/sci/ - Science & Math

"In academia, if it's good you publish it. In industry, if it's good you keep it secret."

>>15666910
Is she a government plant? Or is she just actually retarded but thinks that she has intelligent opinions to share?

>>15666910
but superdeterminism is not falsifiable, yet it is science (as a serious candidate theory)

i believe the above unironically. sabine needs to be consistent and abandon the idea in the op.

>>15667173
if you can't support it, it will never be respected. simple as.

>>15667180
what are you suggesting?

both qm and superdeterminism are equally supported. both rely equally on an assumption which can never be tested

>>15667186
>supported
>can never be tested
choose one

>>15666995
>constantly debunks soience
>government plant
are you retarded?

>>15666915
like gravity harversters?

>>15667187
>>15667187
ok, they're equally unsupported. but notice that many people respect qm, even though it is unsupported.

>>15667192
Quantum mechanics has been verified through various experiments and tests. One notable experiment is the double-slit experiment, which demonstrates the wave-particle duality of matter and the probabilistic nature of quantum particles.

Other tests include the Bell's theorem experiment, which confirms the existence of entanglement and non-locality, and the Stern-Gerlach experiment, which shows the quantized nature of angular momentum.

These experiments, along with many others, provide empirical evidence supporting the principles and predictions of quantum mechanics. It's fascinating how these tests continue to deepen our understanding of the quantum world!

>>15667195
you don't understand the subject then. counterfactual definiteness is impossible to test, and qm relies on it being true. everything you said is nullified by that fact.

>>15667200

pretty sure you're responding to chatGPT

Anything I could say in regard to this woman would further poison my soul and so I must decline to share the awful words I could certainly provide.

>>15667234
t. seething anti-determinist

>>15667206
It's fascinating how these tests continue to deepen our understanding of the quantum world!

>>15666910

she couldn't even understand how the quantum eraser experiment works. shes a midwit. i mean idealism is what separates the smart people from the midwits; all materialist are midwits.

>>15667272
sir you're coping quite hard is everything ok there?

>>15667200
>and qm relies on it being true
No, it doesn't. This is an ontological question and is interpretational
>An interpretation of quantum mechanics can be said to involve the use of counterfactual definiteness if it includes in the mathematical modelling outcomes of measurements that are counterfactual; in particular, those that are excluded according to quantum mechanics by the fact that quantum mechanics does not contain a description of simultaneous measurement of conjugate pairs of properties

>>15667190
She's a pro-tranny moron, and I've never seen her take an anti-government stance.
She always tows the line and never says anything remotely controversial.

>>15667200
You don't understand the subject you fucking enormous retard. Most interpretations are specifically NOT counterfactually definite theories. This has to do with ψ ontology and not if "if QM is true". The formalisms of QM make accurate predictions. The actual ontology of what goes on behind the scene in terms of causality and the ontology of things like ψ are the things that can't be tested.

>>15666910
if it's not provable a priori or by direct observation, it's not fact. simple as.
goodbye quantum field theory.

>>15667332
the defining feature of determinism (superdeterminism) is the forbidding of counterfactuals.

anything that is not superdeterminism will in some way bring in counterfactuals. that table is wrong.

>>15667375
No it is not, idiot. The copenhagen specifically makes no claim on the ontic status of that which was not measured
>In quantum mechanics, counterfactual definiteness (CFD) is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e., the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured)
You couldn't design a more backward

>>15667382
let me clarify a potential confusion. they may not say what would have happened had x been different, but they will at least allow that x could have been different. that is the counterfactuality they will sneak, inevitably. it is impossible not to, if one is rejecting determinism (superdeterminism).

>>15667375
You couldn't design a more backward claim than you are making. The opposite is true for most interpretations in terms of affirming counterfactual definiteness, as shown in the chart here
>>15667332
It's not the chart that is wrong, it's your understanding of the issue of what counterfactual definiteness is.

>>15666910
Why do you simp for this disgusting crone? Expecting a gummer in return?

>>15667400
>let me clarify a potential confusion. they may not say what would have happened had x been different, but they will at least allow that x could have been different. that is the counterfactuality they will sneak
You used a very specific term here
>>15667200
>you don't understand the subject then. counterfactual definiteness is impossible
You used counterfactual definiteness and then accused an anon of not knowing what they were talking about. It's YOU who don't know what the words you use mean. And so NO, QM does NOT depend on their being counterfactual definiteness to be true as you stated
>you don't understand the subject then. counterfactual definiteness is impossible to test, and qm relies on it being true
It certainly doesn't and please explain what you mean by QM being "true". Are you speaking about whether or not the formalisms make accurate predictions? What i think you are doing is talking about aspects of particular INTERPRETATIONS of the formalisms then saying that whether or not QM is "true" rests on aspects of these interpretations being testable or falsifiable.

>>15667428
>QM being "true".
the statements it makes about the universe corresponding to reality.

you are overcomplicating things. if you do not accept superdeterminism, then you will be allowing counterfactual scenarios, one way or another. it's that simple.

>>15667401
Most of the problem that people have with QM have to do with INTERPRETATIONS of QM, not it's utility, ie, the ontic status of the wave function. If you take it to be real, and take a physicalist point of view on consciousness, for instance, then you get this idea of there being things like alive and dead cats, which is stupid. If you take bohrs view,
>>15667382
Then there is no quantum world that even has to be calculated and rendered and spacetime classical type observables like position and momentum are only calculated and rendered when measurement is made. You couldn't even render the wave function anyways because there would be infinite info in a continuous function. And this in fact is the most efficient way to minimize computational complexity if you were going to create a universe and present it to observers, ie render on demand and only to the resolution of the specs of the measuring device, whether it be a wave particle duality experiment of a consciousness observer's sensory data stream, ie a cat. And so a cat's consciousness would be a measuring device and would "collapes the wave function" ie demand a spacetime sensory data stream of classical type observables. And this gets into why people started to postulate the VR nature of the universe in terms of things like the simulation theory. The universe acts like a render on demand reality that is designed to appear AS IF there were a "quantum world", when infact the formalisms of QM are only tapping into the algos the rendering engine that renders the physical world uses, see pic.

>>15667438
this was to you by the way
>>15667480
I sent it to myself by the way. I will catch you on the next super determinism thread some day. I told myself that I wouldn't get into anymore of these adrenalizing debates. And here
>>15667382
I went overboard on calling you an idiot. You only had a wrong idea of what counterfactual definiteness was. this doesn't make you an idiot. Good luck old boy. I am out of this /sci/ board. I only get worked up on this board and end up calling people retards and idiots.

imagine having the delusion that Newton was wrong about gravity, by claiming we can't test it, by claiming we can't test what exactly caused gravity.

>>15667173
It's just an assumption (I believe every self-respecting scientists should make) that you can make absolute statements about the universe:
>if initial state is this and laws of the universe are that then this will happen
Instead of saying that ultimately laws of the universe are based on magic (what non-determinists do) and everything can happen (some things with very low probability though).

>>15666910
>if it's not verifiable, it's not science, simple as.

Wait, why is this wrong?
If something can't be tested, can't be disproven, can't be documented, is essentially completely hypothetical- how is that functionally & holistically any different from just making shit up?

>>15668011
the accurate version is, "if it's not falsifiable". you can't "fully verify" because it implies falsifying everything else that contradicts it.

>>15667995
>>if initial state is this and laws of the universe are that then this will happen
yes, but given determinism only one initial state and evolution law is possible, so imagining changing it is pointless.

>>15667322
You just described the average woman, that's just how it goes.

>>15666910
i agree
heliocentrism, globe earth, evolution and other secular ideas are not verifiable, but instead, evidence testifies to the contrary

>>15667190
>constantly debunks soience
Is that the narrative on reddit? In reality she's a youtube eceleb and purveyor of soience

>>15667186
>both qm and superdeterminism are equally supported
Incorrect

>>15667192
>they're equally unsupported.
Incorrect

>>15667995
A year later and you still haven't figured out what superdorkism is and you continue to shill this youtube nobody cunt retarded reddit faggot

>>15669504
>>15669507
>Incorrect
incorrect

why does this person get so much hate? Her video attacking particle physics seemed reasonable

>>15667995
What caused the initial state?

>>15667322
That's Germans for you

>What would have happened if the outcome of the experiment had been different?
>I don't get it, the outcome wasn't different
>Yes, but if it had been

Autistic people should be drowned en masse

>>15669558
they get defensive because they feel their livelihoods being threatened when she calls out their bad science.

also she's a determinist, which is a very unpopular position in sciencd these days (maybe always). which is retarded when you think about it. determinism is really the essence of science. the pursuit of rules for the universe which do not have any retarded wiggle room, which tell us exactly how things work.

>>15666910
I love you Sabine

>>15666910
Devil's advocate wise, nothing scientific is verifiable. It's the fallacy of induction. Inductive logic is inherently faulty--there is no certainty.

>>15669672
>pursuit of rules for the universe which do not have any retarded wiggle room, which tell us exactly how things work.
This is motivated entirely by emotional reasons though.
>it's just more beautiful that way

>>15666910
Wouldn't "falsifiable" be the better choice?

>>15669717
>>15669876
it was a typo. I was meaning to say falsifiable, but I guess it makes for a good troll.

>>15669538
Screeching won't make you right
Incorrect

>>15669831
The incel you're talking to is infatuated with this reddit icon so everything she says is true and beautiful

>>15669831
no it's not. if you allow wiggle room then you can't explain outcomes. the point of an explanation is to tell us why we see what we do over anything else. if you include that 'anything else' then you've nullified the explanation

>>15669634
Nothing had to cause it.
It's initial by definition - that's what "initial" means.

>>15670432
So why is it ok to have initial conditions without cause, but events after that can never be without cause?

>>15670423
>the point of an explanation is to tell us why we see what we do over anything else
What gives you the right to expect this of reality? Why should such explanations be available? Maybe a precisely calculated probability is all you get.

>>15670439
Sabine said so.

>>15670443
See >>15670465

>>15667382
kek how did academia ever accept the utter retardation of the likes of bohr?

>>15670443
ok, then don't do or follow any science. i for one will continue to, though.

probability is useless.

>>15668011
prove that general relativity holds everywhere outside the observable universe

i only saw a vid about the delayed choice quantum eraser.

it was interesting but i had the feeling she liked to accuse other scientists of bold claims when in reality they were just speculating.

i watched a few other vids on the quantum eraser experiment and none of them implied there was a way to predict the future or anything. All of them were just raising questions or proposing thought experiment.

but she attacked it like there was already a dogmatic cult around it, but the only dogmatic vibes came from her

i still watched the whole vid and was glad I did, but im not gonna watch another

>>15672124
It's just a bit she does. She sells a debunker persona to her audience. Read the comments, they just fawn over her. Same with Thunderf00t. Rather than address the speculative papers in good faith, it's more profitable to pretend like you're some bold destroyer of a cult.

>>15666910
soince milf

>>15672140
>Same with Thunderf00t
It's nothing like thinderf00t, he's not peddling his pet theory to sell books and he only debunks trash internet scams not scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics and particle physics theories trying to make sense of our complex reality.

>>15666910
Queen of /sci/

>>15667173
>it is science

It's philosophy

>>15667173
superdeterminism is a concept of athiest religion which is as good as science fiction

>trannies in women sports are okay because le genetic lottery

>>15673434
It’s not her area of expertise. She probably only did those videos because fans asked her to.

>>15670895
>Bohr calls a model a model
>this makes him retarded because i've made the model my belief structure
it's all so tiresome

>>15673434
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/17/20-35813.pdf
>yeah men have a physical advantage over women
>but you don't have studies showing that those advantages are maintained when transitioning
>checkmate transphobes
t. judiciary system

>>15673547
higher estrogen and lower testosterone does physically weaken you, yes

NTA but the only issue i'd have with it is lying about it for an advantage; you see this in basically every LGBT-whatever group, where attention seekers lie about it for attention. obviously that's not all of them but it's always going to be the loudest ones. in the context of sports, you'll of course have people lying about being trans to compete against women for the same reason (i.e. getting attention by doing well against weaker competition), but if they're on hormones their musculature functions more poorly in general.
in short, it's not an issue if you limit it to HRT - hell, establish a baseline for the athlete and disqualify if it becomes clear the testosterone has been boosted, whether by stopping HRT or by literal testosterone intake. we already have tests for this in other sports precisely because testosterone boosting is a form of PED and natural testosterone levels can vary between people but not that much over time (exercise increases testosterone, but not a huge amount, and the response is fundamental to human metabolism and muscle development in general and thus applicable regardless of sex)

realistically somebody on HRT is only going to have an advantage if they still have high testosterone relative to the female average.

>>15673547
>You need a group of soientists that already agree with the premise who manipulate the data to match the premise they are trying to prove, chud
>Trans athletes beating the shit out of women isn't enough proof. *soilent slurping noises*

>>15673634
>Trans athletes beating the shit out of women
i'm thinking based

>>15673634
>>15673639
Transathletes put women's "sports" in the spotlight and on the map

Sabine's face annoys me.

>>15674185
Yeah, same here. Weird.

I wonder why preventive medicine is full of cryptopseudoscientists who recommend us to do the opposite of what we should actually do.

>>15674414
she's unironically government-grown reptilian-human hybrid plant-stock and anyone that tells you otherwise is one of them

>>15674474
She just looks like your typical lesbian with narcissistic tendencies.

>>15674489
yep of course that's what the whole alphabet agenda is about, to make it easier for them to be planted and blend in

>>15673544
You can tell the ones on the left are the good guys because their pictures are black and white (more serious)

>>15674717
>the ones on the left are the good guys
correct.
>because their pictures are black and white
incorrect, but highly illustrative of your cognitive ability - you stopped processing the image at "colors" and neglected to read the text, which makes the actual difference between the sides of the image... quite clear.

>>15673274
then so is qm.

>>15673421
proof?

>>15666910
My love my angle

>>15675288
i have a source

>>15666910
verify these nuts!

>>15667173
>sabine needs to
She's an independent liberated woman, you can't boss her around CHUD.

>>15667195
>double-slit experiment, which demonstrates the wave-particle duality of matter
Nope. Double-slit experiment proves that light is a wave.

>but if you observe the slits then it turns into a particle
This never happens. This experiment is never performed. It exist only as illustrations.