[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 280 KB, 1600x806, The+Solvay+Conference,+probably+the+most+intelligent+picture+ever+taken,+1927+(2)[2].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12766277 No.12766277 [Reply] [Original]

there is no such thing as true randomness, merely the existence of a sufficiently complex process. to explain away quantum mechanics as a truly random act, due to our inability to comprehend the complexities of the process, is an offense no better and no more respectable than philosophers of the past blaming the unpredictability of lightning and earthquakes on the wrath of gods.

to say it is truly random, because our methods for measuring such things say it to be so, means little more than that our methods are insufficient and need to be improved.

if you disagree with me, you're a faggot.

>> No.12766417

Yeah. God don't play with dice.

>> No.12766418

Yup, it's a mechanist cringe thread

>> No.12766430
File: 86 KB, 433x427, 1546982134622.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12766430

>>12766277
>>12766417
>>12766418
Stop telling God what to do ;)

>> No.12766440

>>12766418
Believing in true randomness is theology anon.

>> No.12766462

>>12766430
Go solve the hamiltonian for the universe and compute whether god exists

>> No.12766638

>>12766462
>Go solve the hamiltonian for the universe and compute whether god exists.
Go solve the hamiltonian for the universe and compute whether the mind exists. It obviously does, but it's a very abstract thing. God is really the same way but on the scale of the systems of ethics formed by collectives of people. The ethical systems evolve over time in competition with one another, and are converging to a thing that the religious people identify as "God' minus all the supernatural gibberish. If it sounds like a nonstandard definition of God, it isn't, it's positivistically indistinguishable from an infinitely wise agent imposing its will on the world from outside of time. The idea is better explained by ron maimon's post here: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6660

>> No.12766647

>>12766277
Good thread, agreed. Deniers of free will always miss this. They think just because we can't predict something, that means it's truly random. Absolutely ridiculous.

>> No.12767096

>>12766647
>>12766277
I love how the casual atheist undergrads who fucking love science have no knowledge of the kochen specker theorem about hidden variables.

>> No.12767158

>>12767096
I am a casual atheist undergrad who fucking loves science, and I have knowledge of kochen specker theorem. What of it?

>> No.12767169

>>12766277
Except it's not that complex as a process, it's pretty simple, and it is inherently random.
The universe has randomness. Stop coping about it.

>> No.12767198

>>12767169
>and it is inherently random.
Prove it.

>> No.12767563

>>12767158
>>12767169
Yes yes. Remember not to upset poseidon or he'll destroy your ship with a storm on your next voyage!

>> No.12767671

>>12767096
nothing about the kochen-specker theorem requires true randomness, it's a textbook example of a sufficiently complex process. context being a variable in the result of a measurement doesn't make it random.

>>12767169
>Except it's not that complex as a process, it's pretty simple, and it is inherently an act of god.
>The universe has acts of god. Stop coping about it.

>> No.12767695

>>12767198
All evidence already shows that it is.
You have to prove that it's secretly deterministic.
>>12767563
Cope and not a real argument. Try again.
>>12767671
Determinism is the act of God you idiot. "God created a perfect deterministic universe!"
Randomness is the opposite of a God doing something.

>> No.12767770

Infinitely based

>> No.12767788

>>12767695
>Determinism is the act of God you idiot.
says the theist

>> No.12767790

>>12767695
>All evidence already shows that it is
How? What is the evidence?

>> No.12767793

>>12767788
If something is random, its meaningless, which is the opposite of theism.
Determinism is the theistic position, not non-determinism. You literally don't even know your own philosophical position.

>> No.12767797

>>12767790
The evidence that collapse is inherently random. There has never been deterministic mechanism shown, anywhere, ever.
Even our "deterministic" theories like relativity or classical mechanics are not actually deterministic, as they do not describe all phenomenon and they do not predict motion with perfect deterministic accuracy outside of toy simulations.

>> No.12767818

>>12767797
>The evidence that collapse is inherently random
Ok and what is the evidence for this?
>There has never been deterministic mechanism shown, anywhere, ever.
Yeah just like for nearly everything else in the world. Finding deterministic mechanisms for things is very, very rare.
>classical mechanics are not actually deterministic
Wrong. Classical mechanics is absolutely deterministic. Knowing the hamiltonian of a system and its state at at any point in time uniquely determines the state at all other times.

>> No.12768077

>>12766440
And yet the opposite view is that there are some deterministic reasons that explain randomness that we just can't measure in any way. Both views take as much faith as each other

>> No.12768110
File: 208 KB, 1294x948, ows-0f9382c4-b22e-4967-ad11-75676a30bdf5-1603447698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12768110

>>12766277
I fucking knew it. On a scale of 1 to ten, how based is my specialization?
>Measure theory
>Stochastic processes
>Complex systems 1, 2 & 3
>Mathematical physics
>Statistical mechanics seminar
>Calculus of variations
>Intro qft
Am I based, anons?

>> No.12768138

>>12766277
I agree

>> No.12768204

>>12766418
Mechanism died after Newton. Cope and dilate, tranny.

>> No.12768409

>>12768110
It's like 3/10

>> No.12768628

>>12768409
how can I make it a 7?

>> No.12768652

>>12768628
You start being based when you dgf what people think of your interests.
So you already failed.

>> No.12769198

Allah created the universe perfectly deterministically and there’s no randomness
randomness is your new god. cope harder sci brainlets

>> No.12769528

The MWI is the only decent interpretation of QM, and it's entirely deterministic. Randomness isn't a real thing, it's at most a useful mathematical abstraction.

>> No.12769559

>>12766277
prove it ;). something you'll find is the hardest thing in the world with quantum mechanics. which interpretation is the most correct one? can you say? is light a particle or a wave?

>> No.12770018

>>12769528
relational quantum mechanics is better. the state of a particle being a subjective state, that is both the result of and influenced by, its relationship with interacting particles, does well to explain many of the absurdities of quantum mechanics. physicists just hate it because it is absurdly complicated and completely throws out the concept of realism found in classical mechanics.

just like how in the theory of relativity, someone on a train will see events happening at a different time than somebody outside of the train, in relational quantum mechanics the actual minutiae of the interactions themselves will be different. the realities experienced by the train person and the ground person will be relativistic in all respects, not just time, because the relative positions and states of the two people create different relationships with the observed events.