Who /determinist/ here?
I kind of consider myself one, but I'm not sure. I would like to hear your views.
>>7904437
If you're talking about QM and you're a determinism, then you've fundamentally misunderstood [math] a ~ lot [/math] of your lectures.
>>7904452
simple deterministic systems can appear complex and random, quantum mechanics might also be such a system.
>>7904452
I thought it would take more posts to bring QM, but I obviously know this would be important for the discussion.
If I am correct just the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is not deterministic. There are deterministic interpretations of it.
>>7904456
So you also think that there is determinism behind QM? Hidden variables.
I believe so
>>7904461
>There are deterministic interpretations of it.
There are none. Many worlds and "consciousnes causes collapse" interpretations are still non-deterministic.
>>7904473
Many worlds is deterministic.
>>7904466
Yes, because I like to believe the universe is made from very simple rules, deterministic rules I mean then.
>>7904483
No, it isn't. When the wave function collapses, there is no deterministic mechanism by which is decided in which universe you end up.
>>7904493
Disproved?
Do't you say Bell's Theorem, because that disproved local hidden variable theories and Pilot wave is non-local
>>7904471
Great link, pretty much sums up the whole thread.
>>7904498
It really is considered deterministic by the comunity.
>"you end up"
You need to abstract more If you are thinking about just your experience
>>7904483
Many worlds is local realist, QM must by Bell's theorem be either local OR real not both.
>>7904499
>global hidden variables
That's basically deism in disguise. Literally /x/ tier.
>>7904498
You will be in all universes in which you didn't die.
>>7904505
According to that interpretation the universe is split into several copies for each possible outcome. But it is not deterministic which outcome the observer will observe, i.e. in which universe his time line continues.
>>7904513
At each time I am in exactly one universe. It doesn't matter what copies of myself in other universes do. From my point of view I remain in one universe, the choice of which is non-deterministic.
>>7904506
You are right it is local.
But didn't Bell's theorem say that QM (because of quantum entanglement) had to be explained by a non-local theory?
>>7904532
>You are basing your argument in your consciousness and your experience of reality
So what? How does this invalidate my argument? After all, QM is about conscious observers collapsing wave functions.
>>7904523
No, just that an interpretation of QM must be either non-local or abandon realism. Copenhagen interpretation abandons realism.
>>7904532
>Bell's theorem proved that QM has to be non-local...
No it doesn't, it says that any interpretation must be either non-local or abandon realism. It doesn't say that QM [math] has [/math] to be non-local. So you can still have locality so long as you abandon realism.
>>7904537
>QM is about conscious observers collapsing wave functions.
0/8 b8. It's stale as fuck at this point.
>>7904537
From what I know the consciousness role was disproved.
I ment that acording to Many Worlds you are just experiencing a single timeline, it doesn't make sense to ask yourself "in which universe his time line continues".
At least that's what I think
>>7904545
I'm not baiting. I adhere to the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation which in my opinion is the most accurate one.
Many Worlds is not local.
Whenever something 'random' happens then the whole universe instantly gets split into one universe per possible outcome.
>>7904553
By which mechanism is decided which time line I experience? If there is no deterministic mechanism, then obviously many worlds is non-deteriministic.
>>7904498
That's like saying it's not deterministic which person you're born as. Everyone has their own conscious experience. Under the many worlds interpretation, so does every alternate version of you.
>>7904545
You're right on the local vs realism, I'm sorry, I've never taken a course or nothing on interpretations of QM, just read some things.
Can you maybe explain or send some links about the concept of "realism" I've read some things but I still don't understand
>>7904559
There will be one copy of you in each timeline.
>>7904554
Wigner eventually thought that the idea was moronic, not sure about Neumann.
I'm so glad to have started this thread, this board is great.
Great responses, I always learn a lot from these
>>7904556
It is local.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
>"MWI is a realist, deterministic, local theory"
>>7904566
Sure.
>Realism
In the physical sense a theory adheres to realism if there is a definite out come to a measurement. So classical mechanics is "real" since if you drop a ball it always falls with the same acceleration and hits the floor with the same kinetic energy. The Copenhagen Interpretation isn't "real" since when the wavefunction collapses it takes on a previously undetermined value.
>Locality
Locality means that no information propagates faster than light.
You could also read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
>>7904498
>there is no deterministic mechanism
As far as we know...
>>7904595
So realism is kind of a synonym of determinism?
I've read about locality and EPR paradox. How does Copenhagenism solve being non-local? It goes against relativity
>>7904612
>So realism is kind of a synonym of determinism?
Not really.
>How does Copenhagenism solve being non-local?
As far as I'm aware, Copenhagen interpretation is local. It's just not "real" in the sense a measurement has no definite outcome.
>>7904437
I was for a long time.
It gets really boring. You can't do anything with it; it doesn't help you make any decisions.
>>7904631
Come on, your definition of realism was literally determinism: "a definite outcome to a mesurement"
Now I think I get Bell's Theorem:
-It disproved "local realism", which is the same as saying:
-It disproved a "local hidden variable" theory for QM.
Since hidden variable theories are deterministic/realistic.
Therefore Copenhagenism can be local because it's not deterministic.
>>7904651
I was thinking more about the scientific view. But translated to philosophy/personal beliefs, I don't know.. maybe it's not that boring.
There's no free will but you are still conscious, we just have to redefine "consciousness"
>>7904651
wat
It's precisely the opposite. Indeterminacy actually kills science. You discover something cool and ask wow how did that happen, let's find the cause and the means to replicate it and elaborate on it, and here comes the quantum cuckolds parroting 'hurr durr it just happens so random lamo xDDD'
Literally cancer.
>>7904669
Not really random because there's probabilty but yeah, for me probability exist just because of the observers ignorance of all the factors
>>7904658
>Come on, your definition of realism was literally determinism
Perhaps it is then, I always thought that determinism was something slightly different, after a bit of googling it looks like determinism and realism are the same things.
>Now I think I get Bell's Theorem:
Yeah that's pretty much it.
>>7904669
> Indeterminacy actually kills science.
>This is how the plebeian actually thinks.
>>7904473
Copenhagen interpretation is the only valid one. No hidden variables needed. It's deterministic.
>>7904691
Copenhagen interpretation is indeterministic.
>>7904712
We can determine the behavior of the decoherence.
The probabilistic nature guarantees non locality.
It is deterministic in every sense of the word
>>7904756
>probabilistic
>deterministic in every sense of the word
I don't think you understand what determinism means anon
What would be the point in taking a stance on this issue? Some of you don't seem to understand that it's not a resolved issue?
>>7904810
Precisely because of that. What's the point of devating a resolved issue?
>>7904814
>What's the point of devating a resolved issue?
The point would be to spread correct information. On what basis would you "debate" something inherently unknowable? Just shut up and calculate you stupid faggots.
>>7904437
QM is probably non deterministic and you determinism fags just need to get over it.
>>7904437
QM is just a theory.
>>7905598
Action is just a theory
>>7904437
Probablistic theories are weak. They are an attempt to force the math to come out when it just isn't working. The problem is that everyone has fixated on something incorrect which pushing people into resorting to indeterminism.
From any finite set of data can be made a perfectly accurate computable, finite, deterministic theory. If there is a more elegant infinite theory then so be it, but don't jam probability down my throat because your favorite symmetry failed. Leave imprecision in the lab notebooks where it belongs, don't bring it to the blackboard with you.
>>7905875
>Probablistic theories ...are an attempt to force the math to come out when it just isn't working
Fuck, that's a great way to put it.
I'm in the same boat as you, probability is just due to the ignorance of some variables/factors
>>7905875
I completely agree with your thoughts of probabilistic theories
>>7905986
If we are trying to model the world, it would behoove us to make models which don't introduce extra uncertainty in addition to that already present due to measurement.
>>7905875
>Probablistic theories are weak. They are an attempt to force the math to come out when it just isn't working.
Sums up fluid mechanics
>>7905875
>Probablistic theories are weak
If we are including qm as a "probabilistic theory," you immediately have the problem that qed is the most quantitatively accurate theory.
>>7904658
>Come on, your definition of realism was literally determinism: "a definite outcome to a mesurement"
What anon should have said instead of "realism" is "counterfactual definiteness." That's the idea that we can validly reason about what the results would have been if different measurements had been carried out. There's no implication that the results in these counterfactual scenarios have to be deterministic.
>>7905875
some of the most brilliant physicists of the last... almost a century, including Einstein, have shared this basic sentiment. You have to at least acknowledge that this sentiment has gotten them pretty much nowhere in expanding our understanding of the subatomic world.
Meanwhile, the probabilistic science of QM can predict phenomena (and bear in mind, 100% probabilities are often involved) and has had technical applications.
Moreover, if in the future, any of these non local, deterministic theories are reasonably proven, the work will surely be built on data from good ole, probabilistic QM
>>7904456
The only alternative to determinism is magic.
>>7904461
>If I am correct
... but you are not correct, determinist.
Lrn2random
>>7906297
Fuck, I don't understand the concept of conterfactual definiteness. Can you put it in an example. Not being native speaker doesn't helpt to be honest..
>>7906377
This is true. But I think that a determinist position is more of a metaphisical type. We have to work with what we have as scientists, but at the same time don't forget what lies behind it.
>>7906493
>The only alternative to determinism is magic.
This is so true.
I've always thought that true randomness would have to be an act of God
ITT: brainlets who are too unintelligent to understand probability theory
Lmao, stick with your "deterministic" math while the truly smart people know how to calculate the chaos. I bet most of you failed to understand the Monty Hall paradox as well.
>>7906868
>God is supposed to be an intelligent designer
>Randomness must be God
I think quite the opposite senpai. No randomness would suggest God more so than randomness.
>>7907643
Yeah, I get your point.
But If you think about it, our mind, logic and understanding of reality is deterministic (cause-->effect). Then a random phenomenon would escape our reasoning and understanding. I would be confortable believing that these kind of magic could be a divine manifestation of some sort.
So how about this one
The earth had only such and such materials for us. Therefore within the materials the how of our buildings get constructed (which dramatically affect he way we think, free will I'm looking at you) etc there is some kind of deterministic fate at play here. I think it's just we don't understand our consciousness and hence we can't understand if we need determinism or free will. Maybe it's different.
