/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12707790
None, since QM is bullshit

>>12707795
>None, since QM is bullshit
This, but observers collapsing wavefunctions is extra stinky bullshit

>>12707795
How is it bullshit? It can be demonstrated.

>>12707893
maybe he likes bullshit
>mindblown.jpg

I ask because there is so much confusion and contradiction as well as any "big picture" explanation of how any of this stuff is applied in reality.

For example, does Copenhagen interpretation mean that our universe is indeterministic? As in if you were to rewind the clock say 1000 years, all events wouldn't play out the exact same?

or

Does MWT imply that subjectively our experience is probabilistic in which branch we go down despite it being mechanically deterministic?

Basically, I just want to understand the application all this stuff has on life and death.

Let's assume reality behaves as described by QM.

Take Schrodinger's Cat as an example. An atom is in a superposition of having decayed and not having decayed. The detector goes into a superposition of having detected the decay and not having detected the decay. The trigger hooked up to the detector goes into a superposition of releasing the poison and not releasing the poison. The cat goes into a superposition of being dead and not being dead. The human opens the box. What happens next?

The most natural thing to happen would be for the human to go into a superposition of having observed a dead cat and having observed a living cat.

If you add an extra assumption that observers are somehow fundamentally, ontologically distinct from other things that interact with quantum systems, and that the universe and its physics distinguishes between observers and non-observers, you might suggest that the human determines the measurement of the superposition, observing either a dead cat or a living cat, and collapsing the wave function (with whatever given probabilities).

The first is MWI. The second is Copenhagen.

Of course, this is all assuming QM is correct. But QM is just a single element of the subset of theory space that contains the theories able to predict all of our known observations. Like with any of the theories we have had in the past, it could be replaced by a better one in the future.

>>12707790
>metaphysical
stopped reading there

>>12708366
They're both wrong but we just don't have the answer yet?

>>12707790
Physicists explicitly don't care about the metaphysics of QM because reasonable quantum metaphysics contradict the dogmatically accepted metaphysics of relativity.

>>12708465
We can never have *the* answer. Just better and better models that we can use to predict and constrain what we expect to experience in the world. All models are wrong. Some are useful.

>>12708254
Yes to both.
>>12708366
>What happens next?
Creativity, by the free will of all actual entities (including the atom) involved in that occasion of experience.
>>12708517
This. There are no whole truths, all truths are half-truths.

jesus consciousness

Okay, let's simplify this: When I die, what happens next?

>>12708650
Pardon my philosophical woo, but obviously there's no scientific answer for "what happens when we die."

You're currently spiraling upward towards the center of a torus. Death is when you splat into a wall before hitting the mark. You'll then suffer the 'hellish' slide down this 'membrane of death' till being recovered by 'Archons' and recuperated for another incarnation cycle.

Many people do have dedicated support teams to recover them instantly. And others are simply free from the cycles of life and death, they'll integrate with the 'monad' at some point in 'life'.

>>12708366
I wish I could understand what you just wrote, it seems interesting but I have no knowledge of quantum mechanics and I have no idea what MWI is

>>12708761
MWI = Many World's Interpretation. It's the 2nd most popular interpretation of QM aside from Copenhagen.

>>12708817
Not him but how do I into mwi anon? I've had two semesters of qm. Thinking of starting with Norsen because we didn't discuss interpretations at all in undergrad. But what after that?

>>12708835
try wikipedia

>>12708366
An observer is never in a state of superposition from its own point of view

>>12708366
no the cats dead its just in a box,

let's say it is discovered the universe is deterministic, how would everyone feel knowing free will is basically an illusion?

>>12709028
I don't care about having free will, I just want 100% assurance that I will never come back after I'm gone.

>>12709028
>>12709459
Isn't determinism like, 99.99% probable? How is it still questioned?

>>12709472
We do see evidence of indetermination in nature, and a degree of self-determination in organisms. Determinism seems very improbable, to me. One should strive to take the whole evidence into account, even evidence outside the presupposition of classic ontology.

>>12709538
>a degree of self-determination in organisms

How can you tell if an organism has "true" self-determination as opposed to it being scripted?

free will and no free will look the exact same.

>>12709617
Does what you call 'true self-determination' depend on anything other than the notion of 'independent existence'? There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.

Does the script remove the actor's ability to self-determine? to improvise? with creativity and novelty?

>>12709671
For an organism to improvise would imply that it can mold physics to its choosing, which is not possible. We are all slaves to physics and free will as a concept should die within the mainstream already.

>>12707790
RA Wilson wrote about it, try Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy or The New Inquisition.

>>12708650
Death literally cannot be proven.

>>12708254
>As in if you were to rewind the clock say 1000 years, all events wouldn't play out the exact same?
How does that even work? If you want netaphysics, consider this: what is the self that "goes down a branch"? Who witnesses the events? Whose exactly is this attention?

>>12708650
We don't know. Some knowledge fundamentally can't be known. If I write something in a piece of paper, burn it, and then forget what I had written, then the contents of that paper is now eternally forgotten and unknowable. So is the fate of many men and many impossible knowledge

>>12709676
That is only within a presupposition of classic ontology - scientific materialism. We are not slaves to 'physics', as physics is an abstract concept - not concrete. Actual physical things are what is concrete.

But does 'physics' have physical effect? Yes, to the extent that your organism is shaped by abstractions. Can we mold them? Yes, with vast prehensive potentials for creativity.

>Thus an electron within a living body is different from an electron outside it, by reason of the plan of the body; the electron blindly runs either within or without the body; but it runs within the body in accordance with its character within the body; that is to say, in accordance with the general plan of the body, and this plan includes the mental state. -Alfred North Whitehead

Does 'matter' have a 'mental state'? No, but in Whitehead's Process Ontology actual entities are dipolar, meaning they have a physical and mental monopole(which are not actual entities themselves).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_ontology

This is not science - it is process philosophy - but science is a process, and slave to it. We are all slaves to process.

>>12708650
If you have accepted Jesus in your heart you go to heaven.

>>12708517
These are wise words for anyone who wants to truly understand the sciences

>>12708732
based scizo

>>12709771
I need a none meme answer very soon because of... Reasons.

>>12707790
>Free will is an infinitely refined illusion
No I will not elaborate

>>12710379
that makes no sense. Why would you say something like that and not elaborate?

>>12709721
>We don't know. Some knowledge fundamentally can't be known.

I find that extremely frustrating because not knowing about the potential consequences of existence is maddening. Who knows how sinister reality is, I mean the universe could just torture us forever and there wouldn't be anything we could do about it; it's the hardest blackpill that I've ever swallowed for sure

>>12707790
you imply that one interpretation is right which inherently started the whole interpretation

>>12707790
Consciousness causes collapse ;)

>>12711576
What? real schizo hours here
>>12711585
Subjectively speaking, what does this mean for my qualia?

>>12707790
Not really understood.