/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11385963]

Wait, so all the spookiness and general retarded mysticism of quantum mechanics disappears when you're actually a materialist? WTF?

Why is the field of quantum mechanics so hamstrung by crypto-idealists who can't let go of the concept of free will? Literally inventing nonsense distinctions like "superdeterminism" to signify what any self respecting materialist would just call "determinism"

[Anonymous No.11386019]

That's very interesting. Never thought of it like that or seen this as an explenation before

[Anonymous No.11386036]

>>11385963
>Wait, so all the spookiness and general retarded mysticism of quantum mechanics disappears when you're actually a materialist? WTF?
Are you OK with denying the existence of cause and effect? Causality does not exist under superdeterminism. All of space and time is just a shape and any objects appearing to cause events or vice versa are really more like patterns in a quilt e.g. we think levers behave a certain way reliably not because of physical action of levers causing that certain kind of movement in an object but rather because all the known instances of people and levers "being used" in space and time happen to form that same 4D shape of motion happening in that apparently predictable and causal way.
This is what sets it apart from what most "materialists" / regular determinists believe (most of them believe in cause and effect; they just believe it's physical and not caused by some extra non-physical "will" thing).

[Anonymous No.11386049]

>>11385963
the idea is that superdeterminism is contradicted by what we try to do in the lab. in the lab we say "oh now let's change our measurement device to check something else" and if the theory still holds then we are reassured that the theory isn't bullshit.

if we believe in superdeterminism, then maybe there was some sort of "cosmic conspiracy" that made us change our measurement at just the right time so that our bad theory would turn out right even though it is a complete crap description of actually how things work. since in superdeterminism the real theory could and would and would have to dictate how i choose to make my measurements. it would dictate whether i choose to measure my polarization along the vertical or horizontal axis. so me drawing conclusions from me changing horizontal vs. vertical would be explained by some crazy theory that is dictating MY behavior rather than the behavior of the thing i am measuring.

this is why superdeterminism is a nonscientific path. it leads you to the cosmic conspiracy.

even 't Hooft, who i respect, and who is a superdeterminism proponent, acknowledges that this is an issue. he uses the words "cosmic conspiracy" explicitly, multiple times, in his writings on these things.

i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.

[Elder NPC No.11386062]

Really makes you think about how important some of these theorems are when their primary purpose is to justify their paycheck to their limited audience of interest.

>All humans are storytellers to Time. Get over yourself humanity. Children prove solipsism.

[Anonymous No.11386076]

>>11386049
as a side note, it might not be me choosing what measurement to make. i could set up a photomultiplier tube to randomly generate a decision for whether i measure vertical vs. horizontal polarization. so i offload the superdeterminism to a natural process. and the superdeterminism proponents would say that something magical needs to happen to correlate the photomultiplier tube with the results of my polarization measurment. so the superdeterminism thing goes even beyond free will -- it implies that not only are all your actions determined by some weird theory, but also that all natural phenomena are superdetermined in a nonlocal way that is pre-scripted from from the beginning.

it sort of just kills the idea of physical theories. it is basically just "well it had to be that way because that was the script" which sounds like calvinist godfag reasoning to me

[Anonymous No.11386086]

>>11386049
>i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.

i don't feeeel like i'm made out of atoms so i assume i'm not made out of atoms and can instead do what i want.

[Anonymous No.11386094]

>>11386086
i posted a follow-up that gets rid of the "feels" aspect:
>>11386076


tl;dr, superdeterminism totally negates any concept of science offering an explanation for anything, and therefore it is nonscientific

[Anonymous No.11386100]

>>11386036
>cause and effect go out the window because everything behaves in strict accordance to cause and effect
im not sure I follow

>>11386094
non scientific =/= no truth value
science itself is predicated on cause and effect, which is a non scientific concept
the responses in this thread have interesting ambivalent relationships with the metaphysics behind epistemology that lies outside autistic scientism

[Anonymous No.11386104]

>>11386036
>Causality
Spooky in and of itself.

t. fat scotsman

[Anonymous No.11386105]

>>11386100
>im not sure I follow
In determinism a rock rolls down a hill because the wind pushes it.
In superdeterminism space and time are just one single already assembled and never changing 4D shape. The wind doesn't move the rock. There are just a bunch of wind-moments and rock-moments forming a tiny little pattern on the giant quilt of our universe's lifetime from cradle to grave.

[Anonymous No.11386109]

>>11386104
I never said it was wrong (or right). I just want to explain what it means for people like OP who don't seem to get what it entails and how it's different from regular determinism.

[Anonymous No.11386113]

>>11386100
the fact that you just started rambling about "metaphysics behind epistemology" leads me to believe that you are a humanities idiot who deserves no further acknowledgement.

but since i am already falling for this bait thread, let me reiterate that superdeterminism is not compatible with science, as i have explained, and if you believe in science and the fact that experiments and observation lead to reliable facts, then you need to ASSUME from the getgo that there is no superdeterminism conspiracy rigging every experiment/observation of all history.

it is a basic assumption of science that measurements and observations are not rigged to trick you. of course that might be questioned by philosofags but then it's basically an argument in favor of why schizophrenia is good

[Anonymous No.11386202]

>>11386113
>the fact that you just started rambling about "metaphysics behind epistemology" leads me to believe that you are a humanities idiot who deserves no further acknowledgement

says the brainlet whose argument against superdeterminism is
>I don't like being subject to cause and effect just like my toys :'(
crazy how there are people who actually believe in materialistic determinism but not if it hurts their fee fees about free will

>>11386105
Funny, I've seen approaches to physics that would seem to fit the same description for physical reality that you just gave, but by physicists who were not superdeterminists (Feynman, for example)
Why do you think that is? And perhaps more importantly, why are you uncomfortable with saying that causality can exist as an experiential element of that structure? I can have an equation which describes the shape of an object in cartesian space, for example, and if it was traced by a variable tied to time the progression would still resemble "cause and effect"

[Anonymous No.11386240]

>>11386202
>crazy how there are people who actually believe in materialistic determinism but not if it hurts their fee fees about free will
great reading comprehension, anon. it is great to talk to anons who don't even read what you said and then reply with a response that makes it clear they couldn't make it through the first sentence.

reread my post and try again. otherwise, go back to your lame /lit/ threads where you act "smart" and circlejerk all your fellow "smart" /lit/ anons who couldn't solve the first equation of griffiths

[Anonymous No.11386246]

>>11386240
not him, but you sound pretentious , why care to understand you past that appearance you give off?

[Anonymous No.11386258]

>>11386240
you talk like a college freshman, but you mentioned griffiths... yikes
autism it is

[Anonymous No.11386263]

>>11386246
>>11386258
typical /lit/ tourist responses.

[Anonymous No.11386276]

>>11385963
Bohr was so right about people trying to explain the "real world that we cannot observe or haven't observed yet".

[Elder NPC No.11386444]

>>11386258
You compare like someone who doesn't allow others to define themself first.