/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15137071]

Can someone explain this article to me?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

[Anonymous No.15137075]

>>15137071
scientists: we may have found a mild correlation between X and Y and this possibly implies Z under circumstances A, B, and C
journalists: SCIENTSTS FIND THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH???? IS THIS RACIST?

[Anonymous No.15137080]

probably some sort of psyop, scientific american is a political propaganda outlet thinly disguised as a science magazine just like every other legacy outlet

[Anonymous No.15137079]

>>15137075
Ok so tell me what they found.

[Anonymous No.15137113]

>>15137071
it's bullshit. bell inequality violations do NOT immediately disprove local realism. what they show, is that at least one of the assumptions of Bell's theorem is wrong. locality and realism are two of the three assumptions of bell's theorem (actually, the theorem has been criticised for not encoding locality and realism correctly but let's forget about this for now). the third assumption, statsitical independence, is just assumed to hold true. this is a mistake.

what is needed is to test these assumptions. bell tests do NOT tell us which assumptions are wrong, only that at least one is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15137123]

>>15137071
Generally speaking it means if you chop your dick off and call yourself a woman it doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous No.15137218]

>>15137113
if you think statistical dependence might be wrong you may as well check yourself into the psych ward now.

[Anonymous No.15137237]

>>15137079
He's telling you that it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.15137241]

>>15137071
what don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.15137242]

>>15137071
I’ll explain it in a way that isn’t a dogwhistle for polchuds
>Bell’s theorem
it’s literally nothing. imagine if /sci/ was a university, John Bell is like a prolific schizoposting namefag

[Anonymous No.15137251]

>>15137242
meds

[Anonymous No.15137270]

>>15137242
ya meds bro don't go T.A.Davids

[Anonymous No.15137281]

>>15137113
God, Bell must of loved the amount of people licking his ass hole.

Here's a theory of mine. You're full of shit. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Anonymous No.15137370]

>>15137080
That article is amusing in the same manner as Steve Jobs discussing how xerox failed.

[Anonymous No.15137404]

>>15137071
It means that the number of stars in the universe is -1/12.

[Anonymous No.15137457]

>>15137251
>>15137270
Bell’s Inequality literally assumes that the conditions under which measurements or observations are taken are irrelevant because humans have “free will”. if I came up with a theorem about why you’re a virgin that says
>since faggots exist, we’re gonna assume you are one because no one’s ever seen you around women
does that make it something worth discussing for half a fucking century?

[Anonymous No.15137470]

Just think about what it means for something to have a location.

[Anonymous No.15137474]

Why do people assume locality to be true?

[Anonymous No.15137484]

>>15137075
kek

[Anonymous No.15137497]

>>15137075
It means that causation comes from outside spacetime (this is key to understanding why brains in spacetime can't cause consciousness). There are faster than light correlations between spacelike separated data objects. This is possible because all points are equadistant from the processor, see pic. There's something called the no signalling though which says you can't send classical information though, this has to do with the refresh rate of our reality, also see pic
>In physics, the no-communication theorem or no-signaling principle is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.

[Anonymous No.15137500]

>>15137457
>“free will”
Putting that in quotes identifies you as a midwit.

[Anonymous No.15137506]

>>15137474
Because the scientists want causation to be coming from INSIDE spacetime. The fact that that it does not means that causation comes from outside of the universe, exactly as it would in a VR, see here
>>15137474
>Here, the simulation theory offers a very simple explanation for the violation of the principle of locality implied by Bell's no-go theorem [5], the EPR paradox [13], Bell's inequalities violation experiments 1, 3] and quantum entanglement 22: notions of locality and distance defined within the simulation do not constrain the action space of the system performing the simulation (i.e. from the perspective of the system performing the simulation, changing the values of variables of spins/particles separated by 1 meter or 1 light year has the same complexity)
Causation comes from processing OUTSIDE the universe, so from the point of the view of of the computer computing the physical world, the points are all equadistant.

[Anonymous No.15137512]

>>15137470
>Just think about what it means for something to have a location
Correct. Non-local hidden variables means variables outside of spacetime, IE outside of the universe, ie no location in the universe. Causation comes from outside of the universe and this is also why brains in spacetime can't be the cause/seat of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15137525]

>>15137113
>what they show, is that at least one of the assumptions of Bell's theorem is wrong
The assumption which was wrong was that there can be no 'spooky action at a distance', as explained in picrel here, which also explains the no signalling theorem
>>15137497
>Here, the "vital assumption" [5, p. 2] made by Bell is the absence of action at distance (i.e. as emphasized in 5, eq. 1, the independence of the outcome of an experiment performed on one particle, from the setting of the experiment performed on another particle). Therefore Bell's no-go theorem does not prevent a (classical) probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics using a "spooky action at distance" .
Here, the simulation theory offers a very simple explanation for the violation of the principle of locality implied by Bell's no-go theorem [5], the EPR paradox [13], Bell's inequalities violation experiments 1, 3] and quantum entanglement 22: notions of locality and distance defined within the simulation do not constrain the action space of the system performing the simulation (i.e. from the perspective of the system performing the simulation, changing the values of variables of spins/particles separated by 1 meter or 1 light year has the same complexity)

He, like most other who can't figure it out, are players immersed in a virtual reality who can understand how causality could be coming from outside of the space (pixels) and (time) cycles of their virtual world. This defeats naturalism and physicalism and these are two dogmas of soi-ence.

[Anonymous No.15137533]

>>15137113
>t.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvd3aEsThbc

[Anonymous No.15137536]

>>15137506
But that's not even true of computing machines in general. The "distance" of data in memory actually causes quite a bit of time delay during computation.

[Anonymous No.15138037]

>>15137218
it's independence not dependence. but anyway, it could easily be wrong. i suspect that it is. bell's statisticsl independence is not the same as classical statistical independence. bell's version necessarily invokes the existence of counterfactual worlds that are physically real. of course this could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15138038]

>>15137281
where in my post did i claim to be a fan of bell. i'm not, because he hated superdeterminism which i believe is the truth.

[Anonymous No.15138060]

>>15137525
according to you, realism doesn't hold so you cannot tell me what is true.

[Anonymous No.15138111]

>>15137525
as i alluded to before, bell locality is actually different from einstein locality. bell locality, otherwise known as parameter independence, "requires us to ask what the setting of one detector would have been, had the other detector's setting been different" (palmer and hossenfelder, 2020). this, like statistical independence, invokes counterfactual worlds, which are impossible to test for.

bell locality may be wrong, but it would say nothing about einstein locality.

[Anonymous No.15138115]

>>15137075
>implying scientists don't encourage this shit to get mo money for dem programs

[Anonymous No.15138173]

>>15137075
Scientists: We found a correlation between X and Y under conditions A, B, C
Pop sci journalists: Scientists prove universe is a simulation
Regular Journalists: White man kills unarmed black man

[Anonymous No.15138292]

>>15137113
Damn that shit is deep though.

>use a statistical contradiction to prove either locality or realism are false
>what you’ve proven is either locality, realism or statistics are false

[Anonymous No.15138302]

>>15137512
The Chinese Room thought experiment is bullshit.

The guy INSIDE the room can be said to not know Chinese, sure. That much is explicitly stated. But THE ROOM “knows” Chinese. The room-books-dude system, as a whole, knows Chinese, which is an emergent property of the system itself. This is similar to how a native mandarin speaker can be said to “know Chinese” even though no particular one of his individual neurons could be said to know Chinese. Or how he is “alive” even though none of his constituent atoms are alive. “Knowledge” is an emergent property, not something fundamental. Same goes for life, same goes for consciousness.

[Anonymous No.15138305]

>>15138302
>THE ROOM “knows” Chinese
The entire point of the thought experiment is that anyone besides mentally ill cultists like you can see the absurdity of this proposition.

[Anonymous No.15138306]

>>15137075
>>15138173
>we MAY have found
You idiots have no idea what you are talking about. You think confirmation of violations of bell inequalities is something that is just being announced by this article and that correlation are 'mild'. This just proves you have no idea the history of this issue. The first confirmational experiments were over 50 years ago and the first accurate ones were over 40 years ago. see pic.

[Anonymous No.15138308]

>>15138302
Yeah. Having an input, sorting program, output is just what brains are actually doing. The Chinese Room fails because its not up to the man inside to understand chinese, he's a cog in a system that at large understands Chinese.

[Anonymous No.15138312]

>>15137075
>In addition to being confirmed, the violation was confirmed in the exact way predicted by quantum mechanics, with a statistical agreement of up to 242 standard deviation.
>slight correlation
And this
here
>>15138306
was an old one

[Anonymous No.15138314]

>>15138308
>the heckin' imaginary ghost in my head knows chinese

[Anonymous No.15138315]

>>15138305
NTA, but how is a room with actors, rules, systems transforming an input into a desired output not simplified cognition?

Of what good is the fact that the man inside does not know chinese?

[Anonymous No.15138318]

>>15138315
And yhe room is in a building, so the building knows Chinese. And the building is in Wisconsin, so the arbitrary geographical boundary of Wisconsin knows Chinese. etc. There's no real dicussion to be had. Either you immediately see the absurdity or you're a mentally ill cultist. There's no further discussion to be had here.

[Anonymous No.15138321]

>>15138318
You're just expanding a circle beyond coherent definition. On my finger there's a ring, on my hand there is a wring, I have a ring, my house contains a ring, my state contains a ring...

All you lose is specificity with that non-argument.

[Anonymous No.15138322]

>>15138321
>You're just expanding a circle beyond coherent definition
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15138324]

>>15138302
>But THE ROOM “knows” Chinese
How are you verifying that the room 'knows chinese'? Idiot.
>Having an input, sorting program, output is just what brains are actually doing
Yeah, this is called 'begging the question'. The very point of contention is the nature of brain and mind, and to use a physicalist theory of mind in your argument is just restating your premise as an argument. Fail. Not an argument, dummy. If you want to say consciousness is just an output of the brain, then demonstrate as particular brain state that out puts a particular thought in a repeatedly demonstrable way. You can't.

[Anonymous No.15138325]

>>15138322
>Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15138326]

>>15138325
>The heckin' roomerino knows Chinese because the guy is in the room while performing the instructions
Okay, then the building knows Chinese because the guy is in the building while performing the instructions
>NOOOO! NOOOOOOO!
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15138331]

>>15138308
this
>15138324
>Having an input, sorting program, output is just what brains are actually doing
>Yeah, this is called 'begging the question'. The very point of contention is the nature of brain and mind, and to use a physicalist theory of mind in your argument is just restating your premise as an argument. Fail. Not an argument, dummy. If you want to say consciousness is just an output of the brain, then demonstrate as particular brain state that out puts a particular thought in a repeatedly demonstrable way. You can't.

Was to you. You can never confirm that a particular brain state causes a particular thought in a repeatably demonstrable way. Why? because consciousness, unlike physical objects, is first person/subjective. This should have been your first clue against physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15138346]

>>15138302
No, the experiment is bullshit because you can't build a set of instructions to simulate knowing chinese, it's just impossible, therefore the thought experiment's premise doesn't work

[Anonymous No.15138348]

>>15138324
>How are you verifying that the room 'knows chinese'? Idiot.
How do you verify anyone "knows Chinese"? You test their ability to answer questions or carry on conversations, I suppose. Fluency can be demonstrated experimentally.

The issue with the thought experiment is it hinges on conflating "the room" and "the guy in the room". It hits you in the intuition that the guy inside the room doesn't know Chinese, he's just faking it, and that all that's really happening is the people outside the room don't have the full picture. They can't observe his lack of knowledge, but it still exists.

My point is not that the guy in the room knows Chinese. He doesn't. The entire SYSTEM knows Chinese. The guy, who does not know Chinese, is a part of a system involving research books that DOES know Chinese.

[Anonymous No.15138349]

>>15137075
>we may have found
>MAY have found
Not MAY have found
https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-bell-test-uses-light-from-ancient-quasars/

[Anonymous No.15138350]

>>15138348
>The entire SYSTEM knows Chinese
You mean the entire building? Or the entire country? Or the entire universe?

[Anonymous No.15138362]

>>15138350
>You mean the entire building? Or the entire country? Or the entire universe?
Exactly. These people are so dense. The presuppositions are so strong that they end up arguing for things like 'rooms knowing things'. Consciousnesses know things. 'rooms' are nothing but a bunch of physical quantities when it comes down to it. There is no quality/experience of 'knowing' outside of consciousness. There is no qualitative information outside consciousnesses, only data.

[Anonymous No.15138367]

>>15138350
Sure, why not? It depends on how useful that delineation is for your purposes. For example, if a family has a native mandarin speaker, it could be useful to say that the family "speaks mandarin". It could also not be useful. It depends on what you mean. If what you mean is that a message to that family in mandarin can be understood, then yes they do. If what you mean is that any isolated member of that family, without access to the others, speaks mandarin, no they don't.

We say that Switzerland "speaks" 4 languages (French, German, Romansh, Italian), but many, perhaps most, individuals in Switzerland don't speak all 4. All of this is a demarcation problem, it simply depends on where it's useful to draw the line.

The guy-plus-books-plus-writing-implements system is probably the smallest collection of constituents you could isolate in "the Chinese Room" that you could say "speaks Chinese" since, removing any one of those components instantly destroys the system's ability to speak Chinese. Everything else can be included or excluded mostly based on whether or not it's useful for your purposes to include them.

But that gets fun in its own way... for example, can one of the books be removed while still essentially retaining the system's ability to speak Chinese?

[Anonymous No.15138374]

>>15138367
>Sure, why not?
Sure, why not. Since you acknowledge that your attribution of knowledge to some "system" is completely arbitrary and purely imaginary, we can call it a day.

[Anonymous No.15138392]

>>15138374
How is that any different from YOUR attribution of knowledge to some "system"? You say "a biological brain is the only system that can know things" but even THAT doesn't explain how the fact of knowledge emerges from constituent parts.

You can remove or impair knowledge by chopping out or disabling parts of the brain. This is what brain damage is. How can a human brain be said to contain "knowledge" when, divided into parts, what you have are two parts of a brain, neither of which contain said knowledge? If a surgeon removes your Wernicke's Area, you're going to lose the ability to understand language. But that same isolated piece of gray matter tissue will not, in and of itself, be able to understand language. So what we have, in your human brain, is a system which can be said to contain knowledge, even though its constituent parts do not contain that knowledge in isolation.

There is no fundamental component of knowledge. There is no vat of "informatons" inside your brain that holds "knowledge" in some definite physical sense. Knowledge is an emergent property of a bunch of combined brain systems, and if you remove any one of them, the brain's ability to utilize that knowledge will go away, while the removed part will never have had the knowledge to begin with.

If you can apply this reasoning to the system of your own meat computer, why can't it be applied to any OTHER system? The answer is "because your philosophical assumptions Don't Like It when the human brain doesn't have special status"

[Anonymous No.15138395]

>>15138392
See >>15138374. There is no further discussion to be had. You filly concede that your attribution of knowledge to some "system" is completely arbitrary and purely imaginary.

[Anonymous No.15138399]

>>15138392
>You can remove or impair knowledge by chopping out or disabling parts of the brain. This is what brain damage is. How can a human brain be said to contain "knowledge" when, divided into parts, what you have are two parts of a brain, neither of which contain said knowledge?
Not my problem. That's just another example of how trying to attribute knowledge to physical objects rather than minds fails. You are undermining your own metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15138409]

>>15138399
But what is a "mind"? And how is that not, in the words of >>15138395
>purely imaginary
?

You can just declare it to be true without justification, I'll concede that point, but what gets to have a mind? If the mind is some sort of super-physical entity which exists outside the realm of the physical world, how can we say what has a mind and what does not? A human does, a rock does not. Okay.

But what about a dog? Does a dog have a mind? Or an ant? Or a starfish? Or a worm? Or a flower? Who or what determines what gets to have a mind and what doesn't; who or what takes a mind from the abstract heavenly plane and tethers it to a biological system, and what criteria determine that choice?

Similarly, if a person is braindead, do they no longer have a mind? How much brain damage does it take to "sever the mind-link"? What are the fundamental points of connection, where you can say "once this is gone, the mind is gone"?

It's the same problem of demarcation whether the mind is emergent or super-physical. You're not answering it with your metaphysics, you're just avoiding talking about it.

[Anonymous No.15138412]

>>15138409
>I'll concede that point
You have already conceded my point when you conceded that your attribution of knowledge to "systems" is arbitrary, subjective and imaginary.

[Anonymous No.15138415]

>>15138409
>how is that not .. purely imaginary
The mind of a Chinaman knows Chinese but mine doesn't. Minds have clear boundaries.

[Anonymous No.15138425]

>>15138415
>The mind of a Chinaman knows Chinese
What about the mind of a Chinaman in a permanent vegetative state? Does it know Chinese? It demonstrably USED to know Chinese, but does it now?

Or what about Mao's mind? I mean, he knew Chinese when he was alive, but he's dead now. Is his mind also dead? If so, why? The mind is (apparently) not tied to the physical system of the brain in a significant way, per your theory.

>>15138412
salty enough to melt snow

[Anonymous No.15138428]

>>15138425
>What about the mind of a Chinaman in a permanent vegetative state? Does it know Chinese? It demonstrably USED to know Chinese, but does it now?
I don't know. How is it relevant? You seem to be having some kind of a mental episode. It still stands that your attribution of knowledge to "systems" is arbitrary, subjective and imaginary, while my attibution of knolwedge to minds is not: any sane individual will recognize that he knows some things that others do not and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.15138431]

>>15137497
>It means that causation comes from outside spacetime
So basically, God exists?

[Anonymous No.15138439]

>>15138428
>any sane individual will recognize that he knows some things that others do not and vice versa
I don't dispute this claim in the slightest, and I never have. My claim is that an "individual" is composed of constituent parts, and that these parts do not in and of themselves have to share any properties OF the "individual". The individual is a system, which has attributes (including knowledge) that emerge from unrelated attributes of constituent parts.

A human mind is made of smaller components which are not, in and of themselves, minds. The mind is an emergent property of these components. It's meaningful to talk about it, in the same way it's meaningful to talk about the temperature of a pot of water even though it's not meaningful to talk about the temperature of an individual H2O molecule. Of course my mind and your mind are distinct, and you know things I don't. That's trivially true and it's not worth arguing over. What matters is whether or not a mind can "emerge from a system" GENERALLY.

I claim that it can. I claim that your mind emerges from an interacting system of components that are not, in and of themselves, minds. And that, if we accept that this is true, we can say that ANY arrangement of components which, operating together, behave as a mind, can be said to BE a mind. Because the alternative is isolating the thing that represents "true mind essence" and saying that some things have it and some things do not... and if you want to claim that's true you have to fucking prove it, which you refuse to do.

[Anonymous No.15138446]

>>15138439
>I don't dispute this claim
Then why were you trying to imply that the flaw with your attribution applies to my position? The boundaries you draw when attributing knowledge to physical "systems" is arbitrary and subjective. My pointing out that I only know what I know, and not what you know, isn't.

[Anonymous No.15138470]

>>15138446
So you're just taking refuge in ignorance then?

>your theory of the mind is wrong
>no, I don't know why
>no, I don't have another theory
>I just know you're wrong
>just because

[Anonymous No.15138477]

>>15138470
Are you having a mental breakdown? I've demonstrated that your attribution of knowledge to physical systems is arbitrary, subjective and imaginary due to the way you draw your boundaries. You did not dispute this. Instead, you attempted to argue that the attribution of knowledge to minds suffers from the same problem. I've explained to you that the boundaries between minds are not arbitrary. You did not dispute this. That's where we stand.

[Anonymous No.15138507]

>>15137071
Bell's theorem is overrated and not at all very deep. John Bell disliked quantum mechanics so he made up prejudicial terms like "non-local" and "non-real" which could be attached it. That's all, they don't really mean anything.

[Anonymous No.15138517]

>>15138477
>I've explained to you that the boundaries between minds are not arbitrary
Because you deliberately refuse to engage with those boundaries in any domain where they're unclear, you dipshit.

I've asked you to delineate the boundaries of minds in DIFFICULT contexts (such as brain damage) and you just refuse to do it. You instead retreat to obvious cases like "my mind and your mind aren't the same". I'm telling you that if you zoom in on any line close enough, you find a gradient from black to white that covers every shade of grey, and you're standing a thousand feet back going "nah bro the left half is black and the right half is white, quit being obtuse"

I state that where the line between black and white is drawn MUST be arbitrary because, when you get close enough, there IS no clear demarcation, only a smooth gradient, and rather than engaging with that argument you just go
>from way back here where it's easy, the line seems pretty clear. Stop looking so close lol

[Anonymous No.15138520]

>>15138517
>I've asked you to delineate the boundaries of minds in DIFFICULT contexts (such as brain damage)
How does having brain damage alter the boundaries between separate minds?

[Anonymous No.15138532]

>>15138520
Because the boundaries between minds are not only mind-to-mind boundaries. Minds are "islands", I think you'd agree; many things in the universe DO NOT have minds.

So when we talk about the "boundary of the mind", we're not talking about the boundary between one mind and another mind. We're talking about the boundary between a mind and NOT a mind. We're talking about defining when something is or is not a mind.

Proving that two things which we both agree are minds are not the SAME mind is easy enough. What's harder, what the real question is about, is proving when something goes from being "not a mind" to being "a mind". That's the boundary that's difficult, and it's the boundary that's in question with the Chinese Room, and it's also coincidentally the boundary you don't have anything to say regarding.

[Anonymous No.15138540]

>>15138532
>So when we talk about the "boundary of the mind", we're not talking about the boundary between one mind and another mind
I don't know what the voices in your head were talking about, but I was talking about the boundaries between minds.

>We're talking about the boundary between a mind and NOT a mind. We're talking about defining when something is or is not a mind.
Show me something that this question could potentially apply to.

[Anonymous No.15138557]

>>15138540
>Show me something that this question could potentially apply to.
Whether or not "The Chinese Room" can be said to have knowledge of Chinese! Or, more generally, whether or not a non-biological, non-neurological system (i.e. an advanced computer or something of that sort) could be said to "have a mind" or "be a mind".

Is that not the whole point of this discussion? What the fuck are we talking about if not that? Whether or not any arbitrary collection of components which exhibits the properties of a mind can be called a mind, or whether "a mind" is something inherently human (or at least, biological) and which no approximation can ever truly be.

[Anonymous No.15138578]

>>15138557
Your lack of sentience is truly uncanny. You said there's some difficulty telling if something is or isn't a mind. Point me at something concrete that could potentially be a mind.

[Anonymous No.15138583]

Odd. You would have to take real to be something subject to proof. Fake?

[Anonymous No.15138595]

>>15138578
I feel like this is the Gong Show
And we need
Dongshan #3
To hit that gong
>The Master began, "A monk asked Hui-chung, 'What sort of thing is the mind of the ancient buddhas?'
https://terebess.hu/zen/dongshan-eng.html#r
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RijB8wnJCN0

[Anonymous No.15138603]

>>15137080
>"White Supremacy Must Use Science for Entertainment"
What did he mean by this?
>THESE
PIGS
>WANNA
BLOW
>MY
HOUSE
>DOWN

[Anonymous No.15138604]

>>15138595
Show me a mind. You can't? If you can't show me a mind, then you can't show me a potential mind, either, so there is no ambiguity as to whether anything we could be discussing, is or is not a mind.

[Anonymous No.15138608]

Bells theorem is based on naiive logic and thinking. No wonder universe works differently

Remember: universe has no sharp kinks and corners. Its a human consept. The bells theorem implied the l'entangled particles should obey a sharp kink, yet there were a continous transfer. Who would have quessed? The universe is just continuum physics!!

[Anonymous No.15138610]

>>15137080
Scientific American is a bunch of racist nazi bullies.
Nazi Americans have targeted whites the same way the German Nazis targeted jews.

[Anonymous No.15138612]

>>15137080
Content like this really does belong on /pol/
It is not science related
It is about crowd control, political manipulation
It does not have science content
So it doesn't belong here, period

[Anonymous No.15138615]

>>15138612

[Anonymous No.15138620]

>>15137080
The simple fact is that racist nazi bullies will point at ordinary folks and call them "white supremacist"
So Scientific American has taken the side of dangerous racists

[Anonymous No.15138626]

>>15138615
The problem is the press taking bogus claims seriously.
Good example is the 4 color conjecture.
The mathematicians who claimed to prove it essentially said
>"The computer ate my math homework."
And for some reason (unclear) the Western press bought it. They actually claimed that "the computer ate my math homework" is a valid proof.
This is a phenomenon of the Western press related to the "non-surveyable proof" phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-surveyable_proof
it's about the Western press manipulating non-mathematicians into believing things that mathematicians don't believe because non-mathematicians don't read proofs

[Anonymous No.15138627]

>>15138626

[Anonymous No.15138628]

>>15138532 utterly BTFO by >>15138604

[Anonymous No.15138634]

>>15138615
it's worth pointing out that corporations will abuse scientific research journals by getting them to publish ads that look like scientific research
this happened in math once
Language, Proof, Logic is a giant hardcover ad for a piece of software that implements a proprietary algorithm that is not explained in the text called "ana con" that is not standard and essentially an unclaimed trademark of the software product associated with this book-cum-ad
greedy people cutting corners
they don't want you to replicate
they want your $$$

[Anonymous No.15138636]

>>15138634

[Anonymous No.15138637]

>>15138627
this isn't science
this is more /pol/ crap
take it to /pol/

[Anonymous No.15138638]

>>15138637

[Anonymous No.15138639]

>>15138636
Do not fucking bring leaf politics in here.
Seriously. You should be banned.
Keep leaf politics in /pol/
wtf
why the fuck are you spamming /pol/ in this thread

[Anonymous No.15138642]

>>15138639

[Anonymous No.15138643]

>>15138638
Twitter is the loony bin.
It isn't science.
You keep posting /pol/ crap in this thread.
You're being a nuisance.
You're being disruptive.
You're a tolerated rule-breaker.

[Anonymous No.15138644]

>>15138643
Keep replying.

[Anonymous No.15138645]

>>15138642
This is about academic politics. It isn't science. You're spamming off-topic political garbage.

[Anonymous No.15138647]

>>15138645
Just keep replying.

[Anonymous No.15138656]

>>15138647
This is actually a great argument for murdering Russians that refuse to go along with a Western plan to impose elections, Western liberal democracy, and market economy on Russia and Russians by force
>"Your leader believes bs. Your leader refuses to go. No choice."
At this point, Putin is a replicant and we can just blow his fuckin' brains out.

[Anonymous No.15138658]

>>15138656
Are the Russian people getting what they deserve out of Putin?
No. They're getting a disconnected guy who is being fed lies by the CIA. The CIA has a right to feed this bully lies until the Russian people are strong enough to choose their own leaders.
Putin believes in "science" i.e. our CIA liars.

[Anonymous No.15138660]

>>15138656
>This is actually a great argument for murdering Russians
What if your handlers just keep lying? Will it be a good argument to murder the Chinese? What happens when you run out of people to murder in your impotent rage?

[Anonymous No.15138662]

>>15138660
woah woah woah
hold on there bby
hol' up
the claim is that Russia recently murdered 200,000 of its own...a claim I believe
forget the hot talk
the claim is that Russia recently did something a 10x Vietnam when you do a per-capita assessment (I take a 50,000 killed in action Vietnam death toll for the USA and 2,000,000 dead Vietnamese, approx.)
I believe it, but it's a lot of dead Russians, and we deserve to use the 200,000 dead vatniks against Russian leadership like a WEAPON

[Anonymous No.15138664]

>>15138660
Putin murdered those Russians, and there isn't anything we can do about it.
It isn't your fault.
::looks you in the eye::

[Anonymous No.15138679]

>>15138662
>>15138664
US golems are murdering Russians and Ukrainians.

[Anonymous No.15139257]

>>15137457
Nobel prizes aren't handed out for nothing.

[Anonymous No.15139471]

>>15138412
NTA but you're actually retarded

[Anonymous No.15139478]

>>15139471
Your only resort is to chimp out while my point stands undisputed.

[Anonymous No.15141563]

Why was this thread taken over by Chinese room and pol shit?
This board is dead

[Anonymous No.15141574]

>>15137071
Nobel Prizes aren't locally real. Do you really think Nobel made so much money on dynamite they can still pay out prizes from his wealth 100 years later?

[Anonymous No.15141661]

>come to thread expecting scientific discussion
>it's full of schizos
what the fuck is it about physics that attracts all the schizos on this board

[Anonymous No.15142001]

>>15137075

[Anonymous No.15142127]

>>15138431
>So basically, God exists?
Yes. Once the physical system (universe) is shown to be a contingent entity (it is contingent because it began, so it demands an explanation/cause), then there follows the logical necessity for and entity possessing at least some of the attributes commonly ascribed to god, namely the ability to initiate systems such as the physical (virtual) universe, and the attribute of not being temporally constrained. So not bound by time (cycles). The non-contingent entity (god) is called a necessary being in philosophical terms. Aquinas coined this term. Leibnitz formed arguments based on this concept as well. It was a way to express informally logically the necessity for a creator without bringing a particular theology into it. So the contingent being (universe) demands a cause/explanation for it's existence. the cause can't itself also be contingent, ie have a beginning, or else you get an infinite regress of contingent entities, ie 'well, if god created the universe, then who created god', ad infinitum. So the regress can be avoided by just postulating a single entity which wasn't itself booted up, ie not temporally constrained, ie didn't begin/outside of time (cycles). So an everlasting, beginningless and endless entityIf you want to see bertrand russell get schooled on this argument, watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVLKURgfft0

[Anonymous No.15142405]

>>15137218
why?
to me the opposite sounds more reasonable, i.e. you'd be totally insane if you think there's anything independent of anything else
everything is interdependent, this has been known for millennia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

[Anonymous No.15142415]

>>15142127
this is all true, but calling this boundless field of limitless potential from which everything springs a "creator" is completely wrong, because it's rather the exact other way around: it's the universe that selects itself for existence and refines itself out from this state
neither Aquinas nor Leibniz had knowledge of the necessary computational concepts to understand this process, and were also bogged down by centuries of totally misleading dead-end theology in the form of the Abrahamic faiths, culminating in Christianity with it's completely erroneous conception of a personal creator deity
of the most famous Western thinkers, I'd say Spinoza was the one to come closest
Langan formulates the process using contemporary concepts, making it abundantly clear exactly what is going on, and why there's no such thing as any creator deity, i.e. how reality literally creates itself from the inside and out:
>While a complete set of laws would amount to a complete deterministic history of the universe, calling the universe "completely deterministic" amounts to asserting the existence of prior determinative constraints. But this is a logical absurdity, since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it (by the containment principle). It follows that the universe freely determines its own constraints, the establishment of nomology and the creation of its physical (observable) content being effectively simultaneous and recursive. The incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will, by virtue of which the universe is freely created by sentient agents existing within it.

[bodhi No.15142455]

>>15138302
what is so hard for dumb people to understand that something can never come from nothing? It is completely illogical how do you not realize this? Even if you are too stupid to understand this what you are saying isnt even true because even "nothing" is something. What created that "nothingness" for something to come out of? What kind of simpleton mind cant process this? Why is it so hard for stupid people like you to understand that there is no such thing as "nothing" never was and never will be. There default position is on, not off. In fact there is no "off position" at all. JFC do you dumbasses ever take even one second to logically think through your position before just spouting diarrhea out of your face? Your premise is so retarded it doesnt even pass basic logic. WTF is wrong with you people that makes you this stupid? I am genuinely asking. Can you not understand basic knowledge? How do you function without being able to apply logic to your thoughts and action?

Dipshit like you like to laugh at and mock religitards but you think exactly like them, they seem logical to how retarded your bullshit is and they are fucking retards. You are even more retarded than they are talking about things coming from nothing ffs kys

[Anonymous No.15143017]

>>15142455
>butthurt
>more butthurt

[Anonymous No.15143024]

>>15137071
Pseudointellectual pomposity appeals to the IFLS community

[Anonymous No.15143075]

>>15137071
It means Einstein can go suck a dick

[Anonymous No.15143095]

>>15137071
they came here and stole what schizos and autists were talking about then acted like they went and discovered it themselves.

[Anonymous No.15143218]

>>15142001
kek

[Anonymous No.15143241]

>>15138362
>>15138350
Lmao you guys are turboretards.
Dont kys when you figure it out.
Eh or do kys.
Not my problem kek

[Anonymous No.15143258]

>>15143241
>i am losing my mind with seethe but i can't refute

[Anonymous No.15143275]

does Israel have nigger problems? How hard is it for a goy to get some prime khazaress milk shakes if you vacation there?

[Anonymous No.15143301]

>>15143275
>does Israel have nigger problems?
Yes.

[Jealous No.15143308]

What percentage of that article's readers know what local realism is?

[Anonymous No.15143535]

>>15143075
they didn't do shit to disprove einstein's ideas. they wish they did though, so badly. bell hated the conclusions that followed from own mathematics. today, just as he did, his ilk cling to the indefensible bullshit that is statistical independence, in a desperate attempt to silence any who would dare to pick up where einstein left off. these people are a bunch of babies who will defend "muh free will" at any cost, even at that of physics itself.

[Anonymous No.15143671]

The reasoning is so simple nobody imbesil theoretical physicscuck does not realize it.

The gerlach stern magnet dont divide spin 1/2 particles into two bins. It divides them into continous distribution that just has two sharpy local maximas.

[Anonymous No.15144171]

>>15138302
You didn't think this through.
Yes, what you said is a very pedestrian and uninteresting observation that applies to all systems. But the Chinese room specifically treats consciousness. Tell me, what does being "half" or "10%" as conscious entail? As far as we can tell, it's an indivisible binary experience: either you are conscious, or you are not. Even if you disagree, there are not convenient, apparent subdivisons: how would you divide colors? What accounts for a 10% color quale (and some midwit, please don't butt in with BW colorblindness -- they still perceive color qualia. just poor ones. I mean the bare absence of any). What is it constructed from?

But the Chink room is very, very divisible. It's the point.

[Anonymous No.15144202]

>>15138326
>the building knows Chinese
Yes. This "absurdity" that seems to have left you seething and sputtering was discovered by Buddhists 5000 years ago. Different "objects" like room and building don't really exist. Matter is a continuum and humans divide it up into objects arbitrarily. Knowing Chinese is somewhere, but it's not pointlike.

[Anonymous No.15144230]

>>15137071
Lesson 1 of using the internet. Always archive the article before posting it. Then only post the archived link.
https://archive.is/FITR9

[Anonymous No.15144456]

>>15137071
This is just quantum entanglement

[Anonymous No.15144738]

To the chink fags: explain me what book can give talk instructions endlessly, and without nonsense, then i tell you the solution to consciousness.

No, chatgpt or other weak AI wont do it as it gives nonsense after sone point.

[Anonymous No.15146482]

>>15137075
lmao

[Anonymous No.15146489]

>>15144202
>Yes.
The building is in Wisconsin. The arbitrary geographical boundary of Wisconsin knows Chinese. Just as ancient buddhist wisdom predicts. Seriously, you need to kill yourself ASAP.

[Anonymous No.15146491]

>>15144171
That's just the continuum fallacy. ALL emergent properties begin to break down as meaningful categories as you subdivide their constituents further and further.

"CO2 gas" is a real thing. A "CO2 molecule" is a real thing. These two things do not share many common properties. You could ask "how many CO2 molecules do I have to remove from a CO2 gas before it stops being a gas?" but that's a stupid fucking question. There is no definitive answer because the concept of "gas" is not fundamental, it's just a human abstraction. It's a collection of properties we give a name to for convenience's sake.

The same is true of consciousness. What does it mean to be "10% conscious"? Whatever you want. Consciousness is a human abstraction, it has no definite physical characteristics, so the answer to that question is arbitrary. How many grains of sand make a beach? How many hairs make a beard? Where we draw the "macroscopic dividing line" is not something with inherent meaning, it's only significant in terms of how useful the resulting approximation is.

[Anonymous No.15146492]

>>15146491
>ALL emergent properties begin to break down as meaningful categories as you subdivide their constituents further and further.
That's because they're not real and neither is your imaginary breakdown.

>The same is true of consciousness.
Thanks for saying out loud what everybody thinks: you are not conscious.

[Anonymous No.15146510]

>>15146492
Why do you presume that things are either "fundamental" or "nonexistent"? Emergent properties are real. CO2 gas IS REAL, it doesn't matter whether the concept of gas is fundamental or not. It's just that because it is an emergent property, we recognize that when we talk about it, we are using a shorthand for a collection of properties, and that as we get closer and closer to the boundary case where those properties cannot be accurately described by the macroscopic model, we need to switch to a different model.

Your way of reasoning suggests that absolutely nothing in the universe is real except quantum fields, which is an acceptable position to take as far as it goes, but if I start chucking apples at your head you're gonna probably want to be able to avoid them without having to solve the Schrodinger equation for every subatomic particle that constitutes those apples. You can say "the apple isn't real, it's just imaginary" but it's still gonna smack your dumb ass in the head if you don't duck.

[Anonymous No.15146514]

>>15146510
>Emergent properties are real
They're not. I don't know how to have a discussion with someone so mentally ill that they think coming up with a subjective abstraction in their head spawns new entities into objective existence.

[Anonymous No.15146516]

>>15146514
Watch out for that apple

[Anonymous No.15146520]

>>15146516
You are mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15146529]

>>15146516
Nothing "emerges" from my subjective interpretation of there being an apple.

[Anonymous No.15146547]

>>15146529
True. And when the apple smacks your skull, what ACTUALLY happens can be described in terms of the electromagnetic field repulsions of the electrons in all the atoms that compose the apple and all the atoms that compose your skull (and skin and muscles and other tissues). But that doesn't mean the apple "isn't real" and it doesn't mean your head "isn't real", it just means they aren't fundamental constituents of the universe. If the apple hits your head it's still going to hurt like a motherfucker. It makes sense to talk about the properties of the apple, like it's momentum and position, and it's useful to do so for reasons like "determining which way to move your head so it doesn't get hit by that apple". It isn't the most fundamental description of the state of the universe we could provide, but it's an approximation that makes testable and verifiable predictions.

[Anonymous No.15146561]

>>15146547
>that doesn't mean the apple "isn't real"
It does mean that. I'm sorry that you're too dumb to comprehend that SUBJECTIVE abstractions in your head aren't objective reality, on account of them being SUBJECTIVE.

[Anonymous No.15146568]

>>15146547
Look, you excruciatingly dumb nigger... when I say that subjective interpretations of reality aren't real, I'm not saying there is nothing real underlying them, what I'm saying is that they are entirely contingent upon the consciousness doing the interpretation. They don't have an independent existence. To propose that consciousness "emerges" the same way subjective interpretations of a mind make an "apple" appear is absurd for the obvious reason that consciousness needs to be there in the first place for anything to "emerge" like that.

[Anonymous No.15146571]

>>15146561
This is what I get for arguing with fucking philosophy majors. The abstraction does not define a NEW entity, it is simply a label placed on an EXISTING entity (well, collection of entities).

By your logic, the concept of "reality" is functionally meaningless. There is no such thing as "visible light" in your logic; that's an arbitrary distinction we create that separates some wavelengths of light from others. Electromagnetic radiation is real, but visible light isn't real. And actually, electromagnetic radiation isn't even real, that's just an arbitrary delineation from the weak nuclear force, they're actually the same force (the electroweak force) so even electromagnetic radiation isn't real.

In fact, following your logic, "objective reality" isn't even real, because the phrase "objective reality" is a human-imposed distinction between some sets of things and others. Notions like "objective" and "reality" and "subjectivity" and "abstraction" are all just terms humans made up, labels we apply to arbitrarily delineate one set of things from another set of things. You can use whatever definitions you want, you can speak any made-up bitch language you like where words mean whatever you say they mean. But the word "real" has a certain meaning in everyday usage and apples are real by that usage.

[Anonymous No.15146581]

>>15146571
Vile subhuman.

[Anonymous No.15146584]

>>15146568
Why though? Consciousness is an arbitrary label, just like apple. It isn't some fixed, concrete, fundamental, indivisible thing. It's a human term for a series of macroscopic, statistical properties that a complex system can have. What those properties are, what properties we insist are required to declare a system to be "consciousness", is entirely arbitrary. It has no fundamental physical basis and it doesn't need to.

That doesn't mean that those dividing lines have no value, it just means that examining the edge cases where our heuristic stops making sense requires reconsidering how precisely we've drawn the line. There is no "objective" answer because the question being asked is "what should we all AGREE counts as consciousness"

[Anonymous No.15146596]

>>15146584
>but why can't the thing that gives rise to "emergent phenomena" be an "emergent phenomenon"???
Because you've already conceded fully that "emergent phenomenons" don't have any independent existence and requires a mind capable of interpretion to exist in the first place. Are we gonna keep doing this, you dumb animal?

[Anonymous No.15146602]

>>15146584
>B is contingent upon A and necessitates A to exist first
>why can't B be the cause of A

[Anonymous No.15146619]

>>15146602
We're not talking about causes, we're talking about labels. I'm not suggesting consciousness is CAUSED by consciousness in a fundamental sense. I'm suggesting that the label "consciousness" is applied to certain collections of fundamental constituents BY consciousness.

You might as well argue that I can't use a printer to make a label that says "printer" because the printer has to exist before it can create the label. Don't be dense. The label and the thing it labels aren't interchangeable.

[Anonymous No.15146632]

>>15146619
Is consciousness an """emergent property"""?

[Anonymous No.15146701]

>>15146619
>>15146632
What happened? Did you just realize you're contradicting yourself over and over again? :^(

[Anonymous No.15146711]

This thread isn't about consciousness, it's about non locality. Why do you retards insist on doing this?

[Anonymous No.15146870]

There is no spooky action. There is just continous distribution. No discrete bins. People does not even understand that spin-1/2 does not mean 'up or down nothing else'. The particle has combination of both.
>>15146711
/sci/ is pozzed with pop sci