[ 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: 263 KB, 800x661, 1563790483674.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14479534 No.14479534 [Reply] [Original]

> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics. Thinking this is in any way "Magic" or "mysticism" is admission to ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism
> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity, and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
> Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.

Some of these statements may seem controversial to laymen or even some subpar physicists. They are not controversial among actually competent researchers at all.

Any philosophy that is in contrast to the above truths is immediately wrong.

>> No.14479584

>>14479534
>According to the bullshitters who made them up they are not controversial at all
Okay, faggot.

>> No.14479641

>>14479584
All of that is true, according to real physicists.

>> No.14479642

>>14479534
>Discrete theories [...] are blatant pseudoscience

>String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity, and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.

What about string theory ?
It is turbo autism to follow a route that math proposes when there are no legitimate ways to "prove" anything empirically. Obviously all forms of "proves" are not able to withstand everything since below it all there are some axioms by which one argues.

Kurt Gödel has showed us that there are things in math that simply can not be proven.

To make up a unified theory out of string theory would just shift our understanding of the world. It would still be an methode with which we would try to understand things on surface level.


>Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.

Whilst there are background radiations from the big bang, this idea would be a shifting as well.

I think that one has to give up the idea of "the truth". Science is intrinsically weak.
However it is an alright idea to use it practically.

>> No.14479680

>>14479534
> Nature is inherently continuous. Discrete theories or theories based on cellular automata-like or pixel-like concepts are blatant pseudoscience.
WRONG. Plancks constant disproves this,
> Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
WRONG. Check out the Böhm interpretation of quantum physics.
>> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.
WRONG. Gravity affects things faster than it takes the speed of life to travel the distance.
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed. An observer (not to be conflated with conscious beings) is a basic requirement in quantum mechanics. Thinking this is in any way "Magic" or "mysticism" is admission to ignorance and pseudo-intellectualism
This doesn't make any sense.
>> "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" are overwhelmingly pseudoscience. But as much as some of them can be said to be correct, it is Copenhagen or it's upgrade, Consistent (Decoherent) Histories.
WRONG. Imagine calling scientific interpretations pseudoscience while you shit post on 4chan.
>> String Theory is very likely the correct general approach for the theory of high energy quantum gravity, and also other forces, otherwise known as the Theory of Everything.
This might actually be true.
> Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.
Maybe :0

>> No.14479755

>>14479641
>real physicists

>> No.14479766

>>14479534
This is all correct, but it’s not literature and it’s wasted on the midwits here

>> No.14479885

>>14479680
>WRONG. Plancks constant disproves this,
No, it doesnt
>WRONG. Check out the Böhm interpretation of quantum physics.
Bohmian mechanics is pseudo science
>WRONG. Gravity affects things faster than it takes the speed of life to travel the distance.
Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light
>This doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it does
>WRONG. Imagine calling scientific interpretations pseudoscience while you shit post on 4chan.
The OP is not a shitpost whatsoever

You have admitted to being an ignorant pseudo intellectual who has never actually studied physics or mathematics at a University level or higher.

>> No.14480045

>>14479534
> Nature is inherently local. No faster than light transfer of information or any other effects is possible.

not even via quantum entanglement?

>> No.14480370

>>14480045
It would violate Special Relativity. This is why
> Nature is inherently non-realist. We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed.
is true instead.

>> No.14480617
File: 15 KB, 480x480, 1569518097068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14480617

>>14480370
>"We cannot speak meaningfully of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed."

>Still thinks that string theory is likely to be true.

Plus special relativity is retarded anyways. It brings up paradoxes.

>> No.14480631

>>14479885

>>WRONG. Plancks constant disproves this,
>"No, it doesnt"

great argument

>> No.14480652

>>14479534
You're assuming that all variables are known to us, and to some degree you're projecting our observational methdology onto the observed. The fact that probabilistic math is effective in making predictions does not -necessarily- mean that nature is inherently probabilistic (the experimental evidence is somewhat convincing, but there is still the question of hidden variables). An 'observer' may be a basic requirement of qm calculation, but it is not a requirement for reality... The observer just represents a 'snapshot' sampling in the flux of reality.

A philosophy would also need to consider whether non-determinism at quantum scales was really relevant to the reliably deterministic behaviour of things at macro scales.

There are good reasons to consider most of your statements probably true, but your eagerness to consider them all 'settled' fact and dismiss other possibilities indicates your own subpar intellect. You might make a good lab monkey, but you're no theoretician.

>> No.14480663

>>14480652
Agree

>> No.14480727
File: 483 KB, 1829x1830, received_484880575481039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14480727

>>14479534
> 2020
> Still believing in science and technological progress.
Sorry Anon, I guess you have bad eye sight.

>> No.14480735

>>14480727
Bee-hive Neo Slavery controlled by women/with a dash of psychedelic mind control.

>> No.14481474

>>14480631
It literally, objectively doesn't and no physicist or non-moron would say that it does.

>> No.14481491

>>14480652
All of your objections fall apart when you actually learn the mathematics and physical underpinnings of the theories.
Your attempt at insulting me, then, doesn't work. It comes from a place of ignorance of the ACTUAL details of modern cosmology and physics.

>> No.14481529

>>14481491
Yet they can’t consolidate the theory of Gravity due to mathematical hangups. You’d think of pure mathematics could explain metaphysics of our universe then we would’ve done it by now. You’re really retarded to hinge your entire philosophical beliefs on empiricism.

>> No.14481739

>>14479534
>nature is inherently continuous
I stopped right there faggot.
Read any number of quantum theories.

>> No.14481840

>>14479680
>Gravity affects things faster than it takes the speed of life to travel the distance.
The speed of gravity is the speed of light.

>> No.14481936

Quantum mechanics don't disprove determinism

>> No.14482079

>>14479534
>agreeing to be limited by a cult
thanks, but nah

>> No.14482639

>>14479534
>Cosmic Inflation is likely the actual mechanism behind The Big Bang.

>The rapid expansion of the universe was caused by rapid expansion.

>> No.14482652

>>14481936
But muh random quantum positioning!

>> No.14482676

>>14479534
>Nature is inherently stochastic/probabilistic. Deterministic theories are demonstrably false. Probabilities is all that we can predict, and this is not just due to our lack of knowledge or precision, but it is fundamental.
hurr durr "i can't construct a model of it so it must be random"
stochastishills are the lowest form of life

>> No.14482684

>>14479642
>t. whored-out peetard's son