/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15281867]

>“That's such a huge payoff that I'm always puzzled that retrocausality wasn't taken more seriously decades ago,” Price said, adding that part of the answer may be that retrocausality has frequently been conflated with another far-out concept called superdeterminism.
>“Another possible big payoff is that retrocausality supports the so-called 'epistemic' view of the wave function in the usual quantum mechanics description—the idea that it is just an encoding of our incomplete knowledge of the system,” he continued. “That makes it much easier to understand the so-called collapse of the wave function, as a change in information, as folk such as Einstein and Schoedinger thought, in the early days. In this respect, I think it gets rid of some more of the (apparently) non-classical features of quantum mechanics, by saying that they don't amount to anything physically real.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/epvgjm/a-growing-number-of-scientists-are-convinced-the-future-influences-the-past

Transactional interpretation bros? We're winning!

[Anonymous No.15281875]

>>15281867
Did they rediscover planning ahead?

[Anonymous No.15281878]

>>15281867
Is this the 16th century or what?
Deterministic physics imply that the future is predictable and that the past can be described from the current state of a system.
Quantum mechanics breaks this down and states that the present can cause many futures and that any future is compatible with many pasts

[Cult of Passion No.15281881]

>>15281875
>planning ahead
Prepared behind?

[Anonymous No.15281974]

>>15281867
>it's another click bait episode

[Anonymous No.15282248]

DMT allows for small amounts of retrocausality, screenshot this post it will be made public in a few months. Source: I saw it while on DMT.

[Anonymous No.15282293]

>>15281867
>vice.com
Into the trash it goes

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4wb999/dear-straight-guys-its-time-to-start-putting-things-in-your-butt
https://www.vice.com/en/article/594mak/how-to-eat-out-a-non-op-trans-woman-oral-sex

[Anonymous No.15282527]

>loath

[Anonymous No.15282542]

>>15281867
garbage. they won't achieve anything by twisting causality in a desperate attempt to evade determinism.

[Anonymous No.15282547]

>>15281878
nonsense. determinism doesn't entail predictability. it only does so assuming you have complete information of the system (we don't). qm is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15282552]

>>15282542
hilarious how hard determinism causes even physicists to cope and seethe,

[Anonymous No.15282960]

>>15281867
>You have to be very careful in a retrocausal model because the fact of the matter is, we can't send signals back in time,” Adlam explained. “It's important that we can't, because if we could, then we could produce all sorts of vehicles or paradoxes. You have to make sure your model doesn't allow that.
This mindset is annoying
>You have to make sure your model doesn't allow that
Saying it as though the math they come up with is what the universe will follow instead of the other way around. Basically ruling out possibilities based on their personal opinions or ignorance of the research, because there are some physicists working on exactly that, sending messages back in time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett#Time_travel_research

[Anonymous No.15282994]

>>15282552
it's tragic.

[Anonymous No.15283243]

>>15282960
>produce all sorts of vehicles or paradoxes
So do black holes but that doesn't stop anyone from researching them
Basically he's full of shit

[Anonymous No.15283398]

>>15282547
>it only does so assuming you have complete information of the system
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.15283424]

How would retrocausality differ from having closed causal curves?

[Anonymous No.15283444]

>>15282960
>Saying it as though the math they come up with is what the universe will follow instead of the other way around
You're doubly mistaken. First, he's saying that when modeling a system, you must take care that the model doesn't exhibit traits which the system being modeled doesn't exhibit - not because this affects the modeled system in any way, but merely because it reduces the precision of the model. Second, it isn't "the other way around." The universe doesn't follow the model, but the model doesn't follow the universe, either, it's an approximation that approaches the universe as its precision approaches infinity.

[Anonymous No.15283530]

>>15283444
i think you need to read my post again. He explicitly states
>we can't send signals back in time. It's important that we can't, because if we could, then we could produce all sorts of vehicles or paradoxes
He is saying this as though it's been proven that signals cannot be sent back in time. He's not saying "we probably can't, he's saying "we can't". Then he says
>You have to make sure your model doesn't allow that
Says that he's going to ensure the math suits his assumption, that signals cannot be sent back in time. General Relativity allows for time travel into the past, but he's saying, no, i'm not going to allow for that. This is what I was talking about. I don't know what you're talking about. It says right here and in many sources that it's not known if time travel in the past is possible or not
>General relativity: Time travel to the past is theoretically possible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

[Anonymous No.15283533]

>>15281867
What does this look like for creatures that aren't living? Obviously living things try to create a specific future, but what about seemingly lifeless things? Are rocks really willing to be more rocky?

[Anonymous No.15283548]

>>15283530
>He is saying this as though it's been proven that signals cannot be sent back in time. He's not saying "we probably can't, he's saying "we can't".
That was an accurate statement at the time he made that claim. As far as I know, it's still accurate today. If, at some time in the future, it's empirically demonstrated that sending signals back in time is possible, then that would be a good reason for discarding any model in which doing so is not possible. But all you're saying is "some models which which sending information to the past is possible exist; therefore, we ought to discard any model in which that isn't possible." That isn't a valid inference.

[Anonymous No.15283717]

>>15283548
No, he's not saying "we can't right now", he's saying it's impossible. From the last line of my post
>General relativity: Time travel to the past is theoretically possible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#General_relativity
Did Einstein disallow time travel to the past in his mathematics because they couldn't do it at the time he created general relativity? No, he didn't. Because doing such a thing is absurd

[Anonymous No.15283720]

>>15283717
These quirky spacetimes are fictions because they are not compatible with real mass-energy distributions. Best known example is the alcubierre drive and its negative energy needs

[Anonymous No.15283884]

>>15283717
>No, he's not saying "we can't right now", he's saying it's impossible
I don't think you're observing the distinctions between reality, a theory which attempts to describe reality, and a model which attempts to implement that theory.
General relativity says that it may be possible for time travel to the past to occur. It does not say that it is necessarily possible for time travel to the past to occur. So it is not necessary for a given model of GR to include reverse time travel, and in fact a model can prohibit reverse time travel while still being compatible with GR.
If and when reverse time travel is demonstrated in reality, this would result in a new theory, call it General Relativity + Reverse Time Travel, in which reverse time travel is not only possibly possible but necessarily possible. Your objection is that this dude's model isn't compatible with GR+RTT. But there's currently no reason to privilege models of GR+RTT over other models of GR.

[Anonymous No.15283897]

>>15281867
So they're telling me that what I'm going to do tomorrow influences what I did yesterday?

What are they smoking?

[Anonymous No.15283910]

>>15281867
"Quantum interpretations/foundations of quantum mechanics" is an intellectually bankrupt field which aims at every opportunity to attack the science of quantum mechanics by making it seem like "anyone can choose and make up any interpretation of qm that they like and they're all equivalent because science can never find out the truth anyway". This is why philosophers and philosophy types (like the ones in this thread) stick to it like flies stick to shit. Thread hidden.

[Anonymous No.15283916]

>>15283910
you posted this silliness in the other thread, lmao. no, each interpretation claims that it is the correct one, and the others are wrong. and this must be so, since they contradict each other. it's not an "everybody wins" game.

[Anonymous No.15283922]

>>15283910
Delicious new copypasta

[Anonymous No.15283926]

[Anonymous No.15285169]

>>15283926
QM is onions now?

[Anonymous No.15285181]

>>15285169
always has been, its jewish

[Anonymous No.15285182]

>>15285169
No. QM is fine, but the people who want to be like "whoa, duuuude" about what it might mean are.

[Anonymous No.15285251]

>>15285182
>QM is fine
it's really not. it's incorrect. it doesn't describe how nature really works.

[Anonymous No.15285261]

>>15285251
How does nature really work?

[Anonymous No.15285263]

>>15282960
>>15283243
>>15283444
>>15283548
>>15283717
>>15283720
But we do see those. We call them "quantum mechanics".

[Anonymous No.15285269]

>>15281881
My behind is prepared for you anon ;)

[Anonymous No.15285273]

>>15285181
Explain the fact that Jordan, one of the inventors along with Heisenberg, was active in the SA

[Anonymous No.15285295]

>>15281867
>rewrite history book
>burn books
>invent new shit about the past
*suprised pikachu face*

[Anonymous No.15285302]

>vice.com
co-owned by rupert murdoch & george soros

[Anonymous No.15285307]

quantum particles are inherently retrocausal. they travel backwards through time relative to us, 100% of the time. shit we perceive as future "prediction" or multiverse fuckery, like the elitzur–vaidman bomb tester, is us confusing the particle's past for its future.

[Anonymous No.15285309]

>>15285307
wrong.

[Anonymous No.15285313]

>>15285309
false

[Anonymous No.15285361]

>>15283530
Theoretically possible and possible are two completely different things, numbnuts, it's theoretically possible that the universe is just God's left nut, but practically speaking the idea can be dismissed entirely, because you'd have to make up a completely impossible scenario for it to be theoretically possible in the first place and so it is with time travel, because first you'd have to prove that time exists, then you'd have to prove that every possible state of existence is still around, which is already horseshit, then you'd have to prove that these states of existence could somehow be interacted with in the first place, saying something is theoretically possible is absolutely meaningless, sadly reality is not a scifi Nigflix series and time travel, according to the current known laws of the universe, is fundamentally impossible.

[Anonymous No.15285375]

>>15285307
How does one keep retrocausal signally from being a normal occurrence if that is the case?

[Anonymous No.15287203]

>>15285251
I didn't say it was "correct." I said it's fine. Right now, it does good work in experiments but we know it's not the final theory.
Since we know that, it's absolutely masturbatory to draw conclusion from it about woooahhhh dude stuff.

[Anonymous No.15287436]

>>15281867
> vice.com
Shoo, shoo, get two covid boosters in each arm or something.

[Anonymous No.15287441]

>>15287436
> vice.com
co-owned by rupert muroch and george soros

[Anonymous No.15287578]

>>15283884
I don't know what you're talking about. If you read OPs article they're clearly working on a theory to explain what's going on. Why would time travel to the past need to be added onto general relativity as its own distinct name, it already allows for time travel via closed timelike curves. Quantum mechanics also allows for time travel. I don't think there's a semantic difference between model and theory here either, the standard model is a theory. These people are working on modelling the situation so it can be incorporated into the accepted theory

[Anonymous No.15288300]

>>15281867
>another far-out concept called superdeterminism.
its amazing how physicstards will invent ridiculous assumptions and then call not using those assumptions "far-out"

superdeterminism AKA normal determinism is literally the default assumption of all physics since newton. you dont get to assume two measurements are statistically independent for no reason; even in statistics the concept of independence is treated as a mere approximation and not a description of reality

[Anonymous No.15288318]

>>15288300
word. never stop calling out their bs

[Anonymous No.15288681]

>>15281867
Over a year ago I authored a phrase in a mod list for Rimworld which touches on this very issue:
>present actions changing the past and future
Interesting someone else was thinking of this same possibility. I feel a little less alone in the universe. Thanks, OP.

[Anonymous No.15289833]

>>15281867
Acausality is the future. Causality is just a rough approximation that breaks down on extreme conditions.

[Anonymous No.15289845]

>>15281867
>theory of relativity doesn’t work
>dark energy
>dark matter
>quantum physics
All are created to keep ToR alive, to keep up with the disproven idea that time is relative, not absolute, and that light speed is constant. Big bang theory - itself a creation based on the ToR has been disproven.
Nothing works with the current model, patch after patch is made and the model becomes ever more complex and illogical.
Now let’s assume speed of light is variant
Assume time is constant
Assume gravity is an electromagnetic force caused by plasma phenomena.
All of the sudden the formation of universe, the seemingly constant velocity of light becomes easy to explain. Aether theory was right. Light travels in a medium and that medium is plasma which makes up 99.999 % of the universe. Light waves are electromagnetic waves generated by plasma.
How long until plasma theory breaks free from the chains of ”Einstein Professors” (this is an actual title).

[Anonymous No.15290831]

>>15281867
"People drink to feel drunk after." - Scientist

[Anonymous No.15292084]

>>15282960
Isn't that why we're stuck in a rut in the first place? Everyone is trying to make the theories match what they think things should be like.

[Anonymous No.15292093]

>>15289845
kys

[Anonymous No.15292143]

this makes no sense
past & future are political footballs
they're essentially off-limits as far as science is concerned
what does OP even mean