/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10831356
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>10456744
>Eventually, by random chance, this hits on a Universe where time travel is possible but nobody invents, builds and uses a time machine.
If it works that way, it might also be possible that only one time machine exists, but isn't used in a way that would cause a "reshuffle" sufficient to change the part where only that one time machine exists.
Damn, I miss smoking weed.

>>8114951
Meh.
I'm just a code monkey, not a scientist, but it sounds like we're mixing up "what is" and "what we measure".
I'm also confused by the part where if we rotate the detector, it forces the particle's spin to align with the detector.
Why doesn't that violate conservation of angular momentum?
And the result of Bell's experiment is 50-50?
Couldn't that just mean the particles aren't "truly" entangled when measured this way?
If the spin were 100% random, you'd get 50-50 results.
Also, go back to 0:40 - "no, they're not actually spinning".
Maybe our ideas about conservation of angular momentum don't exactly apply in this sense?
And the explanation at 7:30 doesn't seem inconsistent with local hidden variables.
Maybe I'm just missing something.
Then there's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Violations_of_Bell.27s_inequality
>A number of experiments have shown in practice that Bell's inequality is not satisfied. However, all experiments have loophole problems.[30][31]
>When measurements of the entangled particles are made in moving relativistic reference frames, in which each measurement (in its own relativistic time frame) occurs before the other, the measurement results remain correlated.[32][33]
>The fundamental issue about measuring spin along different axes is that these measurements cannot have definite values at the same time―they are incompatible in the sense that these measurements' maximum simultaneous precision is constrained by the uncertainty principle.

It sounds like we don't have any definite answers yet, so it's a little early to rule out local hidden variables.
...but then again, I'm just a code monkey.

if QM proves that reality is probabilistic, then why does 1 plus 1 always equal two?

doesn't that prove that absolute answers in math is not in line with the probability nature of reality?

Also physics and math are pretty disconnected from reality as well considering the solutions are ideal.

this is why pure math is fucking useless.

>>7902660
>I have thought about this and it is plausible that we are actually creating reality.
Then who was creating reality before we came along?

>>7566134
>The correct way depends on where you live, there is no definition.
>What are you even doing here if you don't know that..?
Here on /sci/ almost everyone (including Euros) uses the "." for a decimal point.

>>7211603
>I see what you are saying, so its essentially the brain's ability to escape determinism and apply randomness?
Maybe not entirely.
Check out the "Halting Problem":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running or continue to run forever.
>Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist.
>A key part of the proof was a mathematical definition of a computer and program, which became known as a Turing machine; the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines.
>It is one of the first examples of a decision problem.

So a Turing Machine is 100% deterministic, and the past leads to only one possible, inescapable future, and yet the results are still potentially unpredictable.

This means even in Newton's universe humans could be unpredictable in an absolute sense.
Is that free will, even though it's deterministic?
At the very least this idea should disassociate predictability and free will.
It should also prove that many know-it-alls haven't actually considered _every_ aspect of free will before coming to this thread.