Do Scientists Really Think It's A Cause-Effect Reality?

[Anonymous No.15410317]

When all experiments in quantum physics have shown that you are not just an observer, but a participant. Double slit and delayed choice show this clearly. Delayed choice experiments also are a huge hint at retrocausality (and the recent discoveries of galaxies that shouldn't be there according to your myths). Different kinds of observations produce different material outcomes. Your Choice and Will has an effect on the material result. Durrr..

[Anonymous No.15410319]

>immma gooooonnnaaaa qunatuuuuuuuuuummmm!!!!

[Anonymous No.15410336]

>>15410317
>Do Scientists Really Think
Sometimes.

[Anonymous No.15410351]

>>15410317
Every space rocket launch makes me laugh uncontrollably

[Anonymous No.15410409]

>>15410317
This is very hard for people to understand

[Anonymous No.15410450]

>>15410317
>Do Scientists Really Think It's A Cause-Effect Reality?
In terms of "causes precede effects", yes. By definition of the concept. Obviously they don't think of it in terms of your false notion of it but nonetheless.
>not just an observer, but a participant.
"Observer" is a metaphor. Fact is at that level you can't measure something without changing what you've measured. Still cause and effect. Very plainly so.
>Double slit and delayed choice show this clearly.
Woo peddlers make up stories claiming that, but it really doesn't. In each and every case it follows the same boring fact. "Measuring the thing means you changed the energy in its "system" means you've changed the thing" Woo peddlers simply like to omit facts about experiments to depict them as showing things they do not. There's a reason consensus laughed and said "no, obviously not". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser#Consensus:_no_retrocausality
>Different kinds of observations produce different material outcomes.
Congratulations, you're at the beginnings of a child's realization that causation isn't as simple as a binary-logic additive property. Henri Poincaré for a more modern start. Edward Lorenz for chaos theory formalization. By the way? Still cause-effect.
>Your Choice and Will has an effect on the material result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

[Anonymous No.15410487]

>>15410450
Ah, it's just a billiard ball universe then. Some people are just lucky. Time to study Poincare and Lorenz now, thanks

[Anonymous No.15410494]

>>15410317
Current science is peer review based, not replication based. It is about status and prestige, not being right. It has always been this way but now the midwit participation greatly outnumbers real scientists, they have been either ignoring or barking against even your aforementioned simple conclusions. Once universities realized IQ or any attempt of measuring intelligence would reduce their student numbers and academic time, and therefore their profits, they quickly got rid of it. Public universities dont solve this either because their incentive is the reverse of output, the worse they perform the more taxmoney they claim to need.

[Anonymous No.15410502]

>>15410487
>Ah, it's just a billiard ball universe then.
I fucking hate that analogy. It's so bad because it still describes an additively linear system and is often used in attempts to describe non-additive systems (dynamic systems). In a competition of "self defeating analogies" that one is going to be very near first place if not the fucking king of bad analogies.
>Time to study Poincare and Lorenz now, thanks
Go down the rabbit hole of dynamic systems and I guess I'll see you in 8 years. On the up side, you'll be more competent of a scientist than most. The down side is you have to endlessly keep explaining "No, it does not really work like that just because in some cases it superficially can".

[Anonymous No.15410505]

>>15410502
How is it that one person can claim to be an expert in so many disciplines but understand none of them?

[Anonymous No.15410517]

>>15410502
Okay, okay, a really intricate series of billiard ball collisions then, perhaps with some mathematical and statistical relationships. Does that better describe your view?

[Anonymous No.15410545]

>>15410517
>Okay, okay, a really intricate series of billiard ball collisions then, perhaps with some mathematical and statistical relationships. Does that better describe your view?
No. Still additive. Think more like watching raindrops and ripples in puddles. Deterministic, but random, and while chaotic simple patterns still emerge. One of many times you can watch something so beautifully analogous to things we can't see.
>>15410505
>How is it that one person can claim to be an expert in so many disciplines but understand none of them?
Apparently only one anon on this board, ever, has ever mentioned chaos theory in any context? Have fun with that

[Anonymous No.15410547]

>>15410545
>Apparently only one anon on this board, ever, has ever mentioned chaos theory in any context? Have fun with that
No it's just that you in particular have very wrong opinions about a wide range of subjects.

[Anonymous No.15410558]

>>15410547
>No it's just that you in particular have very wrong opinions about a wide range of subjects.
ok

[Anonymous No.15410629]

>>15410317
It's a cause I said so in effect type reality

[Anonymous No.15410674]

>>15410558
I just call it like I see it, man.

[Anonymous No.15410677]

>>15410674
Don't suppose you'd be so kind as to refer to some reading or brief description on the nature of my being wrong on this? Or do you just go around randomly accusing anons and riding off into the smugness horizon? Either way would work I suppose

[Anonymous No.15410679]

>>15410677
The other anon did a good enough job in this thread. Maybe next time I see you talk about human biodiversity I'll give my 2 cents.

[Anonymous No.15411000]

>>15410679
Okay little chicken. I would say I hope I'm around to watch you schizo sperg on more random people but I probably won't be

[Anonymous No.15411022]

Quantum mechanics makes the midwits seethe. They cling to their 19th century determinitard dogma and can't deal with nondeterminism. To them everything has to be bouncing balls. They can't wrap their head around the idea of the observer having a special role. "It's just any interaction that collapses the wave function" they say, and then they recoil in cognitive dissonance when presented with delayed choice experiments.

[Anonymous No.15411024]

the delayed choice experiment is not evidence of a retrocausal system. i'm going to assume you're a retard of the many worlds variety, in which case, it should be clear to you that the system which alters the photon's path creates a superposition in a parallel world. for the rest of us, the photon's behavior is still determined by the laws of quantum mechanics, without the need for retrocausality as the system and the photon become entangled in the present.
if you understand physics at the speed of light, you should also be able to understand that the future state (from your frame) can become entangled with what you view as the present state - this also does not involve retrocausality, but personally, i don't buy this explanation.
>recent discoveries of galaxies that shouldn't be there
there are such discoveries, many I would hardly call recent. the model of gravity is simply incomplete, and, due to lack of evidence, scientists have had to fall back on ol' reliable (making schizo shit up like quantum foam, quantum gravity, dark energy, dark matter - although, dark energy seems to solve a lot more problems than it creates).
>your choice and will has an effect on the material result
you should will yourself into being less visibly ignorant

[Anonymous No.15411027]

>inb4 i am accused of believing retrocausality is an impossibility simply because i point out that the delayed choice experiment is incapable of proving it

[Anonymous No.15411041]

>>15411024
>i'm going to assume you're a retard of the many worlds variety
Why would you assume that? Because it's necessary for your shallow strawman argument? Many worlds doesn't involve retrocausality. The interpretation built upon retrocausality would be the transactional interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15411044]

>>15411027
Delayed choice doesn't prove retrocausality but it does prove the special role of the observer.

[Anonymous No.15411223]

>>15410677
Schizo.

[Anonymous No.15411226]

>>15411024
Quantum foam isn't a proposition to fix gravity rotations not matching data. Quantum foam is observed via the casimir effects.

[Anonymous No.15411591]

>>15410502
are you a homosexual?

[Anonymous No.15411660]

>>15411591
Autists never really turn gay. They just become cucks or try to be women.

[Anonymous No.15412084]

>>15410317
it only shows that we only have rudimentary tools to conduct the observation. We ourselves interfere with the experiment, thus there is a difference in the outcome. There is nothing mystical about that

[Anonymous No.15412464]

>>15411591
lol no where did that even come from? I wake up in the morning and the only response is "r u gey" goddamn I don't want your booty anon go away