/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7622581
>a true scientist would never believe in random events.
Why?

>>7622587
Randomness would imply things don't follow the rules of physics and are manipulated by forces beyond the world of physics.

>>7622590
No it wouldn't

>>7622592
Yes it would.

>>7622581
Superdeterminism is only a slightly better explanation than "It's that way because God said so."

Free will is a slightly nonsensical concept. But to claim that "Quantum events are deeply interlinked with the physical state of one's brain, such that no experimenter will ever decide to measure a quantum state on the basis that the particle didn't happen to pick" is just as absurd as consciousness-implies-collapse.

Super-determinism carries rather more baggage than regular determinism. That's why it's SUPER-determinism. "There are no random events" is implied by merely garden-variety determinism.

>>7622581
A real scientist accepts experimental data as it is. We measure the events to be random, we have to accept that.

Believing in "super determinism" is like believing in god. Maybe its true maybe its not but we can't measure it so we cannot operate scientifically under the assumption that it is.

>>7622581
because m-muh feelings

>>7622598
And as a note, both Many-Worlds and Bohmian mechanics are two interpretations of quantum mechanics that are deterministic (no random events!) but not SUPERdeterministic.

>>7622611
the purpose of an experiment is to find a scheme.
One doesnt go into an experiment knowing one has failed.

>Believing in "super determinism" is like believing in god
I think its the other way around, because the religious dont believe that some people are doomed from birth.

>>7622581
Finally someone who doesn't believe in this quantum randomness bullshit. Seriously is this only an American concept? Every physicist ive talked to in America believes it..

>>7622633
Plenty of religions teach fate or predestination.

Also I don't see how you think QM supports free will? The way I see it the only options in science are

>Shits predetermined by the laws of nature

Or

>Shits random

Neither one of those suggests any kind of free will.

I don't believe in free will because Genesis does not describe free will.

>>7622590
Hey, Einstein didn't believe in "spooky action at a distance" and he was recently proven wrong.

How is your denial "proof" of freewill being incorrect?

If you think about it, if shit were actually random, then the Shrodinger equation wouldn't be valid.

The universe is deterministic, and it is described probabilistically.

Free will, on the other hand, doesn't make sense in any case. If shit is determined, then you don't have free will. If shit is random, then you still don't have free will since what goes on is random and there is no causation in which a "decision" can be made based off of a previous event.

>>7622581
Every physical action is deterministic. It's a part of a long chain reaction that started with the big bang. It follows Newtons third rule. Everything follows the rule of physics.

Randomness would imply that an external force manipulates the action-reaction law by other non-physical means.

quantum mechanics isn't deterministic you dip shit.

My question for free willers is "free" from what? The laws of the universe? Then science itself would not exist.

>>7622659
Bc we can't see well enough at high energy levels. We see footprints of activity not the actual activity and it looks random to us.

>>7622655
>>7622633
>>7622590

So let me get this straight you guys are arguing that perfect absolute laws governing everything = no god and random chaotic craziness = god? Truly this is an ebin meme.

Sometimes I pretend that Leonard susskind and Stephen hawking are arguing in these threads.

>>7622663

Nice straw man.

>>7622662
>what are bell tests and the numerous experiments simultaneously ruling out all loopholes.
hidden variable theories are all but dead, m8.

>>7622667
I'm not trying to strawman that's what they seem to be saying to me. Explain it further then if you think I'm not getting it.

>>7622663
God cannot be deterministic by its own definition. This is the complete opposite.

>>7622633
>One doesnt go into an experiment knowing one has failed.
Are you quoting vidya games?

>the religious dont believe that some people are doomed from birth.
Some do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

>>7622674

Determinism means no free will.

Free will is a central tenant to the Abrahamic religions.

Arguing the universe is deterministic directly implies there is no Abrahamic god.

Theists know this, so they take the opposite of determinism (henceforth called "random chaotic craziness (technically, chaos is also deterministic but w/e), and they claim that randomness = free will, since determinism =/= free will.

But randomness is just as anti-free will as is determinism, but since it's the counter-position to determinism, and they hate determinism, they assume this position.

Not hard to follow.

>>7622590
false

randomness would imply that there are variables that we're not accounting for, which is a recurring theme in the history of science

this >>7622647

>>7622646
Because if the Christian God already knew the fate of his minions then thered be no point.

>the purpose of an experiment is to find a scheme.
Wrong. The purpose of an experiment is to collect data. Scheme-finding is in the realm of data interpretation

>One doesnt go into an experiment knowing one has failed
One doesn't go into an experiment knowing one has succeeded either

>>7622672
>it's not at all possible that our tests missed a hidden variable
despite the fact that human-devised tests are more or less known for missing hidden variables

bell's theorem is the pinnacle of human arrogance and is honestly a trash theory

>>7622581
Random events don't imply the existence of free will. Wtf dude?

>>7622590
The prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics is that it is truly random. See Bell's theorem.

>>7622688
Thats not what true randomness means. If there is a factor that you can't calculate, it doesn't make it random. It just means you don't have the capacity to measure it.

>>7622685
Ok this I understand the "neither side really supports free will" argument. I already stated it before. >>7622646

But that's not what these other anons seem to be arguing they seem to be saying "if you believe QM is really random it must be because you believe in god and free will".

It seems crazy to me to suggest that burgers believe in random QM because it "supports god" it doesn't and I garuntee you that if you explained the random behavior of subatomic particles to the average burger theyd say we should shoot them for violating gods laws. Burgers probably think QM is from the devil if anything.

>>7622711
there is no such thing as true randomness

there is only our inability to see governing principles

>>7622655
How are things back in the 19th century?

>>7622706
You don't actually understand it, do you? It effectively rules out any possible hidden variable. No mainstream physicist is currently arguing that a hidden variable theory is even possible. But I'm sure a high schooler like has it all solved already, despite the overwhelming consensus since over 70 years.

>>7622707
its not random, if it were then there'd no point in trying to study it. Scientists believe that particles behave in "probabilistic ways"

>>7622726
I don't think you understand the meaning of random. Things that follow a probability distribution are random according to that distribution.

>>7622689
No, because God set up Adam and Eve.

He put 2 people who had been living less than a week in a garden. He kept them ignorant of consequence and then commanded them not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Then he let his only counterpart, Satan in there. Then, as an omnipotent and omnipresent being, turned a blind eye and just ignored them. You expect me to believe he was surprised when they ate the fruit??

No, God never intended for freewill. Doesnt mean randomness is impossible either.

>>7622717
Why can't there be true randomness? You realize the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you right?

This is so crazy the people arguing the apparently atheist point of view sound like theists.

>muh will of God!

>muh natural laws!

>>7622717
Exactly what I mean. There is no other option.
Here's a thought experiment :

Say you can select a point in time and save it. According to determinism, whenever you start from that point in time, everything will play out exactly the same. Even after 9999 years later, everything will follow the same chain reaction to the subatomic level.
According to true randomness, whenever you start from that point in time, everything will be different and the factor of randomness will change everything to incalculateable, non-deterministic possibilities.

What do you think would happen ?

>>7622733
> god created adam and eve
> their children had sex with their mothers
God wills mom-son incest :^)

>>7622649
Recently as in a few years after publishing his EPR paradox paper. The new experiment about "loopholes" is nothing new. QM is effectively a solved theory since the 1930s.

>>7622716
They believe that particles make their own choices "like we do"

>>7622729
probabilistic = physicist have no real work so we'll do useless math. If we could see at quantum levels, there would be classical like equations.

>>7622721
>It effectively rules out any possible hidden variable.
Except it doesn't

>No mainstream physicist is currently arguing that a hidden variable theory is even possible.
No mainstream physicist was arguing anything about reference frames and the possibility of any relativity theory before Albert came and changed the game on them

>the overwhelming consensus since over 70 years
there was an overwhelming consensus for over a century that organic synthesis was impossible

guess you better call up every organic chemist living and point out that because a lot of people agreed that it was impossible for so long that what they do for a living isn't actually possible

bell's theorem and bell tests represent an incredible failure of critical thinking on the part of the entire scientific establishment. You'd think scientists would know better than to rule out the possibility of their own ignorance by this point in the history of the disciplines, given how many times massive breakthroughs have been made by figuring out how to explain or do or quantify things that were unanimously said to be impossible. But I suppose humans are creatures of habit, in the end, and we want to believe that this time we really do have it all accounted for, unlike the countless other times when we told ourselves we did and ended up being wrong

>>7622743
This is a common myth from people who have never studied QM in any depth.

>>7622716

QM isn't random.

Random behavior isn't really random. It behaves according to a set of rules.

If you have a 6 sided die, no matter how many times you roll it, you will get either 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, from now until the end of the universe.

Even if you do not know what side will roll next, you know that the die is not going to transform into a 4 sided die and appear with it's 19th face up.

Things that are random, like an electron's position, are random...and yet they're not. If an electron's position was truly random, no computer, no electrical device would ever work. The movement of electrical current is not random.

I'm not a physicist though, so the fuck do I know?

>>7622734
randomness isn't actually a thing that exists. it's a name we ascribe to phenomena that defy our ability to find a pattern

>>7622733
By your logic "God" created Satan to be the villain?

>>7622750
You know more than physicists

>>7622756
that false flagging fuck. he intentionally creates satan and says "LOOK GUISE ! LOOK HOW EVIL THAT SATAN IS !"

>>7622733
>implying Satan is in the Adam and Eve story
It was a talking snake, anon. Stop trying to retcon Satan into Genesis.

>>7622736
Yes it would always play out exactly the same because everything has to follow a scheme.

If you mixed Hydrogen and Oxygen you wouldnt get juice would ya?

>>7622765
then creates us knowing we're never gonna go to heaven.

>>7622742
I've never heard that argument presented before. If they do think that that's ridiculous.

I live in burger land and everyone I know thinks god has grand designs/plans they do not think he is random and many feel the existence of causality and natural laws is evidence of his existence not the other way around. I stand by my argument you guys know nothing of the average burger.

>>7622751
I just don't get this. How is it any different than people saying god exists because he has too?

We haven't observed god so I am not convinced of his existence, but we have observed randomness so I feel there is no choice but to accept it. To go against that and say that other "hidden factors beyond our comprehension must exist to make this make sense because things have to make sense because they do!" Just sounds unscientific.

A scientist accepts the facts as they are he doesn't insist on the existence of things we cannot measure to satisfy his notion of how things should be.

>>7622787
> but we have observed randomness
What ?

>>7622750
problemo?

>>7622788
Holy shit dude all experiments with subatomic particles shows them to behave randomly, why do you think QM even exists? If we observed electrons to behave like tiny negatively charged baseballs we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Randomness is the only explanation for things like quantum entanglement unless you believe in hidden variables.

>>7622787
Did You Know: In the dark ages, people thought the weather was a random variable

>>7622793
Hidden variables arent random, theyre just hidden.

Random - Lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance.

>>7622793
Is there any proof that they are random ? Everything in the universe we know is deterministic and acts according Newtons third law of thermodynamics. Some time ago we couldn't calculate what the weather was gonna be like, but it didn't turn out to be random at all. But even now, there are tons of factors that effect how the weather will turn out. Our incapability of calculating subatomic particles behaviour only indicates our lack of technology. To call them random, you need a really strong argument how they can break the laws of physics.

>>7622793

You're confusing "behave randomly" with their position.

They don't behave randomly. They behave in ways which can be explained with formulas and equations. Formulas and equations are deterministic.

Their position before they are measured may be random, in that there is a distribution of positions which include those that are more and less likely. The description of this distribution is deterministic.

>>7622795
Did you know its unscientific to insist on the existence of things we can't measure?

>>7622801
I wasn't saying hidden variables are random work on your reading comprehension

>>7622807
We can't detect ≠ We can't measure due to our lacking technologic capabilities. I can't believe I have to clarify this simlpe distinction to someone.

>>7622805
But an individual particle's behavior isn't determined?

>>7622807
>Did you know its unscientific to insist on the existence of things we can't measure?
The universe is under no obligation to be measurable :^)

>>7622807
>Randomness is the only explanation for things like quantum entanglement unless you believe in hidden variables.

You're right, its just weird that the word random keeps popping up.

>>7622813
they think "to measure" is a preconceived notion like photon :^)

>>7622811

You're trolling me pretty good.

Behavior is one thing. Position is something else.

On a one-way street, the behavior of an automobile is to travel in that direction. The position of a car on that road is something else.

In an electron cloud, the position of the electron in that cloud is random. On Monday, the electron may be over here, on Friday it's over there.

The electron orbital cloud is a deterministic. On Monday, the electron cloud is still how it was the week before, and on Friday it's still how it was on Monday, and in 9^99 years, it will still be the same.

>>7622766
Revelations 12:9 , 20:2
Ezekiel 28
Isaiah 14, especially 14:12 Satan is "cut down to the ground" like the serpent is made to crawl on his belly forever as a curse from Genesis 3.

Get your facts straight, this isn't my first go at this and the argument stands, even if the serpent is not satan.

>>7622823
How is its position not determined by its behavior (and previous position)?

>>7622756
God created everything, EVERYTHING. But no, apparently he just made Lucifer with the flaw of having envy. For some reason...

>>7622802
>Everything in the universe we know is deterministic and acts according Newtons third law of thermodynamics
what about radioactive decay? If I set up a spherical detector around a chunk of radioactive ore that generates numbers based on where particles hit, how could you use the laws of motion and thermodynamics to predict the number?

>>7622828

For the same reasons that you can't reach absolute zero.

>>7622810
You don't know that it's due to a technological limit. It could very well be that we can't detect hidden variables because they don't fucking exist.

You know people used to insist the aether existed even though we couldn't measure it, how'd that work out for them?

>>7622844
> aether
Medival science didn't have the capability or credentials to perform the experiments that we can do today. We tested it and concluded that aether didn't exist. That's the scientific method, you don't explain things with magic like randomness.

>>7622847
>We tested it and concluded that aether didn't exist.

Belief in the aether stuck around for a long time dude. Even after failed attempts to detect it many said it was simply because we "lacked the capability to detect it" or they reasoned it's properties were more exotic than we initially thought.

People thought there had to be absolute standards of time/space before Einstein to "make things make sense", that turned out to be wrong as well.

And randomness is not the proposed magic here, your undetectable hidden variables are.

>>7622840
???

>>7622859
So when you're rolling a bowling ball, and can't calculate exactly how many pins its going to hit, do you assume you simply don't have the capacity to calculate the way you throw the ball, the velocity of its exit speed, the orientation of your hand, the pressure of your fingers, the friction of the ground, the spin it's going to apply over distance, the speed its going to hit the pins, the way pins are going to collide with other pins ?

Or do you think theres a magical random force that manipulates the ball in a non-physical way so every time you roll its behaving randomly ?

>>7622868
If having all those measurements still didn't let me predict the behavior of the ball I would conclude it was random.

>>7622859
if waves need a medium to propagate then the aether must be real, right?

>>7622875

And how do you know that these are the only factors that dictates the way bowling ball hits the pins ? That there is absolutely no other physical factor that effects things ?

And I'm sure you can't calculate even a bowling ball since even such a simple action like this is incredibly difficult to calculate with %100 accuracy.

>>7622880
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

>>7622880
100% perhaps not but I'm sure with the right equipment you could get close.

>And how do you know that these are the only factors that dictates the way bowling ball hits the pins ? That there is absolutely no other physical factor that effects things ?

Have you read about Bell's inequality? It's all about testing this very idea and it's been done several times. Local hidden variables at the very least do not seem to exist, this whole debate we're having is basically over whether or not global hidden variables exist and maybe they do but I'm not gonna sit here and say they must when the only supporting evidence is "that would make things behave the way we think they're supposed to."

I admit that it's fucking weird that we can predict with high accuracy the behavior of macroscopic objects but not the behavior of the subatomic things that make them up but you know maybe the universe just is fucking weird.

>>7622898
>>7622896
Then tell me. What else can it be ? How do you explain the incalculability or "randomness" as you say, without introducing a single hidden variable which by determinism are actually there but we simply can't detect or measure. How do you explain this without saying it's magic ?

>>7622910
lol how you think "randomness" is magic but hidden variables we can't detect aren't is beyond me.

We can only conclude that the universe is whatever we observe it to be. If it's random then it's random. The fact you think it "can't" be or "shouldn't" be means nothing.

>>7622914
come on. don't run away from the question and say "its magic, i aint gotta explain shit"

Let me repeat the main point of my question again. If there are absolutely no other variables that we are unable to calculate with our current technology, then what can it be that causes things to be incalculateable ?

>>7622926
If it's random then it's random idk what else to say man.

Why do you think everything has to be perfectly deterministic?

>>7622914
Probabilistic distribution != random.

>>7622938

Because our known model of the universe is run by deterministic laws. This has been like that since Newtons theories.

It's like you and me are watching a magic show and eating ice cream Then some guy comes to the scene and starts flying. I say "There must be hidden strings or a magnetic jacket or some sort of hidden mechanism that I can't account for his flying". And you say "No there isn't. There isn't anything hidden. It's simply magic."
Then I take your ice cream from your hands and leave. Because you don't deserve ice cream.

What's going on in this thread? Free will doesn't exist?

>>7622947
Wouldn't probability prove free will does not exist?

>>7622766
>>7622827
IIRC, some early Jewish myths portrayed the snake as Lilith. This belief was at least somewhat common up through the 1500s or so. I know that the picture of the Snake on the Sistine Chapel ceiling shows the snake with boobs - aka Lilith.

I don't know as much as I should on this topic, but AFAIK it's not clear cut that it is Satan.

>>7622868
Or do you think theres a magical random force that manipulates the ball in a non-physical way so every time you roll its behaving randomly ?

You seriously don't understand or refuse to understand what "random" actually means. If it's actually determined by some outside force, then it's not actually random. It may be functionally random aka indistinguishable from really random, but that's not what random means.

It is a faith-based belief to assert as you do that the world is definitely determined by laws in a wholly deterministic way.

>>7622958
Nope, we dont have the luxury of making choices in life. Sorry, Anon.

>>7622952
To this guy, or the other guy. Not sure.

It's all magic. Why does a hammer fall when released from a height in normal household conditions? Magic. Some people call it gravity, and they have made very fine predictive models, but no one can tell you why matter bends spacetime in the way it does. No one can tell you why it's this way as opposed to some other way.

See:
>Feynman: F*****' magnets, how do they work? FUN TO IMAGINE 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

>>7622976
but, but, but, bu they said I have free will in school and god gave us free will.

>>7622947
I know it's not totally random dude but probabilistic distribution != deterministic either.

Why can we predict the behavior of something like a baseball with a high degree of accuracy but when it comes to an electron the best we can do is plot out regions where it could potentially be at a given point in time? Why in the case of 2 particles undergoing radioactive decay, with a half life of 10 seconds lets say, can we not say which one will decay or exactly when but instead only that one of them will be decayed and one wont after 10 seconds pass? Why in the case of 2 entangled particles can we not say which particle will have an up spin and which particle will have down before directly measuring it? All we know for sure is they will always be opposite if you measure them both the same way. And how can you explain things like the zeno effect using classical physics?

Some say there's just variables at play we can't detect but if we could we'd know which particles would decay and when, we'd know exactly where an electron would be at a given point in time given some starting information, and we'd be able to predict the spins of entangled particles. However tests have been done to look for these hidden variables and we haven't found them and Bell's inequality is designed to test the very notion of any hidden local variables and they don't seem to exist. Some still hold to ideas like "super determinism" or global hidden variables, others feel that maybe we're not missing anything and the experiments are a reflection of reality and reality is just weird.

This thread is basically a do you believe in hidden variables or not debate and OP stupidly asserted that if you don't it must mean your a burger who believes in god. Neither one of these interpretations has anything to do with god or being American.

>>7622581
>tl;dr Do you guys truely believe in free will?
Depends on what you mean.

The concept of libertarian free will is incoherent. Effectively, your will is deterministic, or it's deterministic with some random-number-generator inputs. Any other option is incoherent.

Even if you have an immaterial soul, that soul still obeys natural laws. Maybe those laws are deterministic, or maybe it's like a deterministic program plus a true random number generator. Those are the only two coherent options.

I happen to believe that there is a workable definition of free will which closely matches common usage which is compatible with a deterministic world. This position is called compatiblism. For further reading, I suggest the relevant work of Dan Dennett and Richard Carrier.

>>7622975
Belief is accpeting without evidence. Just like believing in randomness magic.

>>7622976
Computers can make choices too. I guess they are self-aware as well.

>>7622983
> gravity is magic
ok...

>>7622952
It's not like that, its like we've gone and looked for the strings and haven't found them and you're still insisting they must be there.

If we don't observer any "strings" no matter how hard we look for them it is not logical to keep saying they must exist just because you think people aren't supposed to fly.

>Because our known model of the universe is run by deterministic laws. This has been like that since Newtons theories.

And maybe it's wrong.

>>7622988
The common definition of "belief" is merely being in a mental state of accepting that a particular claim is (likely) true. You can believe things for good reasons, and you can believe things for bad reasons. The word "belief" itself is neutral. You're adding additional baggage which is not there in common usage.

>>7622988
>> gravity is magic
>ok...
So, want to explain to me how magnets work? Or why and how matter bends spacetime? Did you even watch the Feynman video?

>>7622994
String theory is not a scientific law anon...

>>7622998
No one is talking about string theory bro read the posts

>>7622581

Yeah.

It's honestly the only thing that makes sense given my subjective experience.

And no, it's not random.

>>7622985
>Why can we predict the behavior of something like a baseball with a high degree of accuracy
Because we know its position and momentum with a high degree of accuracy.
If you were to predict where all the hits of a baseball match were going to go beforehand, you would have next to no chance of doing so in anything but a probabilistic manner.
You certainly couldn't predict precisely where each hit was going to go.

Same thing with an electron, we don't have access to its position and momentum to a precise degree, so we can't predict where it's going to go.

>>7622996
No anon he's smarter than Feynman he doesn't need to look at that. This anon has it all figured out. Everything is perfectly deterministic because his experiences tell him so and long standing models say so and you know long standing theories never get overturned.

Life is not random. This means we have no free choice. Something created us, but for sure know its not "god". Your life is more or less dictated by probability.

>>7623004
>Same thing with an electron, we don't have access to its position and momentum to a precise degree, so we can't predict where it's going to go.

It's actually much more different than that. If we are to believe that the Shrodinger wave equation gives accurate predictions - and it does - then it's not a measuring problem. People who say it's a measuring problem don't understand QM. It's a fundamental problem of wave mechanics in Schrodinger's wave equation. The wave mechanics simply does not allow for the existence of wave at a particular position and with a particular speed. As you try to make a wave more confined, it necessarily raises its "speed", and vice versa.

>>7622996

Are you assuming just because they are questions to be answered, they should be answered by magical means rather than studied scientifically ? Since we can't explain gravity by scientific means yet, it must be the work of god right ?

You're acting like we've studied subatomic particles and quantum for centuries. We got enlightened by Einsteins theories about a hundred years ago and we just got around smashing atoms to see whats inside of them. We are merely beginning to discover the building blocks of our spooky universe.

>>7622999
You talked about string theory twice like as if scientists were pushing string theory as if it was a proven scientific law.

>>7623009
> Feynman believed in magic
lol

>>7622988
>Computers can make choices too. I guess they are self-aware as well.

Sure but is it a choice if its predetermined?

>>7623004
Why can't we detect it's position and momentum with high accuracy? You'r not seeing what I'm getting at.

And how do you reason on those other things? We're just missing information? Is that what you think? Hidden variables then.

>>7623013
>The wave mechanics simply does not allow for the existence of wave at a particular position and with a particular speed. As you try to make a wave more confined, it necessarily raises its "speed", and vice versa.
That's merely the mechanism precluding us from that information.

>>7623021
Thats a good question you have to ask yourself if you believe in free will.

>>7623014
I wasn't talking about string theory at all dude wtf? Someone says the word string they must be talking about string theory? Read the post I was responding to.

>>7623021
>is it a choice if its predetermined
Possibly.

>>7623014
>Are you assuming just because they are questions to be answered, they should be answered by magical means rather than studied scientifically ? Since we can't explain gravity by scientific means yet, it must be the work of god right ?

You don't understand my complaint. It's not that it's not answered now. The underlying question simply cannot be answered.

What you are doing is giving things called reductionist explanations. You are explaining something in terms of something else, something else that you're more familiar with. However, this train of reductionistic explanations has to end somewhere. It cannot be turtles all the way down (at least we cannot know it's turtles all the way down because our minds are finite). I can always ask "why is it this way instead of some other way". You might be able to answer that question in terms of something that you're more familiar with, but then I can just ask the question again for the new explanation and new model.

You really ought to watch the Feynman video.

Once you do, let me go a full 180 and quote some trite anime shit, which I think also does a good job of explaining this concept. A "true scientist" does not want perfect understanding. With perfect understanding, there is no exploration left to do. There's no testing left to do. There's no more science left to do. If you're seeking perfection, then you're being a bad scientist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY1I8roynqM
I think the sub is better, but there's not a video of just the sub that I can find. It's episode 200 IIRC if anyone cares.

And yes, I know, Bleach is shit, especially after episode 64.

>>7623023
That's not mechanism. That's what a wave is in quantum mechanics. A wave is a set of values over a finite range in an infinitely divisible vector space. That's what reality actually is - according to quantum mechanics. It is not that we cannot measure it. No, it's that in order for the math to work out right, that "particle" has to be spread out over a small but localized area.

There are some fantastic books out there for beginners for QM. Offhand, I suggest "the quantum universe" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. It's really good for the beginner.

>>7623028
explain. :^)

>>7623033
>That's what reality actually is - according to quantum mechanics.
According to one of the many equi-valid takes on QM*

>>7623036
According to IMHO the simplest and most straightforward approach. Other approaches require inventing new principles for no discernable reason, and I'll throw them out via Occam's razor.

>>7623026
sorry for the string mix up. But we're not looking for the strings anymore, we're looking for other causes. Just like how we stopped looking for aether.

>>7623029
> A "true scientist" does not want perfect understanding. With perfect understanding, there is no exploration left to do. There's no testing left to do. There's no more science left to do. If you're seeking perfection, then you're being a bad scientist.
Thats bullshit. You know it and I know it. The only reason for the eixstence of science is to understand the mechanism of things to its smallest bit. It's never the case of "Ok thats enough for us, lets not bother with the rest"

>>7623036
> equi-valid takes on QM*

No, hidden variable theories actually lack supporting evidence they are not equally valid.

Yall motherfuckers need Bell's inequality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

How do you guys know you have free will? Your choices are often made before your decision is agreed upon.

>>7623043
There's a nice table here for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

>>7623038
Your opinion is not equivalent with the facts, and you would do best to not misrepresent the facts.

>>7623043
Why are you posting this theory like it gives enough reason to stop looking for hidden causes ?

>>7623041
You still don't get it. I'm not telling you to stop. I'm telling you the exact opposite.

I'm saying that if you ever manage to find the final model, then you stop doing science. That's what Newton did when he invoked the perfect being to explain why orbits stay stationary. He found his final model, his perfect model, and that's when he stopped being a scientist and started being a theologian.

You will never be able to answer my question "why this way instead of some other way", and you shouldn't even try. If you ever manage to answer that question, then you stopped investigating. You stopped doing science. I'm telling you that you should not try to answer that question in an ultimate sense, and it's a fools errand to try.

Rather, you should always keep searching for deeper models, and you should never give up.

However, a consequence of this approach is that you can never give an ultimate explanation for why things are the way they are, except to say that they are because the evidence says so. As Feynman said in the video, paraphrase, I cannot explain to you how magnets work or how gravity bends spacetime, because I do not understand how these things work in terms of something else that I'm more familiar with. I cannot answer how gravity works, except to say that it does work, and that gravity works according to these highly specific and highly testable equations.

>>7623034
It's your choice if it's determined by your own thoughts and preferences and not purely by external events. (The fact that your thoughts are themselves ultimately determined by outside factors is irrelevant.)

So going to the store and choosing the cheaper brand of milk over the more expensive milk because your parents raised you to be frugal is a choice. Going to the store and not buying any milk because the store is out of milk is not a choice.

>>7623053
To continue, maybe some day we discover a theory-of-everything and unify the four fundamental forces of physics - quote unquote. Great! But it's still an open question "why this set of laws instead of some other set of laws?". You can always keep asking questions, and you should always keep looking. That's what a true scientist would do.

>>7623052
You can look but you shouldn't be looking under the assumption that they "must" exist.

>>7623049
I was not debating that there are many interpretations I was debating your statement that they are all equi-valid. The table does not say they're all just as good as one another.

>>7623038
See pic.

>>7623061
There are many equi-valid interpretations though. That local hidden variables has been ruled out doesn't discount that in the least.

>>7623053
> you can never give an ultimate explanation for why things are the way they are
Only someone who believes that the core of reality lies within a metaphysical origin would suggest that you can't explain everything like so. I think you see this great depth of infinitely complex structures and patterns that create the universe and see an endless pit. But I say it simply overpowers our mental capacity because we don't have the tools to understand it yet. As I said again, we are merely discovering the building blocks of our universe. There is shit tons of gems to discover. But you only get there with questioning.
The space is infinite but the matter inside is finite. We know there is an end to things where they can't hide from our knowledge anymore.

>>7623064
Yes, and? I know that the conventional Copenhagen interpretation is not deterministic. Do you have a point?

>>7623059
You can't ask the question "why" to something with no intelligence.

>>7623066
>The space is infinite but the matter inside is finite.
Did you mean this figuratively? Because taken literally, this is demonstrably wrong.

If the space of our local spacetime is infinite, then matter is also infinite. The matter to space ratio is roughly constant.

Of course, according to popular guesses / theories of the big bang, our local spacetime is very very large in spatial extent, but it's actually finite. Sure, it's like a bazillion times bigger than our event horizon, but there might actually be an edge out there where ... I don't even know what. Physics breaks down or something.

>>7623069
Ack, was on auto-pilot. I meant the current boundary of our observable universe. It's not really an event horizon IIRC. It is a horizon.

>>7623067
How is disregarding determinism not at once overtly complex and inventing new principles for no discernible reason?

>>7623069
No. I meant the space as the empty nothingness is infinite, but the matter inside this infinite space is finite.

>>7623075
>How is disregarding determinism not at once overtly complex and inventing new principles for no discernible reason?

Uhh, it's inventing one simple principle compared to many of the alternatives which invent horrendously complicated principles.

I fail to see how standard-style quantum randomness is complicated. It's pretty simple conceptually. "We have this particle's position and velocity localized within these constraints. Given what we know, here's how to calculate the probability density for where it will end up". Very simple conceptually.

Sure, it's counterintuitive, but intuitiveness is not a measure of information complexity.

>>7623066
>Only someone who believes that the core of reality lies within a metaphysical origin would suggest that you can't explain everything like so.

Also, you might arrive at a deterministic "theory of everything". This model would accurately predict every observable phenomena to 100%, subject to limitations on our computation power. Might happen. It's not logically incoherent.

Even if you did, and even if that state of affairs persisted for thousands of years, the next day a traveler from outside The Matrix might pop in to say "hi", which totally demolishes your belief that you found the final theory.

Never believe that you found the final theory - at least not to absolute confidence. As soon as you think you found the final theory, you stop being a scientist, and you start being a theologian. As soon as you think you found the final theory, you stop doing experiments. You stop looking for new phenomena. You stop doing science.

>>7623057
>your parents raised you to be frugal is a choice.
totally your parents' choice.

>>7623079
>"We have this particle's position and velocity localized within these constraints. Given what we know, here's how to calculate the probability density for where it will end up". Very simple conceptually.
But each of the (valid) interpretations include that same concept. You can't state it as a justification for your chosen one when it is in fact common to all of them.

At any rate, stating that your interpretation as the factually correct meaning behind the math is dishonest.

>>7623087
But that's the point. That's the common element. Adding anything else is extraneous and should be thrown out according to Occam's Razor.

>>7623080

> Never believe that you found the final theory - at least not to absolute confidence
> A "true scientist" does not want perfect understanding. With perfect understanding, there is no exploration left to do. There's no testing left to do. There's no more science left to do. If you're seeking perfection, then you're being a bad scientist.

I think we're on the same page. It's the curse of reality that there is no answer to the question "why" because there is no reasoning intelligence that made it that way to be questioned. But my belief that there is an answer is what keeps me asking. Pretty ironic when you think about it, yet I can't possibly imagine the dissapointment if we ever find out that there is no why, even though I know there isn't.

>>7623090
The common element doesn't include particles being spread out and collapsing and etc. at all.
You were representing those sentiments as fact when in truth there is no substance to your claims.

It would be just as correct to say that each of the possibilities is actually realised in its own separate worldline ala many worlds. Which is to say, a complete fucking lie.

Look at this fucking retard who thinks that everything is predetermined.

It's like you think statistics is pseudoscience or something, when in actuality statistics is turning out to be the very best way of modeling information writ large.

>>7623080
It's nice to see someone else in here who knows that they're talking about.

All you "it has to be deterministic because it has to" people are crazy. Have fun at the church of super determinism.

I'll keep believing what experimental evidence shows and not insisting on the existence of shit we can't measure for no other reason than "it has to exist to satisfy my notions about how the universe works."

>>7623095
Look at this fucking retard who thinks that everything is predetermined.

It's like you think mlp is a bad show or something, when in actuality mlp is turning out to be the very best way of forming friendships.

The point is : what the fuck is determinism gotta do with statistics ?

>>7623094
Uhh... Protip: the wave interpretation is actually correct. Particles are so 50 years ago. Welcome to quantum field theory.
Ex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k

The simplest and most straightforward way to talk about the math is that the world as we know it is composed of infinitely divisible (or maybe planck divisible) quantum vector fields that have certain couplings and which evolve randomly according to the Shrodinger wave equation. That's the simplest explanation conceptually with the fewest moving parts and the fewest conjectures which also happens to fit the facts.

>>7623093
Mmm..

But as Mayuri says in a better translation:

The perfect being, was it?
There is no such thing as perfect in this world.
That may sound cliche, but it’s the truth.
The average person admires perfection and seeks to obtain it.
But, what is the point of achieving perfection?
There is none. Nothing. Not a single thing.
I loathe perfection!
If something is perfect, then there is nothing left.
There is no room for imagination.
No place left for a person to gain additional knowledge or abilities.
Do you know what that means?
For scientists such as ourselves, perfection only brings despair.
It is our job to create things more wonderful than anything before them, but never to obtain perfection.
A scientist must be a person who finds ecstasy while suffering from that antinomy.
In short, the moment that foolishness left your mouth and reached my ears, you had already lost.
Of course, that’s assuming you are a scientist.

>>7623100
> it can be some other physical thing
> it has to be some other paranormal thing
found the denialist retard
>>>/x/

>>7623107
>The simplest and most straightforward way to talk about the math is that the world as we know it is composed of infinitely divisible (or maybe planck divisible) quantum vector fields that have certain couplings and which evolve randomly according to the Shrodinger wave equation.

Plus gravity. Fucking relativity.

>>7623106
>The point is : what the fuck is determinism gotta do with statistics ?
Holy shit, you really are stupid.

>>7623109
>randomness is paranormal
Why?

>>7622581
>but a true scientist would never believe in random events.
people actually fell for this troll?

>>7622595
>>7622590
>>7622581

No, there's nothing stopping seemingly deterministic physics equations like F=ma from being F=ma+Gaussian(mean=0, standard deviation=1pN, sampled every 1ps) and this is enough to make the universe hopelessly unpredictable in a chaotic system.

Frankly, it's absurd to assume that the universe is deterministic.

>>7623111
Determinism has NOTHING to do with statistics. Determinism has NOTHING to do with modern physics or uncertainty principles.

Determinism has everything to do with philosophy and questions about "why", not "how". Determinism has nothing to do with science.

>>7623107
> if something is perfect, then there is nothing left.
But you just said there is no end to asking the question why. And even if you know everything, you won't know yourself. Because thinking happens with feedback. Like saying n = n+time. So it still won't really end somewhere.

>>7623112
I think he means acausal/nondeterministic randomness.

>>7623107
>The simplest and most straightforward way to talk about the math is that the world as we know it is composed of infinitely divisible (or maybe planck divisible) quantum vector fields that have certain couplings and which evolve randomly according to the Shrodinger wave equation. That's the simplest explanation conceptually with the fewest moving parts and the fewest conjectures which also happens to fit the facts.
Well you should say that it's the simplest and most straightforward way to talk about it, rather than state it as fact.

You're a fucking scientist, I assume, this shouldn't be hard.

>>7623120
Uhh, if something is perfect, then there are no questions. If you have a perfect model of reality, then by definition there are no more unanswered questions.

Of course, perfect models of reality are impossible, because I can always ask "why this way instead of some other way?".

>>7623123
And I subscribe to proper epistemology, which includes Occam's Razor. In other words, it's one of the starting principles that the simplest model which fits all of the facts is the most likely true model.

>>7623111
please fuck off with your ad-hominem answers. we're having a very delightful discussion here.

>>7623112
Because randomness assumes there is no physical cause for it. which is the definition of metaphysics. If there was a physical cause it's called determinism. Thats why randomness claimers are god-believers in denial.

>>7623127
>Because randomness assumes there is no physical cause for it. which is the definition of metaphysics.
lols

>If there was a physical cause it's called determinism.
lols

Protip: You're misusing words like "physical". I suggest the following peer reviewed philosophy of science paper, and the following Skepticon talk. In short, the natural - supernatural dichotomy is a false dichotomy that has no place in science. In other words, methodological naturalism as an intrinsic limitation of science is a sham.

>How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism
>Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman
https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism

>God, Science and the Problem with Nature - Scott Clifton (Theoretical Bullshit) - Skepticon 7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQMLFpQEOI8

>>7623127
>Thats why randomness claimers are god-believers in denial.

You're nuts brah, I'm done

>>7623126
again...you can't ask the question "why" to inanimate objects.

>>7623119
>Determinism has NOTHING to do with statistics. Determinism has NOTHING to do with modern physics or uncertainty principles.
Causal explanations have nothing to do with science now I see.

>Determinism has everything to do with philosophy and questions about "why", not "how". Determinism has nothing to do with science.
Sorry, I forgot philosophy and science were mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. Ditto for math. Forgot there was no overlap whatsoever.

It sounds like you are an even worse philosopher than you are a scientist, but I guess that's to be expected from someone who makes sweeping, untestable assertions as fact without any semblance of argument or proof of any rigor.

>>7623140
Just checking. You are just making fun of the other guy by calling him an inanimate object, right?

>>7623126
>In other words, it's one of the starting principles that the simplest model which fits all of the facts is the most likely true model.
Simple is quite frankly subjective and shaped by our neural proclivities as high-functioning bipedal apes and I don't think it has any bearing on the truth of things in itself. I think if you've no way to test your idea from other possible explanations then you are unable to be sure its supremacy.

>>7623127
>please fuck off with your ad-hominem answers. we're having a very delightful discussion here.
I think your fedora is on a bit too tight kid. Or maybe you just forgot what an adhom was because you're dumb.

>>7623152
>Simple is quite frankly subjective and shaped by our neural proclivities as high-functioning bipedal apes and I don't think it has any bearing on the truth of things in itself.

Politely disagreed.

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

>>7623137
lols are not answers brah
>>7623148
I'm telling you that you can't ask an asteroid why it hit jupiter like there should be a meaning behind it or why it didn't hit it in another way. An asteroid hits jupiter because it was on its trajectory. You can ask the causes of why an asteroid hits jupiter, but again, you are going to get answers that describe it in completely physical means.

>>7623153
> resorting to fedora memes
Future opinion permanently discarded. Come back when you learn how to discuss in an adult discussion.

>>7623161
Ok. So you don't understand at all. Let me phrase it like this:

What are the causes or mechanisms by which the planet Earth bends local spacetime which causes this hammer to fall when I release it from a height in normal household conditions?

>>7623142
>Causal explanations have nothing to do with science now I see.
Correct!

>Sorry, I forgot philosophy and science were mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. Ditto for math.
Correct again! You're on a roll.

>>7623157
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
So, an inverse of compressibility?

I get the impression this only pertains to information, and not ideas or concepts, theories etc.

Is the sentence ab times 16 more true than abababababababababababababababab because it requires less memory to store?

>>7623170
>Resorting to trashman memes and blabbering about logical fallacies he doesn't understand

No, there's definitely a reason I called you a fedora last post.

Could you get any more euphoric and pop-science?

By the way, this isn't /r/atheism kiddo.

>>7623171
We don't have the technology to understand it yet. A point back in history you could have asked me similarly challenging questions which could not have been answered by the technological means of that day, but as you see every major question, we can answer step by step.

>>7623126
>using occam's razor to assert truth

holy shit, you're a retarded faggot blurting the same idiocy people who learn logic and argumentation from wikipedia do

>>7623173
>>Causal explanations have nothing to do with science now I see.
>Correct!
Wow. You are so fucking stupid it hurts.
What do scientific studies and experiments seek to establish?

>>Sorry, I forgot philosophy and science were mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. Ditto for math.
>Correct again! You're on a roll.
You are posting what you claim to be philosophy on a science board in that case. Are you saying you deserve a ban?

You also forgot to mention I was correct about the last part, which ironically was the only prima facie correct thing in that post.

>>7623177
>So, an inverse of compressibility?
Sort of. It's information length after compression.

>I get the impression this only pertains to information, and not ideas or concepts, theories etc.
Ok. I'm working in practicality, aka epistemology, and in epistemology I don't have intangible "concepts". I have concepts in the sense of certain arrangements of particles or charges or whatever in the brain, or certain arrangements of pencil on paper. That's information in the classic information theory sense, and its information complexity can be measured. It's not completely arbitrary.

Related: Welcome to computation theory.

>>7623173
>>Causal explanations have nothing to do with science now I see.
>Correct!

!?

You have some explaining to do. I would say that our predictive models describe causation. Do you find that objectionable? Why?

>>7622581

Randomness is no different than introducing God when science is insufficient. Some people bridge those gaps with god. These people existed for a long time and they will keep existing

>>7623194
Shut the fuck up already retard.

>>7623182
Ok. And when you understand the answer to that question, I can ask this question again: "What is the causes and mechanisms which the parts of that model do their thing?".

Every time you give an answer to the question, you are invoking a new model. For every new model of reality, I can ask that question again; "by what causes or mechanisms do the parts of this model do the things they do?".

It may be possible to always make progress, and always offer new explanations, but every explanation opens up new questions.

No matter where you are in this process of learning, your understanding of the world is "I don't know by what causes or mechanisms the world works this way. I just happen to know that these parts behave according to these predictive models".

>>7623195
This is a science board. Metaphysics and gods intervention belongs to >>>/x/

>>7623188
>What do scientific studies and experiments seek to establish?
Again, the "How", not the "Why". The delimitation of science is a very old problem, I recommend checking out Popper.

Humoring the nonsense: I'm just replying, but the thread should be purged. Determinism threads attract the worst from popsci, wikipedia quantum physicists and 4chan philosophers. The last part was immature provocation, which is why I didn't acknowledge it.

>>7623196
> Every time you give an answer to the question, you are invoking a new model. For every new model of reality, I can ask that question again; "by what causes or mechanisms do the parts of this model do the things they do?".

Yeah and I'm saying the answers you will get will be based on physics.

>>7623197
Fedoras belong on >>>/r/atheism

Trolls belong on >>>/b/

>>7623198
>>7623198
>Again, the "How", not the "Why". The delimitation of science is a very old problem, I recommend checking out Popper.

I've read Popper, and I still don't understand.

What do you think causation is? For the record, I subscribe to the standard Hume notion of causation, constant conjunction.

I think that scientific models is simply a description of our observations of this constant conjunction, and then by the axiom of inductive reasoning or by an axiom of principle of uniformity, we extrapolate that constant conjunction into the future, which allows us to make predictions. That's my understanding of causation. What is yours?

>>7623202
Answer this you reductionist scum:

Why is the square root of 2 irrational?

You must only use results from physics in your answer.

>>7623203
Atheism does not belong to a certain board jesus freak.
back to >>>/x/

>>7623189
Causal might not be the best word, what the poster implied initially is that science had anything to say in that things were or were not determined. This is a broader, stronger sense of causality, not the "adjusts to my model" kind of causality science is concerned with. It's a philosophical causality, on absolute laws of working for the universe.

>>7623205
If you read popper then you know induction has no place in science. "Axiom of inductive reasoning" is nonsense.

>>7623202
>Yeah and I'm saying the answers you will get will be based on physics.

What does that mean? Could you be wrong? How could you tell if you were wrong? What sort of hypothetical evidence can you describe which would convince you that you are wrong?

If you cannot be wrong, then you also cannot be right. This is what Pauli called "not even wrong".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Otherwise known as falsifiability.

Welcome to epistemology of science 101.

>>7623208
Bad arguments and zealotry about it do though shitlord

>>7623207
Because people defined it that way, since mathematics is a language invented by people to understand the universe and does not exist in nature.

Were you too scared to ask me a question about universe that can be answered by physical means ?

>>7623214
Did you yourself notice how you didn't give me an answer to the question based on physics?

>>7623196
I don't know if you arrived to this reasoning by chance because you spout a lot of bullshit otherwise, but this post is really fucking spot on.

>No matter where you are in this process of learning, your understanding of the world is "I don't know by what causes or mechanisms the world works this way. I just happen to know that these parts behave according to these predictive models".

People tried to assert that we were somehow getting closer to "truth", and tried their best to prove it. They failed, and were proved wrong. We don't get quantifiably closer to any reasonable notion of "truth" with science. That's a big result in philosophy of science.

>>7623214
>Because people defined it that way, since mathematics is a language invented by people to understand the universe and does not exist in nature.
So you're also mathematically illiterate as well.
Wonderful.

>Were you too scared to ask me a question about universe that can be answered by physical means ?
He probably knew you were too stupid to get the implications of the question tbh fam

>>7623219
You're being intentionally dense, you didn't ask anything about the universe but something about axioms and logic.

>>7623219
People defined it that way is not a metaphysical answer anon...

>>7623209
I've read Popper. I think Popper got some things right. I also think Popper is horribly wrong in his construction of basic scientific epistemology. His simple falsification scheme is not sufficient. Rather, the proper approach is a Bayesian outlook. You need the Bayesian outlook because you need probabilities aka confidence levels in order to do proper cost-benefit analysis. And to do cost benefit analysis is a large part of what it means to be a rational person.

>>7623227
He's tryin to troll, ignore the retard. Talk to that "scientist" guy, atleast hes not here to troll.

>>7623227
>>7623228
Wow. So you have a black and white view of the world where anything not reducible to physics is metaphysics?

How does it feel to be an idiot?

>>7623230
You're mixing tons of things here, namely you're dumping parts of a specific model (bayesian inference) into the metal-model of sorts which is the study of science itself. This post is nonsense.

>>7623224
>People tried to assert that we were somehow getting closer to "truth", and tried their best to prove it. They failed, and were proved wrong. We don't get quantifiably closer to any reasonable notion of "truth" with science. That's a big result in philosophy of science.

Depends on what you mean. For example, even Kuhn claimed that human scientific knowledge is demonstrably getting better over time, aka going towards "truth".

>>7623239
I can't say much else but repeat what I just said.

They tried, they all tried. Kuhn and Popper notably. They never succeeded and were finally proved wrong. You can't have any measure of truth which you get closer to with science, this is, again, a big result in philosophy of science.

>>7623227
So axioms and logic are outside of the set of things in the universe?

>>7622745
>Person A: x does y.
>Person B: Except it does not.
Nice counter argument m8.

>>7623238
Ok. This is the question I always ask to Popper proponents: Suppose we have enough evidence to establish that explanation 1 is probably right with 20% odds, explanation 2 is probably right with 40% odds, and explanation 3 is probably right with 20% odds, and explanation 4 is probably right with 20% odds.

My question is: Would you take a bet with even payout that explanation 2 will later be shown to be correct beyond all reasonable doubt?

As a Bayesian, I would not. I would estimate my odds of winning, determine that they were less than 50%, and not take the bet. As a pure falsification Popper guy, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. Without assigning confidence levels to your beliefs, I don't see how you can come to the right cost-benefit conclusion. Help me out here.

>>7623239
>>7623242
What you can have though, is advancement in the sense that the new paradigm and model are more fit to the current data in some sense and tackle bigger problems.

Can we get the religitards out of here please ?

>>7623242
>They never succeeded and were finally proved wrong.
Uhh... citations? What does it even mean to prove them wrong? How could you prove them wrong?

AFAIK, your position is a very small minority in the science community and in the philosophy of science community, and in the general epistemology community too. You're getting pretty close to radical skeptics, nihilism, and radical epistemological relativism.

>>7623255
Okay. You first.

>>7623253
How did you come to give probabilities to models in an absolute sense? There's no possible way to reach this scenario. You're first inside a paradigm, and second inside a model. Once these things are set, you know exactly what the data means and how to adjust these explanations to your model.

Don't try to apply the specific model to the study of the development of models, it's senseless.

>>7623258
Oh I don't believe in god.

>>7623257
You can't get closer to an external measure of truth, only local advancement as in >>7623254

see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/#Tru

>>7623261
I don't think so.

Just to be clear, the alternative seems to be radical epistemological relativism, where you can never say that you're right and the opponent is wrong. Is that your position? Or do I misunderstand you?

Further, you can start with some naive approach where you assign 50-50 odds to the likelihood of every proposition. Then, as evidence comes in, you can adjust your odds accordingly, aka according to Bayes equation. The first part is very hard to do rigorously, but any intelligent person applying this approach with the available evidence will wind up in practically the same spot in the end on many, many issues, such as whether the Earth is flat or round.

>>7623261
Then there's no way to verify the effectiveness of methods within the scientific model, unless we have a non-scientific route to truth.

That's absurd (unless you consider mathematics such a non-scientific metric), so you're statement must be false.

So either mathematics is a non-scientific method of measuring the applicability or effectiveness of models or science is capable of producing metascientific results.

>ctrl+f Heisenberg uncertainty principle
0 results
>ctrl+f Hawking black hole radiation
0 results

Are you guys fucking serious? It literally shuts down the deterministic dimwits. Then again, sci is really just high schoolers pretending to be smart

>>7623264
You don't have to believe in gods to be a religious zealot.

>>7623271
That's fine, you can very well do that. That's a model though. You're already in that model and you know how to adjust your probabilities depending on data. You can NOT assign probabilities to model themselves and treat them as knowledge.

I don't have a "position", I haven't subscribed to any model and I'm only explaining what it means to change through models.

>>7623276
I mentioned
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle
not by name, but I mentioned it here:
>>7623013
And expounded on that in later posts.

>>7623275
>That's absurd
It's not. There's no route to truth. It's a very old and very studied problem in philosophy of science, there's no way to "verify" at all, or to measure "amount of truth" in an absolute sense. See >>7623270 and look up popper

>>7623278
Explain with examples.

>>7623276
well i don't believe in metaphysics, so...

>>7623276
see >>7623119 for what we're talking about now and why you're spewing irrelevant nonsense

>>7623283
Is this just a confusion over terminology? I am certainly not embracing absolute confidence. Absolute confidence is for fools. If that's what you mean by "truth", then of course science does not deal in truth.

However, I think we reached agreement that human scientific knowledge is demonstrably and objectively improving over time, such as described by Kuhn. I'm happy with that agreement.

>>7623276
Explain with examples

>>7623278
But believing in metaphysics does make you one
>>>/x/

>>7623275
>you're statement

I roll the dice and it shows random numbers all the time.

Explain that atheists !

>>7623289
>human scientific knowledge is demonstrably and objectively improving over time, such as described by Kuhn

Frankly? I would disagree with it said like this. Just be careful of asserting that we're getting any closer to some measure of truth or that you can measure "improvement" externally, because you can't. You can only see more utility and fitness of a model in the locality in which it is applied.

>>7623291
>examples
Well, the first one I wrote is a scientific theory, and the second one is evidence for it. Feel free to google it because I won't do it justice at all.
But long story short:
Light can't escape black holes beyond a certain radius
Black holes still illuminate light
Wtf
Turns out it's those particles of light that are infinitely close to the radius limit, that the universe itself isn't sure about their position due to the uncertainty principle and laws of physics sometimes go "fuck it, it could actually be after the limit, I'm not sure myself" so the light actually escapes.

>>7623297
I don't understand what difference you are driving at.

Is this in the context of the proper Bayesian reasoning framework? Or are you allowing for other epistemological frameworks of equal validity?

I'm pretty lost right now.

>>7623302
Wow. This is an extremely radical claim. But I am ready to believe it with an extremely profound proof.

>>7623310
Hawking spends his time doing just that. Look it up if you are interested.

>>7623114
My thoughts exactly.

>>7623297
Let me put this in concrete terms.

I think that we can always judge the relative merits of two different ideas by simply testing them. If both ways of thinking produce the same predictions, then they're equivalent. If one way of thinking produces better, more accurate predictions. The determination of whose predictions are more accurate is an objectively determinable fact.

PS: I'm ignoring obscure scenarios where "A gets the answer right in domain X but not Y, and B gets the answer right in domain Y but not X".

>>7623316
I shouldn't be trying to post citations that you claim to be true...

>>7623320
At the same time, it's a well known idea that is easily researchable. Just look up Hawking radiation. Really. That'll be better than any citation we can give. I can link to wiki if you want.

>>7623305
A bayesian framework is not a complete model, it's just a tool of a model in a way, where information is adjusted depending on likelyhood. The current state of science, its "model" of sorts, could be seen as what we know right now about the universe, the smaller laws and theories we're using and what we "know" about them. Updates to the model are usually pretty small in most of the parts of our theories and laws, and only in developing edges of knowledge do we have conflicting theories in which we would be able to apply this bayesian reasoning.

It's kind of the way the information about what the next model might look like is being obtained I guess? But that's not the usual way in which paradigm shifts happen. A good example is classical to modern physics, where relativity was introduced and shift the model completely. Clearly bayesian reasoning doesn't have much application here, where something comes and breaks the model, so this illustrates that this bayesian approach is not really a meta-model or way to refine the model, but the way in which the model itself gets information - it's something internal.

Inside the model getting more information isn't really moving knowledge in any way, because the model is already set. It seems to me that the only way "likelyhood" is measured is for the things for which we don't really have much information and where people are still trying to failsify competing theories. It might very well be the way in which the model filters propositions and appends more propositions to itself in its current paradigm.

I'm not well-versed on this enough to go into more depth, to be honest. I wouldn't feel confident in explaining exactly how each of this points goes on but I do feel confident that this is a pretty accurate broad picture.

>>7623320
Nigga I'm no scientists, I'm just an autistic on the internet Fuck if I know which ones are best, but I know that this is a well known theory at the moment that is easily google able.

>>7623323
>A good example is classical to modern physics, where relativity was introduced and shift the model completely. Clearly bayesian reasoning doesn't have much application here, where something comes and breaks the model, so this illustrates that this bayesian approach is not really a meta-model or way to refine the model, but the way in which the model itself gets information - it's something internal.

Bayesian reasoning quite adequately describes the historical record by which the paradigm shift happened from classic to quantum / relativity.

Further, this is why I cited Kuhn. Kuhn is the person who wrote the book on this, and even Kuhn wrote that we can state that the new paradigm is objectively better than the old paradigm.

>>7623319
The problem doesn't have a simple solution. This idea is not original and was definitely one of the first sketches to try a solution long ago, I'm pretty sure this is one of the formulations that was conclusively proved wrong (it is logically unsound, leading to contradictions).

>>7623322
>>7623324

I'm just looking for the core point in which it demolished determinism. You should know that atleast.

>>7623327
>Bayesian reasoning quite adequately describes the historical record by which the paradigm shift happened from classic to quantum / relativity.
Let me rephrase.

Someone operating according to a Bayesian reasoning model would transition from the belief "classical physics is correct" to the belief "quantum / relativity" is correct. This is precisely the kind of thing that Bayesian reasoning handles very well.

>>7623068
You can't ask the question "why" to anything without ears, because it can't hear you.

>>7623327
Local improvement always happens. I'm well aware Kuhn's the paradigm shift guy. Have you tried reading what I cited ?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/#Tru

Frankly, all ideas related to this discussion are here in a much better way than you or I could describe them.

>>7623333
You can ask. You just won't get any answers.
Also quads.

>>7623331
Personally? I'm not sure that Hawkings radiation destroys determinism. Sorry. I'm either not sufficiently versed, or the other guy is wrong. Not sure which.

>>7623328
Again, can further explain yourself, or offer citations of famous philosophers who expound on this idea? Because the reigning philosophers of science that I know, specifically Kuhn, take the opposition position.

Kuhn is often misunderstood on this, so it's no surprise to me if you're getting the wrong impression of Kuhn.

For this kind of epistemological relativism where there is no such thing as objective advancement, you need someone like Wittgenstein.

>>7623331
Ah ok. Point is: following determinism we can state that we basically don't know enough science and Heisenberg was just silly. We can know where electrons could be.
However, as is shown by the black hole radiation which under no circumstances should release any light that is before the radius, still releases light because it is not sure where the light is itself. The universe itself works under random processes. It is simply not predictable.
Proofs of the bold statement are in Hawkins paper, but this is the point.

>>7623339
Basically if the position of light can never be really known, how can we predict anything else

>>7623337
Citation's here >>7623335

You think you mean the same thing when you're saying it in different ways. It's not. There are many different ways to approach what "improvement" means.

I'm not going near Wittgenstein with a 10 foot pole tbh.

>>7623335
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/#Tru
It will take me forever to slog through that. I suppose I'll give it a go.

Skipping ahead a bit, I did find this:
>Even though Popper accepted the theory-ladenness of observations, he rejected the more general thesis about incommensurability as “the myth of the framework” (Lakatos and Musgrave 1970). Popper insisted that the growth of knowledge is always revolutionary in the sense that the new theory contradicts the old one by correcting it, but there is still continuity in theory-change, as the new theory should explain why the old theory was successful to some extent.

>Feyerabend tried to claim that successive theories are both inconsistent and incommensurable with each other, but this combination makes little sense.

And where I said "Wittgenstein" above, I was mistaken. I meant Feyerabend.

>>7623342
>we

Determinism isn't about what we can predict, it's about whether everything is predetermined or not. That's a fundamental distinction, and you'll notice that when formulated that way, no matter what you say, I can offer a possibility that everything's predetermined in some obscure way, or that it's not.

Do you see the problem? It's not science. It's philosophy.

>>7623344
In short, Popper also endorses the proposition that human scientific knowledge is progressing an absolute and objective sense.

Kuhn agrees AFAIK.

Feyerabend came later, and disagrees, but I'm pretty sure that Feyerabend's position is a minority position in the philosophy community and especially in the science community.

>>7623339
> black hole radiation which under no circumstances should release any light that is before the radius, still releases light
> because it is not sure where the light is itself.
How do you make that jump ? How can you even calculate the event horizon accurately to tell that ? If a light can escape, how does it not state that the event horizon simply doesn't start there ?
I was expecting something that was subjected to testing and concluded with a solid proof. This is nothing more than an assumption.

>>7623348
i just spent several paragraphs telling you that the universe itself, or at least that's Hawkins claim who is smart as shit, can NOT predict the position of the particle. I really don't get what you don't understand. Unless you just really don't want to believe in this

>>7623351
There is no absolute and objective sense, please stop making objectively wrong statements when you have the information there.

The argument against probability is also there.

>>7623354
Under what model? There could very well be another universe superseding this one establishing these rules. I don't know why you don't get the idea. There's always a way in which you can arrange things to get determinism or nondeterminism.

>>7623353
Oh my god, read the fucking paper. The arguments are so complex I can't fit them in the comments here. This is literally the nature of the universe we are talking about. How do you expect me to explain it to you with solid proof on 4chan. Hawking did it in his paper go read it

>>7623355
Ok. I understand that's your claim. Popper and Kuhn disagree.

That's what this quote here means:

>Even though Popper accepted the theory-ladenness of observations, he rejected the more general thesis about incommensurability as “the myth of the framework” (Lakatos and Musgrave 1970). Popper insisted that the growth of knowledge is always revolutionary in the sense that the new theory contradicts the old one by correcting it, but there is still continuity in theory-change, as the new theory should explain why the old theory was successful to some extent.

>>7623358
It's not my claim. You're grabbing a disconnected quote, misunderstanding what the wording in it means, and using it to support some ridiculous "objective, absolute" sense of progress.

>>7623357
Dude I just asked you to explain how do you make a jump from some photons escaping the assumed event horizon which I still don't knwo how you accurately calculate, to the conclusion that photons must not know their positions like they have awareness or something.
You have to understand how proposterous it sounds whether it's actually true or not.

>>7623360
I half guess that this is a simple confusion over terminology, and the other half of me guesses that you don't know what you're talking about concerning Popper and Kuhn.

Popper and Kuhn both make clear in their work that they believe that you can compare different models and paradigms. They both believe that different models and paradigms can be commensurable.

Again, the person advocating the view that you cannot compare different models / paradigms is Feyerabend, not Popper nor Kuhn.

>>7623364
Sometimes you say it right, sometimes you say it wrong. This time it's right because it's very weak: you can compare different models and paradigms, there are plenty of metrics to do so, especially locally.

You can't do it objectively and absolutely.

>>7623366
Ok, are you positing the existence of models A, B, and C, so that model A is better than model B, and model B is better than model C, and model C is better than model A? If yes, Popper and Kuhn would disagree with you.

It's because results suggest, to the uninitiated, that events occur randomly.

People don't understand space-time very well, so they are unable to explain the results in a more rational, logical way where nothing is random and the future already exists. The results are equally as compatible but people are unwilling to make the leap. Possibly because their happiness and success in life depends on their ignorance. All of academia is guilty of this. It's amazing, really.

>>7623361
Logic is this
1.nothing escapes the hole
2. Nothing
3. Light gets out wtf
4. Science magic that hawking did to look at what's happening
5. Science magick suggests that it's photons next to the horizon being unsure of where they are escaping the horizon. Yes like they or the universe have awareness
No, I have absolutely no clue how he managed to calculate this's or accurately measure it. However, I do know that this theory is very well accepted in today's science scene.
I choose to believe them because this is coming from the same faggots that managed to believe into splitting an atom and making a bomb, to actually doing it and being right. Same fags who used imaginary(!!) numbers in wave functions which are used to make work all the tablets and phones I watch porn on.

>>7623370
There's no "better" in an absolute way, the fact you're trying to mash together different relative, local metrics into an absolute, objective measurement of better is ridiculous.

>>7623371
Can you explain this with examples goddammit. There isn't a single post that explains it rather than talking semantics.

>>7623375
Ok. I'm just telling you that you are adopting Feyerabend school, and that Popper and Kuhn both disagree with you. This is a common mistake.

>>7623374
I never said it was wrong or impossible. But you tossed to the wall at the first question I asked. I understand that you're not experienced in this subject and you didn't have to, but why do you believe it yourself if you don't understand it either or bother to question these things ?

>>7623377
I'm not. You're being ridiculous: you keep saying different things every time and you think they all mean the same thing. You clearly haven't bothered reading the article, and you've spouted so much nonsense along the way that it's evident you're making ad-hoc explanations of things to adjust things to sound like your beliefs.

You don't know and you don't want to know.

>>7623336
In this sense, you can also ask something without intelligence.

>>7623379
If your point is that we ares setting up evidence to work our way because that is what our minds are set to do, I'm simply a non believer of this theory. I'm a mathematician and strongly believe that we are discovering Maths and not inventing it. I do acknowledge that a lot of people think otherwise and this is borderlinening religion yes.
If your question why do I not question everything is because , like popper suggested, I think we should use the theory until it is proven wrong. That way it will lead us in the right direction.

>>7623383
But as an intelligent person, you should see that there is no point to that. Otherwise it's the equivelant of talking to a rock.

ITT: The Fedora wars: The saga.

>>7623385
Yes, becasue it has no ears.

>>7623384
Well I actually asked how they could accurately define the region of a black holes event horizon to confidently tell if the photons are actually in the event horizon or not :c

Let's go to the other one, how does the cophenagen interpretation is against determination ?

>>7623381
Note: I am sorry for using words that seemingly have precise technical meanings of which I am not aware. As far as I know, all of the things I have said have had the same meaning.

Still, apparently we cannot make more progress. I don't know why you have such a wrong-headed view about the views of Popper and Kuhn, but here we are.

>>7623389
Yea same way they make everything. With science . I dunno
And no. It's 1:30 am I'm gonna go the fuck back to bed, so I can get some sleep. Good luck tipping fedoras everyone.

>>7623394
ok bro cya

>>7623376
The idea of quantum mechanics is that nature is inherently probabilistic. Particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed.

However, even though probability waves would still retain a use in statistical prediction, we find that all testable observations, such as those which make computers run and physics work, continue to function if we adopt predeterminism as the principle driving force for reality. In fact, it seems like many big mysteries of QM such as entanglement, dark energy and the double slit experiment make a lot more sense.

Why is there such a strong past-present-future time bias? It's entirely possible that human perception of time is the result of evolution and nothing more. Life must collect energy from states when it is readily available to survive, and the laws of thermodynamics state that things become more disorganized over time. Now, organic intelligent life must be able to predict the future, so evolution has given us this time bias of past-present-future. If this is true, time is free to travel both forwards and backwards and there is no reason for Quantum Mechanics to suggest that the future is decided by chance.

>>7623198
Also, going back to this post.

A random website describes Popper's position thusly:
http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Popper%20and%20Kuhn%20on%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.htm
> Popper claimed that it is indeed possible to conclude that some propositions are more reliable than others, simply because they explain more things more comprehensively; and because, over time, they have stood up better to disciplined attempts to refute them. Their "fitness" has been demonstrated by the very fact of their survival.

That matches most of the description's I've seen of Popper's writings, including Popper's own writings.

That seems like induction to me. I don't understand the difference. Further, I claim that there is no meaningful difference. In this language, according to Popper, a theory's fitness increases after it survives more tests. That's like almost textbook induction.

Popper was brilliant, but at the same time seemingly so ... stupid. I've looked at this for years, and I'll never understand what the hell Popper was trying to get at because Popper is simply so obviously wrong at such a fundamental level on this particular issue.

WTF is going on in this thread?

>>7623376
Thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity, we know that time passes at a different rate depending on the energy state of an observer. For example, an atomic clock on Earth synchronized with an atomic clock on a space rocket will desynchronize over time. The passage of time is not uniform throughout space. Our solar system is moving towards Lamba Herculis at a rate of 45000mph. Therefore, not all regions of space may travel through time with equal impetus. Distant galaxies accelerating away from us may be the difference between energy states of the two systems. What pulls time forwards? The answer is attraction. The future exerts an effect on the present and vice versa. Many such forces have been defined, but there may be more to discover i.e dark energy.

Quantum entanglement is defined as the 'spooky action at a distance' one or more particles can exhibit on each other. Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other, for example. The speeds of these interactions travel faster than light, seemingly breaking the laws of physics. However, according to predeterminism, these particles are not traveling, but being inferred, so the speed of light is not violated.

>>7623399
>In fact, it seems like many big mysteries of QM such as entanglement, dark energy and the double slit experiment make a lot more sense.
Care to explain that further? Specifically the double slit experiment?

In my simple understanding of QM, there is no such thing as a particle. Rather, I have a quantum field with a certain known initial conditions without a certain bounds. I run the numbers of the wave equation, which has the wave pass through both slits, which produces that famous interference pattern of probabilities, and if I have a measuring device on that wall, I can predict in a statistical manner where the "particle" / wave-packet will wind up.

What's your alternative "explanation" in English that you say makes more sense?

>>7623402
>Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other, for example.

This is not an accurate description of entanglement. Please try again.

This is an accurate analogy of entanglement.

Imagine we have a magic machine that creates two closed boxes. We know from past experience that inside the boxes we will find one ball each, and we know that the balls will be either red or blue, and we know that every pair is always produced with balls of the same color.

So, imagine I push the button to create a pair of boxes, and I separate them by a large distance. I then open one box, and I see that the ball is red. I then can infer that the ball in the other box is also red.

At no point did I actually /change/ the color of the ball in any way that can be used to built a communication device like a telephone.

That's entanglement.

>>7623399
> Particles have no hard properties, only likelihoods, until they are observed.
Is there any proof of that ?

>>7623402
> Quantum entanglement is defined as the 'spooky action at a distance' one or more particles can exhibit on each other. Changing the spin of one particle will affect the spin of the other
This is not true at all. Watch this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

>>7623405
>Rather, I have a quantum field with a certain known initial conditions within a certain bounds.
fixed

>>7623376
The spontaneous appearance of antiparticle pairs has long suggested the magical nature of quantum mechanics. However, this has been a red herring. There is nothing magical about a chemical reaction. The antiparticle existed and exerted its effect on the present particle. It did not randomly decide to pop into existence, but already had its part to play ordained since the dawn of creation. Particles move freely backwards and forwards through time as defined by the physical laws of the universe.

The double slit experiment shows how light and matter can display characteristics of both waves and particles. In the original experiment, a laser emits photons through a double slit setup onto a photo-receptive plate, resulting in an interference pattern suggesting that light behaves as a wave. However, the light absorbed is always found in discrete bands as individual particles. Furthermore, when a detector is placed at a slit we find that each photon only passes through one slit, functioning like a particle. This phenomenon is known as complementarity - the act of measuring a particle interacts with it such that the original trajectory is destroyed, and the interference pattern disappears.

Now consider the experiment from the particle's point of view. It exists on the plate until such time that a force draws it towards the double slit, backwards through time and into the photon emitter. When undisturbed, it can take either pathway through the double slits, owing to the unpredictable movement of microscopic particles. When we try to detect the particle, it already 'knows' that it cannot take one pathway over the other. Of course, the past has equal effect on the future state, so the particle in the future originates from such a point that the intereference pattern does not exist. This represents the fundamental nature of predeterminism.

>>7623410
And my explanation pales in comparison to this video:
>>7623412
Props.

>>7623423
Also, let give some Susskind love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT1bm1yM8Ow

Postscript: I'm sure some manyworlds proponent will jump in and say such and such.

>>7623420
> Particles move freely backwards and forwards through time as defined by the physical laws of the universe.
Aside from all this, how does a particle move back in time ?

> when a detector is placed at a slit we find that each photon only passes through one slit, functioning like a particle.
But the detector is not a conscious observer isn't it ? It's simply a camera that pointing towards the slits. There is no literal "observing" going on.

>>7623423
I was watching with the hype that quantum entanglement was a way of FTL communication. My dreams got cucked when he explained the whole thing was just like the closed box thing you described.

>>7623431
It's important to note that my box example is good for explanation by analogy why it cannot be used to do FTL communication, but it's actually very bad - flatly wrong even - for describing just how weird quantum mechanics is. It's not like two balls in boxes, because that implies hidden local state, which is impossible according to the experimental data.

>>7623435
The last classical interpretation is that there is FTL communication going on to communicate what spin the other particle should have. That's still allowed because it doesn't allow building a classical FTL communication device. Is that even meaningful? Dunno. I barely understand this topic.

>>7623435
I'm not sure if i'm nitpicking but how is it possible to tell the particles did not already had a predefined spin if we can't tell their spin direction before detecting one. It's like finding a box that says " the ball in this box will randomly be either be red or blue." But there is no way to tell if it was already red before looking at it and saying it was red.

>>7623431
the detector interacts, changing the trajectory of the particle
That's all observing really is. A lot of people become confused by the statement.

Particles can be viewed somewhat like strings, but not to be confused with superstring theory. Their past is one length, the future another and the present a single unit of length. These strings must be connected to all other strings in order for chemical reactions to occur, so what we get as the most fundamental type of matter are the energy and forces which produce space-time.

>>7623453
But I still don't understand what causes it to change it's trajectory. If the physical existence of the camera itself is impartial to the experiment, then there is no observing at all. It's just a camera obscura, just a harmless pinhole box which only does "observing" as much as any other inanimate object in the room. If it is the physical existence of the camera, then the appereance of the object itself might be the cause of the disturbance since it's not literally observing.

>>7623443
Watch the above youtube video. It explains it better than I could.

>>7623454
Step 1: Think about how you would actually build a camera. You would built a plate that interacts with incoming photons, and some of those photons would have scattered off the target wave-packet, which would have changed the position and velocity of the target wave-packet.

Concerning pinholes and the rest - the same problem arises. All meaningful measurements are interactions. Necessary.

For example, putting a detector at one of the two slits in the two slit experiment causes the wave-packet to localize at one of the two slits - there's always an interaction with a measuring device - which means the wave-packet is no longer traveling through both slits. That's why there's an interference pattern without the detector and no interference pattern with the detector.

Any sort of detection scheme necessarily changes the environment in a way that effects the evolution of the wave function. Otherwise there wouldn't be an interaction, and without interaction there cannot be observation.

>>7623454
The act of measuring something defeats the purpose because doing so will change the trajectory/position of the original particle.

There are no 'innocent' observers. Everything interacts with something one way or another, directly or indirectly.

>>7622581
>conflating free will and randomness

>>7623459
>>7623458

Even then, the photons collected by the innocent camera are only the photons that bounce off from the board with the slits. The photons that pass through do not in any way contact with the detector at all.

The camera mechanism only uses a grid based array of plates that tell which pixel the photons bounced off from. Thats literally the extent of the observing. I'm not sure if I still just can't comprehend what is meant by observing, but when you deconstruct it and break it down to the mechanism, the observing that the detector does is no different than the observing that any other object near the slit does. Yet it only occurs when the detector is nearby. I am especially interested in this because I work with cameras alot and I'm just getting weirded out by this observing thing.

>>7623473

I think you are getging caught on the word, "observing," when in this context, what is meant is, "measuring."

You cannot measure or monitor the slits in such a way as to both determine "which slit the particle goes through," without interacting with the particle.

The quotes above were used because the particle does not exist in any specific place until measured, and so constructing a method of measurement method that presumes it does must necessarily end in disappointment.

>>7622581
So tell me how does Lorenz attractor and all that chaos theory fits in your mind. They follow deterministic rules, but we are not able to fully predict the outcome.

> non-deterministic randomness magic
this shit again ?

>>7625371

Wasting your time, he's a supetdeterministic. He believes things are determined, even though they are impossible to predict.

>So, determined in what sense, then? "Magically" determined?

He would never call it that, but that's exactly what he believes.

>>7625381
> if i cant calculate it perfectly its random
found the retard
> magically determined
its determined by action-reaction idiot. you're the one who thinks its not determined by action-reaction but theres a godly intervention that changes things that we cant measure

>>7625389

>thinks inability to predict is due to insufficent measurement of hidden variables

I think you couldn't explain bell's theorem if your very life depended on it.

The experiments which prove your notions false are free to read about and easy to find. The question is, are you too cowardly or ignorant to do so?

>>7625397
You can't argue with him anon all these points have already been raised to him.

He's been brainwashed by the church of super determinism, he's beyond hope.

>>7625397
> experiments
what experiments exactly ?

>>7625402
> hes been brainwashed not to believe in gods intervention
keck

>>7623394
hey just wanted to say your posts/contribution to discussion was by far the most interesting thing on /sci/ in weeks

fuck, this whole thread even

It's because their egotistical nature shine through their bullshit agenda and it starts to stink up the pure truths we've been determinably alloted to our nature.

Also the word random is being used incorrectly. With reference to Quantum Physics, the only reason quantum events occur "simultaneously" is because from our frame of reference and to renderable time frames that would apply a rate of common distinction quantum events all occur within 1 measurement of time and the particular quantum event only occurs the moment you begin to observe it.

This means then that true to the word "random" and not the use of it in popular speech, random "purports" that all actions are obtainable from the same frame of reference at equal measures of time to the same rate of upheaval.

You've got to consider that these things were thought up way before we had the proper equipment to observe anything at the quantum level. Then we were simply freezing atoms and slowly thawing down the environment to watch as the atoms "moved". Now we are literally using those thawed atoms as "tracers" to account for the differences in the superpositions. They are random only in the sense that it takes no more valiant an effort to observe "this" state than to observe "that" state as we we will only be able to enact a single state from any one quantum source. It would take a whole nother quantum source to be able to relay a rationale to the first quantum source and we'd still have to treat that second source as "random".

So to answer OP, because we are terribly oppressed as a nation by the top 1% that takes education for as less than granted ( and not to mean less useful ) or because the terms to engagement for the discourse in which the term pops up have been relegated to a means of disapproval, in a perjorative sense and it's better to look like an idiot than actually be one.

Causality is a retroactive phenomena.

Can we get all the religious retards whos trying to push their metaphysical agenda out of here ?

>>7625408
How do you feel about the fact the both Newton and Einstein strongly believed in God? Newton was a Christian even and large part of the reason he was so convinced of absolute deterministic laws was because he believed in absolute God.

I think its really retarded this has turned into a discussion on whether or not people believe in god since random != god but whatever you seem to insist upon it.