Is it even possible to refute determinism/superdetermism?

Quantum uncertainty is still too specific to be truly random or uncertain.

That things can happen at all, even quantum weirdness, implies everything is hyperdeterministic.

>>16674934 (OP)
The fact that you can neither prove nor refute it should indicate that it doesn’t make a difference either way, like solipsism

>>16674941
The whole determinism vs probability thing is inherently annoying yeah

>>16674934 (OP)
Bingo. Bohr is a faggot.

Notice how no one on this board can refute OP

>>16679073
>"Quantum uncertainty is still too specific to be truly random or uncertain"
You made a biased, subjective, untestable, and unsubstantiated claim that doesn't require refutation by default.

So experiments show that local hidden variable theories are not consistent with physical reality. Even if particles had some definite properties, they can instantly be effected by some measurement on the other side of the universe. Is that not weird?

Even if the universe is deterministic, the important part is that the *information* to make any deterministic predictions will absolutely never be available. At that point it's purely imaginary to say that the world is deterministic and not uncertain. Inaccessible truths are the realm of philosophy. Information is what separates determinism and uncertainty.

>>16679079
So you can’t do it

>>16679107
>So experiments show that local hidden variable theories are not consistent with physical reality. Even if particles had some definite properties, they can instantly be effected by some measurement on the other side of the universe. Is that not weird?
That still denotes a cause since something happened at all. It’s not that weird. Your observation is a part of the cause. That their properties aren’t definite until some vital moment still means there’s a vital cause.

#ShitHappens

>>16674941
You can trivially prove solipsism to be false

>>16674934 (OP)
>Quantum uncertainty is still too specific to be truly random or uncertain.
Quantum is bullshit

Anything with quantum in the name
I’m at the point where I’m not even sure any particulates even exist, waves for sure exist, particles? Seems like schizo babble.

>>16674941
>The fact that you can neither prove nor refute it should indicate that it doesn’t make a difference either way, like solipsism
Oh no everything we see is completely deterministic

The only sort of pseudo claim to the contrary is bell’s inequality which contains an error in the methodology

Literally everything we use relies on causality and determinism, machines wouldn’t work if it didn’t exist, imagine if there were constant bit flips, not from gamma rays but from literally no reason, people would have noticed, all man made machines and evolutionary life is designed to reduce noise and chaos, but it’s still able to build 100% reliable deterministic small structures and logic gates, wether you talk about mosfets or neurons.

From all observations reality seems to be a completely deterministic and mathematically smooth (impossible to properly computer with algebra) universe

>>16679107
>So experiments show that local hidden variable theories are not consistent with physical reality.
That’s completely false
Only bells inequality which is disproven claims that (do it yourself the error is blatant, I have a vested interests in the stalling of human technology, for me to help especially without getting credit for it on an anonymous image board would be a massive conflict of interest for me)
There’s also the quantum eraser and delayed quantum eraser which unlike the polariser experiments go from making one mistake to being made by literal apes, those experiments are complete nonsense from start to finish, just read the papers if you have a brain you’ll spot all the logic defying things they do and conclude

>Even if particles had some definite properties, they can instantly be effected by some measurement on the other side of the universe. Is that not weird?
you’re talking about something completely different and no it’s not weird at all
The exact same thing works on a macroscopic scale, again my lips are tied but the analogy is very direct, remember they need a particle to be completely undosturbed... aka you just need conservation of properties like spin.... big whoop, woah that’s so crazy, objects in motions will remain in motion, woah, that’s like, ground breaking science in antiquity with the first siege engines bro!

Bohr is a fag that is all

>>16680120
>You can trivially prove solipsism to be false
Can you though? How exactly?

>>16677914
Was

>>16674934 (OP)
Idk

>>16680108
He can’t do if.

>>16680257
Have you ever been surprised in your life? The answer should be yes and that immediately disproves solipsism because surprise is impossible if the only thing that exists is your consciousness

>>16674934 (OP)
There is no such thing as randomness
>inb4 muh primitive inability to make precise measurements proves it

>>16683333
Okay but quantum quacks think they’ve found the Root of All.

>>16683298
I get surprised in dreams too though

>>16683298
You might be retarded anon.

>>16684577
What forms your dreams?
>>16684634
Nah he raises a good point.

>>16684789
>What forms your dreams?
I don't know, why don't you tell me what point you're getting at with this?

>>16685533
>I don't know
Come back to me when you know this.

The kot is korrect.

>>16677914
>>16680228
Why are you like this

>>16687501
Science is tribal.

>>16685533
the point is that you are never surprised in your dreams

>>16689372
But thats wrong and thats not the point

>>16689372
That is false. I’ve had literal jump scare nightmares that kept me awake until morning.

Shit. Happens.

>>16679107
>local hidden variable
Who has ever said they're perfectly local? It sounds like a strawman.
>At that point it's purely imaginary to say that the world is deterministic and not uncertain
That's absolutly retarded and you just really don't want to admit that you have no free will. Because that would, ironically, make you a lot more accountable for your actions than if you had the excuse of being possessed by an undeterministic god-spark.

>>16679107
It actually just means that “spooky action at a distance” isn’t local.

>>16674934 (OP)
kot

>>16674934 (OP)
no. i'm a determinist.
i love telling this to people who believe in g*d. it's like they got slapped.

maybe the substrate of the universe is fundamentally absurd, that's what quantum "mechanics" are, we just happen to occupy a fragile bubble where the rules are such that the entire universe can exist, but that could be wiped out in an instant by the insane random substrate of no rules it's all pinned on.
this is my best guess when quantum "scientists" can't answer basic questions and make up shit like "dark matter" which is 99% of matter but conveniently invisible and massless, or "dark energy" it's opposite equivalent.
this tells me the scientists don't know what they're observing, but saying "i don't know" doesn't get you grant money.

>>16692985
Kot?

>>16674934 (OP)
No. If existence wasn’t deterministic then nothing would be happening at all. This is the correct assertion, or assumption.

>>16674934 (OP)
>Quantum uncertainty is still too specific to be truly random or uncertain.
it's not even clear that it's real. many-worlds is deterministic. the only "random" component is which world "you" "end up in" as the observer and that's fake. all the possibilities happen.

>>16695250
>many-worlds is deterministic
I’ve bet probabilistic cunts who claim it’s actually probabilistic, not deterministic, as a form of cope. Or maybe it’s the other way around?

>>16695278
I’ve met*

>>16674934 (OP)
My understanding is you can refute determinism. But you can't refute super-determinism. Super-determinism says that everything was determined at the start of the universe, so if you do an experiment and it seems like it's non-deterministic, then that's not because reality is actually non-deterministic, it's because the out come of that experiment was determined by a set of initial conditions at the moment of the big bang.

>>16695278
many-worlds is definitely deterministic, that's one of the major points in its favor. you can sort of use probabilistic reasoning to think about it but what's happening under the hood is deterministic, there's just no single instantiation of you that has access to all of it at once.

>>16695299
>many-worlds is definitely deterministic
“Many-worlds is definitely probabilistic” is what you will be met with.

Cant actually compute a strictly deterministic system, at best you get probability distributions.

You cant even solve the 3 body problem of orbits in a purely deterministic fashion.
Cant solve QM in a purely deterministic fashion.
So both at very small and large scales, determinism doesnt work.

It's kind of a moot point, an infinitely large stochastic process is essentially a set of all sets some of which will be deterministic.

>>16696453
I'm not sure this is a valid argument. 3 body is solvable if you know the initial conditions. QM is a model that at its core is not meant to be deterministically solvable. It's a useful construct rather than the way things actually work.

Bohr you bastard

>>16674934 (OP)
Stupid catposter

>>16696453
Don't conflate chaos with uncertainty. The 3 body problem can be solved with infinite measurement accuracy. The usefulness of information degrades over time in a chaotic system but is still worth something.

>>16698810
>Don't conflate chaos with uncertainty
Is true chaos even possible? There is order even to chaos, allowing it to be “chaotic” (a relative phrase) to begin with.

>>16700336
Functionally yes. Think about how difficult it would be to "unmix" a cup of tea. Nearly impossible.

>>16700348
Is that really chaos though?

>>16700348
There is a set of chemical conditions preventing it from being undone. That is order. The universe is telling you, “No! You can’t do that! It’s not allowed!”, and that’s an effective order.

>>16700378
Tea mixing is a physical reaction, not chemical and it is time reversible.

The point is that quantum mechanics doesn't have to gurantee that things are random. It just states that there are fundamental limits on how much information we can have. Chaos propagates measurement error to human scales quickly and leads to many processes being practically random at a fundamental level.

Quantum computers threaten to break computer security, but quantum mechanics also guarantee the existence of fundamental information limits, that can be leveraged to create new and unbreakable forms of cryptography.

Whether the world is deterministic past the point of information limits is a Philosophy question.

>>16700569
>Tea mixing is a physical reaction, not chemical and it is time reversible.
Irrelevant.

>>16700569
— Mixing tea involves several chemical processes, from the interaction of hot water with tea leaves to the addition of milk and sugar. These reactions impact the flavor, aroma, and even the color of the final beverage. Key components like polyphenols, amino acids, and enzymes in tea leaves react with water, while milk can interact with these compounds, and sugar dissolves, affecting the overall taste profile.

Silly putty is the perfect analogy.

— Silly Putty primarily exhibits physical changes, although a chemical reaction occurs during its creation. The putty's ability to change shape, bounce, and flow are examples of physical changes, while the cross-linking of molecules during its formation from glue and borax represents a chemical change.

But the point anon was making is that the concept of chaos is a relative one. There is no chaos in truth.

>>16702549
>LLM Response
>Over-complicating a simple thought experiment for no reason
>"There is no chaos in truth"

Philosophers are becoming emboldened by sycophantic LLMs these days. There is no chaos in truth? There is no prediction with chaos, and there are limits to the amount of truth that is even available to you, so determinism is bullshit.

>>16679107
your experiments are fake and gay

why there is so little done about particle physics? you just claim there is wave function for finding an electron, why not compute the entire path of electron?

>>16674934 (OP)
I like how some in the scientific community have just forgotten that things happen in order to happen.

>>16674934 (OP)
The Bell experiments disproved hidden variables. The only cope is superdeterminism, which has not led to any testable predictions.

>>16704548
>The Bell experiments disproved hidden variables
No it didn’t you fucking retard. It just said they can’t be local. Determinism requires itself to be superdeterministic.

>>16702670
You’re just proving his point. What is seen as chaotic or impossible to understand is merely relative. It’s one sided. It’s a human problem.

>>16705808
>It just said they can’t be local.
Good luck getting some testable predictions out of nonlocal hidden variables.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Tetrix_projection_fill_plane.svg

Can you feel it? There has been a disturbance in the force.

>>16705850
Wow. You sure are a defeatist. You act like because we can’t see it, what we CAN see is the end all be all. Doubt.jpg

>>16705870
We are talking about theoretical limits retard. Nothing about it is relative. You can't ever possibly determine what happens past that limit. So "determinism" is a meaningless word.

>>16705894
> Nothing about it is relative
Yes it is. Shit happens. If we don’t know how it happens then it’s “chaotic” not chaotic.

>>16705894
>We are talking about theoretical limits retard
How do you those theoretical limits are the actual limit

>>16705850
>we can’t test this shit
>therefore the shit we can test is the only shit that matters
This is why science is dying.

>>16674934 (OP)
It’s really not, but, they will still try.

>>16674934 (OP)
If everything is truly hyperdeterministic, including our thoughts and perceptions, then the concept of “refuting” anything becomes incoherent—we're just playing out inevitable scripts. Ironically, even the belief in determinism could be determined, making its own epistemic justification meaningless.
Moreover, the notion that quantum uncertainty is “too specific” to be random overlooks Bell’s theorem and the empirical violation of Bell inequalities. These violations rule out local hidden variable theories, which weakens the case for traditional determinism unless one appeals to non-local or conspiratorial superdeterminism—which, while logically possible, is unfalsifiable and thus borders on metaphysical rather than scientific.
In that sense, superdeterminism isn't a scientific position—it's a denial of science's ability to test its own assumptions.

>>16707143
>It's another debate-slash-cope on free will
Every
Fucking
Time
With you people

>>16707143
>These violations rule out local hidden variable theories, which weakens the case for traditional determinism unless one appeals to non-local or conspiratorial superdeterminism—which, while logically possible, is unfalsifiable and thus borders on metaphysical rather than scientific.
>conspiratorial superdeterminism
>is unfalsifiable and thus borders on metaphysical rather than scientific.
Lol.
>In that sense, superdeterminism isn't a scientific position—it's a denial of science's ability to test its own assumptions.
You're why science has become one big giant woman.

>>16674934 (OP)
nope

>>16674934 (OP)
>Is it even possible to refute determinism/superdetermism?
that should be of no concern as there's no use in knowing something which you cannot change. it's not like you can act on that information.

>>16674934 (OP)
lolno

>>16674934 (OP)
Determinism is at odds with relativity.
Superdeterminism is very convoluted cope.

>>16710813
Pilot-wave is created by and for literal Marxists who can't cope with QM.
>>16674934 (OP)
Superdeterminism requires so much unnecessary mental gymnastics that only midwits who never worked in physics can subscribe to it.
>>16695278
In many worlds, both locality and reality would be preserved. So technically, many worlds is just superdeterminism * infinite

>>16691636
>Who has ever said they're perfectly local?
Something is either local or non-local. Non local hidden variables violate the theory of relativity.
>That's absolutly retarded and you just really don't want to admit that you have no free will.
Superdeterminism which denies free will heavily violates Occam's razor. This is why it's called conspiratorial, because the conditions needed for superdeterminism to reconcile with Bell's Tests are extremely convoluted and pointless.

>I deny it because it denies me free will
What the fuck how do you come to this conclusion

>>16710837
Superdeterminism is simply extremely unlikely compared to the mainstream interpretation of non-determinism.
Superdeterminism basically says the universe is rigged so that every Bell test, no matter where or how it's done, even using human-produced RNG seed like in the Big Bell Test (100000 participants), always gives the “quantum” result. But strangely, this cosmic coordination never shows up in any other experiment. It's like the universe only conspires to give you false results when you do this particular experiment. That selective determinism makes it logically possible but scientifically untrustworthy.
Not only that, superdeterminism implies that the initial conditions of the universe simply led to a chain of events where physicists believe in quantum indeterminism, even though everything is fully deterministic underneath.
It makes all empirical science suspect. If your evidence can be perfectly staged by the initial state of the universe, how do you *ever* know what’s true? It undercuts the idea that we can test or falsify theories, because any outcome could just be “part of the script.”

>>16710859
You appear to be insane.

>>16710822
Anyone who says (super)determinism violates or disallows free will is insane.

>>16711902
Refer to the image >>16710813

>>16711900
Q.E.D.
PS. Interesting that even the AI knows that superdeterminism is associated mostly with Sabine.

>>16711929
>Sabine
Mindbroken.

>>16711925
>>16711929
Refer to the image in >>16711036 if you’re going to cope like this.

>>16711949
Read the bot's reply.

>>16711925
>>16710813
You're a retarded moron. Since you don't believe in reality, quantum mechanics isn't real and you refuted yourself. Get fucked, cuck

>>16711929
>using AI to reaffirm your bias
lol

>>16674934 (OP)
>>16711952
>>16711956

here's a helpful link:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=bell%27s+inequality

>>16711957
Here's a helpful link for you
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=how+to+kill+yourself

Bell's theorem schizos literally believe that quantum mechanics proves that quantum mechanics is not real and reality doesn't exist. Lmao, these people should be shamed in public for their profound retardation.

>>16711952>>16711963
Bell’s theorem doesn’t say QM isn’t real or that reality doesn’t exist. It says that if QM’s predictions are correct (which they are), then any underlying theory has to give up either locality or realism. QM gives up realism, Bohm gives up locality.
None of that is ‘QM disproving QM’, it’s QM working so well that it redefines what ‘real’ means. If you're too smooth-brained to understand this, that's on you

>>16711967
>Bell’s theorem doesn’t say QM isn’t real or that reality doesn’t exist.
> QM’s predictions are correct
>QM gives up realism
Retarded fucking moron. Learn some basic logic before masturbating to muh bell's theorem.

>>16711969
Bell assumes local realism and shows that this combo leads to testable predictions that don’t match experiment. That’s called a proof by contradiction. QM doesn’t "give up realism" arbitrarily, it’s one of the minimal sacrifices required to stay consistent with experiment.
I suggest you refer to >>16711957 for further insights.

>>16711973
A self-described reality denier trying to lecture others on reality. You belong in a schizophrenia ward along with the rest of your kind who have troubles accepting reality.

>Experiments performed in the real world prove that the real world doesn't exist
How braindead does one have to be to believe this?

>>16711977
>>16711981
You keep screaming “reality” like a toddler who just learned a new word, but you clearly don’t know what’s being debated.

>>16711983
You are a reality denying schizo who thinks he can decide what reality is. There's nothing to debate with you since you are terminally mentally ill.

>>16711985
>>16711977
Let me define it for you, but you should know this if you had any actual education:
In QM, "reality" typically refers to whether physical properties (like position, momentum, spin) have definite, observer-independent values before measurement.
Realism is the belief that particles possess definite properties at all times, even when not observed.
The QM view is that many properties don’t exist in a definite state until observed, they exist only as probabilities.

>>16711986
>In QM, "reality" typically refers to
There's no "In QM" you fucking moron. QM is a part of reality, you don't get to fucking define reality to be optional.
>Realism is the belief that particles possess definite properties at all times, even when not observed.
So by denying realism you also don't believe that the particles have to property of being described by quantum mechanics either, contradicting yourself like a braindead schizo.

>>16711988
You're confusing ontology with physics, which is typical of someone who's never sat through a single basic university level physics course with his brain turned on.
When physicists discuss realism, we mean a specific technical assumption: that systems have definite, observer-independent properties at all times. That’s testable.
Denying realism in this context doesn’t mean "QM doesn’t describe particles"—it means that QM doesn’t describe particles as having definite classical properties prior to observation.
You're attacking strawmen because you don't understand the terms. This isn't your liberal arts philosophy class, this is physics. Learn the difference between technical and colloquial “reality,” or stop posting.

>>16711990
>When physicists discuss realism, we mean a specific technical assumption
>That’s testable.
You're not physicist, you are a schizophrenic. That's why you think the fact that reality exists is something that needs to be tested. You have a severe mental illness which disqualifies you from doing physics.

>>16711994
it's not just testable, it's been tested, and the results show that realism is incompatible with experimental results if locality is also assumed.
I've worked in physics for longer than you've been outside of your public high school (assuming you've graduated from one). Stop embarrasing yourself.

>>16712000
Fuck off back to your rotten mental ward, reality denying schizophrenic.

>Things happen
>Therefore determinism
Except that up to a point there is absolutely no correlation between them whatsoever
/thread

>OP has determined that something is going to happen
>only time will tell
>but he has no idea what
Yeah I guess we can't refute super determinism dude. We can't refute your non-falsifiable philosophical rambling.

Guys, they already performed a Wigner's friend experiment with photons. Wigner and his friend do observe different realities.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832
> In a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario, experimentally violating the associated Bell-type inequality by five standard deviations. If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way.
Basically experiment confirms that mainstream interpretation implies subjective reality at the quantom level.
This is not that much stranger than relativity, which holds time and length to be observer-dependant.
I'm not kvetching about "reality not being real", I don't even know if this counts as reality being real or not, cuz I'm not a philosofag. It is what it is, and it's fine.

>>16712184
Sorry bud, my quantum subjective reality says that experiment is invalid.

Reality denying schizos are like
>Everything is subjective
>except that statement, that's objective
>also this ^ one too
>and that ^ one too
>...

>>16712190
It is valid, yes.

>>16712196
Extremely low IQ post. Why are you on /sci/?

>>16712196
Extremely high IQ post. Please remain on /sci/.

>>16680108
You haven't eaten the Eiffel tower either.

>>16683298
Define surprised.

How can one knowingly watch a scary movie and then get 'scared' and claim its a surprise?
Don't you enter into a contract, a sort of suspension of belief?