/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11460757
dont forget to buy his book

>>11460757
Me too. Have you ever watched Riddle on youtube? The channel makes me want to kill myself

>>11460757
pill me on the many worlds interpretation menace.

>>11460778
it's popsci, plebs like it and it reeks of sci-fi therefore it's incorrect

>>11460773
Holy fuck

>>11460786

I actually want to commit suicide

>>11460786
>the bottom right one
Lold as fuck

>>11460786
>this unbelievable creature has 720 genders and no brains
>

>>11460786
Imagine how lame you have to be in order to think that making clickbait is acceptable.

If the Schrodinger equation is real then MWI is "right".
The only other option is Consistent Histories. ONLY MWI and CH are valid interpretations. This is not "pop-sci" just because you desire a classical universe you fucking coping morons.

>>11460808
>a creatura with 720 genders and no brains
I think I've heard of it

>>11460757
Circumcision and vaccination is pop-sci, by the way. No basis in science or fact, yet everyone believes in it.

>>11460786
>hundreds of thousands of views
I'd kill myself right now if it wasn't for quantum immortality

>>11460876
lol

>>11460786
i'm so glad i'm a nihilist because if i weren't i'd be looking for some rope rn instead of laughing.

>>11460894

I unironically did look at buying some rope to hang myself the other day though but I think a better solution is just moving to a small Mediterranean village with no possessions.

>>11460847
>Circumcision
what if I have phimosis

>>11460847
Kys antivaxxer

>>11460847
Why are /pol/-tards obsessed with vaccines and circumcision.

>>11460757
don't be a negative nancy op, it introduces people into science. i wouldn't be pursuing a stem degree if it weren't for vsauce n the like

>>11460843
>If the Schrodinger equation is real then MWI is "right"
Wrong.
>The only other option is Consistent Histories
This is right though

>>11460894
Leave it to a nihilist to brag about being a nihilist, can you teach me some fedora tricks?

>>11460778
Many worlds is atheistic garbage. copenhagen is the true answer. Our consciousness plays a great role in determining the randomness of quantum mechanics. So sayeth the lord.

>>11460927
MWI is religion

>>11460778
It's the obvious correct interpretation, but you just need to read everett's original papers to conclude this for yourself. Otherwise it's just popsci bullshit. Regarding the interpretation, the philosophy doesn't add all that much, but the technical results, the method of separating states into relative states, is extremely important, as this is how you extract information about measurements when you are given access only to quantum mechanical wavefunction data.
>>11460784
>>11460953
>>11460969
>>11460983
I suspect you simply have not bothered to read the technical content of Everett's thesis, because the philosophical context made you vomit. Just cover your mouth, and consider it an intellectual exercize to see how he defines the relative states. I think you will come to like it. It doesn't require you to accept any philosophy, the relative state formalism is independent of philosophy.

>>11461003
>It's the obvious correct interpretation

>>11460954
i don't care for fedoras.

>>11461003
A correct inteperation of quantum mechanics has consciousness at play. Sorry but many world is garbage. If you don't account for consciousness, its obviously wrong.

>>11461028
>everett interpretation doesn't account for consciousness
That isn't even true! You're lying out of ass because you haven't read the paper. What the fuck is wrong with you.

>>11461010
>>11461046
>>11461028
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf
You should read the paper and the thesis before criticizing, because if you only read secondary sources, you won't get it.

>>11461051
>http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf
very nice

>>11460757
Reminder that all those earths are copies of one another on the macrolevel.

>>11461803
It's like physics becomes irrelevant at larger scales when multiverse is assumed. No matter how many worlds there are, a human will always have less mass than a planet, and thus less quantum bandwidth.

>>11460757
fake science

>>11460847
Yeah the immune system has no basis in science... Kys.

>>11460876
same

>>11460757
Why is everyone hating this video? The comment section is full of people who don't accept it and don't like it, much like the anons on /sci/

>>11462864
If you only read secondary sources, you won't get it. Everett's thesis is linked ITT, and really, just read the fucking paper. It's a classic, it's worth it, and it's well written besides.

>>11462870
>If you only read secondary sources, you won't get it.

>>11462880
>reading the primary sources is reddit
Reading the primary sources is the least-reddit thing imaginable. Fucking hell, you have become what you hate the most. You choose to believe lies like your pic related because you want to be retarded. What a strange goal.

>>11462926
>stop calling me r*dditor please

>>11462880
>>11462936
Low IQ

>>11461886
It's pretentious navel gazing. Imagining things that (((could))) have happened when it's physically impossible for them to have been different.

>>11462957
Except it's not physically possible for them to be different. Determinism isn't real.

>>11462965
physically impossible*

>>11462965
I agree with you. It's not physically possible for the branches to be different in anyway above the microlevel from one another.

>>11462880
>>11462936
Good bot

>>11462968
>Determinism isn't real
>MWI is deterministic
Hmmmmm

>>11462976
Its deterministic in the sense that all outcomes happen, it's not deterministic from the perspective of any branch.
I also don't adhere to many worlds, I'm a consistent histories guy

I don’t get how any reasonable person can believe in MWI, or any parallel universe theories for that matter

>>11462971
Except that's wrong and you're coping.
The differences in the outcome of where particles will branch with a butterfly effect to make VASTLY different macro-states of the universe.

>>11462989
if you accept that the Schrodinger equation is real, then either MWI or CH fall out.
The only way to NOT believe it is to say that the Schrodinger equation isn't real - in which case, you're just wrong.

>>11462989
why not?

>>11462981
>>11462989
>it's not deterministic from the perspective of any branch
>I also don't adhere to many worlds, I'm a consistent histories guy
You only adhere to propaganda. You need to read the thesis. Really. It's not that long, and it's got real results. It also shows a tremendous talent, it's one of the best theses in history.

>>11463000
I’ll be honest and give my brainlet take; because we can’t perceive or interact with them in any way and therefore don’t have any evidence outside of equations we literally just made up.

>>11463008
What are you talking about?

>>11463009
>we can’t perceive or interact with them in any way and therefore don’t have any evidence outside of equations we literally just made up
The non-interacting nature is what allows classical data (the classical data stored in computers, aka, plastic deformations of the environment, measuring devices, computers, and human brains) to get called a branch-label for a quantum state. The branch-labelling is what others would call a "decoherent history description", or an "ein-selected state". Everett called it a "branch". Others call it a macroscopic superposition.
>>11463015
see >>11461051

>>11460757
me too

>>11462998
>if you accept that the Schrodinger equation is real, then either MWI or CH fall out.

>>11460846
Kek

>>11462994
>The differences in the outcome of where particles will branch with a butterfly effect to make VASTLY different macro-states of the universe.
No.

>>11463009
I doubt you're entirely serious about saying the equations are something we "literally just made up". We have a lot of evidence for the validity of them and they hold a lot of explanatory and predictive power. What I suspect you are saying that it's just not quite enough evidence, because the claim about the unimaginably large amount of universes seem so extraordinary.
For me though the idea that our universe is the only one there is is the more strange idea. For else there would have to be some deep reason for every quality it has, or alternatively it would be the way it is for no reason. But if we assume that what we see as "our universe" is not everything there is and perhaps only an unimaginably tiny portion of it, we can get rid of these kind of pesky "why" questions and instead focus on just finding out what's the universe we live in like.

>>11463055
>I like many worlds because if I believe in it I don’t have to think about hard questions any more :)

>>11463008
So much talent that he couldn’t find a postdoc position anywhere lol

>>11463026
So correct me if I’m wrong (I’m not a scientist by any means) but what I’m getting from your post is that the fact that these states are mutually exclusive is what makes it possible to label them as branches of a former, perhaps singular, world. That just sounds more like a condition of the theory than evidence, though. It doesn’t prove there are many worlds, it just supposes that if there are many worlds they’d have to be isolated. It’s just a prerequisite

>>11463061
I'm not saying we should give up coming for deep explanations and every time just saying "well there's no reason for it we just happen to live in this kind of universe". I'm just saying that not everything about universe has to have that kind of explanation, and if there isn't there's an obvious reason that is less mystifying and frustrating than a mere appeal to brute fact.

>>11463081
>I'm not saying we should give up coming for deep explanations
*coming up
I hope no one here is depraved enough to coom from deep explanations.

>>11463055
I mostly mean that math is a construction of humans and is limited by human perception, I’m not saying they don’t count for anything, just that they only objectively hold meaning to us and not the universe, especially not on the quantum level that we have a very limited understand of.

>>11460969
>Our
Don't bring me into this, I'm not conscious.

>>11463053
Yes, and just saying "no" doesn't change this.

>>11460808
>>11461010
>>11462880
>>11462936
>>11463040
Not an argument.

>>11463123
>particle spins up rather than down
>leads to a universe where the Aztecs colonized Spain.
Woah mannnnnnn

>>11463141
Yup.
Another example is: A particle spins up instead of down, which bumps into another particle slightly differently than it would have if it spins down, which itself goes off bumping with other particles, the butterfly effect happens, and a hurricane starts that kills several thousand people that otherwise wouldn't have happened if the particle had spun down (which it does completely randomly, mind you).
Another one: It's the superbowl, and instead of a coin toss, they use a QRNG to decide who goes first. In one event, the QRNG outputs a 1 so team A goes first, in another a QRNG outputs a 0 and team B goes first. The game that follows between them is COMPLETELY different, obviously, and it all started with a random quantum fluctuation.

>>11463154
You are the biggest schizo retard I have ever encountered in my three decades on this earth.

>>11463154
Sure but what does that have to do with many worlds? Even a coin that lands on tails can spin in many different ways.

>>11463159
Literally nothing about this is "schizo" you shit for brains moron, all of it is exactly what all experimental evidence of QM tells us.
Classical physics and deterministic physics has BEEN FALSIFIED you coping moron (at least from the perspective of any individual branch if you wish to hold a MW interpretation).
>>11463160
Many Worlds just says that all the outcomes are happening somewhere. The point is to understand that quantum fluctuations aren't deterministic, they are fundamentally non deterministic so branching factors like this do lead to outcomes that are vastly different on the macro level starting from small differences in the beginning (literally just chaos theory).
Basically, there ARE chaotic systems that DO have fundamentally random beginnings as well as deterministic and chaotic outcomes. These are not in contradiction.

>>11463160
Actually, a coin flipping is dependent on gravity and the force of the push which if you know your neurobiology is outside of your conscious control. There are no variables. A coin that lands on heads was always going to land on heads.

>>11463173
>Quantum particle spins slightly differently
>New universes pop up left and right like Abe Lincoln getting assassinated by John Wilkes Booth siccing a tiger on him or Jupiter and Saturn merging into a single gas giant, or whatever fucking shit imaginations conjure up and go "IT'S TOTALLY TRUE IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE RICK N MORTYYYYY XD."
It's fucking retarded you braindead cunt. Go fuck yourself with a hot knife

>>11463188
I don't even believe in the MWI, I just accept inherent randomness. Just because YOUR shit for brains monkey brain wants the universe to be deterministic doesn't mean it is. Its not. Quantum Mechanics is inherently non deterministic, and this non determinism branches out into vastly different macro states via chaos that wouldnt be that way had the inherent randomness output a different result.
The future is NOT determined via physics - reality and the universe evolves randomly, there is no way to predict the next state of physical reality (and this is NOT due to our inability to measure everything), and you do not have free will.

>>11463197
The only thing that made any sense in your faggoty post is "you do not have free will" which is true and one of the reasons why if MWI is correct, all the branches would be exactly the same

>>11463200
Nothing in my post is nonsensical, I am only saying what is empirically observed in every single experiment ever conducted in every single university for the past 100 years. YOU are the one denying this because "b-but muh determinism".
Determinism is not a priori true you shit for brains moron, its a philosophical position that YOU adhere to and won't accept has been scientifically and empirically falsified. You're a coping moron, basically, no different than flat earthers.

>I hate the reason people even know my field exists and probably the reason I went into it in the first place

>>11463204
Flat Earthers don't think about things they can't see and can't experience and pretend that they're different from us because "muh randomness they must be different" unlike you fuckos.

>>11463219
Except we CAN see it and have tested it millions of times over the past hundred years and the conclusion is undeniable:
Particles behavior fundamentally is non deterministic. The universe, therefore, does not evolve deterministically.

>>11463235
>Particles behavior fundamentally is non deterministic
And my argument is that they don't change shit on the macrolevel and there is no way to prove that they do because we can't see other branches if they even exist at all (which I doubt they do.) So we're just arguing about unverifiable horseshit

>>11463251
and my argument is that I just gave to very simple examples of how they do change shit on the "macrolevel" and that I do not even hold to the MWI (that is not the only interpretation).
The superbowl example is one we can literally do right now. In fact, I MYSELF have changed my daily behavior using a QRNG just for shits and giggles which, via the butterfly effect and chaos theory, has branched out and changed the "macrolevel" from a state that would have been completely different than had the QRNG output a different result.

>>11460786
that abomination is not even pop-sci at this point

>>11460786
Based af.

>>11461010
K3K

>>11460757

>>11460786
>this unbelievable creature has 720 genders and no brains!