emotional nature. But reality can ultimately only be known through the sciences.

>> No.12409229

>>12409225
b-but m-muh qualia!

>> No.12409377

>>12409225
We can know only the appearances of reality, and therefore any sciences we use to observe and attempt to understand reality can by their very nature only deal with the appearances of reality rather than its true nature.

>> No.12409439

>>12409377
You have just restated what you originally originally said. To which I would again respond with what I have said: you are wrong and are tangled up in word-games.

The value of an idea or method should be determined by its utility. The utility of the sciences is becoming almost immeasurable. That of philosophy, religion, etc is nonexistent. Your assertion that science does not understand reality is rebuffed by the very investigations undertaken by science. It is clear to all who have an unbiased perspective that science does indeed deal with reality, the true nature of it. Global workspace, recurrant processing, synchronous coding, divisive normalization...all of these are in point of fact descriptions of reality and its laws. The lungs are composed of the Larynx, Trachea, Primary bronchi, Secondary bronchi, Tertiary bronchi, Bronchioles, Cardiace notch, etc. Is this not reality? What other "reality" would you attempt to assign to lungs?

Philosophy has had a long history of obfuscation and little else. No results, no verifiable method, all pure speculations and mostly contradictory. This tool does not provide you any insight into reality, whereas science clearly does.

>> No.12409447

>>12409225
"Actually, we cannot have perfect knowledge by the experimental method. Because we are researching with imperfect senses. Just like, we see trough the telescope, and come under certain conclusion. But telescope is manufactured by me or by you. The machine is created by a person, who has got imperfect knowledge; and the seer is also a person, he's also imperfect. The imperftect person is seeing trough the imperfect machine. How we can obtain perfect knowledge? That is not possible"
-some guy

>> No.12409763

>>12409439
>Global workspace, recurrant processing, synchronous coding, divisive normalization...all of these are in point of fact descriptions of reality and its laws.
stop LARPing

>> No.12411321

>>12409225
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but the fact of the matter is that science is an attempt to get at reality via the systematic use of our senses. Our attempts to understand reality beyond mere appearances is based on tentative reasoning.

>> No.12411993

>>12402362
>what aspect of our reality is missing that makes us unable to formalize and predict it?

Not being able to formalize or comprehend spiritual reality using the Orthodox method.

>> No.12412268

>>12402417
Godel did - there are statements we can neither show to be true or show to not be true. But if we were to be omniscient, we should be able to say if any claim is true

the only way out of this is moving 'knowledge' away from symbols, into a kind of inuitive sphere - but I would argue this isn't what we mean by knowledge: all philosophy is linguistic, for example