Why does determinism trigger the fuck out of this board? How many probabilistic cunts reported this thread?

>>>/lit/

>>16711036 (OP)
There is systematic censorship going on here. I suspect the moderators are cryptoreligious shills who want to promote mysticism and obscurantism. They are no doubt the reason /sci/ is as shitty as it currently is.

>>16711036 (OP)
Determinism is sort of a meaningless and retarded question, like "is blue the same blue for everyone?" Why would shit like this be germane to a science and math board? Philosophical musings do have a home on the humanities board, /his/

>>16711036 (OP)
>How many probabilistic cunts reported this thread?
About 50/50, either they did or didn't depending on the slit they went through.

>>16711149
>i-it’s a philosophical question, a-and it has no place in science!
Why do you always fall back to this? It’s a bit eye opening. More of an eye sore at this point, really.

>muh free will argument
Determinism doesn’t exclude free will. It allows us to choose from pre-determined possibilities. Possible possibilities.

People (doomsaying physicists) often foolishly believe determinism excludes free will because they see determinism, or the idea that all events are all causally determined, as incompatible with the idea that humans have genuine choices and control over their actions — that if every event is predetermined, then it seems like our choices are also predetermined, leaving no room for genuine freedom of will. “Reeee”.

But this is stupid. Retarded even. We do have free will to choose from possibilities determined before us. They are endless.

Anyone who denies causality/determinism should be thrown into the gas chamber for hating reality so damn hard to the point where they more or less believe something can come from nothing. Hence threads like >>16655184

It cannot be refuted unless you go about insufferable mental gymnastics. You have insane people who think an omniversal (IE; if everything everywhere and every-when existed all at once, is existence deterministic or probabilistic, by such a point?) take of physics is somehow probabilistic rather than deterministic as a form of cope, and they don’t know what probabilistic existences are anymore.

Determinism cannot be refuted. Hence >>16674934

>>16711338
Are you okay?

>>16711363
Are you? The idea that “if we can’t poke at it, and we can only speculate about it, the. it’s not important to science” is kind of idiotic. Dangerous even. Many of the greatest natural philosophers speculated correctly without credible evidence for the time.

>>16711036 (OP)

>>16711366
>Many of the greatest natural philosophers speculated correctly without credible evidence for the time.
This scares the scientific community because it borders on mystical thinking. Inward searching is the antithesis of the external scientific method. It’s sad. Isaac Newton was as much a natural mystic as he was a natural philosopher. He really just knew how things worked. Funny how Newton fanboys like Neil deGrasse can’t see this for how apparent it is.

>>16711366
>>16711375
So we should just blindly listen to our hearts and feelings eh faggot

>>16711366
It's literally not science, you drooling pig fucker. It's humanities.

>>16711377
No? I’m pointing out that people correctly asserted themselves. The ‘father of the atom’ was an Ancient Greek. He may not have had empirical evidence, or empirical observations to work with, but looking at the sand and how their grains flowed was more than enough to correctly assume that things got smaller and smaller and made things bigger and bigger.

>>16711383
NTA but you're a complete imbecile and you should cut your fingers off to stop embarrassing yourself.

>>16711382
You appear to be in denial about how sharp people were regarding the mysteries of nature. Some people just *knew* how nature worked. Eclipses were correctly deduced many thousands of years ago, in a time when flat earthers were all the rage. It doesn’t take much of a mental leap to figure that the only real alternative to the sun revolving around the earth was the earth revolving around the sun…

>>16711385
You appear to be stuck in a form of cope. I bet you think people like Eric Weinstein aren’t on to something.

>>16711387
So? What the fuck does that have to do with anything? "Deducing an eclipse" isn't science either, you gross, unflushable turd.

>>16711388
Gossip isn't even /his/, maybe you should just go straight to /b/ where they'd rightfully tell you to kill yourself.

>>16711390
But it IS science. Everything is science. If you’re one of those buffoons that think it’s only something to apply, then you’re more mistaken than not. Even Einstein didn’t believe that. Physics is the ‘music of the spheres’, that plays for all time, whether we listen in or not.

>>16711394
You’re no better than the ‘it’s just philosophy!’ fag who always resorts to buzzwords to save face and avoid an argument they’re going to lose

>>16711396
>Everything
Fucking clown lmao. "Everything" goes in /b/

>>16711399
Touché. You’re still in cope mode, thobeit.

>>16711398
More gossip. No one cares about your faggot friend.

>it’s philosophy it’s not science!
Science is natural philosophy tho

>>16711407
>Egregious means really good tho
No one cares how many times you sucked Grendel's cock 1000 years ago, retard.

I can tell you're stupid because you literally believe in determinism.

>>16711036 (OP)
it makes glow niggers seethe

>>16711149
hi glow nigger. your shitty cat pillow picture wont save you from night of the vehicle.

Go fuck yourself sapolsky, not your personal board

>>16711515
I can tell you’re stupid too since the alternative is believing that something comes from nothing.

>>16711681
Glownigger is one word not two ya fuckin newqueer

I truly struggle to understand how anyone can just say “no” to determinism.

>>16711959
That's because you don't understand physics and are suffering from Dunning-Kruger

>>16711036 (OP)
>Why does determinism trigger the fuck out of this board?
Because belief in determism demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of physics, which is disappointing as this is supposed to be the science board.
Those who are scientifically illiterate belong on other boards, maybe philosophy

>>16712078
Cope more. Physics proves determinism.

>>16712089
>Cope more. Physics proves determinism.
Not if we accept the probabalistic view of QM

>>16712092
>if we accept
Oh so it's not about scientific illiteracy and just an opinion instead.

>>16712096
The opinion that modern physics is correct, yes. If you don't hold this opinion then present your alternative to modern physics, preferably in a new thread. Make sure to embed a youtube vid as well

>>16712121
That wouldn't be an opinion then you moron. Most serious physicists these days are Everettians (determinists) because they realize copenhagen is just nonsense.

>>1671212
All interpretations are logically equally valid.
MWI is not the main interpretation because it heavily violates Occam's razor. Same with superdeteminism. Copenhagen is taught and accepted as standard because it assumes the least, and because of the physicists of the Copenhagen school being the father of modern physics.
If you subscribe to MWI that's fine, just know that it's far less likely interpretation, and not held in serious regard by most physicists

>>16712157
>it heavily violates Occam's razor
False! It's the simplest interpretation. Copenhagen requires believing that people can't be described by physics. Any serious physicist knows that's nonsense.
>and because of the physicists of the Copenhagen school being the father of modern physics.
Good thing your daddy issues are irrelevant to physics.

>>16712163
>Copenhagen requires believing that people can't be described by physics.
Elaborate.

>>16712199
According to cope&hangin, wavefunctions magically "collapse" when they are observed by people and this magical collapse can't be described by any physics.

>>16711036 (OP)
Science fell for the (((quantum))) meme.

>>16712205
I don't think the consensus now is that it is people that collapse it any measurement will. Doesn't have to be a conscious observer. Not an expert though.

>>16712209
It is the defining feature in the copenhangin interpretation. Refer to von neumann's textbook, for example.

>>16712205
Observation causes collapse. Zero conjecture, zero assumptions. It's the best interpretation and the main one. Anything extra like "it's just the instruments that cause collaspe, nothing else!" or "there are actual infinite universes, each of which is determinist!" require extra unproven assumptions.
Don't need an infinite number of universes to explain something that can be explained by one
>>16712209
Experiment has proven that collapse is observer-dependent if we hold Copenhagen tenets of locality and free will to be true.

>>16712163
>Copenhagen requires believing that people can't be described by physics.
This is false. According to Copenhagen, people can be part of quantum systems.

>>16712205
>wavefunctions magically "collapse" when they are observed by people
No, I can't believe people still spout this nonsense in 2025. "Observation" and "measurement" are simply terms used to emphasize that a scientist and his apparatus can never be ignored in an experiment, which fundamentally alters a quantum system through interaction. The wavefunction collapses because it *has* to interact with something in order to produce a measurable result. Hence why it seems to behave like a wave when "unobserved" an like a particle after it smacks into something else and leaves a trace behind. There is no magic whatsoever involved, there's merely a curious phenomenon about how the Schrödinger equation predicts the probabilities of the particle being in certain states so well based on the wavefunction, yet we can only see the after-effects.

>>16712655
It's far from that simple.
The wavefunction doesn't collapse because something “hits” the particle, but because an observation is made. Most basic example: in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, no particle hits the electron or observer — yet spin collapse still occurs once path information becomes known. Collapse reflects the update in knowledge by the observer, not some mechanical impact event.

>>16712557
Correct. Only the observer is considered outside of the quantum system, and only from the observer's reference.
In Wigner's Friend for example, from Wigner's frame of reference, Wigner is outside of the system while his friend (a person) is part of the quantum system, and Wigner's observation of the entire system causes its collapse, for Wigner. The collapse is subjective to Wigner. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080

Quantum mechanics are like dark matter and dark energy. Pure woo to attempt to fill in gaps nobody can explain.

>>16712668
>in the Stern-Gerlach experiment, no particle hits the electron or observer
The Stern-Gerlach experiment was done by smacking silver atoms into a detector after they passed through a magnetic field to see whether they coalesce into up or down patterns.

>>16712691
They don't need to smack into "detectors". I'm sure you've seen the pic, that's not a detector, just a coin.

Superdeterminism is just unfalsifiable. That's the main scientific issue I have with it. Otherwise, it's a just fine theory.

>>16712674
So you admit that copenhangin can't describe people, namely the magical observer with the superpower to prolapse wavefunctions.

>>16712759
The only entity outside of the the quantum system is the observer, and that's fine due to the observer being subjective. From Wigner's friend's frame of reference, he is the observer. From Wigner's frame of reference, his friend is part of the equation. Collapse is observer-dependent.

>>16712761
>The only entity outside of the the quantum system is the observer,
Yes, you've already admitted that copenhangin can't describe the observer. That makes it inferior to mwi, which can

>>16711388
Yeah it's hardcore cope. Typical of basedentists who trust the science.

>>16712655
Looks like you're not up to date on copenhangin. They've already admitted to being solipsists, although they're too ashamed to say it out loud in decent company

>>16712764
>Yeah our interpretation is better, it just needs an infinite number of universes goy.
No. Simple is best. Superposition > Observation > Collapse
Assume nothing outside of what you know.

That shit happens at all. Even quantum uncertainty. Points to determinism.

Blows my mind how much damage Bohr has caused. Pure fucking unreal.

>>16712205
Just because we can’t describe it doesn’t mean it’s not physics. Anything that exists is physics. Even a nothing is a one.

>reality can’t be local!
>this means determinism is wrong!

No it means that there are some things out there that violate locality/relativity as we know it is sooooo far fetched…

Remember when we thought we couldn’t break the sound barrier? It was retarded to assume that back then too.

>>16712788
I know that I prolapsed your wavefunction just now

>>16712796
Uncertainty doesn’t “point to determinism”, it rules it out under local hidden variables, as shown by Bell tests. Bohr didn’t cause damage, he just understood what the math and experiments demanded. Stay mad.
>>16712804
big mad

>>16712805
Your prolapse is showing

>>16712803
Breaking the sound barrier didn’t rewrite causality. Violating locality means faster-than-light influence, which directly clashes with causality. That’s a bit more serious than jet engines.

The reason mwi is popular among physicists is exactly because copenhangers can't describe observation as they've admitted itt. On top of this mwi, is both realist and local, showing that bells theorem is retarded

>>16712822
MWI is not taught in any standard physics textbooks and is not seen as the standard interpretation, because it's extremely bad. It's the ultimate midwit take.

>>16712710
This is a "detector". You're looking at effects it produced on the coin. How else would you observe it if not through an interaction.
>>16712781
>They
Names? Citations? Declarative statements? Reminder that the "Copenhagen interpretation" is vague and undefined stuff based on a few things that Heisenberg said late in his life. Bohr didn't even fully agree with him and his work is half of the whole thing.

>>16712826
>MWI is not taught in any standard physics textbooks
Try collapsing the textbooks' wavefunction again, you should see it now

>>16712822
qrd on bell's theorem? i have a phd in physics and still don't understand the 2022 nobel prize shit. bell's theorem has certain assumptions in it. one must be violated. as i understand, the news breaking about the universe being non-local presupposed other axioms underpinning bell's theorem to be true. so, which axioms are in bell's theorem, and what are the possible conclusions we can draw assuming one or more axioms are violated? i refuse to believe that reality is non-local. for fuck sake this was the entire reason general relativity was developed - to fix action at a distance.

>>16712837
Still nope. Maybe it's in one of your infinite number of unfalsifiable universes

>>16712843
nvm, i put it into chatgpt and got a better summary than any of you fags can give.

>>16712796
Determinism isn't "shit happens". It's intrinsically tied to cause and effect, as it hinges on the premise that only one thing could ever happen in a successive causal chain. Quantum mechanics points at probability being fundamental to nature, which violates determinism unless you subscribe to a loony formulation of superdeterminism in which the universe conspired to make every single experiment negate the chance of local hidden variables in a consistent pattern. Then there's the problem with nonlocal hidden variables (violates c). Ultimately physics just doesn't seem to make sense if you try to hammer it into human instinct.

>>16712843
Bell’s theorem shows that no theory of local realism can reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics. The core assumptions Bell uses are:
1. Realism: Measurement outcomes reflect pre-existing properties.
2. Locality: No influence can travel faster than light.
3. Freedom of choice (a.k.a. measurement independence): The choice of what to measure is not influenced by hidden variables.
Bell derived an inequality that any theory obeying these assumptions must satisfy. Quantum mechanics violates this inequality, and so do real experiments.
The 2022 Nobel Prize was awarded for experiments that closed major loopholes, showing that Bell violations are correct even under strict conditions (e.g. space-like separation, fast switching, random choices).
Bell’s theorem doesn’t say the universe must be non-local, it says you must give up at least one assumption.
The Copenhagen camp gives up realism, keeping locality intact (at least operationally). The collapse is non-unitary and instantaneous, but it’s not a signal or influence, so we don’t technically violate relativity. Bohmians do the opposite and give up relativity. Superdeterminists and MWI ditch freedom of choice.
You can’t keep all three. That’s the punchline.

>>16712843
>>16712849
Bells theorem is a big nothingburger. It's widely advertised as having disproved local realism but the assumptions in the theorem are just some ad hoc conditions that bell made up which have nothing to do with any sensible notion of either locality or realism. Gell Mann complained about this too

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gNAw-xXCcM8

>>16712807
>Breaking the sound barrier didn’t rewrite causality
No but it was seen as hard impossible. Also there was no rewrite of causality, what the fuck are you talking about.

>>16712805
>Uncertainty doesn’t “point to determinism”
Yes it does. It happened. That’s causality.
>it rules it out under local hidden variables, as shown by Bell tests
This just means locality(local relativity) is not impossible to defy. Assuming it was impossible to defy to begin with was foolish. It’s basically saying “no, nothing can react faster than light”, well, we now know that’s not the case.

>>16712863
Decoherence describes how a small microscopic superposition becomes a large, messy macroscopic superposition . It does not cause the collapse, only observation does. Decoherence is complementary to the Copenhagen view.

>>16712859
>Determinism isn't "shit happens"
Didn’t read the rest of your post. Something isn’t caused without another cause. If you can’t grasp something so simple, then you’re not worth responding to. Sorry, not sorry.

>>16712872
Breaking relativity rewrites causality

>>16712878
Except it didn’t break relativity. It broke local relativity. It just shows that there are things that react faster than light.

>>16712876
>. It does not cause the collapse
It does if you actually think about it

The observation effect is deterministic lol

>>16712880
Yes and that breaks causality. Btw there's no such thing as "local relativity", please go back to class.

>>16712885
>Yes and that breaks causality.
No it doesn’t.
>Btw there's no such thing as "local relativity", please go back to class.
Lol. I don’t think you’re old enough to post here.

>>16712863
based video, thanks for sharing. this makes sense and demystifies all the horseshit that confuddled me. sounds like my confusion was created by other people's confusion

>>16712833
>Names? Citations? Declarative statements?
I already mentioned von Neumann earlier but you should ask the copenhanger itt what his holy books are

>>16712885
“In physics, locality refers to the principle that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions between objects cannot occur instantaneously across a distance. Relativity, particularly special relativity, is built upon the principle of locality, stating that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit for information transfer. This means that no cause can propagate faster than light and affect another object.”

That last sentence was proven false.

>>16712863
>Einstein's point of view about definite values is just wrong
You were saying? MGM is literally saying QM is only weird if you demand it to be secretly classical.
>>16712877
>Something isn’t caused without another cause
So what's your "cause" for Bell inequality violations? Have you got one that doesn't violate something else in physics and leads to testable predictions?

>>16712887
didn't you mean "special relativity"? which bohmian mechanics break? Yeah.
Explain how your FTL cause and effect doesn't break causality, I'll wait

>>16712892
>So what's your "cause" for Bell inequality violations
Something that isn’t local. “Spooky action at a distance”. It made that quite clear.

>>16712895
>Explain how your FTL cause and effect doesn't break causality, I'll wait
Because it happened you moron. Nature doesn’t break itself. Only our incomplete understanding is “broken”. God damn this is pathetic of you. I hate probabilistic fags so much. You think something comes from nothing and it’s as though you believe in a miracle, like God.

>>16712889
>Von Neumann demonstrated that, when it comes to the final outcomes, the chain can be interrupted at any and a wave function collapse can be introduced at any point to explain the results.
Nothing about mental superpowers.

>>16712892
>only weird if you demand it to be secretly classical
Good thing you can't point to me doing that

>>16712896
Now realize you're literally violating c and permitting for closed timelike curves if you claim it's transmitting information nonlocally.

>>16712891
>That last sentence was proven false.

>I'm going to deny the theory of relatively armed with zero experimental proof because a Marxist Jew told me to.

>>16712900
MGM is also not saying anything to corroborate your claim that local realism doesn't clash with the Bell experiments.

>>16712904
Looks like you haven't fully collapsed the video's wavefunction yet

>>16712903
What? Why can’t you read? It says reality can’t be both local or real. It’s one or the other. If you really can’t take the next step to think critically, regarding just what this means, or entrails, then…. wow.

Somehow believing that highly specific quantum shit ‘just appears’ is the least likely of the two.

>>16712908
locality is backed by the tried and tested theory of relativity.
What, pray tell, is realism backed by? What modern scientific theory makes you so certain that particles possess definite property values independent of observation? to the point of throwing out the theory of relativity?

>>16712913
Sorry. Shit doesn’t just appear fully formed. Turtles all the way down is retarded. It feeds into itself. There is no prime turtle because the “prime turtle” is the chain itself that loops around and fulfills itself.

Again. Believing in quantum uncertainty is like believing a wizard can conjure a full ten course 4-star meal without cooking it. The magic is in the illusion. Quantum uncertainty is just a veil.

>>16712898
>According to Werner Heisenberg recollections in Physics and Beyond, Niels Bohr is said to have rejected the necessity of a conscious observer in quantum mechanics as early as 1927.[1]

>In his 1932 book Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer.[2] However von Neumann did not explicitly relate measurement with consciousness.[2][3] In 1939, Fritz London and Edmond Bauer argued that the consciousness of the observer played an important role in measurement.[4][2] However London wrote about consciousness in terms of philosophical phenomenology and not necessarily as a physical process.[3]

It can probably be traced back to the London Bauer article and von Neumann's textbook

>>16712917
Just think of it this way. In a roguelike game, before you open the door to an unexplored room for the first time, what is in that room? It's just something like: 30% monster, 40% loot, 30% empty
Room is only generated once you open the door.

>>16712920
>Room is only generated once you open the door.
Jesus Christ you’re stupid.

Listen. WHAT is generating the room, once you enter it? There is ALWAYS a background to the foreground. That the room was generated at all - and not anything else - showcases specific-ness.

It’s not truly lolsorandom and I don’t know why you even think this.

>>16712898
More from the same wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

>Wigner reformulated the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment as the Wigner's friend and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line that precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation.[5][3] The mind is postulated to be non-physical and the only true measurement apparatus.[6][3]

>Wigner discarded the conscious collapse interpretation in the later 1970s. In a lecture 1982, Wigner says that he early view of quantum mechanics should be criticized as solipsism. In 1984, he writes that he was convinced out of it by the 1970 work of H. Dieter Zeh on quantum decoherence and macroscopic quantum phenomena.[7]

>>16712920
>he thinks spacetime can’t be generated
>he thinks evolution can’t be generated
>he thinks history can’t be generated
lol

>>16712930
The room is generated, that's all that is known. Anything further is extrapolation with zero experimental backing

>>16712930
>WHAT is generating the room, once you enter it?
The room is generatED randomly according to the equation.
>There is ALWAYS a background to the foreground.
There doesn't need to be. There can be just one screen. No experimental evidence of a superior layer
>That the room was generated at all - and not anything else - showcases specific-ness.
Everything you can observe has already collapsed for you. No specificness
Stop doing philosophy.

>>16712938
Do you really stop at [generated] like an idiot, though? Seems defeatist. Almost as though you’re afraid of the answer.

>>16712955
>The room is generatED randomly according to the equation.
It’s not actually random, though.
>Everything you can observe has already collapsed for you
No one is omniscient.
>Stop doing philosophy.
No. Science is philosophical. It has a natural philosophy. Labelling speculation as philosophy is also a form of cope on your part. You’re afraid. You deeply want to have found the root of everything. You want to believe you’ve found God. Crazy.

>>16712957
>Science is philosophical.
Extremely wrong. Science is mathematical, what you're doing is attempting to use your philosophical babble to overwrite the hard science of relativity.

>>16712955
>There doesn't need to be
Maybe you should read the post in the OP on why this is asinine to assume.

— I'm actually a bit shaken at the responses elsewhere and here and if they represent the scientific community at large, even more so. This is very much a scientific question and must not be shunned away to philosophy (not that science doesn’t have a natural philosophy).

— Indeed all science is based on causality and determinism, but suddenly now, people here are trying to draw a line between determinism and 'superdeterminism'. What's the difference? Ok, at what point does determinism end and statistical independence begin? Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?

— I suspect that a lot of people have invested a lot of time and career in interpretations of quantum theory, and cannot face the fact that determinism just simply avoids it. Is determinism or superdeterminism an interpretation of quantum mechanics or a substitute to it entirely?

— Someone said that determinism is ok, but there is enough noise between it and the event to now make it statistically independent or truly probabilistic. Isn't noise just complexities of causality? How do you snip those tiny threads and say that an event has been born from nothing?

— Yes. cigarettes causes lung cancer because the more impactful bundle(s) of causes towards lung cancer originated from inhaling tar by a group of people and others not.

— Are we going to just ignore the truth about nature of reality that is staring at our face and seek comfort in avoiding it because it supposedly undermines science? I thought determinism implied this very stark truth from the very beginning, why suddenly all this gymnastics for quantum theory?

The second paragraph in particular does evoke a sense of pity for you. You’ve just invested way too much time on this. Your self esteem is reliant on it.

>>16712958
>Extremely wrong
It’s not wrong at all. Many of the greatest natural philosophers were coming to conclusions that could just not be proved at that time. You’re in denial of the history of science and that’s just fucking sad.

One again. You’re afraid.

>>16712956
We don't know anything beyond that. In science we do experiments to find out about things, I understand they use different processes in the sociology class at your community college, but those methods do not belong in science

>>16712961
He wants to be a solipsist. Leave him alone (in the mental ward)

>>16712962
>We don't know anything beyond that

And so you just chalk it up to “it just randomly happened” because you can’t see it? This is no different from religion. You can’t see a star up close so you just assume they’re gods?

Probabilistic assertions are indeed some form of religion. They think free will can’t exist in a deterministic existence. That’s religious.

>>16712963
Yeah but it’s really concerning. They really think they found God or something, and this is coming from someone (me) who leans more towards atheism (and I hate atheists, to be sure).

How can people just believe something comes from nothing?

>>16712961
For every semi-correct philosopher there are millions of completely wrong ones. No amount of sitting at home pondering about the tea leaves will lead to relativity and QM

>>16712968
So just admit that they are healthy speculations. Saying “it all ends at quantum uncertainty” is similarly philosophical, to me.

>>16712967
You shouldn't hate atheists. Atheism is objectively correct

>>16712964
>And so you just chalk it up to “it just randomly happened” because you can’t see it?
QM chalks it up to the lack of realism due to locality being backed by relativity. What don't you understand?
>>>16712967
Probabilistic assertions are indeed some form of religion. They think free will can’t exist in a deterministic existence. That’s religious.
>>16712967
>Yeah but it’s really concerning. They really think they found God or something, and this is coming from someone (me) who leans more towards atheism (and I hate atheists, to be sure).
More philosophy. Don't we have a board for that? /lit/ maybe? Go there. This is the science board.

>>16712970
I hate snob atheists who refuse to see the beauty, the magic, within nature. “It’s not magic, it’s boring grey ass science!” is no different from “Love doesn’t exist Morty it’s just a chemical reaction Morty!”, and that’s retarded.

What is a god is also just a point of view. You just need a sufficiently godlike alien to have a god. People worshipped trees. Being religious is just following a story, or entertaining a narrative or structure, not outright believing it.

>>16712969
Except it's backed by established scientific theories like relativity instead of breaking them (and providing no alternative to them) and always correctly predicts experimental results, which is the whole point of science

>>16712971
Okay so you’re religious.

>>16712975
Except it’s not backed. You can’t prove that determinism isn’t absolute. You can only prove that reality isn’t solely locally real. Which makes sense. The idea that something can’t move faster than light is an absurd absolutist assumption to make.

>>16712977
More philosophy.

>>16712973
>and that’s retarded.
Are you calling reality retarded? Those statements are just expressions of the physicalist reductionist philosophy, which is the most successful philosophy in science.

>>16712980
>The idea that something can’t move faster than light is an absurd absolutist assumption to make.
Provide an alternative testable theory to special relativity first, *then* you can engage in philosobabble

>>16712984
Saying “love doesn’t exist” because it’s a collection of chemical reactions is retarded, yes, because for something to exist, there will need to be an essential background to support it.

Brain chemistry is the essence of being. Yes love (a set of chemical reactions) is very real.

You’ve deconstructed everything to the point where you’re convinced that nothing exists - and this is the same sort of horse shit cancer that permeates probabilism.

Yes. Chemistry is real.

>>16712980
>The idea that something can’t move faster than light is an absurd absolutist assumption to make.
If you can break c, you can travel back in time. Time dilation has been tested, the math holds up.

>>16712983
>>16712987
Cute. You call everything philosophy because you can’t think beyond the grain.

>>16712994
Probabilistic cunts don’t believe in time travel. They refuse to acknowledge that travelling to the past essentially affirms multiversal theory to begin with, assuming it’s possible. You aren’t actually stepping into *your* past more so than a completely different past-present, and thus a completely different future/universe.

Hypothetically there should be a unique (you) for every millisecond of existence you travel back into.

I agree with Eric Weinstein that it’s less a multiverse and more so a singular universe with infinite (possible) ways of looking at it.

>>16713000
>Probabilistic cunts don’t believe in time travel
Yeah because if everything everywhere every when exists all at once then it’s a purely deterministic existence, but they still somehow claim it’s probabilistic?

Again. Bohr damaged the scientific community beyond repair.

>>16712992
>you’re convinced that nothing exists
No, the physical stuff exists. That's what everything is deconstructed into

No. Science is mostly fine. Dunning Kruger midwits should stick to staring into tea leav-I mean philosophy, instead of trying to engage with physics

>>16713011
Then stop saying shit like “it isn’t real”.

>>16713015
It's an antidote against various sorts of stupid reifications and Platonisms.

>shut up, it’s just philosophy, not science, and you’re just a philosophical twat
This is the equivalent of crying “racist!” when someone says something you don’t personally like

>>16713020
still waiting on that alternative to relativity

“If I can’t poke at it then it’s not science but philosophy” is peak cope

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

Physicists can’t exactly avoid taking overt philosophical positions whenever they do a theoretical or hypothetical anything.

>>16713033
The very idea of something being hypothetical or not is philosophical

>>16713020
>>16713027
>>16713030
>>16713033
>>16713035
Philosophy at its simplest, or purest, is “Why is it so?”.

>>16713041
Yes, and good science should find answers by providing explanations. That's why Copenhagen is garbage.

>>16713047
Bro, your testable predictions?

>>16713050
You’ve got nothing.

>>16713050
Physics is also applicable to observers. This prediction holds true and disproves copenhagen.

Discuss philosophy all you want, preferably on >/lit/, just remember that the universe is under no obligation to obey your philosophy or intuition.
Copenhagen gives a mathematical framework that predicts experimental outcomes with unmatched precision. That’s physics.
If you want to replace it, bring a better model with testable differences, not a metaphysical tantrum about determinism.

>>16713056
That is literally Bohr's entire point. Nigger spent his entire career explicitly stating you can't decouple a scientist from the experiment. Congrats.

>>16713058
So it’s deterministic? Got it. Bohr was a massive faggot. You need to understand this.

>>16713057
Copenhagen is just an interpretation which gives negative value. The math works better without it

>>16713057
See >>16713056. Copenhagen has already been disproved

>>16713068
Then show the experiment.
Copenhagen makes operational predictions, observer or not, it matches every result ever measured. Saying “physics applies to observers” doesn’t disprove anything unless you show a measurable deviation.
Until then, you’re just stapling your metaphysics onto working math.

>>16713070
It's a prediction of Copenhagen that there is no physics without observers. This prediction has been falsified by showing how quantum physics applies even to processes which took place even before there were any observers, eg. in astronomical bodies, cosmology, etc.

>>16713076
Copenhagen doesn’t claim there’s no physics without observers, just that collapse doesn’t occur without one. Superpositions can interact and combine, which is how decoherence occurs and why macroscopic superpositions appear as definite states. The observer simply resolves probabilities into a definite outcome, with no need for metaphysical assumptions.

>>16713082
>just that collapse doesn’t occur without one
No, this is just wrong. You are talking about an objective collapse theory in which there is a universal wavefunction which is collapsed by observers. In Copenhagen, there is no wavefunction without observers. Decoherence was developed motivated by the many worlds interpretation. It doesn't work with Copenhagen since it's applicable even in the absence of observers

>he thinks there’s nothing causing the observer effect
But there IS an observer effect, it was definitely caused, otherwise it would not BE there.
This is why I take the side of Determinism. Quantum uncertainty is still too specific. It’s not random in fact.

>muh free will

>>16713090
Copenhagen doesn’t deny the wavefunction exists prior to observation, it just doesn’t treat it as physically real. Decoherence is perfectly compatible with Copenhagen, it’s not exclusive to many-worlds. Like I said, it describes how a small microscopic superposition becomes a large, messy macroscopic superposition. Of course it's applicable sans observers, since decoherence != collapse. A large, macroscopic superposition with a messy wavefunction with no apparent interference patterns is still a superposition, not a definite state until observed.

>>16712863
i bought his book - Quark and the Jaguar and will begin reading it tomorrow.

>>16713099
Consciousness causes observation. :^)

Quantum uncertainty is proof that the many worlds theory is the correct theory and it’s all one big gay ass simulation.

>>16714035
>many worlds
>simulation
it's rare to have such a high error density in such few words.

>>16714037
You lack imagination. A hypothetically advanced enough alien should be able to create a simulation containing every possibility within said simulation. They’d be able to simulate space(time).

>>16714054
Why would they need to create an infinite amount of worlds when they could just create a single world with an RNG? Seems far more likely.

>>16714054
thankfully reality is not determined by your overactive imagination. you know who else has an imagination? children. congratulations. your ability to apply pragmatic and practical scientific reasoning to reality is equivalent to an imaginative child. want a cookie?

>>16714055
>>16714057
Cope. Imagination is what leads science.

yall faggots, just thought you should know
Bohmian mechanics neatly sidesteps all this observer nonsense, all you have to do is admit that psi describes an actual field

>>16711036 (OP)
1) No god's eye view, hence the position of reference is invalid
2) Calculating infinite permutations of infinite particle physics is uncalculable

>>16711036 (OP)
Determinism is usually used to justify habits

It will always happen likr this, what if it's just an habit?

Hurr durrh math

>>16715311
>Bohmian mechanics neatly sidesteps all this observer nonsense, all you have to do is admit that psi describes an actual field
Sorry chud, Bohmian cope has been debunked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09099-4

The reality is cellular automata, superdeterminism is true, and there is no free will. QM and other modern bullshit pseudoscience are just shitty models to be replaced, just like geocentric model and etherium previously, their interpretations hold no value. True science doesnt enterpret, either the model output the correct outcome to the input parameters, or it doesnt. Modern physics will be huge neural networks, just big matrices of parameters, black boxes, impossible to enterpret. It is already happening. That is the only way to advance. Trying to interpret the matrix of billions of parameters is nothing but mental fallacy.

>>16716576
>Neural networks contributing to anything scientific
I was with you until that "science doesn't interpret" nonsense. You're on the right track though, once neurosymbolic AI will bring out a highly parametered machine that's fully explainable by itself we will be ready to replace the old dusty models by newer AI-based ones.

>>16711359
>Determinism doesn’t exclude free will.

YES IT DOES holy fuck you compatiblists are even more retarded than the most delusional southern baptist

>free will exists if I change the meaning of free will to mean "not free will" lol bet those free will deniers never thought of that one check mate

stop posting any time

apparently i'm supposed to believe this

>>16716853
>yes it does
no it doesn’t

>>16711396
Getting me an "Everything is science." t shirt

>>16718061
I'm so happy that flat earth is finally accepted as science.

>>16718063
Everything is science.

>>16718066
for as long as i use /sci/, i will keep this fact alive

>>16711053
daniel dennett was also against determinism. really, opposition to determinism is a reddit atheist thing. people who have found god understand their fate is in his hands. that is what the labyrinth represents, the one true path of god, making the choices that were preordained by god.

determinists are the weakest of the bunch. subversive little bitches who need justification for being weaklings

It blows my mind how probabilists resort to "you just don't believe in free will!", as though determinism doesn't allow for endless possibilities for you to take.

>>16718150
Exhibit 138092348309 of non-determinist projecting his irrelevant insecurities on others.

>>16718243
They truly think they’re trapped lmao

>>16719573
They think having a selection of choices to take is somehow proof that they have no free will lul

>>16711036 (OP)
>Why does determinism trigger the fuck out of this board?
Because its full of retards who believe in spirits and gods. Its human pollution.

>>16720532
>believes in tiny spirits controlling all of reality
>they all work together according to laws
>those laws come from nowhere and those particles have never been observed
Nice panentheism you got there.

>>16711036 (OP)
Because they're religious by any other name.

>>16711036 (OP)
we dont have free will we are metaphyiscal and attached to this body to feel pain and go through experiences and shit lmfaooo


sell your soul to find out lmao

>>16721934
to add
everything is pre determined
this world was made in this life to create a scenario in which Yahshua gets his power back and takes over lmao aka me

Everything was predetermined including all the endless choices you’re allowed to take. You can’t take the choice of being born a female if you were already born a male. Sorry, trannies.

>>16711036 (OP)
Only schizophrenia spectrum individuals are capable of bypassing the ego and recognizing the deterministic nature of existence.
That's just how things are.
Normalfags aren't capable of any kind of introspection or deeper thought beyond their own egos.

>>16721934
Free will exists. It just has conditions on it. For example, you can't jump to the moon under your own power no matter what you do. Nor did God, now known to us as Jesus the Christ, grant you the right to have that ability. I'll put this another, simplier, way to help people understand:

God has more sovereignty than you have free will.

>>16711183
Yeah well I went through your moms slit last night. It was superdetermined.

How does determinism prevent free will? That makes no sense.

>>16724758
What's "free" about your "will"? Your "choices" are just fixed results of previous mental states. You didn't "choose" shit and there was nothing "free" about it.

>>16725799
there is liberating free in ... "will" whatever. stochasticity

>>16724758
>only one thing was ever possible
Where's the room for "free will" in that? Though, mind you, the problem of free will is not just determinism, because even in quantum mechanics it still doesn't make sense. Probabilistic outcomes also don't really lead to any sense of control. In fact I'm yet to hear any explanation of free will that is actually logically consistent and not just handwavey mysticism. Literally how does the mechanism of free will even work?

>>16725799
You're not smart; you have no consciousness. Checkmate, faggot.

>>16725866
since you can quite easily understand the difference between having control and not having control I'm not sure what you're hinting at. if you don't have any control, how come you understand the concept?
your freedom is directly proportional to the available choices pool
imagine having goals (which let's be real, shape your choices) and NOT having choices towards them.
you want pink icecream. fuck does it matter why? what matters is if you can get that bitch or not.

>>16725866
>only one thing was ever possible
Are you actually retarded? Determinism allows endless possible possibilities for you to take. It doesn’t allow for impossible pathways. You’re free to choose among these mathematically possible paths. That’s free will.

Every time someone claims determinism prevents freedom of choice, it seems it’s some sort of childish cope, or low hanging fruit argument. It’s the equivalent of saying “yeah well you’re just stupid”.

Probabilistic cunts believe in a form of God since they think something comes from nothing, the same way Christians believe “he was always there and nothing was before him”. How the hell do you just come to such a conclusion when we’re all trapped in three dimensions of space? It is likely our perception of time is flawed.

>>16725893
no, there is no free will. that is not something that makes sense. logically speaking. people keep parroting this religious concept like it makes some fucking logical/scientific sense. and everybody is confused as fuck.
what matters is freedom of choice.
imagine you (for whatever fucking reason) want whatever, and right before getting it, through purely random chance you find out some new information. if you do it you die, or go to jail. not being able to reconsider means lack of freedom of choice. you cannot choose otherwise, you are determined to do something even if new information came to your attention that would make your initial desire unattractive as outcome.
thus, reconsidering is clearly fucking determined by that new piece of information. and that is fucking good, else you'd die, or land in jail. it's good to reconsider, to be determined. it's your ability of choosing that somehow misunderstood or even reframed as being "free will". which confuses the fuck out of everybody.
how tf did we get here talking about some shit that makes no fucking sense? none of you fucking eggheads though about it for thousands of fucking years? you all went with "ye bro free will and shit das deep fr nc"

>>16725893
>Determinism allows endless possible possibilities
Why are you using the term determinism to refer to something that is contrary to its actual definition? If that's what you believe in that's fine, but words have meanings, come up with a better one for your view. Call it possibilism or whatever. But don't pretend determinism isn't strictly confined to a cause and effect chain of A then B then C.

even animals do this shit. lion sees baby elephant
>gonna have me some of that chubby fucker tonight
but lo and behold momma elephant with 5 others pop up. lion looks at the new development:
>in light of new information I have decided I will fuck off from here.
that is freedom of choice, go for the baby elephant and risk becoming kebab or take hunger chances maybe something else pops up. it makes a choice, has the freedom to. ponders available options. we all do that. who doesn't gets wiped eventually. most if not all life chooses based on available information.
humans are very good at working out consequences of their choices a few more steps ahead than other animals can, they have a broader perspective. or at least some humans do.
when no clear path either way, we yolo it and flip the coin. that's about all there is to it. why tf are we talking about this?

>>16725902
>>16725908
Yeahhhh. I’m not going to continue debating insane religious people. Bye.

>>16725908
>But don't pretend determinism isn't strictly confined to a cause and effect chain of A then B then C.
It is, but the many-worlds interpretation is the correct one, thobeit.

>>16725913
>the many-worlds interpretation
Quantum uncertainty quacks will cope slash insist this is proof of a probabilistic universe rather than a deterministic one, lul.

>>16725913
Can I see this "wavefunction" that is supposed to objectively exist as a physical entity that is nonlocal, superluminal, transuniversal and goes on forever? That's my issue with MWI. Why treat a mathematical tool as "real", especially when it describes something unobservable: the probability of finding a particle before actually doing so with an apparatus?

>>16725917
>That's my issue with MWI
If you assume time travel (to the past…) is possible, then there’s no way to avoid it.

>>16725912
literally said free will is a religious concept and I don't buy it. that is not to say I believe in full determinism in the sense that our actions are completely predetermined and the future is set in stone. unless superdeterminism is proven that's not the case. future is uncertain and nobody can know what anyone will do for sure. there's only probabilities, never certainty.

>>16725919
you should be able to travel back to a possible past. you have no complete certainty about "our past". it's as fuzzy as any possible one, based on the current state of things.
if you never can have full certainty over the current state of things, how would exactly extrapolate our "certain" past? you can't even be sure which version is our past lmao. you just have some fuzzy idea of some "objective" past.

>>16725921
>that is not to say I believe in full determinism in the sense that our actions are completely predetermined and the future is set in stone
Possibilities for you to take are set in stone. That’s the nuance you’re missing.

>>16725923
You can’t save *your* Abraham Lincoln anon. His death was a requirement for your lead up. Going back into the past is going into a different past-present-future. This necessitates a many worlds theory.

If you went into the past to make sure the Cuban missile crisis happened, it would create a radically different world, and you wouldn’t be erased from it.

>>16725924
no they aren't. through stochastic processes elon musk could randomly decide to gimme 1 million dollarinos. again, there's probabilities for what can happen, never complete certainty.

>>16725926
You appear to be insane. You either step with your right foot, or you don’t step with your right foot.

>>16725925
you have no certainty over the color of the flowers in the room you never went into. you're talking about some macro details. that doesn't mean there aren't countless versions of this "objective" past you keep talking about. they just have to average out in "roughly" the same present, since neither our present is really objective. we're riding on unknowns that make many pasts and futures possible, even if very slightly different.

>>16725930
>you have no certainty over the color of the flowers in the room you never went into
“Do you really think the moon isn’t there when you face away from it?”

>>16725929
oh sorry I seem to have broken your brain.
our brains are under the influence of stochastic processes which affect our choices. that's no mystery by now.
some random particle has a probabily of interacting with your DNA. you get random cancer that kind of changes your options for what choices you make. fully out of your control or complete prediction.
who tf are you idiots and what are you doing larping here? feeble brained pseuds.

>>16725930
>you have no certainty over the color of the flowers in the room you never went into
Are you just ignoring the existence of pigments (chlorophylls, carotenoids, flavonoids, and betalains) and their lead up.

>>16725919
>If you assume time travel (to the past…) is possible
Then the future can cause the past, grandfather paradoxes, and a million other issues. No determinism.
>>16725925
This creates a gigantic roided up version of the Fermi paradox/grabby aliens problem: hostile universes. Which are a statistical inevitability in MWI's uncountably infinite universe. If a universe finding a way to travel to the past allows it to breach into another, then it can effectively start obliterating other universes exponentially by erasing their pasts. And, in MWI, if it's physically possible, it MUST happen. No exceptions. Yet we see that there are no transuniversal dildos of ontological annihilation destroying our universe from the past, otherwise we wouldn't be here. But with uncountably infinite universes, it HAS HAPPENED already. Therefore MWI strictly necessitates zero inter-universe communication.

>>16725932
you're utterly retarded if you didn't understand what I wrote. I refuse to engage in such degrading discourse

>>16725934
Anon, did you never struggle to make an order at a restaurant?

Your frustration is useless since from our perspective we DO have free will.

>>16725937
Colors were decided many, many, many millions of years before you, going by your logic, you realize. You’re not the first or original perception.

>>16725939
free will is not a valid scientific or logical concept. I am not acknowledging it as valid. fuck outta here with your primitive bullshit. that is not a thing
as I said, when the implications of our choices is not clear we yolo it, flip a coin or even freeze. what the actual fuck is wrong with your brains? this has to be a joke

>>16725936
There will be realities both molested and un-molested. We’re probably surrounded in intelligences and we don’t know it. We could be a fun little isolated game. Don’t know for certain. Ignorance is bliss.

>>16725940
so mutations cannot change color you say? mutations caused by radioactivity?
WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU IDIOTS???? what tf are you doing here larping?

>>16725943
>free will is not a valid scientific or logical concept
Biologically it is. Matter eventually takes on more annoying, irregular angles.

>>16725946
Mutations are something that actually happen, lol. Light is light. You may as well argue if my blue is your yellow.

>>16725947
it's not adjacent to anything science or logic related. it's some primitive bullshit. it's been shoehorned into scientific discourse somehow and that is a direct tell for the absolute state of things in current year

>>16725952
It’s not primitive at all. Free will is literally just choice.

shit I'm bouncing this is fucking retarded.

>>16725955
Keep sucking Bohr’s six incher.

>>16725954
it is not stop spewing shit that makes no fucking logical sense. the audacity of your bullshit stating nonsense like that.
there is no free will concept that makes any fucking sense. it's only freedom of choice. your ability of choosing based on information or misfiring of you decision making apparatus. fucking lunatics

>>16725958
Did you choose to make this post?

>>16725958
>there is no free will concept that makes any fucking sense. it's only freedom of choice
That you think there’s a difference is funny to me