/sci/ - Science & Math

Measurement/observation requires interaction. Normally this isn't a problem because the techniques available to us for measurement/observation are negligible or perturbatory at worst. When you get down to quantum scales, everything that *can* interact with stuff tends to be at comparable energy/momentum levels, so it's no longer a perturbatory interaction - the interactions significantly alter the behavior of the system you're interacting with.

It's the difference between measuring the distance from you to your cat by throwing beads at them vs throwing other cats at them.

>>15315452
Imagine trying to figure out where a basketball is by bouncing another basketball off of it.

>>15315452
OP already knows the answer and is just posting this thread to bait anyone new to /sci/

>>15315475
>measuring the distance from you to your cat by throwing beads at them vs throwing other cats at them.
why the fuck is this your specific example.

>>15315452
>How?
Imperceptible levels of electromagnetic energy emitted by the body and brain.

NEXT!

>>15315475
Your shitty le Schrödinger cat analogy is bullshit because it is based on the assumption of local realism. Local realism has been deboonked by Bell experiments.

>STUPENDOUS

>MASTURBATORY

>INTENSIFICATION

We often see these three words together, but what do they mean?

...you decide...

>>15315889
No one ever explains what local realism is. Does it mean that nothing is real at the quantum level, or that quantum effects aren't real(cant be applied) at the classical level?

>>15315889
>Local realism has been deboonked by Bell experiments
lmao, no

>>15316040
>No one ever explains what local realism is.
Because we assume that you know how to use a search engine.

>>15316043
Retard. That's literally the point of Bell's inequality. Inb4 "muh superdeterminism"

>>15315452
I have sex, therefore I bend this reality to my will

>>15316051
sabine and tim already made it clear that bell tests can't tell us which assumption is false.

and today, we got another paper from mr christian https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519

showing that bell's theorem rules out hidden variables by assumption, making the 'no hidden variables' conclusion it arrives at completely invalid.

yes, superdeterminism has not been ruled out, and remains the most promising approach to solving the measurement problem. deal with it kiddo.

>>15316081
Superdeterminism implies determinism and is therefore in conflict with my free will. Since my free will is a fact superdeterminism must be false.

>>15316093
>Since my free will is a fact
you need to reevaluate this part :)))

>>15315452
You're part of the system
Always were

>inb4 "we live in a society"
no nigga, we all just made of atoms

>>15315452
observation is a myth. Reaction is reality.

>>15316081
How is superdeterminism not just Calvinism with less emphasis on God?

>>15315475
Dunning Kruger strikes again, that's not what the uncertainty principle is at all you fucking idiot. And you can observe something without interacting with it. what do you think entanglement is?

>>15316081
Bell's Theorem also rules out statistical independence by assumption. You ignore it because that's a killshot to determinism.

>>15316146
it is. and?

actually, i was listening to some calvinists on youtube and even they reject determinism, at least in some of the talks i watched. so i don't consider calvinists to be true determinists.

>>15316156
>Bell's Theorem also rules out statistical independence by assumption
no it doesn't. SI is an assumption required to derive the theorem.

>>15316165
And yet the experiment shows it isn't true.

>>15316170
you are saying SI is false? that implies superdeterminism.

but no, bell tests don't tell us whether SI is true or false. bell tests only tell us that SI might be false (I believe it is, but it's untestable).

>>15316172
Determinism is a cope.

>>15316179
indeterminism is a cope :)))

>>15316181
"Indeterminism" is the best you can do to cope that free will is true.

>>15316185
what do you mean it's the best *i* can do, lol? indeterminism is the cope used by people who need to believe that free will is true (but it's not)

>>15316161
>and?
Then I hope you're not one of the anons wailing and gnashing their teeth over idealists lately, because the information that is superdetermined is the world of Platonic forms. It's all the same shit.

Why do people always act like this is some spooky philosophical problem about consciousness having a magical nature?
When you bounce a subatomic particle off another subatomic particle both are going to get fucked up and we have no way of observing subatomic particles passively because they don't emit anything to passively detect.

>>15316194
not sure why you're bringing in idealism now? but incidentally i do also reject idealism. idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis and i don't care much for those. no i can't disprove it, but there is no way of proving it either, and it's not a very interesting idea to me.

>>15316202
>idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis
You might legitimately have a mental illness.

>>15316207
i expected this typical denial. you are offended by the comparison of idealism to a simulation theory, but honest idealists will admit that's what it is.

>>15316161
>>15316194
>>15316202
>>15316207
holy shit go back to /lit/ and spout your pseudointellectualism there

>>15316209
I'm offended by the fact that you thought that was a good argument. It's insulting to the intelligence of everyone in the thread.

>>15316195
because it applies to everything, its impossible to observe anything as a cartesian "impartial observer" as scientists were claming for 300 years. The real reason quantum mechanics and general relativity were so revolutionary was because the theories take into account the observer itself. This happened because the founders of these theories were well read in the german idealist philosphical tradition

>>15316217
cope further, le matrix shill.

>>15316195
>When you bounce a subatomic particle off another subatomic particle both are going to get fucked up and we have no way of observing subatomic particles passively because they don't emit anything to passively detect.
That's a pop sci misconception.

1. Particles aren't little bouncing balls, they're waves until observed by a conscious observer.
2. The conscious observer is essential. Mere interaction - even if it could potentially be extracted e.g. as "which path information" - doesn't collapse the wave function as long as the information isn't actually extracted by a conscious observer. See delayed choice experiments.
3. Even one the most impressive kinds of interaction, namely heckin guaranteed annihilation of a particle/antiparticle pair, doesn't collapse the wave function. See Hardy paradox.
4. You can in fact infer something about the state of a particle without interacting with it. See Renninger's negative-result experiment.

>>15316218
Except this has nothing to do with your pseud shit and it would be fine if particles emitted anything that could be detected without physically interfering with the particle, but we can't.
>>15316225
please go back to /lit/ with those other guys

>>15316228
>Except this has nothing to do with your pseud shit and it would be fine if particles emitted anything that could be detected without physically interfering with the particle, but we can't.
low iq

Look, if you are a naturalist studying antelope in the wild, the very fact that you can observe them from x distance away is proof of the properties of the perceptual system. You have information about antelope by the mere fact of your presence and observation. If you take this principle into account, you can come up with good theories like the ones of the 20th century.

>>15316218
qm doesn't account for the observer, lol. it fails to define what an observer is

>>15316202
>idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis
lmao

>>15316228
>please go back to /lit/ with those other guys
I'll accept your defeat, pop sci scum. I posted well known quantum mechanical experiments and you have no arguments anymore. I am already an active poster on /lit/ btw.

>>15316245
thats irrelevant, the point is relativity and qm put heavily influence on the fact that the reality of the world is largely contingent on observation. If you deny that you get these stupid newtonian ways of thinking that set slowed science for 100 years. "Space exists absolutely apart from observation" is ridiculous. If you dont believe me, look at the writings of the scientists themselves, Einstein clearly decided in favor of Leibniz over newton.

>>15316275
>that's irrelevant
no it was a direct refutation to your claim that qm accounts for the observer lol.
>reality of the world is largely contingent on observation
no such conclusion is derived from qm. qm is totally silent on what observation even consists of physically (measurement problem). same as relativity

>>15316289
If you can't understand how QM/relativity is a decidedly idealist interpretation of subatomic physics and physics respectively, i don't know what to tell you anon. This is the mainstream understanding of the history and philosophy of science. You are not refuting me, you are refuting the scientists that came up with the theories.

>>15316302
>physics leads to muh idealism
no sir, sorry. but believe whatever silliness you wish, no one can stop you.

>>15316275
>thats irrelevant, the point is relativity and qm put heavily influence on the fact that the reality of the world is largely contingent on observation.
"Observation" means interaction. You can't measure something if you don't interact with it. That's it. You're a retard.
>>15316302
>If you can't understand how QM/relativity is a decidedly idealist interpretation of subatomic physics and physics respectively, i don't know what to tell you anon.
There's nothing to tell. You're just flatly wrong, and clearly don't know the first thing about it.

>>15316202
>no i can't disprove it, but there is no way of proving it either
And you can (dis)prove superdeterminism?

>>15316313
physics doesn't "lead" to anything

It's the best way to interpret the the world at the moment is using a theory that has an idealist influence. Sure, you can philosophically claim that particles exist and have properties "beyond our observation" but you would essentially be doing metaphysics and be going beyond the scope of science.

So youre literally just wrong on this one,

>>15316327
>And you can (dis)prove superdeterminism?
no. but it happens to take my interest, so for that reason i find it appealing. additionally, to build any theory, one must assume determinism or indeterminism in physics, despite the question being untestable. so we are forced to pick a side in the process of model-building

>>15316332
>idealist influence
no such thing in physics, aside from the fact that some contributors may have been idealists, but so what? other physicists were materialists.

you can claim that particles are completely contingent on the observer and that is equally metaphysical.

>>15316332
>It's the best way to interpret the the world at the moment is using a theory that has an idealist influence.
Source: Your ass.

>>15316324
>"Observation" means interaction. You can't measure something if you don't interact with it. That's it. You're a retard.
agreed but irrelevant

>There's nothing to tell. You're just flatly wrong, and clearly don't know the first thing about it.
at this point what would convince you then?

>>15316349
>at this point what would convince you then?
Something more than lying about what "observation" means or implies. That is not "idealist". You've failed to present any argument that it is.

why do so many people think "observing" in this case means consciously watching, literally with your eyes?

>>15316363
For the same reason people say "look at the trees" to evidence God. All the same bad reasons.

>>15316343
my thesis is the revolutionary developments of theoretical science in the 20th century were almost 100% because of the wave of idealism in germany. Why did the development not happen in England or France or America for example, where the intelligentsia sided with the empiricist ways of thinking?

>you can claim that particles are completely contingent on the observer and that is equally metaphysical.
agree, but it is simpler and more epistemologically concise.

>>15316366
>why was qm mostly developed in germany?
i don't think there's any simple answer to that question. i also don't consider qm to be revolutionary. it is a flawed theory, in my view.

>it is simpler and more epistemologically concise.
don't see how.

>>15316363
Because that's what collapses the wave function.

>>15316363
what do you think it means?

>>15316366
>my thesis is the revolutionary developments of theoretical science in the 20th century were almost 100% because of the wave of idealism in germany.
Same as before. Source: Your ass. Way to ignore all the epistemological work and methodological developments in the sciences all to rewrite history to suit your bias. This is nonetheless effortlessly falsified: Precisely zero theories assume an idealist universe. It has and offers no predictive power or added benefit. Were it so important you'd think it'd be central, but it is not.

>>15316378
well damn i guess i got effortlessly falsified.

>>15316383
>well damn i guess i got effortlessly falsified.
That's what happens when you make claims with no justification but ad hoc retrofit. Anything more than curt dismissal would be too much effort to waste.

>>15316375
simply interacting

>>15316407
i take issue with that definition. rocks can interact with stuff around them, but i wouldn't say that they are observing anything.

>>15316151
>Dunning Kruger
you are projecting your own dunning kruger.
the observer effect is not what you think.
it's that mundane case of the equipment ruining a perfect observation.

>>15315765
I was gonna go with bowling balls, but cats sounded funnier.

>>15316412
>it's that mundane case of the equipment ruining a perfect observation.
NTA. Given you literally cannot measure something at that level without altering its energy, therefore changing it and its result, I do not think that analogy works. It isn't like at macro scales where you can observe planets or things reflecting light. To observe a photon necessarily, therefore, means that photon must interact with something. So your equipment is not ruining the result, your equipment is the only reason you have any result.

>>15316202
>idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis
Holy retard. No, the "simulation hypothesis" is a modern spin/metaphor for "idealism" half wit

>>15316446
I'm not talking about any experiment specifically, just about the phrase "observer effect".

it's always about the equipment interfering (regardless of quantum effects).

>>15316093
Every time I contemplate the possibility that I have free will, I look back on experiences I've had in my life, decisions I've made. And I ask myself: Could they possibly have turned out any other way? The answer makes me uncomfortable.

>>15316093
>>15316502
don't be stupid. free will is impossible in either case anyway.
we are victims of only a) luck b) environment c) dna.

>>15316502
This is the cause for which most people fall into determinism. They dislike the thought that they're partly responsible for the outcome of their life.

>>15316500
>it's always about the equipment interfering (regardless of quantum effects).
Just trying to point out phrasing it that way seems to me to be as liable to cause misunderstanding as the grotesque stupidity of using metaphors of agency for inanimate interactions. As the common reading of what you're saying about "equipment interfering" is going to imply it could otherwise be measured but we lack the technology, rather than representing the simple fact you can't measure what you can't interact with.

>>15316514
I'm old enough that I'm willing to accept responsibility for my choices. It's just the thought that they literally couldn't have gone any other way that keeps me up at night.

>>15316551
>It's just the thought that they literally couldn't have gone any other way that keeps me up at night.
Why would something which is obviously false keep you up at night?

>>15316514
>This is the cause for which most people fall into determinism. They dislike the thought that they're partly responsible for the outcome of their life.
Or nobody thinks about it that way and you're an asshole for thinking you can read minds simply because you assume you're right.
>>15316551
>It's just the thought that they literally couldn't have gone any other way that keeps me up at night.
Determinism does not necessitate fatalism, and even if it did it would hardly matter to you anyway. You examine events in your life, ideally, to learn from them and explore better outcomes should analogous circumstances arise. If you find yourself ruminating endlessly, and losing sleep or health over it, you may want to speak to a therapist. It certainly isn't your idea of "ultimate ontology" keeping you up at night. It's called anxiety.

>>15316363
because scientits are really retarded when naming physical phenomena, obfuscating science it's their greatest skill

>>15316523
>you can't measure what you can't interact with
you can. e.g. capturing light after a fact
observer effect is not a necessity.

>>15316363
because physicists constantly try to explain complex ideas through analogy and it bites them in the ass every fucking time

>>15316225
Oh my god, he ate the whole plate! Anon those were for everyone!

>>15316146
>How is superdeterminism not just Calvinism with less emphasis on God?
why is this so often considered an argument? just because a world with superdeterminism/calvinism would be unfortunate doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true

of course, superdeterminism may not be true, but it should be investigated on that grounds, not on how pleasant the outcome of the investigation would be

>>15319131
Determinitards often accuse their opponents of being religious because they have no arguments. He's just lampooning you with a common determinitard line of reasoning.

>>15316584
It's not false, on the contrary, it's empirically true, brainlet.

>>15319184
You're upset with yourself because you know you could have done things differently if you were wiser or more motivated.

>>15319131
why would superdeterminism be unfortunate? the only thing that's unfortunate is negative life experiences, and those happen whether or not superdeterminism is true.

>>15319218
>if you were wiser or more motivated.
aka if we lived an imaginary, alternate universe?

>>15319237
You're right. Determinists are hopelessly intellectually inferior and lazy, which is why they believe their lot in life could never have been different.

>>15319242
you will never be free. puny insect.

Free will is just the 0th-order approximation of a sufficiently complex superdeterministic system.

>>15315452
>>15315475
Sounds like that age old excuse
>I did the trick properly when you weren't looking. I can't do it properly now because you're looking.
But in science form.

>>15315475
>be photon
>travel 10 billion light years as a wave around both sides of a galaxy due to gravitational lensing
>astronomer directs a telescope at one of the pathways
>tehe i was ackshually a particle the whole time, let me just rewrite 10 billion years of history to correct the record

Why is reality so coy and orwellian?

>>15322444
>be electron in quantum eraser experiment
>*giggles* me n my sister are waves cause no one can possibly observe which path we took
>*shock* UHH YOU PERVERT, ITS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO KNOW WHICH PATH MY SISTER TOOK EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVENT OBSERVED IT YET, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT WERE BOTH PARTICLES AND WE ALWAYS WERE YOU SICKO

why are electrons like this?