/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15249219
It's fake and gay. I was superdetermined to believe this though, so I don't know if I am right.

>>15249219
Why the fuck did they call it superdeterminism? What is it?

It's not that it's wrong, but it's about as interesting as true Greek skepticism.
Maybe your eyes are lying to you, and all the results of your experiments are just hallucinations that make you think your theories are correct.
Maybe you're just a brain in a jar connected to wires that make you think you have a body and see things with your eyes. But really, it's just wires sending fake optical signals to your brain in a jar.
Maybe the world is superdetermined and the universe coincidentally fucks with all your experiments in just the right way that you can't poke any holes in the theory.
All those things are thought stopper. If you accept them, then there's almost nothing you can do about it. It's basically giving up.

>>15249219
it's extremely based, and obviously the next step to complete quantum mechanics. we eagerly anticipate the next paper on the subject.

>>15249236
john bell coined the term, likely to portray determinism as somehow radical, because he didn't like the idea of it. pretty immature, yeah.

>>15249238
>it's a conspiracy if everything is determined
no. terrible, empty argument. sabine has already been over this a million times.

>>15249219
Quantum mechanics proves that there can be no omniscient god. Superdeterminism is the denial of this proof by assuming that such a god exists, so it says that quantum mechanics is wrong somewhere

>>15249495
This is the most midwit thing that's ever been posted.

>>15249496
Your reason for believing that?

>>15249498
The content of your post being measured as the most midwit thing that's ever been posted.

>>15249499
That's invalid, unfortunately

>>15249495
Not a single thing you said was correct lmfao
>qm disproves omniscient god
Wrong
>superdeterminism proves qm wrong
Wrong
>Superdeterminism is proof of omniscient god
You literally can’t stop being wrong

>>15249512
You have not given any reasons, so I can't take you seriously

>>15249515
You made the claim. Provide some evidence.

>>15249219
it implies that your decisions affect the values of physical constants.
eg, if you choose pepsi then planck's constants goes up by 10e13, if you choose coke it goes down by 10e13

>>15249517
You should have asked that from the beginning instead of claiming that I was wrong

>>15249519
that's false. the reverse is true though. the constants determine your decisions.

>>15249523
>Still no evidence to prove your ludicrous statements
Yepp I’m proof of burdening!

>>15249619
Ok, I'll give you a basic version. If an omniscient god exists, then in the double slit experiment it would know which slit each particle went through so it would collapse the wavefunction of the particle when it passes the slits. This is clearly not observed in real life because the particles produce an interference pattern. So an omniscient god cannot exist.

>>15249630
>If an omniscient god exists, then in the double slit experiment it would know which slit each particle went through so it would collapse the wavefunction of the particle when it passes the slits.
You don't even know what the double slit experiment involves lol. You got filtered by Feynman's shower thoughts.

>>15249646
? You might want to rephrase that since your post is incomprehensible to anyone as it currently stands

>>15249654
ESL?

>>15249655
Yes

>>15249630
>if an omniscient god exists I know exactly what he’d do …
>yes yes trust me bros I know exactly how the universe would act if there was a god so that means there is no god duh..
This is your evidence? Find a new board bro.

>>15249673
You didn't understand my post. My proof assumes that quantum mechanics is absolutely correct and derives the non-existence of an omniscience god from that.

To avoid that conclusion, you have to assume that QM is not absolutely correct like you are implicitly doing in your post.

>>15249676
Hmm seems to me you’re choosing to not understand what you are talking about in order for it to fit your idea of there not being a god. Why would you do that anon?

>>15249679
Why do you think that? If you have a valid reason, you should be able to point out the flaw in my proof.

>>15249676
If there is a god then he created quantum mechanics no? Why do you claim to know better than an omniscient god how quantum mechanics should work?
How does superdeterminism prove the existence of said god? It doesn’t and you don’t.

>>15249681
I’ve done it several times but you are too retarded to understand so I’m sorry but I’m out anon.

>>15249683
>Why do you claim to know better than an omniscient god how quantum mechanics should work?
Quantum mechanics is a well-defined framework. I am simply assuming that framework holds absolutely.
>How does superdeterminism prove the existence of said god?
Strictly speaking, it assumes the existence of the omniscient god like I said in my original post >>15249495.

>>15249685
Goodbye.

>>15249619
>Yepp I’m proof of burdening!
lol

>>15249524
that's false. the reverse is true though. your decisions determine the constants.

>>15249219
They're all conjectures at best. But it would be a nice since it would solve key issues with QM.

>>15249676
>My proof assumes that quantum mechanics is absolutely correct
No, you're assuming that a not-very-popular INTERPRETATION of quantum mechanics is correct, which is not a safe assumption at all.

can you people stop making these shit threads about retarded shit that no one in science cares about and that you only talk about because none of you are actually smart enough to do real science?

>>15249630
holy shit you really don't understand quantum mechanics. the wave function is a completely different thing from the interference pattern of the double slit

>>15249714
nice troll bro. you don't understand superdeterminism, though

>>15249821
only low iq people don't care about superdeterminism. it's the future of physics, after all

>>15249646
If they use god and particle in the same sentence, take his ass back and teach him a lesson
>cracks whip

>>15250158
>the wave function is a completely different thing from the interference pattern of the double slit
This is really unrelated to my post. I don't know why you included this random statement in your post

>>15250477
you claimed that the wave function is not collapsed because we observe a wave-like interference pattern on the screen. that is false.

>>15249676
>assumes that quantum mechanics is absolutely correct
then that's not science

>>15249690
>Quantum mechanics is a well-defined framework
then what's with all the different competing theories?

>>15250480
If the wavefunction collapses near the slits, you wouldn't get an interference pattern on the screen because [math] |\psi_1|^2 + |\psi_2|^2 \neq |\psi_1 + \psi_2|^2 [/math]. This is very basic and covered in the Feynman lectures.

>>15250488
There aren't, really. There's different interpretations of the phenomena, but they all boil down to explanations for the same undeniably effective equation.

>>15250488
Many of them only apply in special cases and are not as general as QM.

>>15250487
Yes, it's philosophy augmented with science

>>15250492
the only ave function never collapses because it isn't a physical thing.

>>15250500
the wave*

>>15250500
It's not a physical thing but that's not a sufficient reason for it to not collapse

>>15249219
Drones inventing a new unfalsifiable, pseudoscientific faith just to cement their automatonism.

>>15250504
indeed, allow me to clarify further. the wave function is just a statistical average of hidden variables. hence, it never collapses

>>15250508
you will never be "free", woo lunatic

>>15250513
Notice your fully automated drone reaction. You clearly lack the basic sentient and metacognition to avoid directly confirming my point.

>>15250511
>the wave function is just a statistical average of hidden variables
You're can believe that but that's not related to my post since I'm assuming that quantum mechanics is absolutely correct (so I'm assuming no modifications or hidden variables).

>>15250515
>>15250508
The more you insist on indeterminism and free will and other magic, the more you sound like an NPC automaton

>>15250515
you. will. never. be. free.

cope.

>>15250519
But I didn't insist on anything. Notice your fully automated nonhuman reaction, and how you can't help but confirm my point over and over again.

>>15250516
QM is correct, it's just not fundamental. the interpretation of the wavefunction as either physical or as representing knowledge of agents, is what's incorrect.

>>15250523
Like I said, you can believe that but I'm assuming for the sake of my proof that it's absolute/fundamental - note that this is not the same as believing that it's fundamental.

>>15250527
do you genuinely believe QM is fundamental, yes or no? if no then what is fundamental?

all high iq intellectuals are idealists

>>15250529
I don't have any strict beliefs regarding that, but I tend to think that even if it's not fundamental, the more fundamental theory will still be quantum enough to show the non-existence of an omniscient god.

>>15250532
high iq is no indication of intelligence, mr langan proved that

>>15250540
materialism has been refuted

>>15250539
the fundamental theory won't be quantum, i promise you that. god may or may not exist, but we can already be sure that any 'omnibenevolent' god has been ruled out.

>>15250544
no it has not. but i wonder what you think the refutation is

>>15250545
>but we can already be sure that any 'omnibenevolent' god has been ruled out.
I think I agree.

>>15250547
some anon gave a very strong refutation in another thread. it goes something like this:
materialists claim that matter controls reality. a brain is made of matter. the brain has desires. therefore desires are a part of matter. so according to materialists, the brain should be able to control matter and change reality as it pleases, but it clearly can't

>>15250508
>as if it hasnt already been founded

>>15250549
based.

>>15250553
funny, but your flimsy strawman refutes nothing, i'm afraid.

>>15250564
most people in the other thread agreed that it's a solid refutation and the guy trying to ague against it conceded and gave up. also you have no argument

>>15250566
>most people in the other thread agreed
Oh, ok, well in that case, case closed.

>>15250566
>most people
1 schizo (you) is not "most", sweaty.

>>15250571
not an argument. come back when you can challenge the refutation. pretty sure you're the guy who got BTFO and conceded in the other thread

>>15250580
lol why would i concede to a strawman? anyway you need to move on. this is a superdeterminism thread, stop trying to derail it into becoming another idealism shitfest

>>15250599
how did i know you were the same bot?

>>15250569
>pic
Their opinions are equally worthless so I don't see the problem. Academics shouldn't have the right to vote at all.

>>15250600
how did i know you were the same woo lunatic ass soon as you sperged against the op? must be magic

>>15250606
>how did i know you were [imaginary boogeyman in my head]
lol. thanks for conceding that you are the same bot

>>15250162
nice troll bro. you don't understand superdeterminism, though

>>15249219
sounds like gay pseudoscience, if you can't fucking think of an experiment to solve some of these problems then shut the fuck up

>>15249219
I don’t know enough math to know if it’s a viable idea or not

>>15250973
you don't even know what the outstanding problems are, do you

>>15250998
you don't need to know any math in order to know that determinism is true.

>>15249495
>oooOoOOOooo spooky quantum magicc disprooves God.
You are retarded.

>>15250553
This argument is so wrong and retarded it's not even worth putting effort into refuting.

>>15250532
Idealism is infantile nonsense.

>>15251271
it's pretty solid, judging by the fact that neither you nor the other retarded clones are able to challenge it. keep lashing out

>>15250553
You actually believe in this nonsense?

>>15252668
do you have a refutation? no? neither did your buddies. funny that

>>15252672
>the brain has desires. therefore desires are a part of matter
That is immediately so wrong that I do not need to say more. Read some actual books instead of blogs.

>>15252680
>That is immediately so wrong
and yet all you can do is screech. you know you have no chance of proving it wrong and you're seething

>>15252683
>and yet all you can do is screech. you know you have no chance of proving it wrong and you're seething

>>15252688
not an argument. funny how the more "obviously wrong" something is, the more upset you get and the less you are able to refute it

>>15252690

>>15252693
see >>15252690

>>15252694
>>>15252693
>see >>15252690