/sci/ - Science & Math

0/10

Well, thats a good point against the probabilistic universe.
But i think deep down physics are just too weird for us.

Consider this:
You are living in a universe.
You have 2 choices for the universe to exist.

Either:
1)Our universe/multiverse is within another domain and that in another, infinitely.

2)Our universe/multiverse emerged from nothing and exists in nothingness, whatever that is.
(god can fit in this description too)

As you can see both of these options are "illogical" to us and go against anything we know about the world.


Either way determinism has no place there.
At the very core the hyper-cosmos is beyond our intuition to grasp.

>>4284570
i don't like it too
but that's the way things are...

>>4284589
Go back to your consciousness threads, grown ups are talking.

>>4284605
Sure, thats how things are CURRENTLY in physics.
Thats what experimentation shows.

But if you think about it you can see the fallacy of the QM being probabilistic.
Am saying that science itself is all about determinism, without it there wouldn't be.
All kinds of structures and patterns are based on determinism.

Just because current experimentation shows one thing that doesnt mean its true especially if it contradict the grand scale of the concept of everything logic, knowledge, science represent.

If you ask people that dont know about physics they'll tell you that the flipping of a coin is 50-50 and you can never know how it will end up, they'll say that they tried their best but its completely random.
Only cause of their limited knowledge and understanding of physics.

I hope you can see the big picture.

>>4284589
1. this is not correct (simple as that).
2. well this isn't true either rather the opposite is true...
>Science works on empiricism, you test something then you repeat it, it should have similar results.
only that they are allowed to differ and thats why u make MANY test to be able make it statisticaly likely....
>All science, logic, mathematics works on this, determinism, without it nothing makes sense because there would be no sense to make one
if 2 would have been correct then maybe the science part would have been true, the logic part..... i could maybe give u half of that but the math part is just.... absurd.

What is the relationship between determinism and chaos? For example a double pendulum can be chaotic.

>>4284622
>>4284622
>if 2 would have been correct then maybe the science part would have been true, the logic part..... i could maybe give u half of that but the math part is just.... absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

>>initial conditions
>+
>>quantum 'randomness'
>=
>>Incompatible with our reality
what?

>If quantum randomness is truly random and not deterministic at the core then we would see the difference in macroscale, to say the least.
IT'S CALLED DECOHERENCE, YOU FUCKING RETARD GO BACK TO FUCKING FRESHMAN QM YOU STUPID PIECE OF RETARDED SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK EVERY DAMN MOTHERFUCKING DAY WE HAVE THESE THREADS.

>1)If something is truly random, that implies that there is a causation of no energy, which i need not to tell you how nonsensical this is.
Your logic is completely flawed. Do you even know what the uncertainty principle is?

>This kind of randomness goes against the basic tenet and foundation of science which *IS*......determinism.
You are a fucking retarded insane and mad idiot shit eater. Science, at its foundation, is based on empirical study of what WE CAN OBSERVE AND DEDUCE. If you don't LIKE WHAT WE SEE, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>Science works on empiricism, you test something then you repeat it, it should have similar results.
Yes, how does this exactly contribute to your argument filled with logical fallacies again?

>Bertrand Russel made a similar argument, that since science is based on predicting and everything follows laws of physics then despite our current understanding of physics being probabilistic, it could be very likely that further in the future we would find the answer to the seemingly probabilistic nature of QM.
Oh here we fucking go, another faggot WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THAT LOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN PHYSICS. THE PROBABILITY IS THE REALITY, GET USED TO IT.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Bell's+Inequality
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Einstein-Podolski-Rosen+Experiment

>If you're anti-determinists you're also anti-scientists and deluded to oblivion.
You don't know what science is.

FUCK OFF BACK TO /B/ AND THE 18TH CENTURY YOU STUPID CUNT

>>4284637
thank you kind sir i had no clue about this, thx for enlightening me

>we would see the difference in macroscale

And there is where you went wrong.

Agreed.

There is no such thing as randomness at any level, just insufficient information to identify local causality.

>we would see the difference in macroscale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_mechanics

oh what people smarter than you have been proving you wrong for over two hundred years what

>>4284676
What the devil is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE????????

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/#3

I'm going to unscrew your head and shit down your neck op

>>4284695

Stop samefagging, this could be an interesting discussion .

>>4284701
>an interesting discussion
how can you deny the THOUSANDS of replications of bell's experiment? you are essentially stating that all of quantum mechanics is falsified.

>2012
>mfw people still believe in local hidden variables

>>4284701
ppl saging my epic thread, obviously samefagging..... :).
op ppl like u shouldn't be allowed on the interwebs

>>4284640
Typical professor parroting cumdrinking cockfarting filth you are.

Well, you're right about decoherence and macroscopic objects, it came out wrong.

But are awfully wrong in other aspects.
I guess you can't grasp the concept of no-determinism=no science.
No matter what you observe it still follows laws, therefore no matter what is it that you are observing it must have some predictable answers.
Without determinism you can't have empiricism.
Yes i understand UP but you dont understand the implications of a TRUE random event (protip: its impossible).


The local hidden variable is a joke by itself, so is Bell's theorem.
Why?
Because locality is a naive assumption.

You are simply stating the obvious that "things" are probabilistic, everyone knows that from official science textbooks and am acknowledging thats how things are measured but not how things ARE because if you take literally some aspects of them they violate bigger and stronger pillars of the universe.

>>4284759
you should seriously consider just watching a lecture showing the derivation of bell's inequalities:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uef_qN7VFuY

you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If the common /sci/ inhabitant thinks women are stupid, specifically on maths, and the pleasure of hearing music is just our mind unconsciously doing maths, why are women the most sensitive regarding music in general, and the best dancers?

>>4284598
I guess from that point of view that makes sense.

But, think about it, no matter what it is, how it acts, it still follows rules.
Maybe the universe came out of nowhere or infinite series or whatever if they follow certain laws of physics then they are deterministic.

Ant colony computing is the idea that by taking a base unit, giving it a certain set of instructions and running it in a undetermined direction will in time create a recognizable and functional pattern by simply providing a "goal".

The pattern itself is entirely probabilistic, but paths which are slow to the "goal" will die off and paths which have a higher probability will persist. This is done by not making the paths permanent, but by allowing them to erase over time.

While the path becomes more accurate and precise with each run, the path will not be linear and the minor deviations can only be minimilized; never eliminated.

It's not that the ant's path was ever actually determined. It's just that the system exists in such a way that something like the paths never reaching the "goal" is improbable.

Regardless of whether the ant is randomly walking or if its path is predetermined, both scenarios have the capacity to reach the same conclusion with increasing consistency. And this falls straight in line with the process we use to handle QM.

Every particle is an ant. By using and observing as many ants as possible and as quickly as possible, the chances of us not reaching our "goal" becomes increasingly unlikely. Regardless of whether we understand the true nature of the universe, we are still able to manipulate it in such a way that it benefits our own existence. It's inherently impossible to know if that next pile of food is close by until we've actually found it, and this is precisely why the Higgs-Boson is such a prime debate.

I neither agree nor disagree with determinism, because frankly, my opinion on the nature of reality doesn't inherently change the order of the universe. It is more than possible that chaos is the true "order" of the universe and it would still reach the same reality we exist in.

"Determinism" itself can never be determined, and your attempts at forcing an objective truth are misguided at best.

>>4284768
Well even if you weren't trolling and that was posted from someone who actually believed that then i would say that its wrong.

Because its assumptions on assumptions and some fallacies in between.

Sure, the reason we have audio receptors was to survive, therefore we always try to decode sound.

But thats still fallacious.
Even if that was the case that would be insufficient, since someone might do the same thing as you but poorly and still get more excited than you.
Simply being more receptive or more active doesnt make you better.

>>4284769
>But, think about it, no matter what it is, how it acts, it still follows rules.
There is uncertainty in 'things'. This is not a repercussion of measuring equipment/devices, or limitations thereof. It is an integrated part of reality, and subsequently our understanding of modern physics. This is why quantum mechanics is so unintuitive in comparison to analytical mechanics.

What is your education in the sciences? I'd love to know before I get into this.

>>4284570
>2)This kind of randomness goes against the basic tenet and foundation of science which *IS*......determinism.

No. The foundation of science is FACTS, FACTS, FACTS and LOGIC.
Fuck your determinism. Fuck your anti-scientism.

>>4284769
>it still follows rules
If I make rules in a game of chess, does that inherently determine the outcome of the game?

Knowing the rules by which the pieces abide does not mean the outcome is determined. While we do know the capabilities of the pieces on the board, there is a variety of directions which it can move.

Furthermore, our entire methodology of science is based around viewing a game which is already in progress without knowing the rules beforehand, and attempting to understand how each piece works based on the moves they make.

While we *can* get an idea of each piece, there are still specifics (like rooking) which might be observable under certain conditions, events which have passed long since. If "rooking" ever took place, we'd not only be unable to predict how the game will end; we won't even know how it truly began.

bohmian mechanics

...

If you have a clock which you cannot open, then of course you can say that there are gears in it, moving the hands on the outside. But because you cannot open the clock it makes no sense to think about the gears. Nevertheless the hands can act determined.

>>4284804
>bohmian mechanics
get your pseudoscience the fuck out of here

>>4284792
Just because we are physically restricted to know the system's fully state that doesnt mean the system is not determined.

Since we observe QM with electromagnetism that puts some limits to us.
But not to physics itself.

My whole point itt is that -irregardless to us- physics follow certain rules, that position/spin/whatever will be according to some physical stimuli the particle experienced and not something 'out of the blue'.

>>4284801
hahahah

>>4284813

>irregardless

the fuck?

>>4284816
You dare to laugh at SCIENCE? Insulting the only rational religion? Denying FACTS and EVIDENCE?

>mfw determinism thread

>>4284802
>If I make rules in a game of chess, does that inherently determine the outcome of the game?

What????
Ofc not, because you haven't set laws and the initial conditions of the humans that are playing them, therefore the whole universe rules and initial conditions.

>>4284818
What is it?

>>4284813
You are incorrect, yet again.

>Just because we are physically restricted to know the system's fully state that doesnt mean the system is not determined.
You just violated practically every action of quantum mechanics. Enjoy proving this to the scientific community and obtaining your Nobel Prize.

>Since we observe QM with electromagnetism that puts some limits to us. But not to physics itself.
This is a highly pseudo-philosophical statement that defies every aspect of experimentation and backbones of modern physics we have. I just stated to you that regardless of the method of measurement, even if it was somehow conceivable to obtain 100% precision in measurements, uncertainty would still exist. Once again, please read up on EPR paradox.

You did not answer my question, either, but you clearly have yet to take an introductory quantum mechanics course based on what I can see - so you are essentially spewing out nonsensical Newtonian garbage that has little relevance to the aspects of reality. In addition, you are cutting the thin fabric between mathematical descriptions of observables and what actually happens.

I'm done.

>>4284802
>bad analogy
Chess pieces can move into multiple different configurations given the same stimulus. matter can't.

>>4284813
>Just because we are physically restricted to know the system's fully state that doesnt mean the system is not determined.
And it also means that the system might not be determined.

The answer "undetermined" answer you're achieving here is exactly the same concept as the "undetermined" answer from 1/0.

>not something 'out of the blue'.
Define 'out of the blue'. If a system were programmed to be random, even "out of the blue" would be considered "determined" by the way you're describing it.

The fact of the matter is that even if you *did* witness something "out of the blue", we'd attempt to find a rational explanation for it regardless. Just because we can explain it in a rational manner, though, doesn't actually change the fact that the event was truly "out of the blue".

Chaos does not mean that "order is impossible". It merely means that "order is undetermined". While there are probabilities, the system is inherently "unpredictable".

>>4284821
Also y u sagan?
He was a great science popularizer but thats it.

Scientific determinism is different from philosophic determinism, don't confuse both. Quantum discoveries had little effect on this philosophical issue. You are not going to find an answer to it in scientific experiment of any kind.

Scientific determinism on the other hand should be seen as a way to do experiments, on how reliable our instruments are and that's it.

>>4284860
I continue his work by fighting for SCIENCE. The non-believers have to be eliminated.

>>4284840
>am done
kekakudori

>>4284862
>Scientific determinism on the other hand should be seen as a way to do experiments, on how reliable our instruments are and that's it.
>on how reliable our instruments are and that's it.
no. go back to QM101.

>>4284864
Behead those who insult science

Is determinism explicitly mutually exclusive with free will?

I forgot his arguments exactly, but I believe Daniel Dennett said no. And John Searle as well.

>>4284871
YOU are one of them. Your shitposting of philosophy (anti-science) is detrimental to the scientific education of this board. You are the SATAN TO SCIENCE, the ANTI-SCIENTIST.

>>4284844
>same stimulus
I'd just like to throw this out there really quick;
It's not the same stimulus. The black and the white pieces are controlled by different forces which are continually reacting to one another. Additionally, the game might be just as unpredictable even if was a single person fulfilling to roles.

The idea that there is a single force is entirely your own assumption. Additionally, your notions that the stimulus is "determined" in itself are assumptions as well.

>matter can't.
That's quite the claim you've made there, to eliminate all possibilities.

Care to back it up? Sorry, I refuse to take belligerent asshole for their word, especially when making such enormous claims.

>>4284881
Dont. Bring. Free. Will. In. This. Discussion.

>>4284885

I am pretty sure he accepts QM given that experiments confirm its validity. However he can be a critic and propose and alternative interpretation of reality.

You should stop posting

>>4284886
But it IS a bad analogy.

>>4284889

I refuse. You are a big jerk.

Free will is the coolest shit ever. Being able to choose stuff is awesome. Dont you guys think so?

Do you not think people have a capacity of choice?

Pic related, its me choosing some stuff.

>>4284881
"free will" is a broken concept. It combines two ways of thinking about determinism. We can look at another person's life and clearly see he had no freedom, only a will. But to you viewing your own choices for the future you still have some freedom.

>>4284862
>Scientific determinism is different from philosophic determinism
To be fair, scientific determinism is the product of philosophic thought.

While science and philosophy aren't the same field, it's still important for us to make these distinctions just because philosophy heavily dictates how we interpret scientific data.

>>4284881
free will DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST

we are talking about A SINGLE FUCKING PARTICLE ISOLATED INSIDE AN IMPENETRABLE BOX MADE OF SPACE-TIME WITHOUT ANY EXTERNAL INFLUENCE

(e.g. - NO ENTANGLEMENT, NO E/B fields, NO gravity, etc.)

>>4284895
I should stop poasting? I should stop defending SCIENCE?
Are you a religious troll? A shitposter?

>>4284889

Richard Feynman should leave 4chan with his unfunny "troll the anti-PC people" posts.
Carl Sagan should stop getting mad that /sci/ is smarter than /lit/. Both are great boards though.

>>4284903

I think that largely makes sense.

I mean, I dont have free will in that I am going to do what I am going to do, and that might seem obvious from an outside perspective, such as a friend.

But at the same time, people are conscious of a variety of possible futures, and are capable of considering their actions. In at least a practical sense that implies free will.

Some assholes will still moan, but I cant imagine why it would be inappropriate to consider free will from a human-relevant perspective (being humans and all).

>>4284885
I like dem biblical titles.
If you can't do science then you teach.
If you can't be a Alpha male then you do science.

>yfw the latter is a reality
I dont think anyone here would be a scientist if they had a socially fulfilling life, ofc they are few exceptions which prove the rule.

>>4284886
Here's what I meant: say that I open by moving my knight to f3 - you could do any number of moves to counter it. You could push a pawn, or you could bring out a knight, or whatever. There's no set response. However, if you fire a gun at a target, the bullet isn't going to somehow go backwards and hit you (unless it ricochets). We count on the natural world being predictable in our daily life, and we've been relatively successful at modeling pretty much everything - if not in toto, at least in isolation.

>>4284918

>implying anyone here is a scientist

>>4284915
Yeah but the thing is society likes to pretend that the first perspective isn't determined. That's where we can feel better than "evil". "lazy" "their own fault" etc people. It's worth promoting that we do in fact have no free will.

>>4284900
Go away, please, make another thread for free will but not here.

>>4284923
I'm a second year physics grad student.

Problem?

>>4284923
>implying being a scientist is something difficult

>>4284929

No. I am happy for you frankly. Physics is really cool.

Yes I will recognize that some people here at scientists.

>>4284929
But not a scientist, that was his point.

>>4284899
No, it's that you did a piss-poor job of understanding the analogy.

The idea that the two forces that moved the pieces on the board are dictated by any predetermined rule is entirely an assumption on your own. If anything, the actions of the people moving the pieces are dictated by the pieces themselves, which in turn are dictated by the people.

Our inability to predict will remain, regardless of whether the system is predetermined or not. The status of the system itself is in no way indicative of the full nature of the system. Only assumptions and generalities will be accomplished.

I'm sorry, but you're very determined to win an argument when there is simply no argument to win. It's a realm completely beyond the grasps of science, which is precisely why people on this board love to say "biology/sociology/psychology is not a science".

It's sad to think that someone so interested in science hardly understands the limitations it has and why it can't be used to prove determinism.

>>4284933

>implying I implied that.

>economy
>science
>not just glorified statistics

>>4284942
>statistics
>not just glorified determinism

>>4284935
i have a bs in physics and a bsc in computer science. i'm currently researching models of magnetohydrodynamic fluid simulation in computational lattice qcd. how is that not science?

>>4284937
If you're argument is that you can never fully predict then i agree, i never said we can.
I focused on the part that from the things we know we give birth to certain logical assumptions in which my understanding is that the physical laws even at the very base are deterministic.

>>4284954
Well, you have BS, that's for sure.

>>4284954
>CS
Not computer, not science.

>>4284959

Then really you are just advocating an assumption that happens to sound reasonable.

You arent actually investigating, studying, or philosophically analyzing in such a way that could lead to an actual argument.

>>4284967
Like you do with free will?

das racis to electrons

>>4284922
To be fair, the chess example I'm providing is a very simple system used to illustrate a much larger situation.

What it comes down to is that the forces that drive quantum physics are not entirely understood. All we know is that all matter is composed of these particles, and that matter itself works in predictable ways.

Going to your bullet example, what I'm describing would be something as absurd as individual particles within the bullet flashing in and out of existence. The bullet doesn't need any specific particle to remain a bullet, and any change to these individual particles will go completely unnoticed. The reason for why this would happen are completely unknown, but it's completely unnecessary to know the conditions of every particle in order for the bullet to function.

The bullet's trajectory is actually a much larger generalization of a system of individual particles. Newtonian physics will still give you the necessary answers to aim the bullet properly, but because the information on the particles is potentially "unknowable", the trajectory can only be so precise.

The reason this isn't a problem in every day life is because we only need to deal with newtonian physics. But when your system is something on the extreme side of the scale (Universe vs. Particle, Nanosecond vs. Billions of years), predictions require a degree of information far beyond anything that is humanly possible. Newtonian physics will not only lead to answers that are wrong, but outright unconventional.

The problem with determinism is not that it's unconventional for what we want to accomplish in the near future; it's that for it to be objectively true, it must apply under all possible circumstances. Only in closed systems is determinism an effective method of thought, as determinism claim is incapable of accounting for possible discoveries.

You all are fucking retarded, do you even fucking know the definition of empiricism? Learn it fucktards and stop using words you know shit about. We cannot claim that randomness OR determinism is absolute, we can only claim what the bloody probability/possibility of either is, you fucktwits.

>>4284959
>If you're argument is that you can never fully predict then i agree
>we give birth to certain logical assumptions
>my understanding is that the physical laws even at the very base are deterministic.

>I know that I can't actually predict anything with certainty, but my logical assumptions are absolutely certain anyway.

My objective has never been to tell you that your assumptions are wrong. My objective has always been to show you that there's still a possibility.

Until you understand where you have made your mistake, you will never be able to understand why we've been able to make any progress in quantum mechanics whatsoever, nor why Newtonian physics are not applicable in the field. Order can be derived from chaos and uncertainty, and the fact that order will never be proof that uncertainty doesn't.

Your initial assertion is already incorrect.
Therefore your entire post, and subsequent responses can be wholly dismissed.

>>4284959
>If you're argument is that you can never fully predict then i agree
>we give birth to certain logical assumptions
>my understanding is that the physical laws even at the very base are deterministic.

>I know that I can't actually predict anything with certainty, but my logical assumptions are absolutely certain anyway.

My objective has never been to tell you that your assumptions are wrong. My objective has always been to show you that there's still a possibility.

Until you understand where you have made your mistake, you will never be able to understand why we've been able to make any progress in quantum mechanics whatsoever, nor why Newtonian physics are not applicable in the field. Order can be derived from chaos and uncertainty, and the fact that order exists will never be substantial proof that uncertainty doesn't.

Anti-determinism =/= Anti-science, and you are an utter fucking asshat for making that claim.

>1)If something is truly random, that implies that there is a causation of no energy, which i need not to tell you how nonsensical this is.

>2)This kind of randomness goes against the basic tenet and foundation of science which *IS*......determinism.

fullretard

Hi OP you must be some high school n00b who think he knows quantum mechanics because he read some wikipedia article once.

>>4284945
>Describing statistics as "determinism"
>Still holding maintaining that there's a difference between determinism and non-determinism
By this point, your definition of "determinism" has completely lost all of its context.

You've resorted to semantics, and have managed to somehow make this entire discussion even more meaningless than it was before. Congratulations.

>>4285066
I think you mean
>Still maintaining that there's a difference between determinism and probability
is that right?
In either case, I know what you mean. lol

I suppose no one can't into logic.

ex nihilo nihil fit

>>4285135
>ex nihilo nihil fit
this.

the ultimate fall of hidden variables and determinism.

what created the universe without randomness and time-translation invariance?

>>4285142

Justice does not loosen its fetters to let being be born or destroyed, but holds them fast

>>4285142
Determinism.

>>4285135
If nothing comes from nothing then something comes from something.
Still doesnt tackle determinism.

>>4285154
10/10 best troll ever

considering the universe had a 'time' in which it started, if it wasn't random quantum fluctuations, some force must have effected it

therefore some force sparked that force, etc. etc. etc.

determinism = existence of god = flawed perspective

>>4285158

true so long as you also accept that the universe has always existed as it cannot have come from nothing

>>4285161

but what caused the random fluctuations?

>>4285163
>>4285161
The basic problem with that is that you have to define 'nothing'.
As Lawrence Krauss says, "In QM when you have nothing you get something."

>>4285168
Yet again, physical laws.

>>4285174

then the physical laws are the thing that has always existed?

>>4285170

how about the absence of all somethings (ie anything)?

>>4285177
Sure, that is the typical definition.
But in physics that wouldn't fly, i wish it did.

>>4285181
It seems to be the final solution.
Or, physical laws were created out of nothing.

See? Human intuition goes down to toilet when it has to deal with these things.

>>4285186

if physical laws came from nothing then something could come from nothing

>>4285170
>quoting out of context
Maximum overtroll

>>4285190
Yes that was implied.
These are the possibilities, either something always existed or something was created out of nothing.

But still is a primitive way to think of the hyper-cosmos, our concept of 'creation' or 'nothingness' might be meaningless when it comes to these types of questions.

>>4285170
Yes, vacuum fluctuations are artifacts from perturbative expansion and a non-zero ground state. It is physical uncertainty, and therefore randomness.

>>4285174
There aren't any physical laws that govern uncertainty.

>>4285195
That is correct.
As Feynman famously said you can't bake an apple pie without imagination.

>>4285196

>something was created out of nothing

if you agree with this then this isn't very deterministic of you

>There aren't any physical laws that govern uncertainty.

Trolling aside this is probably the most stupid thing i read on the internet in the past 6 months.

>>4285205
Just because i argue for determinism doesnt mean am a determinist.

>>4285211

oh you... you're so random

>>4285199
>There aren't any physical laws that govern uncertainty.
What is your major?

>>4285212
You're so determined to win.

>>4285217

that's because I've already won

>>4285215
What do you think? What are you even implying?

>>4285219
Thats uncertain.

>>4285221
That you're stupid.
Not a retard, just slightly below average.

>>4285223
>>4285219
>>4285217
>>4285212
dohohoho u guys r so PROBABILISTIC XDDD

>>4285223

nice.

>>4285227
Dunno, it seems am unfunny on the internet.
You would go gay for me irl

>>4285225
Hah!

Really? I'd love to know.

I'm sure you'd win the Nobel Prize for five consecutive years in a row if you found the answer to intrinsic uncertainties in measurements.

Hell, you'd eliminate the entire concept of probabilities in physics!

Unless of course you're retarded enough to think the H.U.P. has any relation to what I've stated.

>>4285236
We already know the answer moron.

>>4285243

>>4285243
Evidence?
Links?
Are you talking out of your ass?

>>4285263
Let it go buddy.
Let it go.

>>4285263
What do you mean evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Its crystal clear.
I mean you really that dumb?
Its not something magical, its our inability to measure correctly.

>>4285280
I thought it didn't matter if we had the proper tools.
You are contradicting what Feynman said.
Which part of the article lies the answer?

>>4285287
WOW you're so stupid,
JESUS read the goddamn article.
I bet you're in highschool not even understanding basic physics.
Feynman said that we can't understand them by ourselves but with mathematics we can build models that simulate decoherence in a predictable way and submerge anisotropic systems into ataxic knots of pair producing certainties that cancel out eachother, therefore uncertaintly is vanished.

>>4285280
>crystal clear


>our inability to measure correctly
>our inability
>measure correctly

>>4285304
wow what a faggot, am not a physics major but i have some basic understanding.
What the fuck?
I can't understand half of that, either you're too smart or am too average.
Also you can't call people you dont know stupid, you dont know me so stop being a dick cause you know a bit more physics than the average layman.

>>4285304
Feynman also stated that baked apple pie violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

75 points on the crackpot index, congrats.

>>4285280
>>The uncertainty principle states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.

>>4285128
See, you finally get it!

The universe, by its very nature, might not be logical. The logical processes of the brain are the product of convention, driven into existence by evolution. Expecting man to make true objective claims regarding the nature of reality is like expecting a monkey to write Shakespeare. Even if the monkey DID write Shakespeare, it would never realize nor recognize what it had done.

Logical thought can only apply to that which is within our capabilities of understanding, and is only a reflection of our interpretation of the universe, not a reflection the universe itself.

Like blind man trying to understand color, your attempts at approaching the nature of reality using conventional logic will be completely futile. Every argument you make will end in fallacy, not because you've made a mistake, but the fallacy is part of a much larger answer.

Until you understand the limits that are inherent within the logical thought process and what it can be applied to, you will never be able to use it to its fullest extent.

I won't deny it. Determinism could very well be true. But the only means of verification it can EVER have is if humanity manages to predict the future with 0% error rate. There is no other way, no matter how hard you try with your armchair philosophy, you will never eliminate the possibility that you're wrong until it has actually happened. It has never been observed before, and will only exist as a "possibility".

Come back when you've learned to fucking deal with it.

>>4285307
Sure, he said that we can NEVER measure correctly.
Am not saying we ACTUALLY measure the effect, but the SIDE effect, read the explanation, its a no brainer.
Its not the direct interpretation but on average it will give more than 99.999% of accuracy unless we use a double enforced helix in order to draw the corrosive static.

>>4285320
Am entangled to determinism though i might collapse at any moment, decoherence keeps me going, i see MBR glowing and wonder if i knowin.

Poem or gtfo

Also consider this:
If the universe speaks mathematically then we can deduce stuff using mathematics instead of intuition (like we did with QM and many parts of math itself).
Our intuition has involved only on our scale of existence but we also evolved high level mathematical reasoning.
If the case is that all physical laws are mathematically based the there would be a way.

>>4285217
>You're so determined to win.
Different anon here.

But my argument this entire thread has been that determinism has no proper means of verification, and therefore cannot be treated as an objective statement.

I've neither argued that it's true. I've never argued that it's false. My only argument is that anyone who tries to push the issue one way or the other is misusing logic, and does not understand the limitations of human perception and how they relate to the laws of the universe as we've come to understand them.

You are human. You are inherently incapable of verifying objective truths, regardless of whether you have reached them or not. And while your claims may lead to success in your endeavors, that is only a statement of *a* way things work, not *the* way things work.

This isn't even about winning or losing. This is about you and your inability to realize how reckless your logic has been throughout this entire thread. You've transformed the rational process into something that is both completely unconventional and unreasonable, and claim anyone who tells you it's just an opinion that they're "determined to win".

Now for fuck's sake, would you at least try to understand why people are telling you that you might be wrong?

>>4285372
>If the universe speaks mathematically then we can deduce stuff using mathematics instead of intuition (like we did with QM and many parts of math itself).
It does. You don't use a rand(); function call in the middle of your vacuum decay simulation.

>If the case is that all physical laws are mathematically based the there would be a way.
Physical laws are indeed structured mathematically, and the universe is likely so - except these laws have probabilities and artifacts.

Probability/Perturbation theory and still very mathematical.

>>4285378
If you read the post exchange at that period you'll see i was trying to be funny.
But i agree in principle.

>>4285372
>If
You keep using this word. I don't think you understand what it means.

"If' is not a statement of how reality "is". It's a statement of how reality "might be". While "if" is capable of illustrating a possibility, it is not by any means a verified truth. While the solutions we reach are successful, they are not inherently perfect, nor are they the only possible answers.

>Bertrand Russel made a similar argument, that since science is based on predicting and everything follows laws of physics then despite our current understanding of physics being probabilistic, it could be very likely that further in the future we would find the answer to the seemingly probabilistic nature of QM.
Again, notice his use of "very likely". The idea that the universe is determined is probabilistic in itself.

I repeat to you; You are neither right or wrong. You have only shown probabilities, and have in no way made any objective claims. The statement that the universe "might" be determined can be taken no further than that without bastardizing the core philosophies behind QM to begin with. Russel both recognized and respected this when he made this statement, and the fact that you are using this quote to declare probability into is disgusting.

I have already recognized the possibility of determinism, and yet you are completely insistent that I recognize it as the one and single truth, going as far as to declare me "unscientific" for not doing so. The fact of the matter is that I completely understand your argument, which is why I'm willing to accept it. I refuse to accept it yet, though, as there are far too many unknowns we are still currently discovering to say that we've answered the question of determinism.

consider:

it only seems probablistic because we're looking for how it computes the behaviour of "particles"

what really "exists" is amplitude flows in configuration space, which IS deterministic