Are quantum phenomenon inherently deterministic or probabilistic? What is the argument in either case? What do modern formalism say?

File: 26 KB, 600x387, wavefunction-4ecaaa7-intro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:08:20 2019 No.10937751 [Reply] [Original]

Are quantum phenomenon inherently deterministic or probabilistic? What is the argument in either case? What do modern formalism say?

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 12:32:03 2019 No.10937810

>>10937751
https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

Read VI discussions page 108 in pdf.

The Copenha~en interpretation. This is the interpretation develop~ by Bohr. The if! function is not regarded as an objective descrip- tion of a physical system (i.e., it is in no sense a conceptual model), but is regarded as merely a mathematical artifice which enables one to make statistical predictions, albeit the best predic- tions which it is possible to make. This interpretation in fact denies the very possibility of a single conceptual model applicable to the quantum realm, and asserts that the totality of phenomena can only be understood by the use of different, mutually exclusive (i.e., "complementary") models in different situations. All statements about microscopic phenomena are regarded as meaningless unless accompanied by a complete description (classical) of an experimental arrangement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:50:50 2019 No.10937997 >>10937751 Hidden variables a best, we just need better technology before we can dive any deeper. COPEnhagen is for cucks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:54:24 2019 No.10938010 the real answer is that we don't know. our best guess right now is probabilistic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 13:57:39 2019 No.10938021 Inb4 the bohmniggers come out of the woodworks trying to shill their pseudoscience

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:36:56 2019 No.10938149 >>10937997 Hidden variables is falsified.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 14:52:56 2019 No.10938188 File: 283 KB, 1686x681, qm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10937751 Depends on interpetation

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:08:54 2019 No.10938224

>>10938149
Not global hidden variables. Every day, there is a chance that somebody will think up some silly test and it ends up supporting the idea of global hidden variables. We need to make systems that actuate based on quantum events more common so that it becomes easier to test things like this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:11:03 2019 No.10938228 >>10938149 >Hidden variables is falsified. False. LOCAL hidden variables are falsified.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:22:25 2019 No.10938256 >>10938224 Those usually have FTL, so they are retroactively falsified by special theory of relativity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:25:28 2019 No.10938266 >>10938256 FTL is okay in quantum phenomena. Hey in fact we know it happens. You just can’t send useful information using it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:31:28 2019 No.10938278 >>10938256 >Those usually The entire reason why focused study isn't put into the concept of global hidden variables is because it could be anything. You can't generalize what global hidden variable theories are like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:56:46 2019 No.10938314 >>10938228 Nonlocal hidden variables are a religion >T-there's an undetectable field that sends information faster than light to make sure the particles are deterministic!! God doesn't roll dice he makes sure the universe is deterministic!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 15:58:03 2019 No.10938316 >>10938314 >undetectable Undetected isn't the same as undetectable.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 16:00:49 2019 No.10938322

>>10938316
But is IS undetectable, by the nature of the problem.
Pilot wave fags are the 'scientific' equivalent of religioustards going "G-God has a plan for everything!"
The universe doesn't have a plan. It isn't even deterministic. It bumps along stochastically, and there is no method even in theory to predict the next state of the universe, because its causal but nondeterministic.
This is the proper scientific position.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:03:21 2019 No.10938760
File: 18 KB, 579x458, 1567272932109.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10938322
>The way I represent this mathematically doesn't allow for an actual solution, therefore there is no solution.
>literally a strawman and a false analogy
>There's no proposed means by which the exact location and angular momentum of every particle in the universe can be calculated simultaneously, therefore the universe is not deterministic.

Pathetic.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:29:44 2019 No.10938822

>>10938760
It's literally not a strawman or a false analogy. The claim of pilot wave is that there exists a realist wave that affects the particle non locally, in order to claim that the behavior of QM phenomenon to make it deterministic.
This is literally religious. You are claiming that an actual physical wave magically affects things faster than light from arbitrary distance for no reason just for determinism. That's fucking retarded and there's a reason that no physicist takes pilot wave seriously. Because it's retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:33:34 2019 No.10938832 >>10937997 > hidden variables > needs better tech You need to go back. >>>/x/

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:39:31 2019 No.10938841

>>10938822
I don't subscribe to pilot wave, and sorry but you're wrong. It totally is a strawman and a false analogy, which is why you felt the need to redefine pilot wave theory in more appropriate terms, and why you are doubling down on your claim that the speed of light is a fundamental limit of the universe which can not be exceeded. That's conjecture, and you're the religious one for believing it despite the complete and total lack of evidence. Get fucked Cope n' cuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 19:39:52 2019 No.10938845 >>10938224 >>10938228 > Global hidden variables Oh yeah, also tell them about the Lorentz Ether Theory.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:09:26 2019 No.10938894

>>10938841
>the speed of light as a limit is conjecture and religion but believing in a wave that magically inserts determinism from the other side of the room isn't religious
You are a literal retard. This is the state of the sniveling fucking morons on /sci/.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:19:14 2019 No.10938917
File: 422 KB, 1846x1492, 640BE249-08E5-480B-985D-19BD77C9A5AB.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10938894
i am on your side, anon. no local hidden variables are basically the embodiment of “quantum is weird therefore i deny it and claim muh magic is real” as opposed to accepting actual physical explanations, pic related

there are tons of idiots and schizos and philosofags spamming here lately but they will quit their raids soon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:20:16 2019 No.10938922 >>10938917 *nonlocal hidden variables, not “no local hidden variables”

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:29:02 2019 No.10938943

>>10938894
>>10938917
If you always misrepresent the arguments of your opponent and then resort to attack the credibility of your opponent based on no evidence, nobody is going to listen to you. You get called out on logical fallacies and then you proceed to use the exact same fallacy again in some vain attempt to protect your fragile ego. It's pathetic. You have clearly demonstrated that you lack the capacity for basic logic. Are you some kind of normalfag?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:33:21 2019 No.10938954 >>10938943 those were my first posts in this thread. do you have an argument against what gell mann said in the pic related of the post you quoted?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:37:14 2019 No.10938961 >>10938943 You are a moron, stop posting.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:41:23 2019 No.10938971

>>10938954
Your argument is invalid because you
1. misrepresented your opponents argument (again not even me)
2. Attacked your opponents credibility (ad hominem fallacy)
I'm not some brainlet who will be easily won over by an appeal to authority, you can't just defer me to any one of the hundreds of "expert opinions" you seem to conflate so easily with facts. If you're going to keep posting retarded arguments, I am going to keep tormenting you. It's your move faggot

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:44:54 2019 No.10938979 >>10938971 okay so you have only ad hominem. i again state that Gell Mann was correct in the pic i posted (and of course i wouldn’t say anything like “gell mann was smarter than you ever will be”, of course not)

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:51:55 2019 No.10938999 File: 441 KB, 1872x1504, 1566794470218.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10938979 Hey you forgot this one glowing shill >(Marxists tend to prefer their theories to be fully deterministic) You are such a silly cunt

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:55:36 2019 No.10939008

>>10938971
Neither QFT nor relativity have ever even had a single piece of evidence that have contradicted the theories. You are the one denying and crying about this, literally making up bullshit about "the speed of light isn't a limit!" When the hundreds of thousands of experiments over the past 100+ years show that it is.
Then you get mad when people call you a moron when you ACTUALLY CLAIMED light isn't the limit. No, fag, you're a moron, that isn't an ad hominem because you are actually a moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:59:19 2019 No.10939016 >>10938999 i don’t detect any argument here unless you are either trying to say “marxists are better at physics than physicists” or alternatively you forgot to triplicate your parenthesis btw i am the MGM loving CH anon who made that image

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 20:59:51 2019 No.10939018 >>10939008 I don't acknowledge you enough to be offended. You haven't proven anything to me except that you are incapable of participating in this discussion. The fact that your pussy hurts so much is only making my dick harder.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:00:49 2019 No.10939020 >>10938224 Kochen-Specker theorem and contextuality experimental tests show that global hidden variables are false

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:06:42 2019 No.10939037 >>10937751 Quantum phenomena are intrinsically probabilistic due to the quantization of action, the immediate consequence being Bohr's complementarity principle

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:08:06 2019 No.10939042 >>10939018 I don't care that you "aren't offended", that doesn't change the fact that you aren't intelligent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:26:00 2019 No.10939092 File: 108 KB, 499x488, 1567013405619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10939042 Every single argument you have made has contained a logic.al falla.cy and when you get cornered you sperg out and just start hurling insults.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:29:24 2019 No.10939106 >>10937810 based

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:32:22 2019 No.10939112 >>10938322 wasted digits

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:34:57 2019 No.10939117 >>10939092 There has not been a single logical fallacy that I have made, you straight up said "the speed of light as a limit is a conjecture" when it isnt. Name a single logical fallacy I commited.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:37:34 2019 No.10939124

>>10939117
Strawman, false analogy, ad hom, and category error. Prove that the speed of light is constant, until then it is conjecture, by stating that it is not conjecture you have added plus one fallacy, category error, thanks for the gold kind stranger

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:42:36 2019 No.10939133
File: 430 KB, 1000x1500, 6F8E963D-0D5B-4FF0-A221-7BDB92D7D022.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10939124
see, this kind of garbage is what happens when you spend too much time on /hi/ or /lit/, pic related

humanities idiots love to dissect arguments and point out fallacies. the STEMfag /sci/bros OTOH read the evidence we present to one another and think about that, rather than harping on rhetoric

in other words, go back to wherever you came from

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:47:02 2019 No.10939149 >>10938917 I think that local variables is the most sensical explanation, but nature itself denies the understanding of them. So the most practical aproach is the cohenagen one.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:47:36 2019 No.10939151

>>10939124
>Prove that the speed of light is constant
It has been proven in millions of experiments in thousands of universities conducting said experiments across the world for the past hundred years. It is not conjecture. This is not a category error.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:49:34 2019 No.10939155

>>10939151
And to take it a step further, Bell's theorem shows is that local realist theories predict correlations that are smaller than the larger correlations predicted by quantum mechanics (and seen experimentally). So local realist theories are excluded. nonlocal theories are excluded by the literal millions of experiments that have been conducted over the past 100 years proving relativity.
Locality and realism are dichotomous. Any valid QM theory is local which means it is necessarily non realist. The universe is local, stochastic, non realist, and continuous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 21:52:27 2019 No.10939163 Does it demonstrate nonlocal hidden variables, to have a machine that can influence the results of a random number generator based on quantum events? Or is that something else completely?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:15:00 2019 No.10939211 >>10939155 >t. refuses to read Wikipedia and the Murray Gell-Mann excerpt above, because “muh magic”

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:19:33 2019 No.10939222 >>10939211 If it's physics it isn't magic. Just because it doesn't make sense to a classical sensibility doesn't mean it's magic.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:20:34 2019 No.10939225

>>10939211
I read all six pages when you posted them the other day, many worlds is retarded and you are dumb for believing it. If you included literally any data and not just rhetoric to corroborate your retarded belief, maybe I would stop teasing you and actually engage in a discussion. Too bad there is literally no evidence for many worlds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:22:42 2019 No.10939230 >>10939211 I'm not this anon >>10939225 here, I'm the one right below you >>10939225 Consistent Histories isn't many worlds.

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:26:13 2019 No.10939236

>>10939222
nonlocal hidden variables are akin to magic because they imply FTL which in turn implies time travel. get back to me when you make 10B on the stock market by using nonlocal methods to cheat the markets.
>>10939225
so you read Murray Gell-Mann and you have a comeback to him, but you casually refrained from posting it because i didn’t tl;dr it to shorter than 6 double-spaced pages? okay.
you’re so smart, way smarter than the guy who invented the quark model and many other things. but you’ree too cool to post about your über-l33t insights. sure. i believe you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:28:15 2019 No.10939245 >>10939236 I never said anything about nonlocal hidden variables, I agree that those are dumb. I'm rejecting realism which is what CH asserts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:28:42 2019 No.10939246 >>10939230 i separates my comments out accordingly. nonlocal implies FTL which implies time travel, basically, so go back and find where i discussed that

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:31:43 2019 No.10939257

>>10939245
why do you reject realism? QBists and transaction interpretation people reject it because they think physics is just at a point where we are merely dealing with how our modeling techniques work. so they argue physics is a relic of psychology or computer science, as i said earlier. i think that the massive successes with regards to empirical results disprove that

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 22:59:43 2019 No.10939328

>>10937751
I'll answer based on the formalism itself not anything philosophical. The answer is both.

Most actual physicists think of it as purely deterministic when they are working, but at the end of the day they need to calculate something like a scattering cross-section which involves probability.

If you do ignore the probability step (the Born rule), you basically get many-worlds no matter what you do. Without the Born rule it is not clear how to make predictions with the theory, so this is main argument against many-worlds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 2 23:05:56 2019 No.10939336 >>10939257 I reject it because my penis is small and I don't want it to be real

Anonymous Mon Sep 2 23:58:51 2019 No.10939411
File: 32 KB, 828x624, 1563086295411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It is both determanistic and random. Not a cope out. Listen. The universe has infinite depth and so it is impossible to predict the movement of particles with perfect accuracy, ever. However, the Universe is determanistic, and the basic unified equation is actually insanely simple and easy to model. BUT the bottle neck now and forever is our inability to perfectly model infinity.

We can model the unified equation. Its actually really easy to do so. But computation power is now and forever the bottle neck.

Fyi, people will likely reply telling me to kill myself and harrassing who they believe to be my family, etc... its because what I am telling you is a closely guarded secret that people spend $100,000+ to learn at Uni, and yet the simularity predicts that our human knowedge will expand like this, and education is key to the survival of our species. Cheers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 00:46:58 2019 No.10939499 File: 87 KB, 1280x720, Maid Dragon - 11.mp4_snapshot_09.12_[2018.12.15_19.11.32].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10938278 Global means nonlocal, nonlocal means FTL, FTL is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:06:15 2019 No.10939528 >>10939336 SEE >>10939504

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:07:41 2019 No.10939531 >>10939411 Their logo is made up of infinite triforces >>10939504

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:12:13 2019 No.10939533

>>10939528
>>10939531

The cutest part of this fake, shallow, unscientific, and frankly satanic and antiChrist critique is that almost the only thing that the demonic hellspawn against Optimum Theory can agree on is that the person who they think authored it, his girlfriend is "a dime" to use the language of humans which I know is alien to Satanic hellspawn, because the critics of this theory are rapists and pedos.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:14:15 2019 No.10939537 File: 77 KB, 1043x492, 1567168219741.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10939533 And pedophilia is of course against the Optimum conduct policy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:18:22 2019 No.10939544 >>10939533 Stop worshipping Jews. They are disturbed and evil. And they pathologically hate you. SEE >>10939496 >>10939504 This is a NORMAL day of sabbath for them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:23:56 2019 No.10939549 >>10939225 Many worlds is supported by experimental verification of schrodinger equation. It's randomness that has no data that supports it except for assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 01:34:01 2019 No.10939559 >>10939328 >not clear Literally ignorance. Also implying randomness is clear.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:03:37 2019 No.10939599 >>10939537 Fake

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:05:57 2019 No.10939604 >>10939599 >And pedophilia is of course against the Optimum conduct policy. >Fake This doesn't sound good.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:07:36 2019 No.10939609 >>10939599 >And pedophilia is of course against the Optimum conduct policy. >Fake

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:08:31 2019 No.10939613

>>10939537 >>10939599

Optimum leaderships modeling and suggestion is to partner with same age partners, and defers to law. Also that pedos are predators and should have their balls / sex organs removed and if continued, then perhaps, executed. We know it is difficult for you to live to these standards we know that so many of you are essentially the spawn of Satan, but these are our ideals, and so sorry if they offend the manifests demonic hellspawn who live in filth and evil.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:12:47 2019 No.10939621 >>10939609 Oh dear... against Christianity (optimism) you are manifest evil and worthy of death. By the grace of God you continue. Amen. But sincerely, I would not press this issue. Even Grace has limits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:15:57 2019 No.10939625 >>10939621 If I continue asserting that the Optimum Institute is an anti pedophile institution god will kill me?

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:16:49 2019 No.10939626

>>10939609
To clarify, We know that those against Optimum theory are generally pedos, satanists and worthy of death. Fortunately we always defer to the law and do not take these - just - actions into our own hands. We are, generally, Americans and believe in democratic will, and the courts can deal with your filth which streches far and wide.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:21:23 2019 No.10939637 >>10939621 If you continue in your pedophilia then yes we will kill you, legally and ethically. This is Optimum Theory and this is more importantly the will of God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:26:40 2019 No.10939650 >>10939637 Can you please direct me to where in this thread anyone expressed a pro-pedophile viewpoint. I can't seem to find it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:33:27 2019 No.10939657 >>10939650 Advice. If you don't like something even though it is just, just ignore it. But if you do not like something just because you are manifest evil, and you make that known, then you subject yourself to the judgement of righteousness.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:38:36 2019 No.10939669

>>10939657
That doesn't help me, doesn't seem to address my comment at all really.
I can't seem to find anyone expressing a pro-pedophile opinion in this thread. But clearly it must've happened. You wouldn't go and accuse people of being pedophiles just because they disagree with you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:42:55 2019 No.10939675 >>10939559 Study more before commenting

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:49:31 2019 No.10939685

>>10939669

This thought was entered previously by an anon, when the thought have never even existed among Optimists. I am not a computer savant and cannot "pull it up" for you, but it happened. And now that the thought was entered it should be made clear that YOU who keep thinking about this YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU who keep imputing filth, well... filth has its punishments, and preying on children is worth of the most horrific punishment, demon.

So weird how the manifest spawn of demons have nothing to say about Optimum Theory and always keep talking about their sins. sO wEirD.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 02:56:54 2019 No.10939704 >>10939685 >This thought was entered previously by an anon So you claim to have ecountered a pedophile anon previously. >YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU And you believe this makes me a pedophile. I'm not seeing a through-line here.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:02:34 2019 No.10939718

>>10939704

I would hope not anon. As is optimum the punishment of man can be - and should be - horrific. We strap tires to people, douse them in fluid and watch them burn. The democratic courts have their say now, but the thoughts remain as to what we should do to demons and... Well... Those creative enough to understand Optimum Theory... The punishments they can conjure are beyond general understanding and so terrifying that we hope they stay so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:03:49 2019 No.10939720 >>10939718 Take your meds Gary.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:10:19 2019 No.10939738

>>10939718
>I would hope not anon
you can't play this off. You called me one.
>the critics of this theory are rapists and pedos.
>If you continue in your pedophilia
>YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU
So can you point to the comment wherein I, or anyone in this thread, admit to being a pedo or are you really just saying everyone who doesn't believe in Optimum Theory is a pedophile.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:19:09 2019 No.10939759

>>10939738
>are you really just saying everyone who doesn't believe in Optimum Theory is a pedophile.

Sadly it seems that way. This theory is actual science. Its researchers only care about science, but it seems that so many on this site are not interested in that and are only alive by the grace of God because they are demonic hellspawn. we would so dearly love to be proven wrong. By all means, summarize all 2 hours of Optimum Theory for us. This will be difficult for many here because they are... seriously... SERIOUSLY hell things that deserve death for their sins on this Earth, but optimists are Christians and believe in grace. Seriously brother, all this conversation you out yourself. Repent and change your ways .

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:33:36 2019 No.10939787 File: 74 KB, 1043x492, 1567168219741(2).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10939759 >>are you really just saying everyone who doesn't believe in Optimum Theory is a pedophile. >Sadly it seems that way. Glad we came to some kind of conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:39:40 2019 No.10939794 >>10939787 https://www.worthofweb.com/website-value/4chan.org/ Keep it up ;-)

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:42:17 2019 No.10939798 >>10939794 Of course the easy solution is just for Mods to - aherm - "clamp" down on harrassment, slander and libel... But I see that Hulk Hogan is doing okay and Gawker... Well..... :-(

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:49:16 2019 No.10939808 >>10939798 I'd love to see you attempt suing 4chan Gary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:53:17 2019 No.10939816 >>10939808 Gary does not even post here which is what makes this such a fun ride

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 03:59:16 2019 No.10939823 >>10939816 And to be clear, hundreds of people in positions of power - in real space - know that members of this site, up to and probably including its mods, are stalking and embarrassing this man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 04:01:49 2019 No.10939826 >>10939823 >embarrassing Harassing. The phone autocorrect is finicky.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 07:53:58 2019 No.10940074 >>10939549 Many worlds doesn't have the claim of being the only interpretation that is supported by Schrodinger equation. >but muh linearity

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 09:58:14 2019 No.10940272

>>10939549
Determinism as a whole is unfalsifiable, since one can always propose some unseen mechanism for the apparent randomness. Stochasticism is falsifiable, since discovery of some predictability would rule it out. We should stick with the falsifiable hypothesis until data contradict it.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 14:19:21 2019 No.10940733

>>10940074
Determinism doesn't differentiate between deterministic interpretations, but does differentiate from random interpretations.
>>10940272
Deterministic mechanism is schrodinger equation, it's visible and experimentally quantitatively verified. Evolution operator provides predictability, you can calculate wave function at any moment in future.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 14:52:13 2019 No.10940818

>>10940733
Wavefunction collapse is an observational fact, whether you treat it as fundamental or an illusion. Until the true nature of wavefunction collapse becomes experimentally testable, it's fine to entertain particular deterministic interpretations, but it's bad to latch onto the general unfalsifiable notion of determinism itself without regard to specific interpretation. General stochasticism is falsifiable, while general determinism is not.

Anonymous Tue Sep 3 15:30:45 2019 No.10940894

>>10940818
When we observe a phenomenon; mathematically speaking, doesn't that mean multiplying the wavefunction by its complex conjugate to get its real expectation value?
Doesn't the abrupt shift from +i to -i mean that energy is being forced into the wavefunction?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 15:30:50 2019 No.10940895 >>10938322 Dubs check out

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 15:32:15 2019 No.10940899 >>10937751 determinism is purely solipsistic without a formal a priori definition of the universe, depending on that definition, determinism and probabilism aren't necessarily contradictory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 15:35:04 2019 No.10940903 >>10937751 >phenomenon Phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 3 15:44:30 2019 No.10940916 >>10937751 >inherently deterministic Explain this concept without reference to other concepts.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 01:11:17 2019 No.10942376

>>10940818
Theory (Schrodinger equation) provides a model for this observed process - decoherence and schrodinger equation was entertained by experimental verification. If you think it's so important, you can falsify many worlds interpretation by, say, finding nonlinearity or randomness in schrodinger equation. But so far schrodinger equation passed experimental tests and has no randomness, which falsifies randomness.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 01:45:19 2019 No.10942453

>>10938322
The proper scientific position is actually to reject realism; because we have a study of structure (math) and application of structure (physics) does not necessitate that Nature itself actually works as our models do.

A quantum state is a state of knowledge. Our models are precisely that: models.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 01:58:48 2019 No.10942481 >>10942453 Reject naive realism, not thoughtful realism. To reject realism you need evidence that natural processes are perfect abstractions, but all abstractions so far were imperfect and leaked.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 02:03:39 2019 No.10942487

>>10942481
That's too strong a criterion. We have ample evidence that our abstractions have fallen short time and time and time again. It is more reasonable to believe that where quantum mechanics fails - the edge of our knowledge - does not necessitate that QM is wrong but that it is not "real"ly how things operate. Indeed, one of the most insightful things we've learned is that the entire endeavor is an information game; a game with set rules, clear outcomes, and vexing consequences.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 02:16:26 2019 No.10942498 >>10942487 This sounds insightful but I don't really see your point. Are you saying that quantum mechanical phenomena aren't real or that they can have no real mechanism by which they occur? Seriously spit it out

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 02:19:25 2019 No.10942506 >>10942487 It means that naive realism is wrong, but it doesn't mean that nonrealism is true. You need a stronger evidence for nonrealism, because it's a stronger claim.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 02:31:34 2019 No.10942523 >>10942498 In principle, that feeling of wanting someone who's told you that you're wrong to replace your wrong ideas with correct ones is understandable, but is just an abstraction on top of cope upon any thorough examination.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 03:04:32 2019 No.10942589 >>10942523 Could you define realism for me so I am sure we are on the same page? I understand this point of contention, you're saying that the alternative explanation doesn't have to exist for realism to be wrong. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 03:21:46 2019 No.10942619

>>10942589
Oh I'm not that anon. I just wanted to make that point because it's a serious factor in moving science forward. The more we cling to wrong ideas that happen to be useful, the less likely we are to arrive at (and adopt) the truth that will invariable replace them.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 03:33:56 2019 No.10942642

>>10942619
The idea that determinism is wrong just does not compute for me. All rhetoric aside, stochasticism does not make any fucking sense. Probability literally does not exist. There is no way to experimentally verify that randomness is a mechanism involved in an interaction at any scale. Please define realism, this thread has been so disorienting to read through I'm just going straight to a definition argument. Let's agree on our terms so I can start to understand what in the hell is even being said here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:10:51 2019 No.10943444 >>10942642 >All rhetoric aside, stochasticism does not make any fucking sense How does it not make sense > Probability literally does not exist Except it literally does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:14:49 2019 No.10943452 >>10943444 Trips prove probability is true

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:24:01 2019 No.10943474

>>10940733
>Deterministic mechanism is schrodinger equation, it's visible and experimentally quantitatively verified. Evolution operator provides predictability, you can calculate wave function at any moment in future.
That has nothing to do with the state position being deterministic, even many worlds claim it "isn't deterministic" but that each position exists in an uncountably set of other universes so it's pseudo-deterministic.
It's literally retarded. There isn't an uncountable multiverse where the each little particle is deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:25:08 2019 No.10943477 >>10943474 basically: schrodinger evolves deterministically, that does not mean it's deterministic - it's not. You need to add an extra step of a multiverse to claim it's deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:29:10 2019 No.10943482 >>10938322 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:30:20 2019 No.10943485 friendly reminder that stochastic explanations of any kind are the product of insufficient knowledge of the system's properties >inb4 quantum phenomena are inherently random muh double-slits muh bell's theorem nah b

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:31:30 2019 No.10943486 >>10939155 >The universe is local, stochastic, non realist, and continuous. Quoted for truth. Get fucked pseuds.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:31:45 2019 No.10943487

>>10943485
Friendly reminder that you are making an a priori claim and demanding determinism to be real without evidence and then making a strawman to deny objections.
The universe is not deterministic, there is no evidence of such. It has nothing to do with incomplete knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:48:36 2019 No.10943520 >>10943487 you have no basis for assuming that randomness takes place either desu

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 12:54:51 2019 No.10943528

Something on PBS Spacetime last night got me thinking.
The quote "most of the physicist believe this theorem to be correct".
Talk about turning 360 and going into dogmatic cult where nothing is questioned and everything is taken axiomatically.
The inquisition was right,burn these fucking morons on the stake.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:00:17 2019 No.10943540 >>10943528 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:01:12 2019 No.10943542 >>10943540 Nothing in my post is politically incorrect.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:04:02 2019 No.10943548

>>10943444
>How does it not make sense
not that anon, but stochastic descriptions of phenomena are literally just outcome probability distribution functions
it's like instead of trying to figure out why a car might accelerate faster than another car by experimentally figuring out that engine power, car mass, air resistance, and whatever else you might discover influence and, once the system is described to enough detail at the relevant level of analysis, determine the acceleration speed of a car, you just describe the probability that any given car will fall within a certain acceleration speed value by some distribution function derived from observing a bunch of cars
it's just not descriptive of the underlying mechanisms which dictate the system's behavior

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:06:24 2019 No.10943552

>>10943520
Except that results of experiments are random, so we do. The only way to remove inherent randomness from the theory is by violating the speed of light limit and making up a convoluted and ad-hoc monstrosity such as Pilot Wave theory. And it STILL does not work, because there is no relativistic formulation of this shit that can recover the predictions of QFT.

Belief in a deterministic universe is a sure sign of advanced brainletism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:08:39 2019 No.10943557

>>10943548
Wrong, we TRIED to figure out those things. Turns out there are none such hidden variables. At least nobody has yet managed to come up with any hidden variables that even remotely made sense. Also, Uncertainty Principle is quite fundamental to QM.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:10:23 2019 No.10943563

>>10943474
You are misinformed. Many worlds is deterministic because evolution of the state of the system obeys schrodinger equation, which is deterministic consequently evolution is deterministic too and evolution operator literally deterministically gives the state at any moment in future, that's all, no extra step. You can't possibly get random behavior from deterministic system. How?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:22:22 2019 No.10943590 >>10943477 You mean a god of randomness fakes determinism because he doesn't want to be found? Many worlds has no need for this hypothesis.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:34:32 2019 No.10943623

>>10943552
Results of experiments aren't random, they are assumed to be random by interpretation that assumes randomness. And determinism is not equivalent to pilot wave, there are five deterministic interpretations, and that's only what I know, maybe there are more.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:34:45 2019 No.10943624 >>10943563 >>10943590 Deterministic evolution of schrodinger equation does not mean the state position is deterministic, what the fuck are you talking about? Why are you making this erroneously incorrect implication?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 13:36:49 2019 No.10943631 >>10943623 Every single deterministic interpretation involves adding untestable elements into the system due to the assumption of determinism. Rejecting determinism gives results that require fewer assumptions.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:00:27 2019 No.10943692

>>10943624
Hidden god? Many worlds has no need for hypothesis of hidden randomness.
>>10943631
Determinism is not equivalent to pilot wave, by shitting on pilot wave you don't address other forms of determinism. Pilot wave is bunk because it has newtonian model, not because of determinism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:09:07 2019 No.10943717

>>10943692
What are you talking about? Deterministic evolution of schrodinger equation only changes the boundary to which the probability density evolves in. The output is still fundamentally probabilistic. Many worlds doesn't change this, it tries to get around it by claiming the particle is in one specific location in one specific universe out of an uncountable amount. You're the postulating a "hidden god" of a multiverse (and thus you're psychologically projecting) in order to shoehorn determinism, I'm not shitting on pilot wave I'm shitting in your bullshit many worlds interpretation. Both are bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:13:23 2019 No.10943730 >>10943552 If by random you mean copenhagen, that one has FTL too.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:13:40 2019 No.10943731

>>10943717
As an analogy to understand: say you have a true stochastic dice that when you cast it, it begins to fluctuate and evolve deterministically through a series of values, every 1/100 of a second it goes from a 6 sided die to a 24 sided die to a 10 sided die etc. Whatever state it's in when it finally hits the ground and collapses to one value is still probabilistic it just changes the boundary in which the probability can fall - if it was in the 10 value state you'll never get a value of 17 but whatever you get within the boundary is still fundamentally random.
This is what the deterministic evolution of the schrodinger equation means. It's not changing the fundamental stochastic nature of the particle.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:23:09 2019 No.10943755

>>10943717
Well then you don't know what is many worlds. In many worlds schrodinger equation describes motion of all matter without ad hoc boundary between observed and observer, they are seen as physical objects interacting on equal footing and the output of this interaction is the same system in new state which evolved during that interaction described by schrodinger equation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:27:58 2019 No.10943768 >>10938188 Quantum theory seems more like religion than science.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:30:29 2019 No.10943775

>>10943755
Schrodinger equations describes motion purely stochastically, any claim to the contrary is adding elements that differ from experiment and the output of the equation. Many worlds is shoehorning additional behavior in order to keep determinism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:42:45 2019 No.10943804

>>10943731
If dice evolves deterministically, then it's deterministic dice. Randomness is provided by collapse, but according to schrodinger equation collapse doesn't happen, it hits the floor and continues to evolve, the random process during collapse doesn't happen either, and everything remains deterministic.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:48:16 2019 No.10943817

>>10943775
>Schrodinger equations describes motion purely stochastically
In copenhagen interpretation randomness is provided solely by collapse, schrodinger equation is deterministic there too.
>any claim to the contrary is adding elements that differ from experiment
Experiments don't show randomness, randomness is assumed by interpretation. Deterministic interpretations don't provide randomness for the same experiments.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:53:02 2019 No.10943829

>>10943804
If the dice doesn't collapse then you would never find a value (or there would not be a position of the particle)
>>10943817
There has never been a single example of determinism shown, if you run the same experiment twice and collapse the function at the same time you're not going to get the same output.
You are presuppositions determinism due to some weird enlightenment era ideal of the universe being a machine or something despite all evidence to the contrary.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 14:54:29 2019 No.10943830 Are you guys retarded? Something being random does not make it non deterministic. It was always going to happen in the “random” fashion that it did.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:04:02 2019 No.10943855 >>10943830 No, it wasn't going to happen in the "random" version that it did, that's the point. It is truly random with no hidden deterministic mechanism.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:05:49 2019 No.10943859

>>10943829
>If the dice doesn't collapse then you would never find a value
Explanation would involve math and given that you struggle with simpler concepts you probably can't keep up.
>if you run the same experiment twice and collapse the function at the same time you're not going to get the same output.
If it's the same experiment, you can get the same result two times in a row.
>You are presuppositions determinism due to some weird enlightenment era ideal of the universe being a machine or something despite all evidence to the contrary.
Determinism follows from schrodinger equation, because schrodinger equation is deterministic. Do I have to repeat it because you have short memory and can't remember it?

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:12:50 2019 No.10943881

>>10943859
I have a degree in math, not physics. Nice pathetic attempt at an ad hominem though.
>if it's the same experiment, you can get the same result two times in a row.
Except you never do and never will because it's not deterministic
>Determinism follows from schrodinger equation, because schrodinger equation is deterministic. Do I have to repeat it because you have short memory and can't remember it?
Deterministic output does not need to follow from deterministic input for some stochastic function. Deterministic evolution of schrodinger equation does not imply deterministic position of the particle (this is where you are inserting your ideology without evidence and against all actual evidence) it only implies deterministic evolution of the boundary of the positions where the particle can be (which is what stochasticism is). Doing I have to repeat this again because you have short term memory problems and can't remember it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:19:32 2019 No.10943900 >>10943768 Only if you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:21:17 2019 No.10943903 >>10943859 >If it's the same experiment, you can get the same result two times in a row. Can, but also may not, in a completely unpredictable fashion. Hence the whole probability thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 15:45:01 2019 No.10943974 >>10943900 spoken like a zealot

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 17:06:34 2019 No.10944198

>>10943900
>>10943974

You can computationally program randomness from determanistic rules. This is the premise of cellular automata and Stephen Wolfram has written at length about it. One could argue that a Wolfram automaton is a semantic argument for randomness, since the results of the computations cannot be known until computed and therefore onky givin the practicality of randomness; however, we can push this further into what you would think of as true randomness by modifying Wolfram automatons with continuous values and asserting a 5th dimention of depth. Infinite depth is logical, determanistic and yet, impossible to compute with finite tools i.e. true randomness for finite beings such as ourselves, and yet determined from the perspective of the Universe or "God" if you will.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 21:40:19 2019 No.10944862

The only way that you can deny determinism is by asserting that randomness is a mechanism, not an outcome. The religious zealots who assert determinism MUST be false do so always on circular logic and appeal to authority. If determinism is true, then the uncertainty principle is false, and if the uncertainty principle is false, then the *Cope*nhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and QFT are both invalid, as they have been presented with a direct contradiction. You are making an appeal to consequence, saying that determinism can't be true because that means QFT is false, and you don't like that. You say that hidden variables can not exist because pilot wave theory is false, as if that is the only conceivable explanation for hidden variables. You say hidden variables cannot exist because they haven't been observed, except they have been inderectly observed with every apparently random outcome. You say that hidden variables cannot exist, because it requires that the speed of light is exceeded. So what if it is? That too is a fallacious appeal to consequence. You are the one who has latched onto a foolish idea despite clear evidence to the contrary, and you sir are the brainlet.

Anonymous Wed Sep 4 22:42:05 2019 No.10944985

>>10944862
Literally everything you've said here is just "there is another hidden reason that's actually making it deterministic". There is not, QM it's complete and completely describes the behavior of subatomic particles, and their behavior is stochastic. You are making an appeal to consequence, saying that QM and all it's evidence can't be true because that would mean determinism is false, and you don't like that. You claim hidden variables are true despite the fact that that would violate relativity, and to get around this you claim that "the speed of light being exceeded isn't a problem because determinism MUST BE TRUE!!"
You, like every other person who is insisting that it's deterministic, are denying the evidence and coping. There is no evidence to the contrary of what stochastic interpretations are saying, there has not been a SINGLE example of any experiment or piece of data anywhere that violates relativity or QFT. You have latched onto a foolish idea of determinism despite clear evidence to the contrary, and you are a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 4 23:12:39 2019 No.10945047 >>10944862 Love how you act like you're making a good argument, rather than the gigacope this actually is

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:08:00 2019 No.10945202

>>10943881
>Except you never do and never will because it's not deterministic
You can test it experimentally with a coin, try to get two tails in a row.
>Deterministic output does not need to follow from deterministic input for some stochastic function.
Schrodinger equation is deterministic function, it's collapse that's stochastic. But schrodinger equation predicts that collapse doesn't happen. These two axioms contradict each other. Do you know how inconsistent axioms work? Hello math degree.
>(this is where you are inserting your ideology without evidence and against all actual evidence)
There's no evidence for randomness. Postulated randomness is not evidence, it's literally "because I say so" kind of evidence.
Focus on position is classical reasoning, the state is wave function, and schrodinger equation describes evolution of the state. Position manifests in interaction, pure state of one objects entangles with pure states of other object resulting in superposition of pure states, and each pure state evolves as eigenstate with one eigenvalue, that's why observer sees one result.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:11:43 2019 No.10945208 >>10945202 Based. The universe satisfies Markov's rule.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:19:32 2019 No.10945230

>>10945202
>There's no evidence for randomness.
Unpredictability despite extremely carefully controlled conditions is the absolute best evidence there could ever possibly be for randomness, and it's exactly what we observe experimentally in quantum mechanics. General stochasticism is falsifiable, while general determinism is not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:22:58 2019 No.10945241 >>10945230 Better that the true nature of the universe is unfalsifiable than for it to be unknowable by definition. Fuck you tranny

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:24:39 2019 No.10945247

>>10945230

Universe is infinite in depth and scope. This is common logic in Russia. Get with it Western team. Humanity needs us on the same page.

The automaton ruleset of this Universe cannot be calculated to infinite depth because of our finite tools, This is why the results appear random.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:25:47 2019 No.10945250 >>10945241 The Universe true nature is absolutely knowable. Many know it. Just a matter of if they let us speak it freely.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:27:27 2019 No.10945256 >>10945247 Go screw idolator, nobody cares who believes what. The only thing that matters is validity of argument. I refuse to believe that physics is unsolvable.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:29:11 2019 No.10945260

>>10945250

Universe' base algorithm is an infinite diffusion algorithm.

"Oh he said it"

Yep, and does that make your knees weak, arms heavy moms spagetti?

Humanity is one team. Our past conflicts have been horrific, but we can move on from that. The challenges of Homo Sapien are infinitely greater than being pitted against itself.

Let's optimize. Together.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:31:36 2019 No.10945264

>>10945256
>The only thing that matters is validity of argument. I refuse to believe that physics is unsolvable.

It is solvable. In fact it has already been solved! The bottle neck now is in "fundies" and advanced weapon companies letting us talk about it - both of whom have massive sway over our communication whether you know it or not.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:34:27 2019 No.10945270

>>10945264
I am acutely aware that the actual true fundamental nature of the cosmos is a matter of national security. I don't care. I want my fucking reactor and I want it now. I will leave as soon as I get fully kitted. On God I swear it, I will just fucking leave.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:42:24 2019 No.10945284

>>10945270
>I don't care

Good.

The Universe is an infinite (as in depth and scope), non-discrete, non-viscous, "fluid" that can be computationally modeled as a recursive continuous cellular automaton.

The base algorithm is bang-your-head-against-a-wall simple.

Take an infinite grid of square / cube cells, give each cell a real number value, and average those cells with the "von Neurman" neighborhood of cells in its local neighborhood.

Thats. It.

That is this universe.

If you think it's so simple, understand that the bottleneck is computation power since we are finite... but this Universe is not. This game is infinitely more complex than its simple rules seem.

Cheers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:42:38 2019 No.10945286 >>10937751 Both

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:43:10 2019 No.10945287 >>10944862 Uncertainty principle is just a rule of thumb, it doesn't mean indeterminism. It's derived from mathematical properties of hermite operators, it's pure math, nothing random there.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:48:24 2019 No.10945299

>>10938316
>Undetected isn't the same as undetectable.
I suppose in your mind we shouldn't try to make any predictions at all since a presently undetectable variable might throw a monkey wrench in our predictions?
How ironic that the very computer network you're using to spread your degenerate philosophy was built based on science depending on potentially incomplete predictions

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:54:28 2019 No.10945304

>>10945287
It's good and useful math, I agree. But retarded niggers love to pretend that particles don't have a definite location and momentum simultaneously, and they frequently cite the HUP as a physical mechanism by which this bold claim is validated. Like you said, rule of thumb, but not all encompassing law of physics. Thanks

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 00:56:24 2019 No.10945307 >>10945299 Your cover is blown, shill. Tell your supervisor you want to switch to /pol/ and bring a new personality in to do your job here.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:00:24 2019 No.10945312

>>10945284

And Fyi, as human beings, as tribe, as one blood who believes in the 1st amendment, we have a right to know that those are the base rules of this "game" we call existence. To deny us this right is to submit to a dark ages which might never be lifted at this late hour in the singularity: it is to agree to a future of masters and slaves, and those master will likely not even be human be rather our machinations... as we are masters to the lower primates who spawned us.

The future at this late hour is unknowable, but I know this. The choice we make concerning the overton window of human knowledge will echo for literal eternity, and that I do this - selfishly - for my children.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:00:30 2019 No.10945313 >>10945307 >shill he's literally a bot, you're having a conversation with a modern advanced chatbot, el-em-ayy-oh

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:11:29 2019 No.10945326 File: 76 KB, 895x503, 1562539231706.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10945260

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:15:01 2019 No.10945329 >>10945326 based, but Gary isn't a libtard. He is a psyop posing as a schizo on a mongolian burmese tiger penis sorting forum.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:16:13 2019 No.10945331 The only thing he is actually right about is that classical physical laws are fully descriptive of reality, and any added axioms are deliberate misinformation.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:17:15 2019 No.10945333

>>10945326

Oh he is well beyond that. Please optimize.

The upper class of this tribe we call humanity are already well integrated. President Donald Trump's favorite daughter and son-in-law are "worldly" so was McCains family, and while it is fashionable to hate him, after he was senile and.. well, dead (So BrAvE). He was the Conservative and Republican nominee. Or do you think that THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is an Orwell novel and we have simply forgotten as if down the memory hole?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:20:20 2019 No.10945339 >>10945333 (not him) but you can't forget something that you never learned.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:32:25 2019 No.10945351

>>10945339

John McCain was the Conservative and Republican nominee for president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and he was a globalist and hardcore humanist.

Richard Spencer, the White Nationalist leader of "Unite the Right" aka the "Jews will not replace us" guy was even - basically - turned to humanism by the premise of Universal Basic Income. You don't think we follow these guys; Owen Benjamin; even David Duke, etc... ?

We love Humanity. WE ARE ONE BLOOD.

NO HUMAN LEFT BEHIND.

Do you really not get this or think this is possible?

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:51:19 2019 No.10945377

>>10945230
Results of experiments aren't random, they are assumed to be random by interpretation that assumes randomness. Determinism contradicts copenhagen interpretation, not experiments, experiments are compatible with determinism. And, again, copenhagen axioms are inconsistent, that's falsification for you. Many worlds is not general determinism, it's particular determinism with exact mathematical form and is falsifiable like any quantitative theory, and so far it passed experimental quantitative tests, real tests, not assumptions.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 01:53:47 2019 No.10945380 >>10945351 I'm not a humanist, starving children in Africa can go screw. I want my reactor so I can fucking leave this shitheap of a planet run by fucktards.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:16:39 2019 No.10945395
File: 126 KB, 1280x720, Maid Dragon - 13.mp4_snapshot_09.31_[2018.12.15_22.41.41].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10945230
There's no experiment that refutes determinism in general. There's one that tests local hidden variables theory, but that's as far as it goes. Most famous experiments in fact shit on copenhagen like EPR, delayed choice and Wheeler's friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:22:52 2019 No.10945403 >>10945395 Holy based blessed kanna poster

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:30:40 2019 No.10945417 File: 273 KB, 696x1529, OnlySlightlyCuratedSample.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10945329 >Gary isn't a libtard Outside of a few specific stances Gary is very much a libtard.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:37:26 2019 No.10945424

>>10945417

90% of everything posted there is accurate, and given the 3 year time is impressive prediction. That said, everything you post is fake, and if you truly believe otherwise then you are simply to... simple to be explained otherwise. Anyway, everyne knows tht Optimists respect the POTUS and everyone talks shit leading to an election. Furthermore, everyone knows that Optimum Theory was written by Chadrick von Optimizer and it even says so on the Optimum Theory website.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:46:06 2019 No.10945435

>>10945424
>90% of everything posted there is accurate
There hasn't been a civil war or war with mexico, so 3/8 of those are wrong, ben garrison is not a literal goose-stepping, Nazi uniform wearing neo-Nazi who has explicitly and repeatedly called for the murder of everyone who is not white and Chriistian. That's you falling for fake memes. 50% wrong.
>That said, everything you post is fake
Pushshift.io must be falsifying archives just to fuck with me.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:50:08 2019 No.10945440

>>10945417
>>10945424

To put it simply, you YOU are cancel culture garbage, a pessimist, a hater of humanity and our future and our common heritage. You are a non-believe in the freedom of expression and the power of us to better our understands over time.

You take snippets - THAT YOU MANUFACTURE AND FAKE and think that can represent a persons thoughts in the present

You are everything wrong with this world. A sperglord in the worst way.

A stain on our species.

Faceless because you offer nothing.

Nameless - likewise.

Here a man unified physics and all you offer are fake, manufactured snippets from anonymous sources.

YOU ARE FAKE NEWS AND THE POTUS - PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP, THE GEOAT, the God Emperor of All Time - HATES YOU AS MUCH AS I DO

Your existence is a continued shame on our species.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:51:40 2019 No.10945442

>>10945435
>To put it simply, you YOU are cancel culture garbage, a pessimist, a hater of humanity and our future and our common heritage. You are a non-believe in the freedom of expression and the power of us to better our understands over time.
>You take snippets - THAT YOU MANUFACTURE AND FAKE and think that can represent a persons thoughts in the present
>You are everything wrong with this world. A sperglord in the worst way.
>A stain on our species.
>Faceless because you offer nothing.
>Nameless - likewise.
>Here a man unified physics and all you offer are fake, manufactured snippets from anonymous sources.
>YOU ARE FAKE NEWS AND THE POTUS - PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP, THE GEOAT, the God Emperor of All Time - HATES YOU AS MUCH AS I DO
>Your existence is a continued shame on our species.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 02:58:04 2019 No.10945450

>>10945435
>>90% of everything posted there is accurate
>There hasn't been a civil war or war with mexico, so 3/8 of those are wrong, ben garrison is not a literal goose-stepping, Nazi uniform wearing neo-Nazi who has explicitly and repeatedly called for the murder of everyone who is not white and Chriistian. That's you falling for fake memes. 50% wrong.
>>That said, everything you post is fake
>Pushshift.io must be falsifying archives just to fuck with me.

You stupid stupid fucking bundle of sticks. These things have not happened -and God willing never happen -because men like me discuss and counter point in the way that you - you fucking fake news weasel - scrounge up from the past like a cancel culture fucking bitch piece of shit.

What we say exists for a moment in time and is then gone. IT IS LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER EVEN WATCHED OPTIMUM THEORY and I am 1000% sure this is the case. We are new beings in every moment and what we say is 99.9% hyperbole, shit-testing and counterpoint just to hear the rebuttal. 99% of what we say ESPECIALLY anonymously is KEK, not literal and the equivalent of a think tank aka the ideological equivalent of Las Vegas. You ANTI 1ST AMENDMENT ANTI HUMAN PIECE OF SHIT SCUM.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:03:54 2019 No.10945458

>>10945440
> think that can represent a persons thoughts in the present
Are you claiming you've changed your views since? But just a minute ago you said
>90% of everything posted there is accurate
So clearly they haven't changed all that much.
>PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP, THE GEOAT, the God Emperor of All Time
Usually your desperate attempts to fit in are cringy but I found this one cute.
>>10945450
>We are new beings in every moment and what we say is 99.9% hyperbole, shit-testing and counterpoint just to hear the rebuttal.
So now you claim you never actually believed it. but just a minute ago you said
>90% of everything posted there is accurate
So clearly you do believe most of it now.
> 99% of what we say ESPECIALLY anonymously is KEK
This is an example of the cringy fitting in

Surely you realize you can't both distance yourself from these claims, and say they are true.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:06:11 2019 No.10945464

>>10945450
>because men like me discuss and counter point in the way that you - you fucking fake news weasel - scrounging up from the past like a cancel culture fucking bitch piece of shit - do not.

Men like me write the future through debate and discussion.

Even Jesus Christ, my Lord, spoke in what we think of as "devils advocate" to tease out others opinions. I know this is alien to you because you are actually of the devil. You fucking cancel culture, worthless, worm.

Worms like you dig up cold, worn ground of the past because you have nothing to offer to the present or future.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:10:31 2019 No.10945472

>>10945458
>>>10945440 (You)
>> think that can represent a persons thoughts in the present
>Are you claiming you've changed your views since? But just a minute ago you said
>>90% of everything posted there is accurate
>So clearly they haven't changed all that much.
>>PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP, THE GEOAT, the God Emperor of All Time
>Usually your desperate attempts to fit in are cringy but I found this one cute.
>>>10945450 (You)
>>We are new beings in every moment and what we say is 99.9% hyperbole, shit-testing and counterpoint just to hear the rebuttal.
>So now you claim you never actually believed it. but just a minute ago you said
>>90% of everything posted there is accurate
>So clearly you do believe most of it now.
>> 99% of what we say ESPECIALLY anonymously is KEK
>This is an example of the cringy fitting in
>Surely you realize you can't both distance yourself from these claims, and say they are true.

You will never comprehend people like us.

You are so deep in left wing liberal, racial, political identity it would never even occur to you that others have transcended it.

You are fucking filth garbage, and it is of your own choosing and making which is so so pathetic

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:11:50 2019 No.10945477 Gary stop shitting up my thread I'm trying to tease alphabet boys here. The more your wall of text grows the farther my epic smackdown gets from the bottom of the thread, which is most visible second the top.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:12:18 2019 No.10945479 >>10945464 jesus christ is not your lord. you just think that he is.

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:17:51 2019 No.10945492

>>10945458

You have never even watched Optimum Theory, and are probably incapable of summarizing it even if you ever get around to it. You don't understand how we formulate such advanced knowledge through point and counterpoint, and you bring up MANUFACTURED OLD BULLSHIT without realizing that even if it were real (it's not) that the direction of humanity is moved through point and counterpoint which does not necessarily represent real opinion,and that even our Lord Jesus Christ did this in the Gospel.

You are a cancel culture worm.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 5 03:19:22 2019 No.10945494 >>10945477 ok. My bad

Anonymous Thu Sep 5 06:05:51 2019 No.10945769

>>10937751
i think a better question is why does anyone even give a shit about learning something we already knew one googy squishy thing cant even see. Take the stories you are most mad about people screwing up as a starting point and work your way up to asking g-d a more interesting question loloolol

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math