Isn't this board supposed to love science?

[Anonymous No.15196562]

Why does this board embrace the science destroying, besides being utterly unfalsifiable and untestable and falling in the realm of faith and beliefs, concept of superdeterminism?
Superdeterminism is simply incompatible with scientific research and experimentation beyond purely utilitarian objectives.

[Anonymous No.15196605]

>>15196562
zeilinger's assessment is wrong. "freedom" is not essential to science.

anyway, superdeterminism is just an idea which questions the validity of bell's statistical independence assumption. there is nothing wrong with questioning this assumption. assuming that it is true is at least as problematic as assuming that it is false. to truly know, one must test the assumption. and this, unfortunately for us, is impossible, because we cannot conceivably search in any space for counterfactual worlds to test for their reality. but this is absolutely what we NEED to do if we ever want to properly settle the question.

[Anonymous No.15196609]

>>15196562
the antiempirical clique trying to subvert and destroy our senses so as to institute a literal Matrix under their control, will instead end up in a biblical hell under ours

[Anonymous No.15196611]

>>15196605
>"freedom" is not essential to science
it absolutely is, unless you elaborate

[Anonymous No.15196614]

>>15196562
>>15196611
If scientists have free will then by the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem particles also have free will. If particles have free will then why do they always follow the same statistical distributions? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.15196617]

>>15196605
>assessment is wrong
board is inhabited by pseuds confirmed
>>15196614
superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will
the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.15196621]

>>15196611
can you elaborate why it is essential? they just said it dismisses all results, without explaining why it does.

[Anonymous No.15196626]

>>15196617
>superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will
that's untrue, and sabine gets this wrong too. superdeterminism does in fact rule out libertarian free will, by ruling out counterfactual worlds aka ruling out those worlds in which you "could have done otherwise"

if you use another definition of free will, then superdeterminism *might* be compatible with it.

[Anonymous No.15196629]

>>15196617
>superdeterminism has nothing to do with free will
Lmao, bruh, this NPC doesn't know about modes of causation

[Anonymous No.15196634]

>>15196626
>>15196629
superdeterminism isn't determinism incurable brainlets

[Anonymous No.15196637]

>>15196562
>Isn't this board supposed to love science?
Most of us hate science, either because we've studied it and know its flaws or because we're superior math Chads.

[Anonymous No.15196640]

>>15196634
yes it is.

[Anonymous No.15196643]

>>15196634
Those are synonyms.

[Anonymous No.15196646]

>>15196621
Can't you just read? I'm afraid you're merely unfamiliar with the concept of superdeterminism like your fellow pseuds

[Anonymous No.15196647]

>>15196562
>superdeterminism
Superdeterminism is r/science. /sci/ is the antideterminist board.

[Anonymous No.15196648]

>>15196640
>>15196643
I siggest you research the topic, you sound like you're fresh out of high school.

[Anonymous No.15196650]

>>15196648
>ad homonym
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.15196657]

>>15196648
i can virtually guarantee that i have researched it more than anyone else here. i literally google search the word for new results every single day because i'm obsessed with it.

[Anonymous No.15196658]

>>15196640
>>15196643
determinism implies spookie action at a distance and faster than light causality
superdeterminism is one level deeper and brushes it all off making the concept of causality and determinism meaningless
tldr you're dumb

[Anonymous No.15196661]

>>15196658
>determinism implies spookie action at a distance and faster than light causality
no it doesn't. violation of locality implies spooky action, not determinism.

[Anonymous No.15196662]

>>15196658
Absolutely irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Superdeterminism implies determinism and is incompatible with free will, hence also incompatible with science.

[Anonymous No.15196663]

>>15196662
>and is incompatible with free will
what definition of free will are you using?

[Anonymous No.15196670]

>>15196663
There is only one meaningful definition.

[Anonymous No.15196672]

>>15196662
>Absolutely irrelevant to the topic of discussion
it absolutely is you brainlet, that's what superdeterminism is about, not your raging boner over free will

[Anonymous No.15196674]

>>15196670
that's untrue. but you haven't answered the question, what definition are you using?

[Anonymous No.15196675]

>>15196661
what is causality?
what is locality my mentally challenged friend?

[Anonymous No.15196677]

The bot is going all out on this one

[Anonymous No.15196682]

>>15196672
Apparently abstraction and logic aren't your strong suit. Have you never heard of modus tollens, aka proof by contradiction? If superdeterminism implies something demonstrably wrong, then superdeterminism itself must be wrong. Go ask you teacher if you still don't get it.

[Anonymous No.15196683]

>>15196674
If you think there is more than one possible definition of free will then you haven't yet spent enough time thinking about it.

[Anonymous No.15196685]

>>15196683
crazy how you're still dodging the question, failing to give your definition

[Anonymous No.15196686]

>>15196683
NTA but that's an excuriatingly low IQ take.

[Anonymous No.15196689]

>>15196682
Are you a bot or just copy-pasting things you read online in an attempt to sound? Superdeterminism is absolutely unfalsifiable, you are posting irrelevant text, bot.

[Anonymous No.15196693]

>>15196685
it's a bot by the looks of it

[Anonymous No.15196698]

>>15196689
Superdeterminism is disproved by my free will.

[Anonymous No.15196703]

>>15196685
Why should I do your job of figuring it out for you? Do you also want me to fuck your wife for you? You'd probably like that, cuck.

[Anonymous No.15196706]

>>15196562
>be me
>a woman in stem
>just a useless hole
>running an experiment
>unexpected result
>can't explain it
>don't know what to do
>have an idea
>write a paper about how it's all just fate bro
>i am so smart
>i'm sabine hossenfelder

[Anonymous No.15196710]

>>15196703
yawn, i was hoping for a sensible exchange

[Anonymous No.15196720]

>>15196706
>Sabine has high scientific reputation, a high ranking research position and a successful youtube channel
>Lubos is still a seething unemployed conspiracy theorist merely writing his right-wing chud blog

[Anonymous No.15196729]

>>15196675
causality is the question of whether, and how the future is decided by past events. if you reject determinism then you can't have causality. because rejecting determinism then implies each moment in time is simply its own new unique, standalone, fundamental thing. there is no linkage aka causal mapping between each moment.

within determinism, there are different models of causality put forward. spacetime causality used by einstein is the most plausible one, in my opinion.

locality is the assumption that:

"to transfer information from one space-time region to another, disjoint, region, the same information has to also be present on any closed (3-dimensional) surface surrounding the first region."

i took this definition from sabine's paper. importantly, this is not the definition of locality used in bell's theorem; bell locality is something different (and this confusion of different definitions has created issues)

you're welcome for the free education.

[Anonymous No.15196731]

>>15196720
i don't know who this lubo guy is but the man in the op just won a nobel in physics

[Anonymous No.15196737]

>>15196706
why do all these german spinsters give off such a creepy vibe? she reminds me of merkel, and now i realize she's not even 50 but looks just old

[Anonymous No.15196752]

>>15196731
Lubos was a string theorist who got fired after posting sexist remarks about Sabine

[Anonymous No.15196766]

>>15196752
what did he say about her? lmao

[Anonymous No.15196786]

Superdeterminism is incompatible with science.
Under the frame of superdeterminism you're not investigating and discovering the laws of nature when conducting an experiment, you're merely observing what was predetermined to happened as you were intended to do, no deep knowledge can be gained.
Coincidentally the concept of causality is also rendered meaningless and hollowed out as the cause and effect of the phenomena we observe are merely predetermined to occur.
By the same token nothing prevents things that we've always taken for granted to occur under the veil of causality to stop taking place the way we would expect to (like an apple magically falling upwards into the cosmos) any moment simply because it is predetermined.

[Anonymous No.15196854]

>>15196786
>discovering the laws of nature when conducting an experiment, you're merely observing what was predetermined to happened as you were intended to do, no deep knowledge can be gained
"we're not gaining deep knowledge" isn't an argument. nothing about determinism precludes knowledge or discovery.

>Coincidentally the concept of causality is also rendered meaningless and hollowed out as the cause and effect of the phenomena we observe are merely predetermined to occur.
it's the opposite. without determinism you can't speak about causality, they're basically synonyms. indeterminism means the next moment isn't determined aka caused by anything.

>By the same token nothing prevents things that we've always taken for granted to occur under the veil of causality to stop taking place the way we would expect to (like an apple magically falling upwards into the cosmos) any moment simply because it is predetermined
what does this even mean? gravity is attractive and not repulsive, yes. was that predetermined to be the case? well clearly so, because it's the case.

[Anonymous No.15196869]

>>15196854
>still mixing up deterinism and superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.15196875]

>>15196869
i already told you they're the same thing, and you're not helping yourself by failing to explain what you think distinguishes the two from each other.

[Anonymous No.15196886]

>>15196875
>we created a new word by adding the prefix super to it to mean the exact same thing as the original word
>no i'm not talking out of my ass

[Anonymous No.15196921]

>>15196886
if you dislike the word, you're going to have to take it up with bell, he's the one who coined it.

even sabine doesn't like the word, because it suggests something more deterministic than determinism, which doesn't exist. it's just determinism. but we're stuck with it now, because it's the term that caught on. i think it's a funny word at least.

my intimation is that bell didn't like the idea of determinism, so he put "super" in front of the word to make it seem like it was some kind of radical extreme idea. but it really isn't.

[Anonymous No.15196929]

>>15196921
>even sabine
Lol why do you keep mentioning her?
Regardless I'm afraid I'll have to join the chorus in telling you you don't understand the concepts.

[Anonymous No.15196940]

>>15196921
>it's just determinism
literally isn't
>my intimation is that bell didn't like the idea of determinism, so he put "super" in front of the word to make it seem like it was some kind of radical extreme idea.
literally you infusing your confusion into others

[Anonymous No.15196943]

>>15196614
>If scientists have free will then by the Conway-Kochen Free Will Theorem particles also have free will
Wrong. This presupposes a physicalist theory of mind. That is to say, this supposes that mentality is some how made of matter or energy. There is no credible evidence to this and in fact, things like the neural binding problem point against it and falsify this model, see pic, specifically this
>The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.

[Anonymous No.15196976]

>>15196929
>Lol why do you keep mentioning her?
because she's the foremost physicist who promotes the idea.

>you don't understand the concepts
explain how/why.

>>15196940
>literally isn't
superdeterminism is the violation of statistical independence. statistical independence assigns reality to counterfactual worlds. therefore superdeterminism is the exclusion of counterfactual worlds. from the exclusion of counterfactual worlds, it necessarily follows that the future evolves deterministically from the past. that's as clear as i can put it. i have to keep repeating myself because posters here either don't understand the significance of counterfactual worlds in bell's theorem, or worse, they deny it.

[Anonymous No.15196987]

>>15196729
>because rejecting determinism then implies each moment in time is simply its own new unique, standalone, fundamental thing.
Not true. You are presupposing that determined materialist event causation is the only form of causation. There just needs to be an outside the system input, IE a non-physical input, ie consciousness (see pic) as an input device in an interactive computation situation, then you have AGENT determination. So there is still a determination of events, it's just that AGENT causation is a variable instead. Reality is STATISTICAL and PROBABILISTIC fundamentally by the way. The things like the orbits of the planets with low uncertainty are are EFFECTIVELY deterministic since the probability distribution is as such that every cycle update the the random draw for an input will dictate that the planets stay on the course which is predictable to a high amout of decimal places but there is STILL some non-zero chance that a planet could tunnel from one side of the universe to the next, just as with quantum tunneling. See vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMImjFYZ1iY

[Anonymous No.15197004]

>>15196640
It's not the same. Normal determinism as it has been understood assumes events outside each other's light cones don't effect each other. In this case, superdeterminism would be falsified by pic related tests which show FTL bell type correlations based on spacelike separation defying correlations. What sabine wants to say is that ALL matter in the universe is at ALL times correlated and it was predetermined at the initiation of the universe that scientists were fated to THINK that they were confirming QM and non-locality, but in fact that this isn't the case, hence zeilinger's quotes. So she assumes (wrongly) that physicalism is correct with regard to a theory of mined, and that our mental life is somehow made of matter, and then she assumes that the brain matter in our heads makes us contrive experiments which SEEM confirm non-locality, but are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15197007]

>>15196976
>it necessarily follows that the future evolves deterministically from the past
Right, but it is not the traditional understanding of determinism, see here.
>>15197004

[Anonymous No.15197008]

>>15196987
it doesn't matter what you call it, physical or nonphysical, that's another debate. i disagree with idealism, but idealism vs physicalism is separate from determinism vs indeterminism. with the latter, the ONLY thing that matters is whether or not you assign reality to counterfactual worlds. if according to you an agent deterministically causes the future based on their conscious state or whatever, that's still determinism.

[Anonymous No.15197017]

>>15197008
>that's still determinism.
Yes, it's determinism based on agent causation based on as an input in an interactive computation. And this includes probabilistic computing as well, see pic. So this is different that some situation of just determined input and and transition function then event output where we are somehow conscious hostages to the unfolding of events set forth at the booting up of the reality. This is what sabine BELIEVES in.

[Anonymous No.15197023]

>>15197004
>>15197008
no bell test can rule out superdeterminism, because in order to rule out superdeterminism, one needs to prove that statistical independence is true, and bell tests don't achieve this. the bell inequality is violated every time, and this only shows that at least one of the bell assumptions is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15197025]

>>15197017
this is confusing the matter. there is only determinism and indeterminism, there is no third option. if probabilistic computing is deterministic, that means it works the same way as any other deterministic process. it's not some kind of 'half-determinism' or something. it means there are no counterfactual possibilities.

[Anonymous No.15197031]

>>15197025
>there is only determinism and indeterminism
do you have any proofs?

[Anonymous No.15197033]

>>15197031
the proof is that there is no third scenario which you can think of. i challenge you to try. if you find one, i'll happily retract my statement.

[Anonymous No.15197038]

>>15197023
I didn't say it could. Superdeterminism isn't falsifiable because it just says that any results of any experiment are as such that we were determined to come to the conclusions that we come to, right or wrong. In fact, if you look at the entire universe as a mathematical construct describable formally meeting the specs that Gödel described, including our thought in terms of if the computational theory of minds is true (it isn't, but assume it is), then there would always be doubts about proving ANYTHING, since we would be within the system. We couldn't step out of algo. This is of course incoherent sounding for the exact reason that WE CAN step outside of algorithm or program, as Gödel himself knew and this drove him to write about it in disagreement with turing. Though turing himself briefly DID mention a 'choice' machine as an external input.

[Anonymous No.15197040]

>>15197033
third scenario: determinism and indeterminism aren't absolutist terms and apply selectively
quite a louse proof from your part to be honest tho

[Anonymous No.15197049]

>>15197038
so we agree that superdeterminism hasn't been disproven. that means you can't rule it out. we are stuck here, unable to commit to determinism or indeterminism, until statistical independence can be tested (which is probably never).

[Anonymous No.15197050]

>>15197025
>there is only determinism and indeterminism
There is input and output. Consciousness is an input device and so there is interactive computing. And so there is agent causation and and agent determination, yes, along with the unfolding of events which are so low in uncertainty, like the motion of the planets, that they are NOT determined by the agent, but are more like what materialist think of as materialist event causation. SNEEZING would be another more like event causal causation, since we are captive to our sneezing physiology function because of high immersion level in the vr. Sabine doesn't believe in this kind of determinism so to just try to boil it down to just determinism or indeterminism is not nuanced enough. She believes in a sort of reality which is more like a dream, where we are conscious but captive to the unfolding of events, but this is not accurate either. She believes in a reality where we THINK we are choosing our actions or at least performatively ACT like we are making choices, but in reality we were pre-programmed to make these choices.

[Anonymous No.15197054]

>>15197040
this is just reasserting the point, this is not a scenario.

[Anonymous No.15197056]

>>15197054
fourth scenario: the limited but haughty human brain is incapable of conceiving a possible alternative and falls to the trap that a single term describes precisely the functioning of everything

[Anonymous No.15197060]

>>15197050
>to just try to boil it down to just determinism or indeterminism is not nuanced enough
it is. it is a true dichotomy. either there are no counterfactual worlds, or there is at least one. once you add a single counterfactual world, it becomes indeterministic.

[Anonymous No.15197063]

5th scenario: the complexity of the universe is impossible to be grasped by the human mind and the true nature of the universe isn't effectively describe by lthe limited concepts of determinism or indeterminism

[Anonymous No.15197066]

>>15197060
>it is a true dichotomy
proofs?

[Anonymous No.15197070]

>>15197066
i just explained it to you, stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.15197075]

>>15197070
>if you can't think of a third scenario it doesn't exist lol
that's not a proof, alternatives scenarios have been provided regardless and you have no retort except >me don't like it :^(

[Anonymous No.15197083]

>>15197049
>so we agree that superdeterminism hasn't been disproven. that means you can't rule it out.
Depends on how you look at it. Her model assumes a physicalist account of the theory of mind, which has been falsified, as stated here.
>>15196943
BUT, since cog sci is never going to admit the falsification of a physicalist model of mind, this won't be likely used against sabine by any prominent cog scientist or prominent physicist. And so it is EFFECTIVELY unfalsifiable. And most physicists and any other person in general see it as ESSENTIALLY unfalsifiable and so they don't like it. They actually get QUITE butthurt about it. They can't express it in philosophical terms though WHY they are butthurt though. Kastrup did, but he made the mistake of not reading her first toy model paper in their debate, and so was unprepared to give a full offensive.
>unable to commit to determinism or indeterminism, until statistical independence can be tested (which is probably never)
We can look for the models which seem to have the best explanatory power and that CAN be falsified, such as displayed in pic related in terms of bell type correlations etc. It's very hard to 'prove' just about anything in science because inductive inferences are never deductively valid. Science is based mostly on inductive reasoning.

[Anonymous No.15197084]

>>15197075
i explained in my above post how it depends on the belief in counterfactual worlds. you can't have a counterfactual 'half-world', that's incoherent.

[Anonymous No.15197091]

You've been posting in this thread for hours and your contribution to the thread has been a negative.
First of all you derailed the thread and turned into another free will vs determinism snore fest.
All in all it remains clear that superdeterminism is highly unscientific and unfalsifiable but also counter to the meaning of science.

[Anonymous No.15197095]

>>15197084
>>15197063
i'll stop wasting my time on you and redirect you to previous posts as the topic f discussion has been exhausted and you mean continue to repeat yourself and assert you're right

[Anonymous No.15197102]

Why are consciousness schizos so threatened by physics?

[Anonymous No.15197105]

>>15197083
>Depends on how you look at it
explain how it depends.

>Her model assumes a physicalist account of the theory of mind, which has been falsified, as stated here
you need to stop going back to the idealism vs physicalism debate, it's not relevant here. determinism concerns counterfactuals, that's the only thing that matters. whether mind or matter is fundamental is besides the point.

we are stuck on this question, as far as i'm concerned.

[Anonymous No.15197106]

>>15197091
you can't make a thread about superdeterminism and expect that determinism and free won't be discussed, lmao

[Anonymous No.15197113]

>>15197106
Yeah if your dumbass is around lmao
Fuck off anytime

[Anonymous No.15197115]

>>15197060
>it is. it is a true dichotomy. either there are no counterfactual worlds, or there is at least one. once you add a single counterfactual world, it becomes indeterministic.
If you are not arguing against the possibility of free will, then I really don't have a big contention against determinism. I would still say it's a qualified determinism, since that is not what most people mean when talking about determinism. They usually don't include agent causation.

[Anonymous No.15197120]

>>15197113
you made a thread about apples and you're complaining that we're not discussing oranges.

[Anonymous No.15197123]

>>15197115
>If you are not arguing against the possibility of free will, then I really don't have a big contention against determinism
i am arguing against it. i'm questioning the existence of counterfactual worlds, which means questioning libertarian free will ('could have done otherwise').

there are other definitions of free will, but this is the one i personally care about.

[Anonymous No.15197126]

>>15197120
I made a thread about apple and your discussing oranges claiming their apples
I don't know if these board has shameless hyper autists who revel in being humiliated or the most annoying epic troolers.
Either way fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15197131]

>>15197126
open sabine & palmer's paper on superdeterminism, then ctrl + f "free will", there are a lot of results.

[Anonymous No.15197133]

>>15197131
and? is this your gospel?

[Anonymous No.15197136]

>>15197131
The thread was never about free will, learn to read moron. >>15196562

>>my intimation is that bell didn't like the idea of determinism, so he put "super" in front of the word to make it seem like it was some kind of radical extreme idea.
I'll quote this regularly just to remind you and everyone else who may read this what kind of terminal brainlet you are.
You won't be getting any more (you)s from me.

[Anonymous No.15197141]

>>15197133
if anyone is an expert on the subject, it's those two, so yes.

[Anonymous No.15197152]

>>15197136
>The thread was never about free will,
superdeterminism necessarily involves the question of free will, as i explained earlier. so much so, that statistical independence is often referred to as 'the free will assumption'

[Anonymous No.15197153]

>>15197141
what makes them experts more than any other physicists who has delved in the unfalsifiable pseudoscientific concept of superdeterminism?

[Anonymous No.15197156]

>>15197152
regardless this was not in the op, now it's clear you are a trolling nigger

[Anonymous No.15197161]

>>15197153
they have produced the most coherent and clarifying literature on the subject. other physicists are so confused that they often genuinely believe bell tests have ruled out superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15197163]

>>15197156
>the exact words 'free will' weren't in the op so you can't mention it!!
lmao

[Anonymous No.15197164]

>>15197152
>i explained earlier.
you never explained anything the entire thread you merely asserted your opinion by poorly quoting and in all likelihood butchering spinster hossenfelder's paper whom you call sabine in your odd infatuation

[Anonymous No.15197168]

>>15197161
>the most coherent and clarifying literature on the subject
do you have any proofs of that?
>other physicists
such as?
>so confused that they often genuinely believe bell tests have ruled out superdeterminism.
what about the non confused ones like then nobel laureate in the op?

[Anonymous No.15197172]

>>15197163
>brainlet couldn't understand the op

[Anonymous No.15197176]

>>15197105
>explain how it depends
see
here in text and the pic related
>>15197083
>Her model assumes a physicalist account of the theory of mind, which has been falsified, as stated here
see pic rel here,
>>15196943
specifically this
>>The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins 2003) and there is no area that could encode this detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry.
Here model PRESUPPOSES that consciousness is made out of matter and energy and is therefore correlated with all matter and energy in the universe and therefore the dynamics governing the goings on in the brain somehow make experimentalists choose to contrive bell type experiments which seem to confirm bell's theorem when in fact it's wrong. If physicalism with regard to mind is wrong, and consciousness is not made of matter and energy and inconsistant with physicalism, then her whole premise is wrong before it even begins. And in fact, as stated in picrel here,
>>15196943
Her idea about the physicalist theory of mind has already been falsified, being that neural circuitry is inconsistant with conscious experience. And mind you, this is just to say that the CONTENT of consciousness is inconsistent with neural correlates. An even harder problem is how the brain even creates the EXPERIENCER in the first place to even observe the experience. So the physicalist model fails to account for the experience AND the experiencer.
>it's not relevant here
It is 100% relevant in sabines theory.
By definition, by the way, there are no counterfactuals existing in the the universe that can be empirically verified, so you will have to explain why you think this plays a role.

[Anonymous No.15197179]

>>15197168
zeilinger is one of the most confused, believing that freedom is somehow essential when it isn't. that he won a nobel prize says nothing about how correct he is. it doesn't surprise me that he was awarded it because the majority of the community sides with him, they hate determinism and want to snuff it out.

[Anonymous No.15197183]

>>15197179
>believing that freedom is somehow essential when it isn't.
do you have any proofs?
also you ignored these questions
>the most coherent and clarifying literature on the subject
do you have any proofs of that?
>other physicists
such as?

[Anonymous No.15197209]

>>15197176
i still don't understand how it depends. please concisely explain how it depends.

the reason counterfactuals are so crucial in this debate, is because statistical independence "implicitly draws on counterfactual situations, mathematical possibilities that we do not observe and that, depending on one's model or theory, may or may not exist."

in fact the other two assumptions of bell's theorem also invoke counterfactuals:

"The issue of whether Factorization is a suitable way to encode locality and causality is similar to the issue with interpreting Statistical Independence: It draws on alternative versions of reality that may not ever actually occur. Factorization requires us to ask what the outcome of a measurement at one place would have been given another measurement elsewhere (Outcome Independence) or what the setting of one detector would have been had the other detector's setting been different (Parameter Independence). These are virtual changes, expressed as state-space perturbations. The changes do therefore not necessarily refer to real events happening in space-time."

(quotes from palmer and hossenfelder)

[Anonymous No.15197210]

>>15197123
>i am arguing against it. i'm questioning the existence of counterfactual worlds, which means questioning libertarian free will ('could have done otherwise')
You are arguing against it based on a non-falsifiable theory first of all. You also can't account for consciousness based on physicalism which is a theory of mind which has been falsified. see here
>>15196943
So you have a scientifically meaningless and untestable physics and a falsified theory of mind you are working with. You are also just begging the question by saying that there can be only one outcome. You have no evidence of that.

[Anonymous No.15197216]

>>15197209
Let's do this concise manner. I will ask a series of questions and we will narrow it down. First question. Are you arguing for superdeterminism as expressed by sabine, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.15197217]

>>15197210
yes, superdeterminism is unfalsifiable. that doesn't mean it's false. we're just stuck on this question indefinitely.

>You also can't account for consciousness based on physicalism
not relevant here, i'm not discussing this with you.

[Anonymous No.15197219]

>>15197183
these are matters of opinion ultimately. we're each taking a side, who cares. what's important and frustrating is that the key to finding out who's correct, is irretrievable.

[Anonymous No.15197225]

>>15197216
yes (except for her point that it "has nothing to do with free will", i disagree with that).

[Anonymous No.15197229]

>>15197217
>yes, superdeterminism is unfalsifiable. that doesn't mean it's false. we're just stuck on this question indefinitely.
So as long as you are just saying that it's your OPINION that there is superdeterminism, then that is not that controversial of a statement.
>not relevant here, i'm not discussing this with you.
Yes, it is relevant to sabines model. She argues specifically based on the idea that choices are controlled by the goings on in the brain.

[Anonymous No.15197238]

>>15197229
>So as long as you are just saying that it's your OPINION that there is superdeterminism, then that is not that controversial of a statement.
sure.

>Yes, it is relevant to sabines model. She argues specifically based on the idea that choices are controlled by the goings on in the brain.
i think you'll find no mention of brains or neurons in sabine's paper. yes, she is a physicalist, but you could easily frame this discussion in idealist context as well. the question of counterfactuals pervades both pictures the same.

bernardo kastrup is an example of an idealist who rejects free will and who "wants a deterministic theory". however, he also rejects superdeterminism, which is puzzling. he thinks that SI is a correct assumption while physical realism is the wrong assumption. but i think that even under his idealist view, physical realism still holds. physical realism is not the same thing as physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15197239]

>>15197225
>yes (except for her point that it "has nothing to do with free will", i disagree with that).
Ok, then the connection between the brain and consciousness and freewill are 100% relevant to the discussion.
>In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a loophole in Bell's theorem. By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the CHOICES of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled.
The whole theory rests on a physicalist theory of mind. It's saying that the goings on in the brain are correlated with every piece of matter in the universe causality set forth at the initiation if the universe and this causes the mind to make choices that result in apparent non-locality when in fact everything is, I guess, locally caused. But come to think of it, the causality would have actually been the initiation of the universe in the first place, so this is a kind of theistic calvinist pre-determinism come to think of it. It requires a first cause.

[Anonymous No.15197243]

>>15196562
It's a basic fact that all our science and even abstract thinking is entirely internal to and constrained by, this local reality and universe.

Until and unless we can somehow break out of this constraint, we can't hope to go any further than this.

[Anonymous No.15197253]

>>15197239
>Ok, then the connection between the brain and consciousness and freewill are 100% relevant to the discussion.
no, because sabine's argument for superdeterminism makes no mention of brains or consciousness.

>The whole theory rests on a physicalist theory of mind. It's saying that the goings on in the brain are correlated with every piece of matter in the universe causality set forth at the initiation if the universe and this causes the mind to make choices that result in apparent non-locality when in fact everything is, I guess, locally caused. But come to think of it, the causality would have actually been the initiation of the universe in the first place, so this is a kind of theistic calvinist pre-determinism come to think of it. It requires a first cause.
this doesn't necessarily entail physicalism. it doesn't specify where those choices come from; it doesn't state that they come from the brain.

[Anonymous No.15197279]

>>15197238
>i think you'll find no mention of brains or neurons in sabine's paper.
She has made vids on this. See here in this vid with the retarded title
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY
>You don't have free will, but don't worry.
She claims we have no free will but then appeals immediately to free by asking the viewer to CHOOSE not to worry. She's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Also, from the article on superdeterminism
>By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them
The physicalist theory of mind is 100% inherent in the concept.
>bernardo kastrup is an example of an idealist who rejects free will and who "wants a deterministic theory". however, he also rejects superdeterminism, which is puzzling. he thinks that SI is a correct assumption while physical realism is the wrong assumption. but i think that even under his idealist view, physical realism still holds. physical realism is not the same thing as physicalism.
He is absolutely NOT a physicalist with regard to theory of mind. you might start here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H51jfbLso8g
As far as free will, he is pretty good on some issues and not on others. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there's no reason NOT to assume that the reality is exactly as experienced. We deliberate about decisions, often arbitrarily fumbling about in going back in forth before making a decision. Nothing deterministically algorithmic about the experience at all. Zero evidence that you can some how code for even creating an awareness in the first place and also zero evidence of how to code for making that consciousness THINK he is making choices, when in fact it he isn't. This is complete conjecture and you have zero evidence for any of it.

[Anonymous No.15197297]

>>15197253
>no, because sabine's argument for superdeterminism makes no mention of brains or consciousness.
See pic here
>>15197279
especially this
>theorem. By postulating that all systems being measured are correlated with the choices of which measurements to make on them, the assumptions of the theorem are no longer fulfilled.
Notice that word CHOICE? Why do you think that word is in there? Explain a version of superdeterminism where choice does NOT come into play. Explain sabines theory absent the idea that the brains configuration and it's correlation are NOT a salient variable. Yes, she might not mention the brain. Why? Because she PRE-SUPPOSES (bad philosophy) a physicalist theory of mind being true, see here vid here
>>15197279
With the extremely ironic title
>>You don't have free will, but don't worry.
Where she denies free will and then immediately appeals to the idea that the viewer should CHOOSE not to worry.

[Anonymous No.15197299]

>>15197279
yes, her video on free will mentions brains, but not her content about superdeterminism. she is a physicalist but technically, superdeterminism doesn't depend on physicalism.

>The physicalist theory of mind is 100% inherent in the concept.
it's not, nowhere in the passage you quoted are brains mentioned. it has to mentioned brains in order to be physicalist.

>He is absolutely NOT a physicalist with regard to theory of mind
i never said he was? i said he rejects physical realism (NOT physicalism) which I think is a mistake. I know he rejects physicalism, obviously he does because he's an idealist, but i wasn't talking about that

>there's no reason NOT to assume that the reality is exactly as experienced
well, we don't experience counterfactual worlds, so it's fair to question their existence. deliberation is not evidence of counterfactual worlds. it's evidence of thinking.

[Anonymous No.15197314]

>>15197243
Abstract thought is not confined or constrained by this local universe, or at least not in the way physicalists imagine. See lucid dreaming, dreams in general. The mind can host an entirely different virtual model of reality within which the content of reality is in no way constrained by the rules of this physical domain.

[Anonymous No.15197321]

>>15197297
>See pic here
the word "brain" isn't mentioned.

>Explain a version of superdeterminism where choice does NOT come into play
the wikipedia page for superdeterminism does just that. there isn't a single mention of brains. ergo, it doesn't depend on physicalism.

[Anonymous No.15197325]

>>15197297
>>15197321
to clarify a potential confusion: yes the wiki mentions choices, but just mentioning choices doesn't make it a physicalist theory. idealists also talk about choices. to qualify as physicalist theory, it needs to mention brains.

[Anonymous No.15197355]

>>15197299
>yes, her video on free will mentions brains,
Yes, of course it does, because she is a physicalist and believes that the brain determines choices.
>it's not, nowhere in the passage you quoted are brains mentioned. it has to mentioned brains in order to be physicalist.
It mentions choices. What do you think would be the explanation of why choices would correlated with the dynamics of the world if not for the correlation of brain with choices?
>i never said he was? i said he rejects physical realism (NOT physicalism) which I think is a mistake.
He rejects physical realism and he rejects the physicalist theory of mind
>well, we don't experience counterfactual worlds
Why would values in spacetime be rendered for choices not made? That is inefficient in terms of computational complexity and it's an incoherent concept anyways. You can only render the one experience to the experiencer anyways.

So in terms of pic related, which is the quote by bell that first came up with the concept, what would be the explanation of why choices would be correlated with the rest of the matter of the universe absent a physicalist theory of mind?

[Anonymous No.15197366]

>>15197325
>to clarify a potential confusion: yes the wiki mentions choices, but just mentioning choices doesn't make it a physicalist theory.
Then what would be correlating choices with the rest of the dynamics of the physical world absent an appeal to the brain states determining choice? And why wouldn't I just assume, being that sabine has made vids about the brain determining choices, that she in fact IS appealing to the physicalist model?

[Anonymous No.15197381]

>>15197355
It mentions choices. What do you think would be the explanation of why choices would correlated with the dynamics of the world if not for the correlation of brain with choices?
i obviously think it's brains, but the point is that one does not have to agree that it's brains in order to subscribe to superdeterminism. the only thing that matters is the choice itself. i.e. the choice of detector setting, in the context of bell's theorem. not about brains.

>what would be the explanation of why choices would be correlated with the rest of the matter of the universe absent a physicalist theory of mind?
that's a question for you and other idealists to worry about. as a physicalist, i have my answer. to be charitable, i will guess what an idealist superdeterminist might say: the conscious observer 'dreams' that they make a certain choice, and this choice is correlated with the detector setting (this is putting it simply).

[Anonymous No.15197394]

>>15197366
>why wouldn't I just assume, being that sabine has made vids about the brain determining choices, that she in fact IS appealing to the physicalist model?
because technically it never enters the theory. in her model, she only cares about what decisions humans make about detector settings. HOW they come to those decisions is another matter. because statistical independence is not concerned with how humans come to their decisions, it is only concerned with any potential link between those decisions and the system being detected.

[Anonymous No.15197407]

Wtf is this logic? There is no practical difference between if determinism or free will is correct because one could explain human decisions with both interpretations. How do you get from
>things happen due to cause and effect
to
>nature wants us to be lead astray and the voices in my head are telling me the wrong questions to trick me

[Anonymous No.15197418]

>>15197407
>There is no practical difference between if determinism or free will is correct
practically there isn't. but theoretically the difference is huge. the question of whether counterfactual worlds are possible is crucial when trying to produce a correct model of how the universe works.

[Anonymous No.15197420]

>>15197164
kek it does sound like he imagines her to be his girlfriend

[Anonymous No.15197424]

>>15197407
>>15196786

[Anonymous No.15197430]

>>15197394
>because technically it never enters the theory.
CHOICE enters the theory. The assertion is that decisions were determined at the big bang. She needs to account for how these choices are 'predetermined' (see pic).
>Since the choice of measurements and the hidden variable are predetermined
And guess what, SHE HAS. She BELIEVES brains determine choices. see vid here
>>15197279
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY
And if she mentions the brain in her papers is really irrelevant because she is not putting forward a theory with new predictions in her paper, she is just trying to explain the existing experimental data with here own metaphysical pre-suppositions. ONE of those metaphysical pre-suppositions is a physicalist theory of mind. That's an absolute FACT.

[Anonymous No.15197435]

>>15196766
I don't know exactly anymore. This statement from Sabine is the only thing I found in my meme folder. It's been more than 10 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15197479]

>>15197430
>She needs to account for how these choices are 'predetermined'
yes, any superdeterministic theory attempts to account for human choices with 'hidden variables'. but these hidden variables could be postulated as physical things within our universe, or as nonphysical things, aka things in another reality, as with idealism.

[Anonymous No.15197489]

>>15197435
i googled 'lubos motl sabine hossenfelder' and someone said that:

"Lubos was sued by Sabine Hossenfelder in 2019. IIRC, he said she was a diversity hire, she claimed this was defamation and it impacted her book sales, and he was briefly homeless as a result of the legal fees the case incurred."

intense stuff, never knew about this feud.

[Anonymous No.15197516]

>>15197489
judging by what i'm reading here and her video in the other thread i tend to agree

[Anonymous No.15197519]

>>15197516
agree with what?

[Anonymous No.15197656]

>>15197519
with you mum being a shameless slag

[Anonymous No.15197693]

>>15197656
cope.

[Anonymous No.15199153]

she beats the street

[Anonymous No.15199928]

KANGS

[Anonymous No.15199965]

>>15197430
>>15197479
re:Choice - Choice is in fact illusory. It is based on uncertainty, but in fact you are never choosing anything. All you are doing is hesitating before performing an action

[Anonymous No.15199967]

>>15196698
>Superdeterminism is disproved by my free will.

[Anonymous No.15199970]

>>15196720
She thinks that 2 + 2 doesn't always = 4.

[Anonymous No.15201792]

skienke

[Anonymous No.15201844]

>>15196562
I read Zeilinger's book. He's a hack when it comes to theory. So many misconceptions and outright incorrect statements in there that I stopped reading. He's a master experimentalist though. His theoretical ramblings are not to be trusted though.

[Anonymous No.15202652]

>>15201844
well if he's such a brainlet it should be trivial to understand and refute his argument

[Anonymous No.15203389]

>>15202652
It is.

[Anonymous No.15203435]

>>15199965
>Choice is in fact illusory
That is a metaphysical presupposition of yours. You have no evidence for this. And what does that even mean the 'illusion of choice'. There's no illusion of choice. You deliberate on things and you choose. You have obviously deliberated on the idea of if free will exists and came to the conclusion that it doesn't. So are you saying you DIDN'T come to your conclusion based on choice between the different possible explanations? Do you have any evidence of how a consciousness is make to have the 'illusion' of choice?

[Anonymous No.15203449]

>>15196562
What differentiates super determinism from determinism? The name makes me want to dismiss it as braind grifter nonsense without consideration.

[Anonymous No.15203456]

>>15196720
>appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.15203995]

>>15203456
>yes

[Anonymous No.15204005]

>>15203389
we're still waiting

[Anonymous No.15204094]

>>15203449
nothing, superdeterminism is just the word for determinism as an interpretation of qm, in the field of physics

[Anonymous No.15204120]

>>15203449
determinism = cause effect, classical concept as normally understood, incompatible with QM findings
superdeterminism = QM interpretation that tries to reconcile QM with determinism by claiming everything was predetermined, paradoxically and ironically hollowing out the concept of determinism and cause-effect of any real meaning (essentially scientific fatalism)

[Anonymous No.15204179]

>>15204120
wrong

[Anonymous No.15204210]

>>15204005
You did not tell me what to debunk.

[Anonymous No.15204328]

>>15204179
incorrect

[Anonymous No.15204330]

>>15204210
>>15196562
>>15196611

[Anonymous No.15204337]

Anti-determinism is a mental illness
If an event has happened... it has happened and had a cause. Even some kind of god working outside our human perception of time would be deterministic

[Anonymous No.15204339]

>>15204337
>If an event has happened... it has happened and had a cause.
So?

[Anonymous No.15204343]

>>15204328
there is no sense in which determinism is "hollowed out" in superdeterminism

[Anonymous No.15204346]

>>15204343
it has to, it's been explained to you multiple times, you're incapable of understanding

[Anonymous No.15204347]

>>15204346
no you never explained it

[Anonymous No.15204376]

>>15204330
the burden is on you to show that science requires "freedom". you don't even have a definition for this so-called "freedom", do you?

there is no contradiction in the idea of humans being determined to build models and test those models against what they see. that's basically what science is

in the op zeilinger says "that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature". well...that's just saying "we could get it wrong" and yes, obviously we could. what's so forbidden about that?

[Anonymous No.15204389]

>>15196562
>[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature
That's just another angle on one basic observation: if determinism is correct, rationality itself is impossible, since it reduces the reasons for one's assessments into mere physical happenstance and robs one of the ability to judge between truth and falsehood: those who are wrong are condemned to be wrong and think they are right, while those who are right, are right merely by coincidence and likewise locked into falsely believing that their reasoning is a cause of their opinion, rather than just the effect of arbitrary physical circumstances that give rise both to the thought process and the conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15204397]

>>15204389
that makes no sense. reasoning can be deterministic, there is nothing contradictory about that. people just reason differently, hence arrive at different conclusions. "reasoning" is not some objective thing that is identical within us all, it just means humans thinking about stuff.

[Anonymous No.15204404]

>>15204397
>reasoning can be deterministic
I never implied reasoning can't be deterministic. "Poeple" like you are indeed stuck in a loop of deterministic "reasoning" that precludes them from understanding basic reality.

[Anonymous No.15204407]

>>15204404
your argument doesn't work to defeat determinism, once you admit that reasoning can be deterministic

[Anonymous No.15204411]

>>15196562
Determinism (i.e. mathematics) is the basis of modern physics. You just can't do without it.

[Anonymous No.15204414]

>>15204407
>your argument doesn't work to defeat determinism
Who said my argument is supposed to disprove determinism? You are legitimately disabled.

[Anonymous No.15204418]

>>15204414
cool, as long as you understand that it doesn't. zeilinger weirdly seems to think it works as a defeater, though

[Anonymous No.15204424]

>>15204418
>zeilinger weirdly seems to think it works as a defeater
It does. You're just profoundly imbecilic so you can't warp your "mind" around why the two things I said don't contradict each other.

[Anonymous No.15204427]

>>15204424
so first you say it doesn't disprove determinism, now, immediately after, you say it does disprove determinism. doesn't get any more dishonest and poorly argued than this

[Anonymous No.15204429]

>>15204427
>you say it does disprove determinism
No, I say it "defeats" determinism (using your own wording), specifically in the context Zeilinger was talking about.

[Anonymous No.15204430]

>>15204429
so what's the difference between defeat and disprove

[Anonymous No.15204435]

>>15204430
You don't need to "disprove" a proposition to correctly determine that it deserves no consideration in a scientific context.

[Anonymous No.15204441]

>>15204435
you, do actually

[Anonymous No.15204443]

>>15204347
>>15204346

[Anonymous No.15204444]

>>15204376
you don't even understand what we are talking about, we're on a completely different level you absolute brainlet

[Anonymous No.15204445]

>>15204441
I am going to give you once chance to find a counter-example disproving your retarded take. You should be able to do so easily if you're not an absolute inbred imbecile.

[Anonymous No.15204446]

>>15204418
>zeilinger weirdly seems to think it works as a defeater
define defeater

[Anonymous No.15204447]

>>15204427
>using words willy nilly
i'm afraid this topic is simply beyond your intellectual capabilities

[Anonymous No.15204449]

>>15204444
i understand the physics better than you. i bet you aren't even familiar with the assumptions of bell's theorem

[Anonymous No.15204450]

>>15204449
You're an inbred highschool dropout judging by your other posts ITT.

[Anonymous No.15204451]

>>15204441
retard alert

[Anonymous No.15204453]

>>15204449
you don't understand english by all accounts so that defeats the whole purpose, besides superdeterminism hardly being a scientific topic and hinging more on the philosophical

[Anonymous No.15204455]

>>15204445
why would i need to do that? i don't

[Anonymous No.15204456]

Does sabine not realize that the standard interpretation of qm (many worlds) is superdeterministic?

[Anonymous No.15204457]

>>15204455
>why would i need to do that?
To show that you may be low IQ, but not irredeemaby so. You fail. Autohiding all further posts from you. Responding to inbreds like you should be a bannable offence once they expose themselves like that.

[Anonymous No.15204458]

>>15204446
an argument or observation that shows a certain idea to be wrong

[Anonymous No.15204463]

>>15204456
No

[Anonymous No.15204465]

>>15204456
firstly, many-worlds isn't the "standard" interpretation of qm; if any interpretation is standard, it's copenhagen, which only assumes one universe.

many-worlds seems more reasonable than most of the other interpretations, because it is indeed deterministic. however assuming the existence of other universes is bold, and without observational evidence, is rightly questionable. that's why sabine doesn't like it

[Anonymous No.15204466]

i hate science, that's why i got a masters in psychology

[Anonymous No.15204467]

>>15204458
you missed the point entirely in that case

[Anonymous No.15204469]

>>15204467
explain how

[Anonymous No.15204472]

>>15204465
Many worlds is just another name for shut up and calculate, which is the real standard interpretation. The terminology of other worlds is just a metaphorical way of describing the math (the unitary evolution of the wavefunction). "Copenhagen" is a meme term which no one even considers well-defined these days.

[Anonymous No.15204481]

>>15204472
>Many worlds is just another name for shut up and calculate
no it's not, that's typically attributed to copenhagen. many-worlds avoids the measurement problem by claiming that the wavefunction never collapses, instead all futures exist somewhere. their answer to "why do we get this specific future?" is: because we just began with certain initial conditions that evolved deterministically. but they have to believe that all other initial conditions also exist somewhere.

also no, it's not a metaphor. they truly believe in other worlds - that's the basis of their interpretation. i just watched a lecture from carroll on it, he's an ardent many-worlds proponent

[Anonymous No.15204484]

>>15204469
the point was never to prove the unfalsifiable idea of super determinism wrong, learn to read and to think and to argue

[Anonymous No.15204497]

>>15204481
>many-worlds avoids the measurement problem
The measurement problem is considered to be solved by decoherence by most physicists, which is also why collapse theories are disfavored.

> i just watched a lecture from carroll on it
You probably watched a talk for lay audience, where he uses that language so that he can sell his books to the marvel fans

[Anonymous No.15204498]

>>15204484
why would i care about your opinion on superdeterminism? as you say it can't be falsified, that doesn't mean you can say it's wrong. it means you can never reasonably remove it from consideration. i don't like many-worlds, but at least i admit that i can never write it off

[Anonymous No.15204506]

>>15204497
>by most physicists
not so sure about that.

i assure you that many-worlds comes with the commitment of believing in other universes. i find it odd that you would dispute this obvious fact. check the wikipedia article on it which says the same thing. but i'm guessing you're just gonna say that's another metaphor

[Anonymous No.15204513]

>>15204498
if you don't have anything to add you don''t need to reply for the sake of replying

[Anonymous No.15204518]

>>15204513
i just need you to know that i don't care if the idea of determinism upsets you

[Anonymous No.15204519]

>>15204506
The wikipedia article agrees with me though
>According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI have two different interpretations: real or unreal; he claimed that Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation.[84] Gardner also claimed that most physicists favour the unreal interpretation
>In a 1983 interview, Hawking also said he regarded MWI as "self-evidently correct"

[Anonymous No.15204520]

>>15204330
I said he was wrong in his book about theory. I did not say he was wrong about OP, just to take his ramblings with a grain of salt. Why are you shifting the topic?

[Anonymous No.15204521]

>>15204518
>60 replies later
>i-i don't care akshually
you won't stop replying to my thread tho

[Anonymous No.15204522]

ITT
>you didn't say X, can you elaborate on Y
>nO u r ReTad dIsABleD LmAo @ u hA

[Anonymous No.15204524]

>>15204520
the topic was never zellinger or hossenfelder, so yeah why are you shifting the topic?

[Anonymous No.15204528]

>>15204519
an "unreal" interpretation of many-worlds is just copenhagen. there's no difference.

[Anonymous No.15204529]

>>15204528
How so?

[Anonymous No.15204533]

>>15204528
You can distort the meaning of copenhagen to mean whatever you want it to mean, which is why no one considers the term seriously nowadays as I said earlier.

If you want to understand how actual physicists think about MWI, watch this lecture by Coleman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtyNMlXN-sw

This guy is not me btw >>15204529

[Anonymous No.15204535]

>>15204529
the whole point of many-worlds is to evade the collapse problem. if you then say those worlds aren't real, then the problem comes back, and you return to where you started, which is copenhagen

[Anonymous No.15204545]

>>15204533
no, i'm not watching that. too long and terrible quality. you should be able to tldr your position instead of linking me a video. it is also a red flag that you discount carroll as being an "actual physicist"

[Anonymous No.15204546]

Wouldn't quantum computers dismiss super determinism?

[Anonymous No.15204556]

>>15204545
I already stated my position earlier, which is that most physicists accept MWI where the other worlds are not to be taken too literally. I only linked the video so that you could learn something. It's your loss if you don't watch it.

[Anonymous No.15204563]

>>15204556
and i already told you that MWI without other worlds is just copenhagen. there is nothing more to it. you say "not to be taken too literally" as if to suggest that these worlds are somehow between being real and unreal. that doesn't make sense. either they exist or they don't.

[Anonymous No.15204566]

>>15204522
yes exactly, arguingn with superdeterminists is like arguing with religiontards
>but you can't prove god aint real
>i'm not setting out to prove god isn't real, that's an irrefutable preposition, i'm merely stating god adds an extra layer of unnecessary complexity without helping to explain anything, it's just a useless and even detrimental idea
>uh but you can't disprove god, i dont care if god makes you feel upset

[Anonymous No.15204569]

>>15204563
>and i already told you that MWI without other worlds is just copenhagen
And I already told you why you're wrong.
>either they exist or they don't.
They exist in the sense that there is no wavefunction collapse fundamentally.
They don't exist in the sense that decoherence causes an apparent collapse.

[Anonymous No.15204571]

>>15204546
no, proving counterfactual worlds is the only way to disprove superdeterminism.

>>15204566
the superdeterminist's position is as faith-based as the anti-superdeterminist's. the former claims counterfactual worlds don't exist, the latter claims they do. neither can be proven

[Anonymous No.15204575]

>>15204571
kek thanks for proving my point, i suggest you familiarize yourself with english before continuing to argue on the internet

[Anonymous No.15204577]

>>15204571
Ok, but how does super determinism explain quantum computers? Isn't the power of quantum computers that qubits can be 0 and 1 at the same time therefore exponentially increasing the computational capabilities of the computer? Doesn't super determinism contradict that? There's only uncertainty from our imperfect perspective but the universe always knew it was a 1, right?

[Anonymous No.15204580]

>>15204569
>They exist in the sense that there is no wavefunction collapse fundamentally.
>They don't exist in the sense that decoherence causes an apparent collapse.
but answer the question: do these other worlds occur in some spacetime somewhere, or do they not?

[Anonymous No.15204582]

>>15204575
your "point" was to say that only the superdeterminist makes a leap of faith, which i pointed out is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15204587]

>>15204582
kek it's amusing watching you argue with the voices in your head

[Anonymous No.15204589]

>>15204580
Why do you keep deflecting in each of your posts? Even if I answered your question, you would just deflect again

[Anonymous No.15204599]

>>15204577
all i know for sure is that to really disprove superdeterminism requires confirming counterfactual worlds. superpositions don't confirm counterfactual worlds, they confirm superpositions.

[Anonymous No.15204602]

>>15204589
not deflecting, i have been probing your position because i'm trying to figure out wtf your take is. strangely you link me a 1hr potato quality video which nobody has ever heard of, instead of just describing your view. i just want to know if in your view, these other worlds are real or not? it shouldn't be hard.

[Anonymous No.15204609]

>>15204599
How can superposition exist in a super deterministic world?

[Anonymous No.15204616]

>>15196621
Because experimental science relies on independent testing and verification, on multiple levels.

Like say you want to test if salt dissolves in water. As an experiment, you decide to just pour some salt into water and see what happens. The fact that it is *you* pouring salt into the water is supposed to be irrelevant. You could check it by asking someone else to do it and make sure they got the same result as you. Two independent researchers, conducting independent experiments, get the same result. But superdeterminism says that there is no such thing as independence. Even if you never actually met or spoke to the other researcher before they did their experiment, you two still aren't truly independent, since you both have particles that will interacted at some point in the past. This draws into conclusion the validity of your results. You both agree that salt dissolves in water, but how do you know that is a general rule, and not just something that happens for both you specifically because of this past interaction?

[Anonymous No.15204618]

>>15204609
i think under superdeterminism, superpositions cannot exist ontically. however, it's not clear whether quantum computers depend on superposition as an ontic phenomenon, or an epistemic one.

[Anonymous No.15204620]

>>15204609
The two things are completely irrelevant. Quantum mechanics is mathematically identical in superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15204623]

>>15204618
How could that work on an epistemic level, I don't get it.
>>15204620
The math is identical in every interpretation duh, they're all trying to rationalise the same math. How is it irrelevant anyways?

[Anonymous No.15204627]

>>15204602
>which nobody has ever heard of
Sweet summer child...
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/20/quantum-mechanics-in-your-face/
>nstead of just describing your view
I already have done that multiple times
>these other worlds are real or not?
See >>15204569. I have explained in what sense they can be considered real or not real.

[Anonymous No.15204640]

>>15204616
>The fact that it is *you* pouring salt into the water is supposed to be irrelevant
it is irrelevant if your question is "does salt dissolve in water?" it is NOT irrelevant if your question is "who will pour salt into water?"
>This draws into conclusion the validity of your results
how so? it being a consequence of our past interaction is irrelevant. the salt still dissolved. so our conclusion that "salt dissolves in water" is not threatened.
>how do you know that is a general rule, and not just something that happens for both you specifically because of this past interaction?
because we see salt dissolving every time it goes into water.

[Anonymous No.15204648]

>>15204616
thank you, something similar had been posted earlier, his reply will be >this doesn't disprove fatali-ehm i mean superdeterminism. as if that's the point we're making.
realize you're talking to the equivalent of a religious zealot

[Anonymous No.15204653]

>>15204640
you're completely unable to grasp the argument, i don't know if it's due to your poor grasp of english, but totally missing the point. your thinking is as deep as a puddle

[Anonymous No.15204658]

>>15204623
>How could that work on an epistemic level, I don't get it.
this is hard for me to understand as well. but what i do know is,we never observe superpositions, so even if quantum computers are built, because we can never see the actual superpositions, we can never tell if they're real or just a useful theoretical idea

[Anonymous No.15204663]

>>15204658
So their exponentially superior computational power would just be hand-waved away?

[Anonymous No.15204665]

>>15204653
cool ad homs bro

[Anonymous No.15204669]

>>15204663
obviously not. but until we see superpositions, we can always question their being real. it's possible that powerful technology may be built from theory that is not entirely correct.

[Anonymous No.15204681]

>>15204669
Another thing I thought, doesn't super determinism headbutts with the idea of transfer of information in general? If everything is correlated, doesn't it ultimately mean that no information is ever truly exchanged?

[Anonymous No.15204688]

>>15204681
i'm not sure honestly. i would like to hear how sabine responds to that question

[Anonymous No.15204719]

>>15196562
Continental Philosophers will face the wall for execution.
Not a single good idea has come from the continent in 400 years.

[Anonymous No.15204723]

>>15196943
This subjective unity is not an illusion, but a glorious symphony of perception. Your mind has the ability to see and integrate and remember, to glance and assume based on that. It is a beautiful thing. It does not indicate a flaw in our perceptions, but an extreme efficiency in them.

[Anonymous No.15204727]

>>15204723
a lot of words without saying anything

[Anonymous No.15204734]

>>15204719
Who are you raging about exactly?

[Anonymous No.15204752]

>>15196614
Statistical distributions are exactly what you'd expect if particles were making free will choices
If you can only go left vs. right, and have no preference, then half the time particles will choose to go left and half the time right.

[Anonymous No.15204756]

>>15204752
no, statistical distributions have nothing to do with free will. furthermore, there is no reason you can give as to why a 50/50 distribution would be less likely given "free will".

[Anonymous No.15204818]

>>15204756
The particles can choose to go either left or right, they have no other options. It would be expected that half the time they choose to go left, and half right. Statistical distributions do not contradict the particles making free will choices.

[Anonymous No.15204881]

>>15204524
It was. See my first post itt, to which you replied. Learn to follow a simple comment chain.

[Anonymous No.15204884]

>>15204818
>It would be expected that half the time they choose to go left, and half right
no, that depends on the other details of the theory.

>Statistical distributions do not contradict the particles making free will choices
i know that there's no contradiction. rather, one says nothing about the other

[Anonymous No.15204888]

>counterfactual worlds don't exist
There's an experiment called counterfactual quantum computing, which has been experimentally verified. It shows that quantum effects are "aware" of their counterfactual realizations. This is not undetermined anymore.

[Anonymous No.15204896]

>>15196562
I just come here to shit post.

[Anonymous No.15204907]

>>15204888
i know about that, sabine even made a video about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQIfSrRBEgw

but no, it doesn't prove the existence of counterfactual worlds.

[Anonymous No.15204914]

>>15204881
yes your first post was off topic moron learn to read the op

[Anonymous No.15204917]

>>15204896
Based

[Anonymous No.15204923]

>>15204907
this faggot's only source of knowledge are "sabine"'s youtube videos, you've done nothing but quoting her onesided monologues
you are reddit

[Anonymous No.15204931]

>>15204923
it remains true that counterfactual worlds have not been proven to be real/possible.

[Anonymous No.15204936]

>>15204688
if you work in academia, you could email ask and probably get a quick answer or at least a pointer to where she answered the question

[Anonymous No.15204945]

>>15204936
i don't think she is very generous when it comes to answering people's emails unless they're someone she knows. she hasn't addressed that question before, i'm certain because i have consumed all of her content about superdeterminism without exception (it's very little). but i'm actually seeing her in person soon, lol. maybe i can ask her then

[Anonymous No.15204961]

>i don't think she is very generous when it comes to answering people's emails unless they're someone she knows.
yeah, i suppose the current meta has kind of ruined that sort of thing. sometimes i forget that. good luck.

[Anonymous No.15204965]

>>15204931
i won't comment on that, you're a faggot that's established

[Anonymous No.15204967]

>>15204961
the reason i believe that is because wolfram said he tried to correspond with her via email but she said she "didn't have time" for his questions basically. and no, i don't work in academia so it would be even harder for me

[Anonymous No.15204970]

>>15204965
lol you know who she was talking about in that clip, yes?

[Anonymous No.15204976]

>>15204945
yeah of course answering questions is hard and doesn't pay, much easier to engage in a soliloquy with no counterargument for your reddit audience

[Anonymous No.15204977]

i think she's become a bit of a target, but that's how it all goes. i work for a large research institution in a different field, but when i was an undergrad i got to meet two different nobel winners on two separate occasions and they were both incredibly gracious given my mediocre intellect

[Anonymous No.15205000]

>>15204976
she attempts to address common objections in 'rethinking superdeterminism'

[Anonymous No.15205003]

>>15205000
what's that a videos series?

[Anonymous No.15205005]

>>15205003
it's a paper, but she has also done a talk on it as well which you can find on YouTube

[Anonymous No.15205009]

>>15205005
pathetic fanboy

[Anonymous No.15205012]

>>15205009
unashamedly

[Anonymous No.15205013]

>>15205012
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.15205029]

>>15204518
every single post of yours is a quote from one of her videos, an individual bereft of original thought

[Anonymous No.15205037]

>>15205029
I don't need to be original. i grew increasingly frustrated as i saw so many physicists rejecting determinism for no good reason. i respect sabine a lot for not making that mistake

[Anonymous No.15205050]

>>15205037
>she reaffirms my preconceived beliefs although i have a flimsy grasp of what they entail
>>>/lgbt/

[Anonymous No.15205052]

>>15205037
>I don't need to be original. i grew increasingly frustrated as i saw so many physicists rejecting determinism for no good reason. i respect sabine a lot for not making that mistake

[Anonymous No.15205066]

>>15205050
everyone is picking their favourites, you've definitely done the same

[Anonymous No.15205089]

>>15205066
no i don't have the brain of a teenage girl

[Anonymous No.15205154]

>>15204914
Literally in OP pic:
>According to Anton Zeilinger
You are retarded.

[Anonymous No.15205157]

>>15204907
How does it not when it actually shows results from those worlds? If those counterfactual worlds did not exist, how can the experiment provide the result from a counterfactual reality?

[Anonymous No.15205538]

>>15205154
(you) retard

[Anonymous No.15205540]

>>15205157
uh sorry chud, sabine posted a video on youtube you've been deboonk't

[Anonymous No.15205546]

>>15204640
>because we see salt dissolving every time it goes into water.
Can you prove this will occur every time for the rest of time? Furthermore can you prove this is the result of a cause-effect phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.15205552]

>>15204640
>it being a consequence of our past interaction is irrelevant. the salt still dissolved. so our conclusion that "salt dissolves in water" is not threatened.
Can you prove this is due to cause and effect? If not your conclusion absolutely is threatened.

[Anonymous No.15205559]

IHATE NERDS. UUÙUUUUU BUMMM LICKS

[Anonymous No.15205596]

>>15205546
>Can you prove this will occur every time for the rest of time?
no, no one can
>can you prove this is the result of a cause-effect phenomenon?
i'm not sure exactly how causality works in superdeterminism. but there is definitely some kind of causality. it should be the same kind of causality appealed to in relativity.

causality is essentially synonymous with determinism. you can't have causality on indeterminism.

>>15205552
see first reply.

[Anonymous No.15205618]

>>15205157
in cqc, they claim the quantum computer in question is put into a superposition of not running and running, but this superposition is not actually observed, rather it's assumed. thus to claim they have gained any information from its 'not running state' is questionable, when it may never have been in that state to begin with. they're getting information, but from a state that they incorrectly define as 'not running'.

[Anonymous No.15205634]

>>15196562
>Isn't this board supposed to love science?
It hasn't for at the very least 2 years.

[Anonymous No.15205662]

>>15205618
I am not the anon you are responding to, but what you are talking in terms of counterfactual data is about rendered worlds vs a data base modeling of possible future measurements that the computer rendering the physical world maintains. So these (the actualized and processed data, ie information) are the defined values that the computer which renders the physical world computes to be delivered to an observer for QUALIFICATION. So the physical universe in terms of a history of the set of all values which were/are defined in spacetime as data streams to the set of all observers' immersed in the reality is of course going to be a single history from a god's eye view perspective. This is DIFFERENT from saying that there could NOT have been a different history. So while these counterfactual world by definition do in fact not have rendered spacetime classical type observable values, this is different from saying that they COULD NOT HAVE. In fact, this is what this counterfactual computing is tapping into. The logic of how the probabilistic reality we live life interfacing with models possible outcomes of measurement. See pic for a tiny bit of insight into why this must be so. It has to do with the exact fact that you don't want to admit, which is that this reality is a FREE WILL conducive reality. It's the whole point of the reality be ing created in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15205699]

>>15205538
>hurrr durrr I am wrong and got caught lying but me no retard u r retard k
This you.

[Anonymous No.15205707]

>>15205540
I watched that vid and it agrees with what I said? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
>>15205618
Not quite. You're applying the Copenhagen interpretation here. The only thing the experiment shows is that you run the QPU without sending actual photons through and you get results. The QPU isn't run, that can be ascertained as the detectors show zero photons going through. The results mist come from a counterfactual reality where the QPU was tun by a photon running through. Otherwise conservation of information is violated.

[Anonymous No.15206360]

came at fare?

[Anonymous No.15206421]

>>15205662
>>15205707
I don't buy it, and neither does sabine.

[Anonymous No.15206432]

>>15206421
lmao can this virginoid contain himself? she's not gonna give it to you

[Anonymous No.15206662]

>>15206421
>I don't buy it, and neither does sabine.
Of course she doesn't. She believes in, against all observed evidence, in reductive materialism as a presupposition. That is, she believes that our reality/universe is rendered at full resolution, down to the planck unit scale, at all times. And she believes that this smaller scale goings on is somehow causing events to happen in space time locally from within spacetime. This is not how realities work. We know this because we developed to the point where we created our own realities and the causation in these realities is NON-LOCAL to the virtual space of the realities, ie it comes from processing and the processor can't be within the output that is resultant to the processing. Even IF the universe could self process itself, which is illogical, but if it could, it still would be a vastly non-optimal way in terms of computational complexity to calculate and render all spacetime values at all times in the whole universe at full resolution down to the micro scale when no observers or the measurement devices developed by observers are even making measurements/observing. The smart way would be to render only on demand and ONLY to the resolution which accords to the specs of the consciousnesses immersed in the reality, or their measuring devices. So render the EFFECTS of the micro world, not the actual goings on at that level, see pic.

[Anonymous No.15206671]

>>15206421
Another way that consciousness based virtual (informational) world's are created which we can empirically see is in something such as a day dream. If you imagine a visual scene, say a picnic with a woman in a sunny meadow, the creation and causation and processing does NOT come from 'within' the dream. It comes NON-locally from the MIND producing the dream. The same with regular dreams and the same with the WAKING reality which is called the 'physical world' or 'universe'. ALL realities are created by MIND and the causation is ALWAYS 'none-local' to the reality.

[Anonymous No.15206714]

>>15206671
That's a great quote

[Anonymous No.15207048]

>>15206714
It is, I agree. It's interesting how we have went BACKWARDS in out thinking from all of these great minds. Gödel, who was also an idealist, wrote about the idea that he thought that this dumbing down was done on purpose through a top down conspiracy. Probably so, since marxism is a materialist doctrine and 'Long march through the institutions', which was the marxist doctrine of subverting academia in terms of pro marxist economics, could also have included the other sciences and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15207136]

>>15203435
Consciousness happened to you. Did you choose it?

[Anonymous No.15207145]

>>15207136
I was responding to your statement
>Choice is in fact illusory
So you were not talking about the concept of choosing to be conscious or not. You said
>but in fact you are never choosing anything. All you are doing is hesitating before performing an action
So you were obviously talking about the deliberation which takes place before an action, not some choice to be conscious or not.

[Anonymous No.15207171]

>>15206671
if you're dreaming and someone shoots you in the head, you're no longer dreaming. Local causation

[Anonymous No.15207176]

>>15207145
all deliberations take place within consciousness, of which you had no choice in creating.

[Anonymous No.15207197]

>>15207176
>all deliberations take place within consciousness, of which you had no choice in creating
I wasn't responding to a post about whether or not one chooses to be conscious or not though. A was responding to the idea of choice which is a feature of people who are already conscious.

[Anonymous No.15207211]

>>15207197
>choice which is a feature of people who are already conscious.
Is it a feature or is it an illusion? If all inputs which drive you to make an action are created by consciousness, and consciousness is not your choice, is choice independent from consciousness? Or is it simply an angst of being uncertain of the right action?

[Anonymous No.15207414]

>>15196657
Kek, saving that one for future.

[Anonymous No.15207427]

>>15207414
that's sabine's youtube boyfriend from reddit. he's a goldmine of dysfunctional autism

[Anonymous No.15207662]

>>15207414
it is true. after sabine and tim, i am probably the most knowledgeable person on the subject. not to brag...

[Anonymous No.15207792]

>>15207171
Maybe that was because the dreamer was in a non-focused reality creating state while the shooter was awake and thoroughly believed in his mind-bullets. Now see, if you just stayed awake and believed you were bullet-proof, then you'd be fine. Pretty sure that worked for native Americans. Now there were some great non-materilists unsullied by communist thought.