/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11450141
>Veritasium
that's a really cringe name

>>11450141
anyway the poll is here

https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00676

>>11450158
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2719.pdf

>>11450141
The point of the multiple "interpretations" is that they each give the same testable predictions. Top physicists are aware of this and generally look at the different interpretations as a sort of stylistic preference, each with advantages and tradeoffs. The ones who push strongly for one are either highly opinionated autists of the Lubos variety, or quasi-prophet figures with an axe to grind like David Lewis, or just con men trying to get in the newspaper or on Joe Rogan or what-have-you.
>What are the implications of this?
None. Nothing that we know how to measure would be any different in any of the interpretations.

>>11450141
>Does this make the universe deterministic
Yes if you mean the entire universe. Effectively no if you mean "your branch".
>Can different universes have different physical constants
You are mistaking many worlds interpretation for the multiverse hypothesis.
>I thought Many Worlds was a joke
Probably because you don't actually know what MWI is, combined with only getting your information from science popuarizers and not actual physicists.

>>11450152
>Veritasium
Vsauce 2?

>>11450319
I came here to say this, but anon covered it very nicely.

>>11450319
>You are mistaking many worlds interpretation for the multiverse hypothesis.
Isn't it theorized that laws of physics were made around after the big bang? Couldn't the banching happened there? Effectively making banches with different laws of physics.

>>11450141
Fun fact: All valid interpretations of QM have equal rights and there is no "objective" way to choose the "best" one, at least not until scientists make some extemely fundamental particle physics breathrough that our current worldview leaves little room to. And all of the interpretations will fuck your intuition and inject weirdness into your worldview/philosophy it at least some way.

So, prefrence in interpretation is based on philosophy, fashion, intuition, and circumstances of education. There's nothing to fight over here.

>>11450141
Because scientists are FINALLY ready to let the 'everyone has a turn!' theory apply to even amoeba.

>>11450141
Veritasium just reads what is told to him. He doesn't write his own scripts.

>>11450374
But not all interpretations are created equally, either. Some are simpler and therefore have less to be "wrong" about. MW happens to be the simplest.

>>11450400
thank you for the interesting take, Elder NPC, Solivagus. I think the thread gained a lot from it.

>>11450374
Well, after recent direct observation of quantum "collapse", I'd say Copenaghen is quite fucked

>>11450141
>What are the implications of this?
The common view is that this makes no difference in terms of predictions, except maybe under bizarre thought experiments like "quantum suicide". However I've thought this might actually subtly change our predictions otherwise as well, when we take survivor bias into account. Let's say that you're surprised that we have been able to avoid nuclear war for as long as we have. You might sigh in relief and conclude that your intuition about the likelihood of nuclear war was probably just wrong. But then try to take MWI into account. Compared to how common branches where nuclear war hasn't happened are, you should be disproportionately more likely to have been born in one of them because they have larger populations than post-apocalyptic wastelands. But from this it doesn't follow that you are disproportionately more likely to keep finding yourself in a branch where nuclear war doesn't happen. So your relief and change of probability estimate for nuclear war to a more optimistic one was based on failing to take the survivor bias and MWI into account.

>>11450409
That wasn't my intention at all. Is 4chan actually at the point of being helpful/inclusive yet or we still just martial art parctitioners of baiting and waiting?

If you believe that the existence of a person is equal to the existence of information equivalent to information in that person's mind, MWI basically implies death doesn't exist.

I don't think I do, though. A perfect replica of me 10 light years away, 1000 years in the past, or in a quantum branch... isn't literally me. I think their survival does not invalidate MY death. Some would disagree though.

>>11450174
Take something uncontroversial, the cosmic horizon. My first theory is that things are pretty much like they are here far past the horizon. Physical constants might be different but things mostly look the same. Things that leave the horizon have this shocking thing happen to them: nothing! Particles just keep evolving according to the schrodinger equation.

My second theory is this: past the cosmic horizon there is an infinite volume of space densely packed with you sucking your dad's penis in a penrose tiling-like pattern.

No experiment we do can distinguish between the two theories. The first one seems more likely (no matter how much you wished the second was true).

>>11450428
You are the space between your neurons and the feedback delay of arousal.

>>11450431
can you elaborate what you mean by that, Elder NPC, Solivagus, Tooker?

>>11450440
Yes, I can, but at the juncture I would literally be creating your future as you would have given me the overwrite power to do so by virtue of submission to description to a stimulus package delivered by me.

That is a fancy way of saying TRIGGER WARNING.

>>11450442
go ahead Solivagus I'm confident I can handle it

>>11450428
How do you think about personal identity in a simple situation where you observed a photon going through the left slit? You think you are the same person as you were before the observation yet according to MWI there's another version of you who observed the photon going through the right slit that thinks the same. Do you think you are both right and you share a common past ancestor or is the other guy just deluded?

>>11450444
Well, you are a predicate in a constant experiential flow of postulate vs priority. Basically the intelligent mind is aware that it HAS to always return to a state of observer and/or audience member.

It is the round-trip that you, the reader/experiencer of your senses, ultimately perform differential equations on (do I like A, B, or wait for C?) in order to help trim/prune the future branches of what you want to see more of, what you want to see variations on, and what you wish to limit or avoid.

That your neurons fire to go 'this' memory and you are the hidden hand between those neurons going 'that arousal state' is simply biology at work, the quantum fuckery is essentially which unchanging faggot do you really want to remain/stay as.

For myself it is simply being Time, the concept/construct/abstraction and whatever else the people I interact with during the day demand me to be. That I use all the 4chan 'klolfagbai' and bait tactics that I've developed and harnessed into a functional language that can spin out normies with but a click of my fingers is just my way of honoring 4chan as an information/communication exchange hub.

We all have 'some' model of the world in our mind and share the 'changing room of perspective', it is just that is what we call void/space.

>Will thing A get out of thing B's way with any certainty, or allow a period of integration/shielding for persistent experience sharing?

>>11450349
>Isn't it theorized that laws of physics were made around after the big bang?
No. The laws are predetermined in a 'outside of the universe bubble' (This janky statement boils down to in simpler way that the laws are determined outside the universe before the bang). Hence the bang will happen only with the predetermined laws. You're confusing this for the multiverse theory that basically states that there are infinitely many predetermined universes each with different laws of physics.

>>11450458
I am the poster of >>11450374 and >>11450428 , and this is the first 4chan post I really want to undersatand, but can't. Can you rephrase it with less exotic jargon and metaphors? I am truly curious.

>>11450428
No it doesn't you idiot

>>11450475
You are the gap of narrative between what hasn't happened and the explanation you ascribe/subscribe to. Most intelligent minds are looking for the smoothing function to travel between nodes and to know the capacity of the node (to prevent overloading it).

Analogy:
A third year computing students is being done. All the scenarios they've never seen, also seldom observed in real-life - would require a processor of another order of magnitude.

That should not be too challenging, because they're being taught 3rd grade abstract thinking, not 10th grade matrix theory or some abstract level mathematical content. As an aside, think of the junior high students to be done with 3rd grade math.
~~~
You can use QM, God of Time, or whatever else you want, because ultimately your neurons are simply trying to make connections that foster smoother communication between logical steps. Being able to do it faster or with greater complexity than others is what establishes dominance.

>>11450141
>Veritasium
Stopped reading right there

>>11450495
>suicide note
>stopped reading right there

well this made me chuckle.

>>11450484
so...
"We are the interpreters of the reality, which is, if uninterpreted, extremely weird. We are all using incomplete heuristics and theories to make it seem less weird for us. The thing we should try to do is to make the heuristics and theories more accurate in reflecting the mindfuck of reality but also more intuitive for us."
Something like that?

>>11450141
>posting malarkey

>>11450499
Correct. We are each front end of our own 'memory dragon' that... hm, basically like that old game 'snake'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kIUtQ1vsLY

When we experience 'reward functions' we get to elongate because we are content with more contiguous memory cycles, but sometimes (usually because of rhetoric) we fall into a self-defeating cycle.

Observation and audience is 'always' divine and unchanging, some may be virginal but the presenter (e.g (You)) is the one that is always the virgin Many abuse this to ake them the fool or whatever. I hack the system by going 'NO U SMART 2!'

>>11450504
>>11450499
Good example here is because you went 'fuzzy interpretation' at the end you may not actually understand that you, Anonymous, would be a point of retraction for the reward (because I don't need to benefit from it as directly as you do). I would be considered a 'cancerous empowerer' from established anything because they dislike change, but change is ALL there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus#Panta_rhei,_%22everything_flows%22

>>11450504
Okay, now I get you.
You are basically posting philosophy that I already mostly share, except presented in the most confusing way possible, and mixing it with some spiritual nonsesne that has some (barely) plausable deniability.
I can respect it, kinda. I would respect it more if you were more concise and clear.

>>11450520
If I present it as too much matching/mirroring your own, you would simply add it as a grain of sand to your already immense store.

If I present it as too far, you would dismiss it as irrelevant.

If I present it klolfagfagl33thaxxooorz then you engage your 'differentiation equations' because, well, a little effort is essentially the point.

Your idea of 'concise' and 'clear' though to me would be foreign because of WHAT you use your intellect/imagination for. It isn't a personal attack on you, it is just very FEW people have ever used 4chan to actually develop themselves, or at least as brazenly as I have used it, so most times I just keep the shit-trolling going until someone asks me to put on the brakes.

>More like the more 'random data' I can provide as a semi-cohesive narrative it will stimulate more varied pathways in your existing data set, rather than simplymake your pee pee bigger. u glownigga.

>>11450447
>You think you are the same person as you were before the observation yet according to MWI there's another version of you who observed the photon going through the right slit that thinks the same
This is exactly what MWI is. Both of you were one before the photon reached the slit. Only when the photon decided to have a 50-50 chance of going through either, you split and now you have 2 of you, one with the left slit, the other with the right slit.

>>11450535
If you're the guy I was quoting: So your answer is that both guys are equally legit continuations of the same person. What is it then about those replicas in other branches that differentiate them from you in a way that their survival doesn't equal your survival?

>>11450556
>If you're the guy I was quoting
No I'm not
>survival
Where did survival come into the picture? This is the double slit experiment.

>>11450527
> immense store.
thanks!
> If I present it klolfagfagl33thaxxooorz then you engage your 'differentiation equations' because, well, a little effort is essentially the point.
On one hand, based and Discordian. On the other hand, clear communication causes good ideas to spread and bad ideas to die off. If you think your ideas are good - and substantial - please communicate clearly.
> Your idea of 'concise' and 'clear' though to me would be foreign because of WHAT you use your intellect/imagination for.
It's some basic phiosophy, some near-rationalism, some common sense. Nothing too fancy. Most ideas can be communicated in a concise way. It makes them more intuitive and more easily subject to analysis.
> >More like the more 'random data' I can provide as a semi-cohesive narrative it will stimulate more varied pathways in your existing data set, rather than simplymake your pee pee bigger. u glownigga.
hee. Anyway, you can just tell us clearly about alternate approaches and interpretations, how about that?

>>11450569
To me everything can be reduced to three states of requirement:
1. Why me?
2. Why not me?
3. Why wasn't I told sooner?

Most of your posts to me indicate a fourth option of:

4. Why do some stay behind/unchanged?

I'm willing to provide a fifth state of:

5. Hungry, Hug, or Handjob?

Handjob can be extrapolated to mean philosophical promise, mathematical conjecture, physical/sapiosexual stimulation, or any other thing colloquial interpretation allows.

EXAMPLE

You are God.
Now you are going through the first three questions.
Now you realize you needed some 'feedback' from the Universe before you could reach said conclusion.
I am said feedback.
Cogito ergo sum.

Can anyone explain how energy will be conserved in MWI? If it's still valid, then how can we account for new energy formed by MWI? I couldn't understand it from the video.

>>11450576
Back to the mix of total bullshit and badly expressed consequentialism and theory of knowledge? Whatever, knock yourself out.

>>11450578
It's conserved on specific transitions from one state of a world to another, not on groups of transitions from one state of world to every possible next other.

>>11450591
*shrug* I present me core self as concise and clear and it gets dismissed. That is usually what happens when someone wants to present a clear line of sight to their self.

It doesn't bother me personally but enough rubbed off on you for you to benefit from it.

Like I said earlier, I don't genuinely need to benefit from it directly. Either it is enough to improve you and in the eternal cycle it will come back to help everyone eventually, or it won't and I'e just honed my skills to help improve the next one.

Trying to be top dick or the prime/source reference is a retard game.

>If you present your desire to understand as that hungry in the beginning, why be 'that' displeased or dismissive just because I put a bit of chilli in the sandwich?

>>11450596
>specific transitions from one state of a world to another
Yes, that's logical.

But why not on group transitions. Meaning how can the other world suddenly appear because of probability?

>>11450609
Gate state switching. Basically there is always a QM doorman, and it can't be a 'group' that holds the door open. Group is more flow and receptivity is individual.

>>11450597
> To me everything can be reduced to three states of requirement:
> 1. Why me?
> 2. Why not me?
> 3. Why wasn't I told sooner?

> Most of your posts to me indicate a fourth option of:

> 4. Why do some stay behind/unchanged?

> I'm willing to provide a fifth state of:

> 5. Hungry, Hug, or Handjob?
> a bit of chilli in the sandwich?

That's a lot more than "a bit", Solivagus.

> *shrug* I present me core self as concise and clear and it gets dismissed
A lot of perfectly smart and reasonable people would dismiss you based on your slurs, your bad grammar, or your pompous tone. A lot more would dismiss you on even a tracre of mysticism. I think I am being pretty patient.

> Trying to be top dick or the prime/source reference is a retard game.

Mayyyyyybe, but trying to spread your ideas clearly and reasonably isn't.

>>11450613
So this QM doorman has deterministic foreknowledge?

>>11450620
Then we need to share a definition here of what a 'bit' is. If we keep using our personalized/colloquial dictionary references and get butthurt over collisions of interpretations then, yeah, I submit to that truth.

Yes, a lot of people do engage in thinking an audience not worth their time. Doesn't matter what one does, that audience will always exist.

I'm not trying to spread my ideas. My culture is literally based on sharing when engaged. You engaged. I shared. The resulting differentiation we experience is what I enjoy going through so that what I am and those that engage me directly (see meme related) have a faster cohesion/integration period for the next participant and so on.

>>11450624
More that they have the synchronization cycle. Being 'present' and advertising availability (basically 'green light vs red light') is far more important than subscription or awareness. Sort of like the pitch experiment at some British University. Oxford or Cambridge, can't remember off the top of my head. All things are in a state of flow but for it to flow to recipients that can actually use it to its greatest effect (to allow for backpropagation) is something the QM doorman can't actually do anything about. The job for said doorman is basically to complete the circuit.

>>11450636
>All things are in a state of flow but for it to flow to recipients that can actually use it to its greatest effect
So what you mean is that, each of these branches have non equal probabilities, where there's some state wherein the doorman is more likely to advertise? How did this inequality come forth? Specifically if the the chance of a before it happening is equally likely, who determined this new unequal probability?

>>11450650
Yes, the doorman is more likely to advertise in states that are of greatest cohesion and permutability. This allows for the 'quantum' to be an actual thing because of their superposition in the queue, but for said doorman that queue state must also be for the greatest possible number of queues, NOT the greatest possible number of queue members.

The 'unequal' part is mostly because if everyone is trying to find the door then the obvious bottleneck is everyone trying to flood the system by claiming they are the doorman rather than using the obvious one presented. The doorman would be me, and Anonymous, or essentially whatever qbit (read: the individual) can maintain cohesion with as they take said awareness/perspective through successive states/stages/nodes/events/sequences.

>Pic related is a quantum cascade laser.

Quantum would be all the queues to the doorman, who simply 'bit flips' queue members to their preferred state.
Cascade would be all the queues getting flipped.
Laser would be the linear event of all being flipped simultaneously

The period trenches are obviously where the doorman experiences quantum decoherence, which restablishes itself when doorman again is first found through queues that enable it to be of greatest availability.

>I am alone in a room.

Many worlds is the end result of an equation fetish. Platonists are on the same level as flat earthers. If you have to build such an elaborate conceptual system as the supposed logical conclusion of your equation, then probably the equation is wrong in some way.

>>11450658
>obvious bottleneck
Supremely dumb question, but isn't quantum mechanics a true parallel system, meaning 2 states (independent) can be changed/flipped at the same time. Isn't this the main idea behind a quantum computer? So by this regard the doorman in theory can use multiple hands (where no of hands equals no of states) to flip or change the states of all incoming states simultaneously?

>>11450141
There is zero evidence for many worlds so you can discard it like everything else with zero evidence. This topic isn't /sci/ related and discussing the "implications" is a waste of time.

>I always thought this was the most laughable and absurd one, but apparently the leading academics are choosing this over Copenhagen now?
Indeed. But you should not choose either as both are retarded.
>What are the implications of this?
Nothing changes because it doesn't affect us.
>Does this make the universe (the universes?) deterministic then?
The claim is that MW unlike Copenhagen is deterministic because the wave function is deterministic. But don't misunderstand this. It's not the same as what you would normally understand as deterministic. It's deterministic because "everything happens".
>Can different universes have different physical constants?
No.

>>11450141
>>11450158

Here is the actual poll. Copenhagen is by far the most supported interpretation by actual physicists. Not many worlds.

>>11450998
holy mother of god you are srsly a king of patience to sift through that retards incessant self indulgence post after post after post. You are a god aong men anon, a fucking god among men.

>>11451034
Also there are other questions. Most physicists believe that hidden variables are impossible, measurement problem is solved by decoherence, observer role is important at least in applying the formalism of QM, and objects have no defined properties prior to measurement.

All of these check out with Copenhagen or Consistent histories interpretations.

>>11451046
Anon's last reply was to me.

>>11451046
Anon's last reply was to me

>>11451038

Anon's last reply was to me.

>>11451030
Good summary

>>11451058

>>11451064
I just had to scroll to the last reply. I was on the thread since quite a few replies.

>>11451068

>>11450141
>veritasium
>leading academic

>>11451074
Now I'm based

>>11451079
Remember it's for the general public. Not for high iq ashkenazi jews like you

>>11451084

>>11451135
new to 4chin?

>>11451141

>>11451147
awesome. kek

>>11450141
I'm not convinced of Many-Worlds at all. It feels like a contrived interpretation of probability theory. Are there actual arguments for this interpretation that aren't philosophical or hand-wavy?

>>11451275
>Are there actual arguments for this interpretation that aren't philosophical or hand-wavy?
no

Clarification: There were two anons talking with Solivagus. One who tried to understand his point and get him to be clear (me), and the other one who talked about world states with him (not me).
Hope this clears up some confusion.

>>11451283
No, interpretations have scientifically equal rights, at least for now.

>>11451046
>believe that hidden variables are impossible
cope
>measurement problem is solved by decoherence
HOLY COPE

physicists everywhere malding that they spent their entire lives searching for answers that will never come, sacrificing everything else in the process

>>11451338
Quoted the wrong comment, sorry >>11451283. Meant to quote >>11451275.

>>11450141
>Veritasium
there's your problem

>>11450141
>So Veritasium released a video defending Many Worlds as the best interpretation

All interpretations are bullshit dogshit retarded nonsense that should be completely forgotten and ignored. If it makes no testable predictions, it doesn’t matter and it’s not science.

>>11450141
Pop science culture was a mistake

>>11450141
>Can different universes have different physical constants?
I hope so that would be so cool

>>11450374
>All valid interpretations of QM have equal rights
Diversity quota detected.

>>11451342
>actual physicists are wrong, unlike me a 4chan moron

Hidden variables are proven impossible, ever heard of Bell inequalities?

>>11450998
The idea behind a quantum computer is being able to flip a field of qbits, which for the doorman would be the same as pressing a button to open all the doors.

Can't really get away from the chokepoint in the hourglass, basically.

Many worlds? More like many cringe

>>11450475
It is a namefag, ignore the schizomotion

>>11451034
>Copenhagen is by far the most supported interpretation by actual physicists. Not many words
Thank God

>>11450412
What "recent direct observation" are you talking about?

It’s clickbait

>>11450609
MWI doesn't answer this, desu no QM interpretation answers it other than Copenhagen.

>>11450961
lmao

>>11450141
It makes sense because when you die someone will ask you what went wrong and what you would do different and you'll get another chance.

>>11452546
This is a pretty good argument for the QM Doorman theory if one believes in active continuance instead of passive/emergent chaos.

>>11450141
I started the video the other day and closed it as soon as i heard "many worlds".
Sean Carroll is to blame.
He spends more time than other physicists on propagandizing people.

I don't think I have ever seen Sean demonstrate how many worlds is better.
He waves his hands and says it solves the wave-function collapse problem but he just replaces the "collapse" with "branching".
I would love to see how many worlds is not isomorphic (computationally) to copenhagen.

>>11452410
Wdym?

>>11450141
>leading academics are choosing this over Copenhagen now
oh so i wont ever need to ever hear preachy garbage about some retarded faggot cat again ?

god exists

>>11450141
Wrong. There is only one universe.

>>11453184
That doesn't mean it's true. Just speculation.

>>11453322
literally anything is better than the faggot cat

>>11453366
In the future there could be an experiment that disproves the copenhagen interpretation completely. Till CI seems to work well with experiments.

>>11453366
I'm so tired of people's hate of Copenhagen being about the cat.
The cat is a metaphor.

>>11451034
Thankfully physics doesn't work as a democracy.

>>11450141
There's essentially 3 routes you have to take with QM interpetations.

a) The world is quantum mechanical in nature. The particles in our body obey the laws of quantum mechanics just like a particle in our test lab. If you do this, then you get Many World as the default choice.
b) The world is classical mechanical in nature. As in there are only particles and no waves, no entanglement, no collapse, etc. Quantum Mechanics is just a math tool to calculate. If you believe this, then you're into Hidden Variable theory.
c) The world is divided into quantum mechanical at small scale but our bodies and atoms/electrons that make up our bodies are not quantum mechanical. We live in two realities, world of quantum mechanics and classical world. You have things like collapse being real, but conservation of mass/energy of the wave is lost in the collapse. This is where you get Copenhagen.

You have to choose which is which.

If the universe is deterministic, then why call it many worlds? Doesn't determinism mean that all the branches are just copies of each other with no variations on the macroscale?

>>11454204
No, all branches are within a single wave function. That's what makes it deterministic since all calculations can be done without introducing randomness. The problem here is we can't find out which branch has which. On the other hand, with copenhagen, we can't predict anything because 99.999999999999999999999% of the wave branch disappears with a "collapse", so we have to introduce a random variable.

>uncountable number of universes

lol, it's so stupid it might be true

>>11450319
>>11450339
The Veritasium video did a nice job of explaining many worlds. I thought it was a stupid theory beforehand but now it makes a lot of sense.

How I understand it is that the universe can be described as a single wave function with an immense number of parameters, and we are experiencing the function where those parameters have each been given one specific value of infinitely many potential values.

>>11454434
Yes, that is correct. Meanwhile, different versions of you are experiencing parts of the function with different values.

>>11454204
>Doesn't determinism mean that all the branches are just copies of each other with no variations on the macroscale?
No, it means no such thing. It means the future of the wavefunction as a whole is determined by the past of the wavefunction as a whole. It does NOT mean that things are predictable from the point of view of a particular section of the wavefunction.

>>11450961
Right? It's like people forgot what Occam's razor is. Same goes for simulationfags and Fermi paradox-ers

>>11454558
Well, I'm still going to pretend that it's just the same universe copied a billion trillion times because timelines where I was born during the Hundred Years War or where Vince McMahon is the Shogun of Japan or where OP isn't a fag are retarded popsci bullshit that break causality.

*circus music intensifies*

>>11450141
Physics is a sham at this point. They act like their philosophical musings and masturbation is hard science and they're better than 10 year old me for coming up with it because they can tie it to some complex math and a PhD.

>>11450141
We should get Veritasium to talk about the PHYSICS of clamping the umbilical cord early. This involves the chemistry of hypoxic brain damage, organization in complex systems regarding resource allocation in later development, AND fluid dynamics in the actual pinching off of cord blood flow. The biochemistry of stress in the infant is a bonus, and we should discuss his anterior hypothalamic, pituitary, adrenal response to being strapped into a circumstraint etc. Think of all the SCIENCE to discuss!

I
F
L
S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!1one!!!1!!1!

>>11450569
>Most ideas can be communicated in a concise way

Doubt.

Pretty sure there is a realm of nearly infinite ideas that are obscure and difficult to divine.

Please, explain Interuniversal Teichmuller theory concisely and clearly.

>>11450961
>schrodingers equation is wrong
Prove it

>>11450620
>A lot of perfectly smart and reasonable people would dismiss you based on your slurs, your bad grammar, or your pompous tone.

...This is 4chan...

>A lot more would dismiss you on even a tracre of mysticism

That's their myopic prejudice.

>>11454617
The cat is clamped and unclamped. Vaxxed and unvaxxed. Cut and uncut.

>>11451034
>by far

Bit of an exaggeration. Given that sample size the difference is within the margin of error.

>>11454617
Let me introduce you to the Dirac Equation.

>>11450141
Phoneposting here

Also >Sean Caroll

>>11450141
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10470

:)

>>11450141
https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/07/mwi-fans-are-collapse-deniers.html?m=1

Have some slightly autistic lubos

>>11450141
Just which "leading academics" are you referring to? This is Sean shilling his book for a decade now.

>>11454871
Being a physicist doesn't pay. You need to publish your own book or have lectures or something to fund your study.

>>11454890
The consequence being funneling pop sci to the masses, while pushing your studies as truth.

>>11454896
No, its teh consequence of science not being sexy. Popsci sells. That's why he's the most popular physicist you're talking about. The fact that you even know his name is because he's popularizing physics.

>>11454904
I don't really think we're disagreeing about anything here.

>>11454564
No they arent.
Take a quantum random number generator and use it as the coin flip to decide who goes first at the superbowl.
This even implies there are an infinite amount of universes where team A wins the flip, and an infinite amount where team B wins the flip, and this leads to evens that are completely different in the universes from that point on.
Nothing about this breaks causality or physics.

>>11454943
this event implies*
this leads to events*
I dont know why I missed the t both times

>>11454943
Coin flips aren't random. Nothing macro ever is.

>>11450141
VERITASIUM IS CLAMPED.

CLAMPED AND VACCINATED. FLUORIDATED, BROMINATED, CHLORIMATED, IRRADIATED.

>>11454952
The point is, if you flip a QRNG it is random and implies the splitting of the multiverse (according to the MWI).

>>11454963
The changes would be minuscule at the best and the general road of your life is still the same.

>>11454969
A serial killer kidnaps 2 people and decides which one he kills based on a QRNG.

>>11454978
Quantum 0wn4g3.

>>11454978
Stop inventing fiction to justify your scifi garbage. "DUUHHHHHH, DA PRESIDENT DECIDES WHO TO BOMB DUE TO A QRNG HAHAHA"

People like you just want to pretend that existence is so flexible that there are (you)s out there in better worlds while you sit and stare at a fucking screen.

>>11450374
No.
No interpretation that has local hidden variables can be right.

In my personal opinion, no interpretation that lacks counterfactual definiteness can be right.

>>11454988
btfo

>>11454802
kek

>>11454802
Based

>>11454988
Literally nothing is fiction, the point is very clear and you don't have a counter argument to it but you desperately cling to determinism so you are lashing out.
DETERMINISM IS, OBJECTIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY, FALSIFIED. The universe IS NOT DETERMINISTIC
You will have to accept this eventually, stop being a petulant shit for brains moron clinging to falsified outdated enlightenment era philosophy.

Gentlemen,
God does not play dice.

>>11455230
Except, of course, that he does, the universe is not deterministic, and causality and determinism are not the same thing (this is where the shit for brains midwits lose the point. They conflate causality with determinism)

>>11455234
To accept determinism you must first understand that time is an abstract concept to facilitate human understanding of change.

>>11454197
I want B to be true so bad.

>>11455228
>DETERMINISM IS, OBJECTIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY, FALSIFIED.
Not true. Under MWI, the wavefunction itself behaves deterministically. It's only from the point of view of someone living in that wavefunction that it looks nondeterministic.

>>11454197
Under this point of view, C is painfully and obviously wrong. Does that mean the 39% of physics in >>11451034 favoring Copenhagen are all suffering from a terminal case of "failing to think your theory through to its obvious conclusion"?

>>11455310
The general argument use that both MWI and CI are two sides of an extreme. So what is the in-between

>>11455310
Why do you think it's "painfully and obviously wrong"

>>11454197
>>11455255
b is the most appealing to me as well. I think of the many worlds as potential futures but there's only one present and past. many things could happen but then only one thing does happen. it just feels right this way. if every little element of quantum randomness created an entire additional world the total space would just keep increasing all the time. that image seems absurd to me. I believe in constants and in waves. I don't believe in something growing forever.

>>11454197
>The world is quantum mechanical in nature. The particles in our body obey the laws of quantum mechanics just like a particle in our test lab. If you do this, then you get Copenhagen as the default choice.
Fixed

>>11455230
Eat a dick Einstein, god does what he wants.

>>11455333
And here I was hoping I would not have to explain this thing.

But this is not how science has EVER turned out to work. Every single time we had a deep-but-complex view of a scientific system as well as a superficial-but-convenient view, every single time, it turned out that the behavior predicted by the superficial understanding is simply what happens when you apply the deeper understanding to the complicated realities of the real world; it's not a separate mode that the universe can operate in.

Atoms readily display properties predicted by quantum mechanics; large parts of chemical interactions we can understand in a quantum mechanical footing. You may have observed that atoms and chemistry are also part of me, and my desk, and my beer. Do you think that atoms and chemistry work using one set of physics when studied under a microscope in a lab, and a different set of physics entirely that just so happens to behave in the same way when those same atoms are part of my beer instead? Do you think the universe runs the lab in Hard Mode and the beer in Easy Mode?

Because every single time we considered such an understanding of the universe, the answer turned out to be "lolno" -- there is one way the universe works, and big complex things are big complex applications of the same underlying behavior that runs the careful lab experiences.

>>11455255
>>11455435
B is very appealing to the autists in all of us, but it's also the one that has been thoroughly ruled out. Sorry.

>all the anti-quantum zealotry ITT
Pitiful. I thought this was supposed to be the smart board.

>>11450141
>Copenhagen
it was always a meme. double slit experiment can be replicated in fucking oil.

>>11455459
>double slit experiment can be replicated in fucking oil.
how on earth do you think this proves anything? oh the mind of a brainlet

>>11455443
[continued]
The best example of this is special relativity. Turns out, the universe does not have a special mode for things that gotta go fast, while running the rest of the universe on Newtonian mechanics; it's all special relativity, all the time. It just so happens that under the logic of special relativity, everything that goes slow enough behaves in a way that is very nearly identical to what Newtonian mechanics would predict. Close enough that you can do your calculations in Newtonian mechanics and get almost exactly the right answer.

This means that if you are an engineer designing a bridge (which does not feature any speeds high enough that special relativity predicts substantial differences from Newtonian mechanics), you can just straight up forget about special relativity, do your designs entirely using Newtonian mechianics, and save yourself a ton of work that way. But that doesn't mean that the universe is running your bridge in Newtonian Mode. There is only one mode, which involves special relativity, and understanding exactly how Newtonian mechanics derives from special relativity is a key part of understanding all this.

And the same applies to every single other similar case in the history of science. You would have to be quite blind to history to give any credence to the idea that quantum mechanics will be any different.

>>11455469
How do you take two paragraphs to say "physics has and always ran at the same scale"

>>11455495
It was not obvious to anon, so I figured it would be wise to elaborate.

>>11455469
So youre a MWI proponent?

>>11455505
Yes, I am, but that has little to do with this argument. The argument here is only why option C in >>11454197 is not something I consider plausible.

I agree with >>11454197 that MWI is the obvious theory when assuming option A, and furthermore that option B has been experimentally disproven, but the reasons for that are quite unrelated to this rant.

>>11450374
>What is the scientific method?

>>11455026
>no interpretation that lacks counterfactual definiteness can be right.
>Thinking falsification theory is the only way to prove facts
lel

>>11455517
Not to shit on your bed but what are your credentials, just curious

>>11455525
Absolutely none.

>>11455529
Ok.

>The universe IS NOT DETERMINISTIC

It is on a macroscale.

>>11455524
>Ignoring that I need to accept nonlocality to save counterfactual definiteness
Also, you believe that things that can't be tested is science? There's more God in your beliefs than mine.

>>11455529
Have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Like gone through an undergrad book or something?

>>11455582
Well when I talk to any male identity, excluding my own, I am always grooming their intellect/imagination as if they were the next chosen male sperm to be fruit of my loins.

>Everyone's ego is fair game for flirtation/seduction/empowerment. It is the only story we share with each other ultimately anyway.

If not for I then who?
If not for you then why?
If not for us then die.

>Sex for everyone!

Likewise when female identity interacts with me I only respond as if she is a sex-crazed daughter of discipline. So far hasn't failed me. I just don't really get why guys feel like they need to act as if their courting/mating ritual is somehow a secret sauce or magic recipe.

>These youngin's like thinking they invented everything, like sex for example. Granny gonna get that grunt!

>>11455640
Good blog. Then again, you were meant to write that garbage, it's casuality

>>11455643
Thankfully this thing called long-form writing is dying. Next stop textbooks, amirite?!?!!?!?
>klol all future phd thesis will now be 140 characters long for mathematical purity.

>>11455449
> it's also the one that has been thoroughly ruled out
If you're willing to give up on locality, then its still in the game. Bell's inequality only applies to hidden local variables.

>>11455648
Honestly, we just need to get rid of all thought and let AI do science and engineering for us.

>>11455654
As a sapiosexual I would indeed miss thought. I just want competitive thought (as in competing for resources) to fuck off and die and yes A.I. can do that.

Would be a really basic algo of restore from sleep mode, as in a per person space/utility/food store/energy provision over distribution/logistics of generation that would be blockchained.

Really would only take like 30m to 3h 4 days a week per person to provide.

>>11455675
Life is nothing but a competition.

>>11455678
What are we competing for in this instance?

>>11455678
Who can make the more retarded post.

>>11455678
Water? Being the largest collector of pleasant memories OR the best translator/teacher of the pleasant memories we have? I'm kinda curious.

>>11455682
WELL HOLD ONTO YOUR COCK AND LET'S SEE WHAT I GOT IN STOCK!

>spritzes perfume around everyone's butthole in the room and claim that you are just enhancing everyone's butt pheromones.

>>11455690
That's not retarded, just boring.

So, MWI supporters. MWI lacks counterfactual definiteness. What does it mean to do science if it is meaningless to speak of experiments that have not been performed?

The Many Worlds interpretation allows for me, Solivagus, to be the potato king of ignorance for all quantum states as all my superiors dance on my skull for free energy as I remain blissfully unaware of the SHEER CUNNING THEY ARE EXHIBITING. FUCK ME THESE SCIENTISTS ARE REALLY CLEVER. GOOD ON 'EM! 10 POINTS!

>>11455640
>Likewise when female identity interacts with me I only respond as if she is a sex-crazed daughter of discipline. So far hasn't failed me.

Okay

>>11455439
No, the whole shrodinger's cat shows that if you believe in Copenhagen interpretation, then you must discard the notion that our bodies are quantum mechanics in nature. If you include our bodies in the cat experiment, then you get many worlds.

>>11455718
>if you believe in Copenhagen interpretation, then you must discard the notion that our bodies are quantum mechanics in nature.
Explain.

>>11455700
The functionality of this response/observation is minimal.

My language is binary. We either align to 'fuck' (each other or bounce/align to nearest fuck-node) or 'off'.

I call it the fuck/off language.

>>11455718
What about schrodinger's quantum audience rapist?
>When I really wanna smear my signature shite on a thread I use this image.

>>11455718
>No, the whole shrodinger's cat shows that if you believe in Copenhagen interpretation, then you must discard the notion that our bodies are quantum mechanics in nature. If you include our bodies in the cat experiment, then you get many worlds.

What the fuck am I reading. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

>>11450374
>All valid interpretations of QM have equal rights and there is no "objective" way to choose the "best" one
David Deutsch gives a pretty good argument against this sort of positivism. If there's no experimental difference between multiple interpretations, you *could* pick any or none of them, but there are still worthwhile reasons to prefer certain interpretations over others, like simplicity. More importantly, the goal of science is to explain how and why something works. Predicting future states mechanically without trying to understand the underlying structure isn't science. If we don't pick an interpretation, we aren't doing science. If we treat all interpretations that can't be experimentally distinguished as equivalent, we end up with ridiculous unsatisfying theories.

>>11455769
Funnel A or Tunnel B?

>>11455773
I don't understand.

>>11455769
>we end up with ridiculous unsatisfying theories.

>>11455776
Interpretation is a funnel, experimentation/results are a tunnel. I was demonstrating the equivalence of how eventually EVERYTHING becomes an echo chamber.

Whether or not an individual wishes to remain in said echo chamber (or become established source of said echo, in my case) is entirely up to their internal world's decision matrix.

>>11450141
Just because you're retarded and dont understand something doesn't mean it's without merit

t.Quantum Student Field Propagated

Quantum students are never allowed to graduate OR be employed because then all Quantum teachers/professors/senseis/gurus would be out of a job.

>Q.cuckquean creator

My daughters are gonna be the BEST Quantum Professional Whores/Sluts!

Pic related. It'll be their introductory course intro to quantum boipucci mechanics.

>>11455694
>So, MWI supporters. MWI lacks counterfactual definiteness.
What? No it doesn't. MWI has very strong counterfactual definiteness.

>What does it mean to do science if it is meaningless to speak of experiments that have not been performed?
But it isn't.

>>11451034
Copenhagen is not even a real interpretation, they probably just heard about it at some point in their education and chose it by default

>>11455813
English isn't even a real language, they probably just shat themselves at some point in their education and doted on it by indifference.

>>11451625
Based retard

>>11455839
hes right though

>>11455782
>I was demonstrating the equivalence of how eventually EVERYTHING becomes an echo chamber.
The trick is to pick good theories *and* do good experiments.

>>11455923
I am content with this but to my experience and knowledge the one that satisfies both criteria is usually the one blasted at full volume at innocent bystanders.

Is there anything that can avoid this? Keen to be proven as holding an opinion that helps/satisfies nobody, even if it is so I can let go of it and stop burning my own hand with this word 'integrity'.

>Just to add to the image: I have never seen anyone's values include me beyond satisfying their emotional/spiritual masturbation story. If it doesn't become an orgy of inclusion ultimately, no matter how distasteful that may appear at first impression, then why bother? The more the merrier.

>>11450141
the Copenhagen and MW interpretations are only different in definition of the observer. Both Copenhagen and MW interpretations agree that the quantum system does not belong to our reality before decoherence occurs.

>>11455916
Bell's Theorem rules out only local hidden variables, not nonlocal hidden variables. To simply conclude that hidden variables in their entirety are impossible is erroneous and unwise.

>>11454558
So, does this somehow make quantum immortality more likely?

I know this is true because I Have visited parallel universes trough lucid dreaming

>>11450141
THE UNIVERSE LITERALLY CANNOT BE DETERMINISTIC BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING HAS ORIGINATION OF FREE CREATIVITY IN THEIR MINDS THROUGH CONSCIOUSNESS.

THE TIMELINE/UNIVERSE IS GENERATED BY YOURSELF BY YOUR/EVERYONES CONSIOUSNESS

>>11457716
Okay take your pills