/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11243446]

Why do so many people on this board have a problem with the fact that the universe has inherently probabilistic and stochastic processes in it?

[Anonymous No.11243480]

It seems random because we don't know enough.

[Anonymous No.11243485]

>>11243446
Because it's wrong. We just don't fully understand the processes

[Anonymous No.11243527]

>>11243480
The randomness doesn't arise from lack of information, it just is random
>>11243485
We do fully understand the processes, and they are stochastic.

[Anonymous No.11243529]

Convince me to believe in random.

[Anonymous No.11243554]

>>11243527
>We do fully understand the processes
What process are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.11243564]

>>11243529
It's not something to "believe" in
>>11243554
The process of the randomness of the universe

[Anonymous No.11243578]

>>11243446
Just stepping in to this thread to point out that OPs picture is retarded because both of those images are equally likely to be produced by random chance.

[Anonymous No.11243581]

radioactive decay is random but there is still halftimes which means it is not truly random

[Anonymous No.11243591]

>>11243581
Stochasticism is random
If we pluck a random number between [0,1| we know that it's never going to be 2 but at the same time it is still truly random within it's domain.
Stochasticism and "true infinite randomness" are both still "equally random" and nondeterministic.

[Anonymous No.11244090]

>>11243578
That is fucking stupid. Literally any co.bination of pixels on a screen, given the same pixels, is equally possible retard. However, the image on the left is much less likely than the image on the right because on the right there are no noticeaable patterns, which is the majority of random drawings. The one on the left, however, has noticeable patterns, which is extremely, extremely unlikely in a random process. Dumbfuck.

[B1gB4c0n No.11244106]

>>11244090
That's not how randomness works! Both patterns have exactly the same likelihood of occurring!!!

Damn ye! Let Neptune strike ye dead Winslow! HAAARK!

Hark Triton, hark! Bellow, bid our father the Sea King rise from the depths full foul in his fury! Black waves teeming with salt foam to smother this young mouth with pungent slime, to choke ye, engorging your organs til’ ye turn blue and bloated with bilge and brine and can scream no more -- only when he, crowned in cockle shells with slitherin’ tentacle tail and steaming beard take up his fell be-finned arm, his coral-tine trident screeches banshee-like in the tempest and plunges right through yer gullet, bursting ye -- a bulging bladder no more, but a blasted bloody film now and nothing for the harpies and the souls of dead sailors to peck and claw and feed upon only to be lapped up and swallowed by the infinite waters of the Dread Emperor himself -- forgotten to any man, to any time, forgotten to any god or devil, forgotten even to the sea, for any stuff for part of you, even any scantling of your soul is no more, but is now itself the sea!

[Anonymous No.11244112]

>>11243446
if an alien came from the year 5000 and said "yeah, the whole universe thing? it all hinges on random chance".

i would go to sleep with a silent mind. that being the final answer just makes so much sense and seems completely fine to me.

[Anonymous No.11244122]

>universe has inherently probabilistic and stochastic processes in it

Whether that is true depends on what the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is. Spoiler alart: the science doesn't tell you what the correct interpretation is.

[Anonymous No.11244148]

>>11244106
Look you fucking retard we have three numbers okay. 1, 2, and 3. I will write them in all the possible combinations
(1 2 3)
(1 3 2)
(2 3 1)
(2 1 3)
(3 1 2)
(3 2 1)
So, if we randomly draw these number combinations, only 1 2 3 and 3 2 1 are in order. 2/6 of the random combinations have a pattern, and the other 4/6 are patternless. It is more likely in this sort of randomized system that you will get a patternless number set than a patterned one. I assume you are trolling me because I really cant imagine you dont understand this intuitively but "science" and "logic" are just words to make people accept bullshit now so who knows.

[Anonymous No.11244154]

>>11243446
People will mobilize to the sound of a battle drum. An epiphany shared among many people is a revolution. Communism is rooted and founded in determinism, this is the floor of debate, where truth prevails above all else.

[Anonymous No.11244165]

>>11243564
It is something that I don't believe in. Could be one of those language things.

[Anonymous No.11244175]

probability isn't a thing independent of observer predictions

[Anonymous No.11244332]

>>11244175
The way quanta evolve over space is inherently stochastic, it has nothing to do with observation.

[Anonymous No.11244338]

i don't have problem with it
i never did

[Anonymous No.11244343]

i don't have a problem with it
i never did

[Anonymous No.11244350]

>>11243446
Is that image from a textbook, or something?

[Anonymous No.11244412]

>>11243446
If you could see through Heisenberg uncertainty you would see the universe as deterministic. But, we can't see through the uncertainty so to use as observers the universe has that element of randomness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdA7TeoZD_g

[Anonymous No.11244958]

>>11243480
Hidden variable theory has gotten pretty btfo. It's more likely that the universe is either probabilistic, or the hidden variable is nonlocal and unknowable.

[Anonymous No.11245056]

>>11244958
I know nothing and it probably shows, but doesn't it seem incredibly strange that the underlying processes of the universe conform to statistical tools we invented to better understand other processes using incomplete information?

[Anonymous No.11245061]

>>11245056
>... statistical tools we invented...
Kind of. We discovered patterns, and then invented tools to analyze these patterns. So it isn't that strange.

[Anonymous No.11245074]

>>11243480
We can make a stronger argument suggesting that the universe only appears ordered because we have limited organic capacity to interpret and understand randomness.

[Anonymous No.11245087]

>>11245056
>the underlying processes conform
You're proceeding through reification. Our processes are based on observations. Of course they would work - we had to observe the universe to make the math that built the models in the first place. But that's no reason to assume we had the whole picture.
All of our axioms, laws, and processes could be a flat-head that just so happens to fit into the cross-head screws that we've found so far. There is a much stronger argument to suggest this is the case than there is to suggest that we are making the exact tools to fit the exact screws.

[Anonymous No.11245096]

Because if the universe can be boiled down to a mathematical instruction set then it's plausible to build your own universe. This view grew popular because people into science also had access to computers that they can do escapism in. Something something we live in a society.

[Anonymous No.11245098]

We can't really understand every fundamental process of our universe because those very processes dictate the method in which our brains themselves function. It's kinda like how you'd need a computer later then the universe to oddly simulate the universe. We're unsuitable of knowing because of both our biological limitations and the fundamental process of human observation itself.

[Anonymous No.11245110]

>>11245061
but those patterns come about due to underlying variables. I mean you can sit down and work through a bunch of data to see exactly how a normal distribution emerges so why is it suddently an absolute thing with no hidden variables at the quantum level? That seems so arbitrary.

>>11245087
I don't see how this disagrees with what I said. Sure our processes were derived from empirical observation and are incomplete but that doesn't explain why those tools still happen to fit at these lower quantum levels. I mean based on what you're saying we might just as easily expect them not to fit at all right?

[Anonymous No.11245112]

>>11243446
the quantum one hardly looks random to me
t. 99.99percentile visual special autist anon

[Anonymous No.11245113]

>>11245110
>but those patterns come about due to underlying variables. I mean you can sit down and work through a bunch of data to see exactly how a normal distribution emerges so why is it suddently an absolute thing with no hidden variables at the quantum level? That seems so arbitrary.
Because we don't see those "patterns" at the quantum level? So, what type of predictable variable seemingly conforms to no rules?

[Anonymous No.11245124]

An image looks random when its Fourier space representation is nearly uniform. That's what distinguishes the two images, nothing else.

[Anonymous No.11245141]

>>11244090
>>11244148
Literally any co.bination [SIC] of pixels on a screen, given the same pixels, is equally possible retard
Yes, that's the point, thanks for understanding
Both images have the probability [math]1 \over (XY)^c[/math] of being randomly generated. Where X and Y are the number of pixels on respective axis and C is the color space.

>no noticeaable [SIC] patterns
Oh, i thought you understood :(. This is a very ignorant statement because
1. Random image generator doesn't care about patterns
2. Mathematics doesn't care what some random human perceives as a pattern or not
3. There could be clear patterns that you are just to dumb to notice

[Anonymous No.11245157]

>>11244332
stochastic just means misunderstood
quantum is fake

[Anonymous No.11245230]

>>11245056
Not really. We've had to make a shitload of revisions over time as we found our tools and models were wrong. At this point we're not dumb enough to assume we have a complete grasp of things, but instead have a complete enough grasp of things to make basic predictions. Usually it works. Occasionally some mathematic concept gets turned upside down when we find a counterexample of it. Statistics are a pretty broad field, so as a whole our methods are likely to prove durable over time, but some approaches will surely become obsolete. It does happen.

So to reiterate: It isn't odd, because sometimes the tools we invented actually don't work. Science and math are external works in progress.

[Anonymous No.11245261]

>>11243446
>I vote both yes AAAAND no

just pick a side you coward, stop acting like a woman or politician

[Anonymous No.11245276]

>>11243446
It makes them afraid. It shows there is no intelligent design behind the universe, so anything can happen any time. It's a scary thought for some. Personally, I find solace in that fact.

[Anonymous No.11245279]

>>11244958
>or the hidden variable is nonlocal
this is insane
i hate this

[Anonymous No.11245782]

>>11245141
You are a dumb faggot nigger who is spliitting hairs. Do you literally have autism? Please stop posting. Of course there could be patterns unobservable to the human eye, but that doesnt mean that the infinitesimally small number of orderered patterns is more likely to show up than the extremely common patternless randomly generated images.
You are such a faggot holy christ the way you write yoir posts if this is an act its a simple amd effrctive one you onions guzzling navel gazing faggot.

[Anonymous No.11245787]

God doesn't play dice.

[Anonymous No.11245788]

>>11243446
I might be hallucinating, but the one on the right looks like there's a sphere in the center that's a completely different texture.

[Anonymous No.11245792]

>>11245788
That's wicked. I looked until I saw. It took me a minute.

[Anonymous No.11245799]

>>11245792
Yeah, "no geometric patterns" my ass

[Anonymous No.11245809]

>>11245799
I think because random isn't random and we find patterns everywhere. I remember one of those music providers like spotify or something had to unrandom random songs because too many people complaining about patterns. They had to organize random into more random.

[Anonymous No.11245814]

itt /sci/ is unable to come to consensus on the definition of a pattern

[Anonymous No.11245821]

>>11245782
>more likely to show up
need to work on your reading comprehension buddy,

[Anonymous No.11245830]

>>11244090
>>11244148
>>11245782
It's funny, you can tell it's the same guy because of all the spelling mistakes.

[Anonymous No.11245837]

Wow

I wanted to post in here about randomness but nearly every one in this thread seems to not understand the concept of White Noise (simple noise basically every where) and other type of randomness or noise.

Yes white noise arranged in square pattern in a larger image pop to the eye more than say blue noise
Look here
http://momentsingraphics.de/BlueNoise.html
If you can’t read words and understand that the most random randomness is easily spotted when you know how it is formed.

Thus why usually when we try to generate a random key (pgp or more crypto thing) we use the background noise (heat, keystroke etc) to generate a not too easy and computational randomness.

/sci/ feel underage or undergraduated more and more.
Please at least read the wiki page of the subject you are trying to argue about, think about it, and THEN post a reply on the board.

Spewing your thoughts here doesn’t make them more ‘scientific’

[Anonymous No.11246000]

>>11245279
That's why I personally believe in a probabilistic universe. It's a far easier pill to swallow.

[Anonymous No.11246034]

>>11243591
but radioactive decay isn't a random number between 1 and 2.
if you take a polonium-210 atom it might decay after a minute or it might decay after a million years but a bunch of polonium-210 atoms will become about half of what they used to be in 138 days.
it's like dividing by x, it's most probable for f(x) to be halved at a certain value but it never reaches zero

[Anonymous No.11246069]

>>11244122
>Whether that is true depends on what the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is. Spoiler alart: the science doesn't tell you what the correct interpretation is.

Most so-called intepretations are falsified from the get go, only crackpots and subpar physicists think otherwise. As an example, there are no hidden variables and no superluminal transfer of info either.

[Anonymous No.11246076]

>>11243446
Most of those people are just bright enough to understand classical physics, but quantum physics is above their intellect. So they try to shoehorn everything into a deterministic framework. Nature does not work that way, tough.

[Anonymous No.11246077]

>>11245837
Complied with. Didn't change my mind about anything. Just because you're gay for other people's ideas, doesn't mean I should be.

[Anonymous No.11246089]

stochastic processes don't work with thermodynamics. a photon or any energy or anything happening without a reason is against thermodynamics so to say that stochastic processes exist means that a huge part of our understanding of physics is wrong and that we can never understand or fix those concepts which is a pretty bold statement to just come and say everything we knew was wrong.
i think it's safer to say that it is an unknown process rather than say it's a stochastic process

[Anonymous No.11246092]

Does it matter? It's all the same.

[Anonymous No.11246109]

>>11246092

[Anonymous No.11246175]

>>11243446
>the fact that the universe has inherently probabilistic and stochastic processes in it
Because an unprovable hypothesis isn't a fact. There is no experiment to test the existence of randomness.

[Anonymous No.11246180]

>>11243564
>It's not something to "believe" in
Untestable statements are definitely confined to the realm of faith.

[Anonymous No.11246191]

>>11245276
>It shows there is no intelligent design behind the universe, so anything can happen any time
Please accelerate a massive object to the speed of light. You clearly believe Nature has no rules or limitations so what is stopping you?

[Anonymous No.11246194]

>>11246069
>there are no hidden variables
Only if they are local. Nothing suggests that a global hidden variable isn't real.

[Anonymous No.11246195]

>>11246175
>what is uncertainty principle
>what is radioactive decay
>what is quantum tunneling

[Anonymous No.11246207]

>>11246195
They're processes that are only superficially understood to the point where several unanswered questions in physics deal with them. I studied electron tunneling injection in MRAM and if it were a truly random process, the LLGS equation wouldn't allow us to predict the necessary parameters to use spin transfer torque to flip the magnetisation of a layer from one direction to the opposite (flipping a bit from 0 to 1 or vice versa). You're looking at incomplete models with incomplete data and jumping to the conclusion that there are no underlying mechanisms and that Nature is random. This is an unprovable and untestable statement and we have little to suggest that it is true.
Incomplete data does not suggest magic.

[Anonymous No.11246286]

>>11246089
>Physics don’t work without a reason so there is no randomness

Please put a spherical object on another sphere and predict me which will go which way.

Instable equilibrium is a thing even in molecular or subatomic level

[Anonymous No.11246306]

>>11246207
What’s the meaning of LLGS ? I can’t find what it abbreviates

Pseudo random can sometimes be treated as random when we deal with error corrections.
The true cause shouldn’t be overlooked still

[Anonymous No.11246336]

>>11246306
>What’s the meaning of LLGS ? I can’t find what it abbreviates
Sorry, its the names of the scientists. Its Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert-Slonczewski. The LLG is a super chaotic equation that can describe many phenomena in Nature that are sometimes seemingly unrelated. The complete scope of its predictive powers is still unknown due to how difficult it is to solve except for very specific and controlled scenarios. In my case, we used it exclusively to predict the current, magnetisation and material requirements necessary to make electrons in one magnetised layer tunnel through an insulating oxide and impart their spin onto electrons in another magnetised layer. Using it, you can engineer a polarised current to flip the magnetisation of the second layer. I remember the determinant of one of the Hessian matrices would determine the stability of electron spin during quantum tunnelling.

[Anonymous No.11246439]

>>11243480
all these fucking fools up in this thread

[Anonymous No.11246441]

>>11245074
Everyone here needs to read this post.

[Anonymous No.11246498]

Order is transitory. It does not rule the day.

[Anonymous No.11246521]

>>11243527
Explain how it is fundamentally random instead of being apparently random due to ignorance. What does this mean for causality?
>>11243564
What "randomness" are you talking about? How are you so certain reality is inherently truly random instead of, say, there being some structure or pattern that physics has not yet (if ever) described?

[Anonymous No.11246561]

>Itt determitards who have no idea about irreversibility or spontaneous symmetry breaking

Enjoy the google search and still not getting it, retards.

[Anonymous No.11246600]

Bell's theorem. QM can only be local or deterministic, choose one. Pro tip: you would understand why you can't choose local unless you're brainlet

[Anonymous No.11246612]

>>11246286
>>Physics don’t work without a reason so there is no randomness
that's not what i said or meant. the problem with randomness that i am talking about is thermodynamics.
first of all random means that the time and the where of something happening is unpredictable because there is no determined reason that causes it. if something happened because something else triggered it then it's predictable and not random (somethings are theoretically possible to predict but technically impossible due to human limitations)
second of all thermodynamics states that energy can't created nor destroyed only converted from one from to another. if x energy, movement, change, etc occurred randomly without a reason (i.e. another energy) then there is an amount of energy that was added without being converted. and that can mean one of two things
1. something is incorrect about our current understanding of physics
2. there is something we don't know

[Anonymous No.11246625]

>>11246612
>if something happened because something else triggered it then it's predictable and not random
This sadly only shows your lack of knowledge. You can excite an atom from ground state the same way many times over, but the time it takes it to relax back into the ground state by releasing energy is completely random and only by repeated measurement will you obtain some approximate lifetime.

[Anonymous No.11246635]

Fuck random fags.

[Anonymous No.11246639]

>>11246625
Another big brain tip for >>11246612: guess which non-deterministic theory perfectly predicts the lifetime

>>11246635
Pathetic, lmao

[Anonymous No.11246655]

>>11246639
>I don't know shit about how stuff happens, so it must be random.

[Anonymous No.11246660]

>>11246655
>Moving goalposts
We're done here

[Anonymous No.11246664]

>>11246660
I'm the pathetic one. There was no goal. I just can't random.

[Anonymous No.11246730]

>>11246625
>This sadly only shows your lack of knowledge. You can excite an atom from ground state the same way many times over, but the time it takes it to relax back into the ground state by releasing energy is completely random and only by repeated measurement will you obtain some approximate lifetime.
you still don't understand what i meant. my proposal is that empirically there are few processes that may be stochastic, if those processes were stochastic then how would that work with thermodynamics since a conversion of energy is being triggered by nothing? is there something wrong with our current understanding of physics or is it something we don't know yet?
let me use your example of radioactive decay. an unstable atom may decay after one minute or after a thousand year but it's most probable that it would have decayed by its half life. let's say an atom that has been bombarded with neutrons became unstable, according thermodynamics that atom has gained energy from those neutrons and now it's stored as potential energy since that energy wasn't released immediately. in thermodynamics this energy is potential because it can't be released on its own and it needs a "push" which is also energy (imagine an rock on the top of a hill). if nuclear decay is truly stochastic then that means this "push" energy was created out of nowhere which is incompatible with thermodynamics.
like i said in my previous post there is two answers to this:
1. randomness truly exists but our understanding of physics is partially/totally wrong.
2. randomness doesn't exist and those seemingly stochastic processes are caused by something we don't know yet.

[Anonymous No.11246780]

>>11246089
Causality and determinism are not the same thing.
Stochastic universe is CAUSAL but NONDETERMINISTIC.
Why are anons incapable of understanding this difference?

[Anonymous No.11246786]

>>11246207
>Incomplete data does not suggest magic.
Fundamental stochasticism isn't magic

[Anonymous No.11247166]

>>11246780
They're just afraid that their free will is actually die rolls.
Of course the alternative is that free will is actually preordained, so really they should just get over it.

[Anonymous No.11247171]

>>11246561
>acknowledges irreversibility
>presumably understands thermodynamics
>knows in his heart true randomness would not allow the principles of thermodynamics
>still says the World isn't deterministic

[Anonymous No.11247178]

>>11247171
I made >>11246660
Go away with nothing but innocent but curious retardation.

[Anonymous No.11247196]

>>11246625
>but the time it takes it to relax back into the ground state by releasing energy is completely random
>conveniently ignores we can't fully describe such quantum system
>ignores that we admittedly do not have the entire data due to measurement limitations imposed by both Bells inequalities and even the very nature of Fourier transforms
>everything else is determined by strict rules except a few systems that we can only weakly measure approximately
>sidesteps the fact that all our physical models disregard a billion external factors because they have negligible effects on macroscopic scales, but strongly influence the quantum realm
>ITS TOTALLY RANDOM
You do realise that not once we have ever conducted the exact same experiment twice, right? That things at such a small scale are heavily influenced by even the tiniest deviation in a millionth of a picojoule, or femtovolt or even a difference of a couple Planck lengths. There isn't a shred of empirical proof that any process is random. In fact, randomness is unprovable by definition because you cannot repeat either the experiment or the outcome.

[Anonymous No.11247205]

>>11247166
>They're just afraid that their free will is actually die rolls.
That doesn't make sense. Hard determinism is incompatible with free will. Die rolls would allow free will.

[Anonymous No.11247216]

>>11246786
>Fundamental stochasticism isn't magic
They are analogous since fundamental stochasticism is an ad-hoc cop out that allows for literally anything, even if the probability might be low. It is the same as looking at a system that is as-of-yet undescribed in its totality and saying its all miracles.

[Anonymous No.11247232]

>>11247205
>Die rolls would allow free will.
No they wouldnt
>>11247216
No, they are not analogous, and stochasticism doesn't say that anything can happen. It says that anything can happen from within it's domain. Which is what is happening with the quanta of our universe.
A quanta evolving as it moves through spacetime is random within it's domain (outlined by the schrodinger equation). This is stochastic, but not random. A particle can not jump out to the other side of the universe, or even outside of its wavefuction at that point in the evolution, but it's not in any defined point, it's just stochastic. If you want to start pretending that it has a real point during the evolution then you're saying that magical fairy variables that are hidden from ever being measured and are faster than light somehow affect the system. That is the actual magic

[Anonymous No.11247261]

>>11247232
Wait, you're in favor of determinism. False alarm, I thought you were one of the 'completely random' anons.

[Anonymous No.11247359]

>>11247261
What he's saying isn't that it's all deterministic, but that some probabilistic behavior at a low level doesn't mean random, and it especially doesn't mean "anything can happen".

[Anonymous No.11247431]

I mean, yeah, doesn't chaos theory prove this?

[Anonymous No.11247622]

>>11246191
That's not at all what I said, cumbrain. Also, speed is the incorrect unit for what you want to achieve. I can perfectly accelerate a massive object to near infinity.

[Anonymous No.11247624]

>>11247622
... near infinity rapidity.

[Anonymous No.11247637]

>>11243446
>quantum states evolve deterministically
>the universe is described by a quantum state
>the universe is stochastic
Copenhagenfags think this makes perfect sense

[Anonymous No.11247713]

>>11246207
>I studied electron tunneling injection in MRAM and if it were a truly random process, the LLGS equation wouldn't allow us to predict the necessary parameters to use spin transfer torque to flip the magnetisation of a layer from one direction to the opposite (flipping a bit from 0 to 1 or vice versa).
I don't know what point you're trying to make with the LLGS equation.
1. The LLGS equation has a stochastic term in it, so you're already contradicting yourself.
2. It can be derived microscopically in several model systems (Kamenev's Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems does it, for example). Those model systems are comparatively crude, but there really don't seem to be any incompatibilities with quantum theory (which is in turn compatible with stochastic tunneling).

[Anonymous No.11247834]

>>11247637
>copenhagen is the only stochastic interpretation
Fucking moron

[Anonymous No.11247876]

>>11247834
The problem i stated is not limited to the copenhagen interpretation you retard.

You can not have a coherent theory with
a) deterministic evolution of quantum states,
b) a universe that is described by a quantum state
and
c) a fundamentally stochastic universe
because a) and b) implies not c)

[Anonymous No.11247895]

>>11243446
You're using the wrong words for random. A stochastic process isn't necessarily random. Probabilities other than coinflips are caused by deterministic structures.

[Anonymous No.11247901]

>>11247637
>physishits

[Anonymous No.11247936]

>>11247876
Another moron who doesn't understand what stochasticism is.
Deterministic evolution does not imply deterministic output. The evolution of the schrodinger equation describes the boundary of the position of a particles' probability. It is still not actually at "any one position", it still exists only as a probability density. Much like if we were to consider a "truly random six sided die", we know when we roll it it would never be the number 7 but that does NOT IMPLY that the 1-6 that it could be have an inherent method for landing on the side it happens to land on. There is no "misunderstood black box wherein the internal method is ACTUALLY deterministic!!" No, it is truly a completely random function from within it's domain.
A and B do not imply Not C

[Anonymous No.11247941]

>>11247196
>There isn't a shred of empirical proof that any process is random.
LITERALLY the opposite - there is no a shred of evidence of any truly deterministic process ever recorded. Every process is slightly off within it's error boundaries, which is what stochasticism implies.

[Anonymous No.11248033]

>>11247936
except you don't have a coherent method to get from the quantum state to probabilities.
The person doing the measurement is part of the universe so the state of the person after the measurement can be determined deterministically from the state before the measurement since the person is a part of the universe, whose state evolves deterministically. There are never any actual probabilities involved.
The only way to get probabilities is by having a magical observer that is not governed by the laws of quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.11248082]

>>11248033
The "measurement" is just interaction with matter, human beings aren't relevant here.
A particle P is evolving through empty space according to the Schrodinger equation. Then, at the exact same moment, the "left side" of the particles probability density hits a particle A, and the "right side" of the probability density hits another particle B (both of which are also evolving through empty space).
Whether the particle P then continues to evolve as though it interacted with A or B is completely nondeterministic. It immediately goes on to start evolving as though it interacted with A or B, and the process for this is inherently random without any underlying deterministic structure. There is nothing about human beings affecting anything.
Particles aren't little balls nor are they waves. They're a completely different manifold that do not have any classical analogy. I think this is where most of the confusion comes from.
>The person doing the measurement is part of the universe so the state of the person after the measurement can be determined deterministically from the state before the measurement since the person is a part of the universe, whose state evolves deterministically. There are never any actual probabilities involved.
This makes no sense
>The only way to get probabilities is by having a magical observer that is not governed by the laws of quantum mechanics
This also makes no sense

[Anonymous No.11248108]

>>11248082
jesus crist. You're understanding of quantum mechanics is so wrong i can only assume you got it merely by watching documentaries.

> Whether the particle P then continues to evolve as though it interacted with A or B is completely nondeterministic. It immediately goes on to start evolving as though it interacted with A or B, and the process for this is inherently random without any underlying deterministic structure.

the state of the system (P,A,B) evolves perfectly deterministic according to the laws of QM/QFT.

>There is nothing about human beings affecting anything.

The system (Human, measurement apparatus, A,B,P) also evolves completely deterministically hence the problem where the probabilities even come from when the Human measures the state of particle P

[Anonymous No.11248128]

>>11248108
>the state of the system (P,A,B) evolves perfectly deterministic according to the laws of QM/QFT.
And this does not imply deterministic output.
I don't understand where your confusion is coming from. Plucking a random number from [0,1] will never give you the number 3 but it's still completely random within it's domain.
You are inserting determinism when none is there for no reason.
>The system (Human, measurement apparatus, A,B,P) also evolves completely deterministically hence the problem where the probabilities even come from when the Human measures the state of particle P
This makes no sense

[Anonymous No.11248141]

>>11248128
>And this does not imply deterministic output.
what do you even mean by output? The measurement? because as explained the process of measurement is deterministic if the observer is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

>This makes no sense

Think harder

[Anonymous No.11248146]

>>11248141
The Schrodinger Equation does not, never has, and never will determine the actual position of any particle. What it does is show the evolution of the boundaries of the particle's position during it's evolution through spacetime. This is NOT the same as saying "it is deterministic!". It is not, in any way, truly deterministic. It is a stochastic evolution.
The particle does not have any position, ever, it only has boundaries. It's more akin to he neighborhood of an open set than it is to an actual integer on the number line.
>Think harder
You are the one who is inserting determinism into a system that doesn't have any because it makes you philsophically uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.11248160]

>>11246194
>Only if they are local. Nothing suggests that a global hidden variable isn't real.
Ever heard of relativity? Locality holds.

[Anonymous No.11248170]

>>11248146
>The particle does not have any position, ever, it only has boundaries. It's more akin to he neighborhood of an open set than it is to an actual integer on the number line.

The state of an N-particle system is represented by an element of a Hilbertspace that evolves deterministically through time according to the rules of QM/QFT

The Sytem (Particle, measuring apparatus, observer) is an N-particle system hence it evolves deterministically during measurment. So where do probabilities come from?

[Anonymous No.11248172]

>>11247941
>LITERALLY the opposite - there is no a shred of evidence of any truly deterministic process ever recorded
This.

[Anonymous No.11248177]

>>11248170
The probabilities are inherent in the Schrodinger equation. holy fucking shit you are being purposefully dense. An N particle system evolves with deterministic boundary, THIS IS NOT DETERMINISM.
The better question is, where does the determinism come from? Nothing in QM says anything about deterministic position of a particle during evolution, where is the determinism?

[Anonymous No.11248179]

>>11248146
>What it does is show the evolution of the boundaries of the particle's position during it's evolution through spacetime. This is NOT the same as saying "it is deterministic!". It is not, in any way, truly deterministic. It is a stochastic evolution.
lmao what

[Anonymous No.11248183]

>>11248170
>The Sytem (Particle, measuring apparatus, observer) is an N-particle system hence it evolves deterministically during measurment. So where do probabilities come from?

Well, where do they come from? Those probabilities are observed and predicted, both with huge accuracy. Heck, QFT is the most precisely tested theory, ever. Are you just going to throw your hands in the air and claim some magical hidden variables or hurr durr unseen complexity is behind them? There is no evidence for anything of that sort.

[Anonymous No.11248190]

Reminder that there is no reason to believe Nature has to be deterministic. You are a hairless ape on a rock in space, not a quantum particle. Just because something does not make intuitive sense to your brain evolved for hunting macroscopic food does not mean it is false.

[Anonymous No.11248198]

>>11248177
It is not inherent in the schrödinger equation.

How to calculate probabilities from states during measurements is in fact a seperate axiom quantum mechanics which presupposes that observers are in fact not governed by the rules of quantum mechanics
>An N particle system evolves with deterministic boundary
that is just gibberish
I'm not talking about the position of the particle im talking about its state meaning its representation as an element of a Hilbertspace

>where is the determinism?

The determinism is in the uniqueness of the solution to the time dependen schrödinger equation given an initital state. Hence the state evolves deterministically

[Anonymous No.11248207]

>>11248198
>It is not inherent in the schrödinger equation.
>How to calculate probabilities from states during measurements is in fact a seperate axiom quantum mechanics which presupposes that observers are in fact not governed by the rules of quantum mechanics
Neither of these things are true.
>The determinism is in the uniqueness of the solution to the time dependen schrödinger equation given an initital state. Hence the state evolves deterministically
This is not true either. If you run two experiements with the exact same initial conditions (down to saying literally every other particles is in the exact same place in the entire universe) you will not get the same position of the particle at the same time after measurement, because the particle does not evolve deterministically. The time dependent schrodinger equation does not imply determinism, NOTHING in QM implies determinism. You are inserting this yourself.

[Anonymous No.11248208]

>>11248198
>How to calculate probabilities from states during measurements is in fact a seperate axiom quantum mechanics which presupposes that observers are in fact not governed by the rules of quantum mechanics

Again, can you get those probabilities in a better way? You need them for actual predictions. Those probabilities are thus even MORE fundamental than the schrodinger equation.

[Anonymous No.11248210]

>>11248183
>Well, where do they come from?
If i knew it i would publish it. I'm not saying that the Laws of QFT aren't a very good approximation to reality as it is probably a really good approximation that humans are not governed by quantum mechanics. I'm saying that the rules are no longer consistent in cases where quantum mechanical effects of observers have to be taken into account.

[Anonymous No.11248215]

>>11248207
>because the particle does not evolve deterministically.
I should make this more clear: The boundaries of the particle's position evolve deterministically but the particle itself does not have any position during evolution.

[Anonymous No.11248219]

>>11248210
>I'm saying that the rules are no longer consistent in cases where quantum mechanical effects of observers have to be taken into account.

The rules are consistent. Seems like you just do not like the rules if they feature any dependence on observers or inherent probabilities. But that is more an issue of your psyche rather than physics.

[Anonymous No.11248234]

>>11247936
>it still exists only as a probability density
This is the one thing brainlets can't understand, or refuse to accept. If they can prove otherwise then a Nobel is waiting for them and they shouldn't be arguing about it here.

[Anonymous No.11248238]

>>11248207
I don't even know how to explain anything to you given you're complete lack of knowledge of QM. The Schrödinger equation has in fact a unique solution given an initial state. That is not an opinion it is a standard result of PDE theory

To get the probability that measurement will reveal the particle is an eigenstate |a> of an hermitian operator A is given by the squared norm of the Hilberspaceprojection of the state vector of the particle onto |a>
It is a seperate axiom from the time evolution of states

[Anonymous No.11248241]

>>11248160
>epic moment when General Relativity coupled to scalar fields naturally leads
to non-local effects

[Anonymous No.11248271]

>>11248219
I don't like the results if a system that is represented by a QM state that evolves deterministically has unexplained probabilities arising out of nowhere

[Anonymous No.11248553]

>>11248271
Nobody does, but that's what we're stuck with for now.

[Anonymous No.11248775]

>>11248238
>The Schrödinger equation has in fact a unique solution given an initial state. That is not an opinion it is a standard result of PDE theory
This DOES NOT IMPLY that the function is deterministic, I do not understand what it is you aren't getting about this.
>To get the probability that measurement will reveal the particle is an eigenstate |a> of an hermitian operator A is given by the squared norm of the Hilberspaceprojection of the state vector of the particle onto |a>
This is not a deterministic process, you are solving for a probability. This does not justify asserting determinism.

[Anonymous No.11248787]

>>11248775
Eh, not that guy, but qm is entirely deterministic up to the point where you measure something. He's right about the fact that a unique solution implies determinism.

[Anonymous No.11249219]

sometimes i forget that legitimate discussion (if you ignore all the ad hominem) is even possible on this website.
thanks anons, keep doing this.

[Anonymous No.11250475]

>>11249219
The insults refreshing around here. Nobody makes casual social lies to protect your feelings. They'll just straight up come at you with full bore honesty about their thoughts. Anons calling you a greedy jew or a brainwashed sjw while they hit you with evidence-based insight is a feature of this place, not a downside.
The only negative part of 4chan is the ability for disingenuous trolling and spamming. I find it's easy to figure these people out within a few posts though.

[Anonymous No.11250647]

>>11247622
>>11247624
>i can totally accelerate a massive object to below c
You proved that anon right

[Anonymous No.11250650]

>>11247936
>There is no "misunderstood black box wherein the internal method is ACTUALLY deterministic!!"
Unprovable statement

[Anonymous No.11250651]

>>11243446
wrong, the universe is deterministic mechanic but our ability to understand it is probabilistic. stochastic means processes that utilize randomness to function, but they are only random in our ability to understand them.

[Anonymous No.11250657]

>>11250475
how about I call you a retarded faggot and tell you to go back?

[Anonymous No.11250658]

>>11248207
>If you run two experiements with the exact same initial conditions

>If you perform a physically impossible experiment, you get the result that agrees with my belief
Ok.

[Anonymous No.11250659]

>>11243529
Wave collapse

[Anonymous No.11250671]

>>11245787
He actually does.
t. /tg/

[Anonymous No.11250801]

For anyone who still believes in determinism, read this

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-consistent-histories/

[Anonymous No.11250958]

>>11250647
Goddammit I hate the people on this board. People without reading comprehension shouldn't be allowed on forums.
Look, he said
>you believe nature has no limitations, accelerate something to light speed
To which I replied that speed is an incorrect unit of measurement for high speeds and instead rapidity should be used, which has no arbitrary limit set.

Do you now understand what happened?

[Anonymous No.11250965]

>>11244332
https://physicsworld.com/a/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed/

[Anonymous No.11251033]

>>11250965
read this >>11250801

[Anonymous No.11251162]

>>11243446
Generally when something happens it happens because it was caused by some specific set of conditions. Inherently probabilistic events would somehow involve outcome A and outcome B each being completely capable of happening and whichever one ends up happening just did because magic. The fact we see one outcome and not another suggests something determined that one outcome and not the other. Otherwise it doesn't make much sense why any outcome would be preferred by actualization in the moment over the other ones that were part of the range of possibilities. What would be making the decision on which one specific outcome you end up seeing each time you check out one of these events?

[Anonymous No.11251179]

>>11250659
On it sir.

[Anonymous No.11251211]

>>11251162
It's not magic if that's how the universe works. There is nothing contradictory or "false a priori" about inherent randomness.
Read the link above about consistent histories

[Anonymous No.11251935]

>>11251211
>>11250801
That's just an approach to quantum mechanics, as is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

There is no reason to believe one way or the other (probabilistic or deterministic) without further evidence, which would be beyond what we have in modern physics.

[Anonymous No.11252711]

>>11251935
It's an approach that uses the least amount of assumptions, even less than MWI which uses the assumption of determinism to view the math as being "all equally real" in order to justify the multiverse and this, a sort of "determinism".
If you just give up the false idol of determinism, everything comes together beautifully.

Merry Christmas

[Anonymous No.11252913]

>>11243446
Because of creationist thought that isn't merely present in its most obvious and superficial forms, but is also behind much of Western philosophy (substance metaphysics) that emphasizes order and permanence over change and process.
It will take many more generations to un-do the damage caused by Christianity on the Western perception of the world.

[Anonymous No.11252935]

>>11250651
wrong, randomness is inherent and fundamental in Nature and not just due to our ignorance at all

[Anonymous No.11252938]

>>11250801
brainful post

[Anonymous No.11252940]

>>11252935
Do you have any evidence or argument? I mean holy shit why even post? Fucking upvote culture.

[Anonymous No.11252942]

>>11251935
bohmian mechanics is not like other interpretations because it fails to recover QFT / include relativity, so as of now it does not work, contrary to Copenhagen / MWI / consistent histories

[Anonymous No.11252945]

>>11243446
Because people who flippantly believe the universe could be inherently probabilistic don’t actually understand what a probability is or understand the implications of why that would be such a big deal.

Classical probability theory is just logic with incomplete information.

[Anonymous No.11252964]

>>11243446
Also daily reminder Quantum mechanics is deterministic. Schrodinger equation and time evolution operators have no probabilities in them and evolve in a determined fashion.

Only C*penhagen and other brainlet interpretations introduce probabilities through some bizarre c*llapse. Everett was correct.

[Anonymous No.11252975]

>>11252964
>Schrodinger equation and time evolution operators have no probabilities in them and evolve in a determined fashion.

The very core of QM is computing probabilities, which is even more fundamental than Schrodinger equation. Why do pseuds latch on to Schrodinger equation so much?

[Anonymous No.11252978]

>>11252945
>the implications of why that would be such a big deal.

Do tell us. The only reason to prefer a deterministic universe over stochastic one is your prejudice.

[Anonymous No.11252985]

>>11252711
I'd argue that Bohmian Mechanics makes as little assumptions as Consistent Histories, and that there is still no reason to choose a deterministic approach over a probabilistic approach and vice versa except for mere preference. We should all remain agnostic as to the fundamental behavior so long as modern physics cannot definitively tell us which one it is.

You may appreciate these links:
https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/qts.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0209104

[Anonymous No.11252993]

>>11252985
Even your link says that Bohmian mechanics only accounts for non-relativistic QM. This is the issue with you determinists / pilot wave proponents. You may know rudimentary QM (a hundred years old theory really), but precious few of you progress to QFT or beyond.

There is a reason why almost no actual physicists take deterministic interpretations seriously.

[Anonymous No.11253004]

>>11248241
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11253009]

>>11252942
>>11252993
Thoughts on this then?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.171

[Anonymous No.11253011]

>>11248241
source?

[Anonymous No.11253014]

>>11253009
>Article identifier '1307.171' not recognized

[Anonymous No.11253047]

>>11253011
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.04517.pdf

[Anonymous No.11253051]

>>11253014
Sorry, I think I accidentally deleted the last number. Add a 4 at the end of the link.

[Anonymous No.11253056]

>>11243527
you sound like the type of retard who just reads and recites the titles of scientific articles and believes you're an intellectual

[Anonymous No.11253321]

>btfos all copenhagian fags

[Anonymous No.11254951]

Not trying to argue with any sides (I think everyone posting in this thread is quite ‘’determined’’ in what they think is true or probable)
But can you reply to this post and state clearly what you think on the deterministic/non-deterministic state of our universe AND if you have a personal gnostic belief ?

Exemple :
>I believe in a deterministic universe and am an agnostic Christian
Or
>I believe in a non-deterministic universe and am a gnostic atheist
Or any combination you are in.

Genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.11254971]

>>11254951
Anything on a quantum level is deterministic. Everything necessitating "measurement", or interaction with "classical" systems, is non-deterministic. True randomness exists.

[Anonymous No.11255224]

>>11254951
I'm a gnostic atheist who rejects determinism (and God) because I have an organic rather than mechanistic view of reality. The mechanistic view interprets reality as chains of cause and effect, which are abstractions that are only maintained when one excludes the overwhelming reality of mutual influence and co-causation that is present in real systems. This abstraction is incredibly useful and indeed predictive in some systems, and modern physicists bend over backwards to try to exclude outside influences in their experiments in order to derive such isolated mechanics. However this perspective is vastly incomplete, and trying to extend it as a metaphysical principle fails completely.

If you are a hard determinist you cannot accept the perspective of biological evolution as a reality, but instead a "useful fiction" where the whole process is determined in advance. God is replaced with the mechanistic laws of nature. This is a relic of Newtonian and Cartesian thought that is retained from the enormous influence of that worldview, it dominates even our view of human creativity by making the selective element of human experience the whole of the process, as with "free will."

[Anonymous No.11255229]

Universe is chaotic, born from simple rules, and chatotic processes only seem stochastic

[Anonymous No.11255232]

>>11243446
Muh free will

[Anonymous No.11255238]

>>11243446
The randomness is a scattershot mechanism with very explicit intent. Chaos over an extended period of tiem produces what is desired eventually.

[Anonymous No.11255431]

>>11245110
>why no hidden variables
Check out Bell's Theorem/experiment

[Anonymous No.11255454]

>>11255224
>However this perspective is vastly incomplete
>because I say so lolz

[Anonymous No.11255468]

>>11248190
Reminder that there is no reason to believe Nature has to obey relativity. You are a hairless ape on a rock in space, not a tachyon. Just because something does not make intuitive sense to your brain evolved for hunting macroscopic food does not mean it is false.

[Anonymous No.11255476]

>>11250475
Fuck off retard