/sci/ - Science & Math

If you had two laplace demons, and they had to correctly observe each other, then the world could not be deterministic

>>11488006
quantum mechanics implies that the observations made by measurement devices are not deterministic. however, it says that there is some underlying structure that evolves deterministically.

how we make sense of this situation is referred to as "interpretations" which is a field that is basically useless and full of lots of crap not worth paying attention to.

the fact is that the universe is somewhat ambiguous and you need to accept that. once you get past that, you can start either doing real work or, alternatively, getting shit done on the theoretical side. but nobody will ever come back to determinism. that is out of the question.

>>11488030
>quantum mechanics implies that the observations made by measurement devices are not deterministic
no they show there is a limit to the accuracy of measurement.

>>11488030
there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device outside of our reality

>>11488035
>>11488040
you guys are both wromg and both definitely have not read any intro textbooks on QM. therefore your opinions can be disregarded as shill retard shit.

if you have any legitimate objections to quantum mechanics, then please share. and if they exist, in the context of ordinary quantum mechanics, then maybe you could point out a page in Griffiths or Sakurai or Shankar where they are wrong. please do so if you can.

>>11488030
>however, it says that there is some underlying structure that evolves deterministically.
Literally where

>>11488059
>you're wrong
not an argument.
there is no evidence to add inherent probabilism to the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
There can never be evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality

the copenhagen interpretation is a lie

>>11488071
>to add inherent probabilism to the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
>to add
You’re a clown and have zero understanding of what you’re talking about

>>11488077
still no arguments

>>11488070
it’s called the wavefunction
>>11488071
it’s called wavefunction collapse

i know this is confusing, QM is confusing. but a consistent framework exists to deal with these problems called “consistent histories”

>>11488091
wavefunction collapse and consistent histories is downstream are lies downstream of inserting inherent probability as a characteristic of reality when there is no evidence for it

>>11488095
there is evidence for it though. do any experiment on a quantum system and you will observe stochastic results

>>11488095
believing in fundamental randomness is not something provable by science because we cannot construct and infinitely accurate measuring device.
You cannot attribute any variance of result and prediction to inherent probability you can only attribute it to measurement error

>>11488098
stochastic doesn't mean inherently random

there is not a single experiment proving a probabilistic characteristic of reality because it is not possible

>>11488082
If you weren’t retarded, you’d realize the argument being made without having it spelled out for you. No one is “adding” anything to the uncertainty principle. The entire point of it is that there is an inherent uncertainty. It’d be one thing to disagree, but you’re being even more retarded than that.

>>11488110
okay, you can say that a system that looks inherently random actually isn’t . people have tried like Bohm. but they failed. so the conclusion that scientifically minded people have made is that those processes are random. and they went on to use that conclusion to make predictions that turned out true. therefore they are correct empirically

>>11488120
>there is inherent uncertainty
no there isn't there is a limit to measurement which means there is a limit to predictability

you cannot prove inherent uncertainty it is antithetical to science

>>11488126
de broglie bohm has no failures. It is the best interpretation of quantum mechanics

>looks inherently random
is a meaningless thing to say. To prove inherent probabilism you would need an infinitely accurate measuring device which is not possible

>>11488139
>de broglie bohm has no failures. It is the best interpretation of quantum mechanics
no, it is a debunked theory. it uses local hidden variables which are disproven empirically by alain aspect's tests of bell's theorem.

it is really sad that 40-50 year old debunked theories still make appearances here.

You're mom sucking my dick is pretty deterministic

>>11488148
completely false. It's non local

>>11488103
>>11488110
>>11488127
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what empiricism is. Science proves nothing In any strict epistemological sense. If something looks sufficiently random or inherently uncertain, then scientifically it is. Given the results of Bell’s theorem, the only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain. We could never completely rule out something like superdeterminism, but they’re not theories worth dealing with. Believe them if you want, but people then have the right to call you silly.

>>11488127
>there is a limit to measurement
Cool original research my guy.
Again, disagree with it all you want but the point of the uncertainty principle IS inherent uncertainty. This is as retarded as arguing the definition of a word.

>>11488155
the original Bohm theory was local.

if you want to start arguing nonlocal theories then you are entering magical thinking zone. "nonlocal" implies that things can communicate faster than light, which violates special relativity, a pillar of modern physics that is an essential ingrediant that went into the formulation of electroweak theory, chromodynamics, and the standard model. there is no sense in arguing against special relativity and thus empirically nonlocal theories are false

>>11488160
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, he only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain
this is a blatant lie. bells theorem only disproved local hidden variable theories.

Meanwhile believing in probabilism is antithetical to science, it is not a result that can ever be justified by experiment. All results are explained by de broglie the copenhagen interpretation is a violation of occams razor adding probabilism because you want it not because there is evidence for it

it's astounding how you people just lie

>>11488168
no it is not it is an deterministic inequality.

>>11488169
didn't I say de broglie bohm?
einsteins theories did not disprove non local characteristics of reality only that a subset of reality follows his theories. There is no contradiction with non locality and the theories you mention

meanwhile there is still not a single result justifying the belief in inherent randomness which the entirety of the coenhagen interpretation is built on

>>11488180
> There is no contradiction with non locality and the theories you mention

the point i am making is that if you believe in non-locality, then basically you are saying that you believe in teleportation, or alternatively, that one can travel at infinitely greater speed than the speed of light. i find these assertions to be manifestly false given the physics that is known to modern physicists.

if your theory relies on such outlandish shit, then we can safely throw it in the garbage. i know that newagers and "muh life-force" idiots like to believe in these things but it really doesn't cut it for me

>>11488171
>this is a blatant lie
Again, you’re misunderstanding what empiricism is. No one is lying. You just don’t like the results. As I said before, there’s other theories that “could” work. None that are scientific.
> is a violation of Occam’s razor adding probabilism because you want it not because there is evidence for it
It’s ironic how much your own statements apply to you and you’re screaming about others being unscientific. You’re adding a pilot wave with zero evidence or need for it other than your autistic need for the world to be deterministic.

>>11488171
What can be justified has little scientific value if it cannot be disproven. Probabilism can be disproven by producing more consistent results than should be theoretically possible. Meanwhile, how would you go about disproving determinism?

>>11488185
non locality violates nothing
probabilism does

>>11488189
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, he only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain
is a lie and you know it is
> you’re misunderstanding what empiricism is. No one is lying. You just don’t like the results. As I said before, there’s other theories that “could” work. None that are scientific.
science is based on experiment. There can be no experimental result for probabilism because you would need and infinitely accurate measuring device

>>11488190
Probabilism cannot be proven in the first place, measurement error is the constraint of experiment.
Determinism, prediction is science

>>11488202
The simple fact that you think ANYTHING can be scientifically proven shows just how misguided your thinking is

>>11488202
you're just trying too hard now anon. it's sad.

whether we are in a probabilistic universe or deterministic universe it is impossible to run an experiment that can justify belief in probabilistic characteristics of the universe because we do not have an infinitely accurate measuring device.

>>11488206
I don't think that, there is no experiment you can run that makes it justifiable to believe what has been happening will continue to happen. That is not the purpose of science, science is about prediction. Precisely why is it is insane to believe in probabilism

>>11488209
your shill non arguments are obvious. I can't believe you retards think this is gonna work

>>11488202
>you would need and infinitely accurate measuring device
My God you’re thick. Science doesn’t prove any objective facts.
Let’s do this. How does adding a pilot wave on top of the existing framework change the predictions in any way? If your only answer is something immeasurable or none, then it’s not a scientific theory.

>>11488223
YOU are the one adding things not justified by experiment.
That is not a scientific theory.

The success of science is measured by its predictive utility determinism is infinitely more predictable than inherently random. Which doesn't even make sense because scientific belief comes from experiment not your desire to have a probabilistic interpretation of reality

>>11488223
there is as much justification to believe the dial slit experiment is a result for probabilism as there is for newtons projectile motion
You could make probabilistic interpretations of projectile motion as well but there is no result to justify it

the Copenhagen interpretation violates occams razor

>>11488239
I'll take a theory that violates your particular flavor of Occam's razor, over a theory that blatantly violates actual laws of physics like causal relationships.

>>11488244
you will take a theory that has no experimental basis. It is not science, it is belief because you want to believe it.

There are no problems with non locality

>>11488247
>There are no problems with non locality
You can point to a sinking ship and say "there are no problems with it" all you like, the ship is still sinking. Your words are blatantly wrong.

>>11488252
>points out no problems and lies about bells inequality 2 or 3 times. Still can't refute the point there can be no experimental result that justifies probabilism and tries to change the argument to epistemology

>>11488258
Clarify what "lies" you see here about Bell inequalities.

>>11488266

>>11488148
>no, it is a debunked theory. it uses local hidden variables which are disproven empirically by alain aspect's tests of bell's theorem.
non local not local
>>11488160
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, the only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain.
deterministic non local qm theories are not disproved by bell

2

>>11488279
That first one is fair. However, deterministic non local QM theories are not scientifically justified. They violate foundational principles of 20th century science

>>11488279

>>11488284
Probabilism is the only thing that isn't justified it is antithetical to science as it is impossible to justify by experiment as measurement is the constraint

determinism violates nothing

>>11488286
no arguments

>>11488290
How about coming up with a counterargument instead of repeating the same mantra almost word for word

>>11488297
counterargument to what argument?

>>11488300
Deterministic nonlocal QM theories violate the foundational principles of locality, finite speed of information transfer, lack of preferred reference frame, among others without a shred of evidence for the additional pilot equation on top of the wavefunction.

>>11488307
it maintains locality as a subset of a reality that has non local characteristics. Nothing is violated

>>11488319
The argument in this thread is that probabilism cannot be justified by experiment.
Making the copenhagen interpretation not science

>>11488319
Ironic that you would propose an unobservable underlying reality which is completely different from the one we observe

>>11488329
it is observable but not infinitely predictable

>>11488319
Locality can't be created from a nonlocal underlying framework. Reality is either local or nonlocal; to say that the underlying reality is nonlocal defeats the principle of locality. De Broglie Bohm is a conspiracy theory of coincidences which are claimed to explain the appearance of randomness and locality.

>>11488336
Show an observation of nonlocal information transfer.

Ever since watching Devs I’ve had a question about determinism that’s fucked with me.
So let’s grant that the universe is deterministic and there is some crystal ball/mirror/quantum doohickey you can observe and witness the future with it. What would happen if you wanted to look at yourself 3 seconds in the future? What if you were also determined to NOT replicate whatever movements/actions you see in the mirror that’s supposed to be the version of you that’s 3 seconds in the future? What would you actually see in the mirror? If you saw yourself raising your right hand you could just raise your left, which would either mean it was wrong or you should’ve seen the left hand get raised. It seems paradoxical to me

>>11488342
>What if you were also determined to NOT replicate whatever movements/actions you see in the mirror that’s supposed to be the version of you that’s 3 seconds in the future?
This directly contradicts your premise that your future is predetermined. If it is predetermined, you would be incapable of choosing otherwise

>>11488337
>Locality can't be created from a nonlocal underlying framework.
This is not proven in general.
the particles and the wave function are non local to each other. The interactions between particle and particle adhere to locality the wavefunction relative to the particles does not.
>to say that the underlying reality is nonlocal defeats the principle of locality
no it doesn't, locality exists
>Randomness
cannot be proven by science

once again the thread is about the copenhagen interpretation being unjustifiable as probabilism is not a result that is compatible with experiment. De boglie bohm is the best albeit incomplete theory.

>>11488340
Justify probabilism with an experiment

>>11488342
you don't have the accuracy to measure the state of the wavefunction accurately enough to plug the right variables into the model. It is deterministic but you can't predict the future that exactly
Look at things distributed by power laws and you will find much of your life is predictable enough already

>>11488227
>>11488239
I take it by your refusal to answer that the answer is in fact “none”? In that case your silly pilot wave theory or any other theory that predicts nothing different is unscientific. How can you keep mentioning Occam’s razor yet endorse a theory which makes zero different predictions yet is more complicated for every one of the very same QM makes.
> You could make probabilistic interpretations of projectile motion as well but there is no result to justify it
Except for every single result in QM and its theories/equations. None deterministic. You’re actin like determinism is some default position that must be philosophically disproven in order for uncertainty to be scientific. You’re wrong. Again, read what empiricism actually is. The world isn’t deterministic, get over it child.

>>11488351
If the universe is deterministic, and through some mechanism we can actually calculate what the future will be, with utmost accuracy, and it’s been calculated that I’ll say “dog” 10 seconds from now, what is stopping me from just saying “cat” out of spite? Either the machine is incapable of calculating the future or I’m incapable of being spiteful, and we know that’s not the case.

>>11488384
The universe may not be deterministic but science can not prove that. Probablism cannot be proved by experiment.

>>11488415
Yes it can, according to empiricism. You’re playing tennis with no net. For your theories it’s enough for them to be possible despite no justification other than your irrational position that determinism is the default state that must be dethroned. Yet when it comes to the other side you ask for things like infinite precision and infinite amounts of measurements. You ask only for possibility, now matter how small, for yourself and philosophical certainty for your opponent.
> Probablism cannot be proved by experiment.
Clearly I’m not going to change your mind as you keep repeating unjustified statements as unquestionable truths but just for anyone who still thinks you might b right, ask yourself what benefit or predictive power you get by adding some convoluted pilot wave you know nothing about, can’t describe, and can’t tell anyone how it works. If the only answer is “it lets me keep believing in determinism” then at least realize your belief is a religion not science.

>>11488446
You cant attribute variance between result and prediction to inherent randomness before measurement error. To prove probablism requires an infinitely accurate measuring device

>>11488455
You do not need probabilism to explain quantum mechanics and it is not justified by experiment it is therefore not science. You are making probabilistic theories because you want them.

I dont care either way

>>11488071
Copenhagen is not the only stochastic interpretation and in reality it is the interpretation most in line with the spirit of Empiricism and science.

>>11488171
"Science" is concerned with understanding how material reality operates.
If material reality is fundamentally non deterministic (which it is) then science accepts this. You are the one who's not being scientific.
There is nothing about stochasticism that is "anti science"

>>11488006
Yes, but we currently don't have enough processing power/knowledge to compute the next event that will happen.

Until then determinists are BTFO

\end of shitstorm

More research is needed.

>>11488006
Not locally deterministic, but superdeterministic, as in the entirety of wave function.

>>11488284
MANY WORLDS passes Bells's inequality.

Many world's isn't actually deterministic, if anyone tells you that MWI is deterministic because of the mathematical formalism tell them they're being a pedantic moron.
The "branching" within the schrodinger is still fundamentally non deterministic so MWI is not actually a deterministic interpretation.

ITT: no one knows the answer

>>11488395
>Either the machine is incapable of calculating the future or I’m incapable of being spiteful, and we know that’s not the case.
Then it sounds like you don't believe in determinism. If you do something different from what the machine says, then either the machine failed or the universe isn't deterministic.

we dont know