/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15621057
mods ban these spammers

I am so sick of seeing this goblin face troll posted

>>15621057
>Le modified gravity retard

She's probably right, but she's not a condensed matter physicist so who cares? Wait for people to replicate the experiment and stop spamming.

>>15621057
she's probably right.

also, superdeterminism is true.

>>15621057
That is a man

>>15621057
why does she talk through her teeth so hard?

Honestly she's pretty based but sometimes her jokes fall flat

>>15621098
Based and correct

>>15621057
As someone who thinks LK99 is bullshit, no one shoudl look up to Sabine Hossenmeme as an authority.

>>15621068
Worse than that. She believes in both MOND and DM at the same time.
>>15621098
Superdeterminism is a meme because it requires the entire universe to conspire against observers and doesn't explain where the universe came from in the first place. True randomness doesn't require anything.

>>15621324
>requires the entire universe to conspire against observers
wrong.
>doesn't explain where the universe came from
a complete model would do exactly that.
>True randomness doesn't require anything.
you can't get anything out of indeterminism.

>>15621390
>wrong.
But it is right. Superdeterminism postulates that the universe is tricking observers when monitoring the spin of entangled particles over large distances.
>a complete model would do exactly that.
No, this is where superdeterminism breaks down completely. Either god made a superdeterministic universe or nature itself somehow has rules (which must come from somewhere). True randomness doesn't require any such thing.
>you can't get anything out of indeterminism.
Other than a functioning universe, that is.

>>15621437
>Superdeterminism postulates that the universe is tricking observers
wrong.

>True randomness doesn't require any such thing
that just means you made randomness your god. it's an equivalent move.

>Other than a functioning universe, that is.
>anything could happen and anything could've happened, why this world? don't ask! lol solved!!!
pathetic and lazy excuse for an explanation. stay out of physics.

>>15621479
>wrong.
Great argument, retard.
>that just means you made randomness your god.
No. Randomness can either come from god or from nothingness and doesn't have any other prerequisites.

Superdeterminism brainlets are fucking retarded.

>>15621479
>>15621499
Which one of these theories is cringe reddit atheism Dawkins, and which one is based epic and Hitler-pilled?

>>15621523
Superdeterminism is for people who are too afraid of things outside of their control.

>>15621523
the sneed

>>15621238
She likes to keep a small cum reservoir in her mouth at all times.

>>15621057
gOD she's so smart and cute and her accent is so sexy

>>15621499
>Great argument, retard.
it's on you to explain how you think the universe is 'tricking' us (it isn't)

>recorded on sunday
So before all the developments of today.

>>15621324
youre a meme, deterministic universe is the only reasonable case, observer is useless when humans dont exist

>hey chad, wanna entangle some particles?
>here's the set up
>here's what where gonna measure
>now go to the other side of the the universe and wait
They've played us for absolute FOOLs

>>15621499
youre under illusion that trillion of trillions of particles emiting different forces all the time mean that the quantum noise is purely random and fundamental but it is not, if you ever played with actual computer simulations you would realize uncertainty arises from complexity of simulations, but its not random its just alot of variables to account for

>>15621057
I like her videos but I think she's probably wrong here. LK99 may or may not be a practical RTAPSC, but it has very strange and interesting properties and investigation into its variations and mechanism is likely to continue for a long time,

>>15621869
>I like her videos but I think she's probably wrong here.

You're missing what's happening. The western world is actively suppressing the discovery. The poles have flipped. It's the west that now lives in a state of propaganda.

>>15621062
take your misogynistic abuse back to r*ddit.

>>15622141
proof?

>>15621057
>I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER MY ACTIONS!!!!!
Why would I listen to a crazy person who claims no accountability?

>>15622298
>I'M IN CONTROL!!
why would i listen to a crazy (and arrogant) person who thinks they're in control?

>>15622298
Accountability is the means by which we influence each other's future behavior. Free will isn't required for it to be useful.

>>15621529
superdeterminism doesnt mean everything is in your control

>>15622329
>Decide to put on my red shoes instead of my green shoes
>MY GOD THE ARROGANCE OF YOU, THINKING YOU REALLY CHOSE YOUR RED SHOES!
>>15622330
How can anybody leverage "a means to influence behavior" unless
1) they have the ability to choose to leverage such a means, and
2) those influenced have the choice to change their behavior?

Didn't she also declare that FTL travel is possible and that Entropy is a hoax? I guess superdeterminism negates entropy somehow. Anyway if everything is predetermined where did the initial deviation from symmetry come from?

>>15621390
>wrong
It's true. It states that the the initial conditions of the universe were as such that it was pre-determined that it would appear that entanglement and non-locality/bell type correlations and that predictions of QM were true but in fact they were not. It's an unfalsifiable theory.

Is /sci/ really filtered by lack of free will? It’s an empty concept

Read Hume. Free will is actually more sensible under determinism

>>15621057
i'm still giga skeptical, but this just isn't her field, as far as i can tell from the titles she's out of her wheelhouse half the time. sure the subject is in vogue, but she can only regurgitate, or in the worst case misinform.
also i've avoided watching a single video from this person for as long as she's been popular.
ok so i typed all of this and watched it anyway. and yeah, nothing new. and im a huge faggot for having giving this bitch a view. huge faggot.

>>15621098
Superdeterminism is wrong. However, the Gigadeterministic loop theory is correct.

>>15622494
why would symmetry be the default? retarded assumption.

>>15622514
for the nth time, bell tests do not demonstrate nonlocality. get it through your thick fucking skull.

also for the nth time, qm is no more falsifiable than superdeterminism.

>>15622702
no it isn't. determinism kills free will dead, face the reality.

>>15622653
Yes it literally does not make a difference

>>15621062
Hey! That's my mother you're talking about!

>>15621057
God I wish she were my mommygf.

/sci/ might shit on her all you want but at least she does back up what she says with papers, and even if she interprets them wrong you can always go to the source yourself. Unlike other jewtube science communicators that don't even have STEM degrees (much less a PhD) nor they backup what they say and only spew popsci garbo.

>>15623826
Without initial symmetry, all you've done is rediscover the Newtonian clockwork universe, with the initial conditions set by fiat.

>>15621057
Can someone explain why people are absolutely SEETHING over this potential discovery??

>>15623969
Seething and butthurt are the currencies of the internet

>MILLIONS of idealist midwits COPE and SEETHE thanks to ONE small GERMAN woman... CLICK HERE to find out HOW

>>15624046
Bait

A prediction, based on sound reasoning and current data isn't automatically a bad prediction on the off-chance that it is wrong based on some freak event.

A lot of people don't get this.

>>15621057
I love how half of the shit she says in this video is already wrong.

>>15624046
true lmao

>>15623967
so fucking what? lmao. that could be how the universe really works

>>15624072
t. hs dropout

you can tell sabine is a peg dom mommy.

>>15624072
I liked the episode where she proved FTL travel is possible just by asserting it is

>>15624126
haven't seen the video, but i bet you're strawmanning her. i bet what she really said is basically we don't know if it's possible, it might be. not that it definitely is possible.

>>15624129
She said that all the time paradoxes of FTL go away if you fix a preferred reference frame - and she declared that the universal comoving frame will do

>>15621324
>True randomness doesn't require anything.
There must be a source of randomness which is - you guessed it - deterministic. Otherwise you're just creating a God of Randomness basically. That's why nobody worth their salt accepts "world is just random bruh deal with it xDD" are are searching for underlying mechanisms of QM

>>15624137
What's wrong with a universal comoving frame?

>>15624641
It doesn't imply any of the results she says it implies.

>>15624154
What caused the density variations in the early universe that led to galactic formation?

>>15624713
The Jews.

youtube is pushing jews like her and lex, always do the opposite of what they say

Fuck maths. It's for dull runty fugly faggots to feel "elite" in the world. Fuck em. No point polishing a turd you little wankers.

>>15624713
your mom so fat she brought all the particles together

>>15623837
>free will means there is a quantum RNG rolling random dice in my head
This conception of free will is no more meaningful than free will in determinism. Either is silly. Either believe in free will or don't, it makes no difference and you should stop basing your theories of physics on your belief or lack-thereof for free will.

Discussions for or against free will and subjective experience in general is metaphysical and not /sci/.

>>15625026
it comes down to the question of counterfactual worlds.

either you believe that you could've done otherwise (free will), or you don't.

and you can't simply avoid this question when building a physical theory. when the electron goes left instead of right, why did it go left? could it have gone right?

>>15625093
free will relates to 'counterfactual definiteness' which is a well-established issue in quantum foundations. so no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

>>15625026
Free will comes from your supernatural soul.

>>15625155
That has absolutely nothing to do with free will. Stop reading wikipedia articles and watching popsci videos.

>>15625175
you are literally just wrong. it has everything to do with it.

>>15625164
Neither deterministic physics nor physics with quantum randomness supports the existence of such a supernatural soul. If you wish to believe in such a soul, that's fine. But neither theory of physics supports it, and neither theory of physics uniquely forbids it.

>>15625183
It's called SUPERnatural for a reason.

>>15625187
Yes, that's the point. SUPERnatural means that it exists beyond what the physical theories support. Neither determinism NOR quantum randomness support free will. Therefore it is erroneous to object to determinism on the basis of free will because the alternative doesn't support free will any better.

>>15625196
It's almost as if materialism doesn't fully explain everything that exists in reality. That's no reason to declare free will can't exist.

>>15625203
I'm not saying free will doesn't exist. I have said that you can believe in free will if you wish. I choose to myself.

What I'm saying is that "determinism can't be real because free will is real" is a moronic argument because that same argument damns indeterminism all the same. Quantum mechanics doesn't have free will in it either, neither do and therefore the free will argument is a wash.

>>15624713
Si monumentum requiris circumspice

>>15625214
I think the best way to describe how the universe works would be something like "influence-able determinism" or maybe "predictable-ism." Imagine a bunch of dominoes set up in a line; if you knock over the first domino you can safely predict how and when each proceeding domino will fall, but you had to choose to knock that domino over, and someone could run into the room and stop further dominoes from falling over by interfering with it. The chain of events is generally predictable, but it can be influenced by unpredictable factors like conscious choices.

>>15625267
That's fine, but neither quantum mechanics nor determinism have these features. It's fine if you choose to believe in it anyway, but objecting to determinism and not also quantum mechanics on these grounds is simply dumb. If you want to believe in free will then you have to accept that both determinism and quantum mechanics are wrong.

>>15625278
>If you want to believe in free will then you have to accept that both determinism and quantum mechanics are wrong.
Okay, I have no problem with that.

>>15625286
Okay, then we see eye to eye. I don't object to people believing in free will, I object only to people dismissing determinism in favor of quantum indeterminism because they think the later is more compatible with free will.

>>15625267
you understand that the universe is not predictable? even processes which do not directly involve any conscious being exhibit chaos.

>>15621057
she looks like a female version of chud

>weinstein literally called her a curmudgeon
spinster to her face on keating's podcast (after asking motl for insult ideas)
and got away with it
how does he do it

>>15626021
she is a curmudgeon, he is right about that. but that doesn't mean she is necessarily wrong

>spinster
holy kek. do you have the link for that clip? but in fact she is married with kids so it's not quite true. still funny though

>>15621057
she made a clown of herself not that long ago. shes also jewish. do not listen to anything she says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an6JiBLQqXY

>>15626241
>she made a clown of herself not that long ago.
how so?
>shes also jewish
wrong, also it wouldn't be relevant even if she were.
>do not listen to anything she says
no, i will. she is one of the only representatives for the correct path forward in physics (superdeterminism).

>>15626241
>shes also jewish
anon shes from a catholic background
go back to /pol/