Is he right? Have we been fooled?
Science is a religion yes.
>>16829236We only allow 30 schizo threads at a time on this board, you'll have to delete yours. Sorry, board rules.
“Don’t tell God what to do” - Bohr coping
>fooledWhat did he mean by this
>>16829241This entire board is nutty
There are so many parallels with science and religion it’s kind of funny how religion isn’t allowed to be discussed here. It also implies scientists are butthurt about these self reflections. They jump at shadows.
>>16829836>many parallels with science and religion>scientists are butthurt about theseIt's modern "scientists" who are extremely sensitive and butthurt about this subject. They really don't like to think about where all the concepts they've inherited actually come from.
>>16829836Shit like gravity is borderline magic even today but physicists will scream at you for pointing this out. They will scream at you for pointing out that the science itself has become a religious institution. It isolates and ostracizes the same way the Church did throughout history. They hate empowering the unknown. The fact is, they hate dissent and outliers. It’s unreal, their hatred for indistinguishables.
These are not even coherent sentences.
>>16829877Do you struggle reading?
Do you not understand physics is about modelling the world to the best of our ability, there will obviously be unknowns that we haven't uncovered yet, and my never uncover. That doesn't mean anything goes, the theories we have are currently the best models of the universe
>>16829236Yes, the underaged special needs edgy reddit kid has definitely figured it all out.
>>16829889There are no unknown. There are no hidden variables. According to quantum quacks.
>>16829889>the theories we have are currently the best models of the universeIt doesn’t disprove determinism, thobeit
>>16829914No one said they did. QM is still up to interpretation, some which leave room for determinism
>>16829916The vast, vast majority of scientists are pro probabilists and will shun you for being pro determinist. I don’t know why you’re pretending this hasn’t been the case for fucking decades. Science will absolutely discredit you for not being a part of the collective.
>>16829919That’s because most scientists hitting a wall become autistic. “I can’t look behind the curtain, therefore it all starts at this curtain, and there is surely nothing behind it.”
>>16829914>It doesn’t disprove determinismNothing can disprove determinism. Determinism is a metaphysical fantasy. But any test you can actually conduct is actually more suggestive of nondeterminism.
>>16829924>Determinism is a metaphysical fantasyCausality, indeed everything we know as it is, is a fantasy? Lol.
>>16829919Not really, especially nowadays there's plenty of disagreement about interpretations. Sean Carroll is a main stream MWI determinist, and I've never heard him get called a crank. He even talks about it here https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/
>>16829935>determinism is causalityWrong.>causality is realDebatable.
>>16829936Sean Carrol is absolutely a quack and his interaction with Weinstein proves it. https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1929021614177345680
>>16829937Okay so you’re clearly not smart enough to keep this going. You’re an autistic person who has to split hairs like a dolt. Many such cases. Now fuck off. You don’t know what causality is.
>>16829940Isn't that the dude that will never publish his theory of everything.
>>16829936>Not reallyYes really. The amount of vitriolic Reddit debates is unreal. You’re being a disingenuous faggot hiding from the reality that you made for us for the last fifty years. Bohr was wrong and Einstein was right. That so many sided with Bohr is proof that people still think religiously rather than critically.
>>16829943Are you being ironically obtuse on purpose, perhaps?
>>16829942You're one of countless mentally ill retards on this board who use words they don't understand and get completely stifled as soon as someone refuses to accept their "common sense" delusions at face value.
>>16829937Something determined is something caused, and vice versa, anon.
>>16829950>Something determined is something causedThis is really nothing more than 90 IQ head canon.
>>16829948You’re not worth my time. You’re way, way too stupid. That you don’t see it, is the proof of it. Have a nice night.
>>16829945I think Copenhagen is pretty gay, but Bell proves you need either nonlocality, super determinism, or non-realism. Copenhagen is anti-realist and is sort of just throwing your hands up. Bohm is nonlocal but it hasn't been extended to QFT, which makes a million accurate predictions. And super determinism is sort of dumb
>>16829954See >>16829948. You're completely lost when someone challenges whatever "common sense" slop you passively absorbed from your retarded environment because there is no reasoning behind it that you can explain or defend.
>>16829953That other anon is right; you’re not very bright. >>16829955>but Bell proves-What Bell proved is that there are things that move faster than light. Spooky action at a distance.
>>16829955That just means reality can’t be both local and real, you absolute doofus. There is no such thing as superdeterminism. It’s just determinism. Light was never the limit. Space already transcends it.
>>16829957A particle going in a straight line through the vacuum forever is a perfectly deterministic setup but its determinism has nothing to do with causality. You're most likely the same mentally ill retard samefagging.
>>16829959>A particle going in a straight line through the vacuum forever is a perfectly deterministic setup but its determinism has nothing to do with causalityYou keep saying nonsense. All of that is caused/determined. You’re not very good with words.
>16829956Notice how I’m no longer taking you seriously.
>>16829957Which Einstein hated, since SR is a local theory. But based on the data, I personally don't understand how it could be local. I don't really understand what non-realism means. At the moment I don't have a preferred interpretation, I think we don't understand it currently
>>16829961>All of that is caused"Caused" by what? It's an abstract, hypothetical universe, with only one thing that has been doing and will be doing the same thing for eternity. It's deterministic but nothing is causing anything.
>>16829965Eintstein didn’t hate it. He already speculated about hidden variables. He was against absolute uncertainty. He did not want to believe that something could just arise. Or vanish. “Do you really think the moon isn’t there when you don’t look at it?”. Quantum uncertainty is absurd. It doesn’t work in the macro, and the micro shouldn’t be an exception.
>>16829967In an abstract, hypothetical universe where nothing is happening at all, a zero is by such a point, a one. Something happening *at all* means it had a prior cause. I don’t care if it’s some endless self-loop. A hypothetical higher being could absolutely make a simulated existence the way you describe it. Where only one thing ever transpires.
>>16829967Where did that ‘doing’ come from anon. At its most simple you can only really assume math can come from nothing, since it goes along with everything.
>>16829971>Something happening *at all* means it had a prior causeI like how you go straight for "I did eat breakfast". How did this place become infested with absolute, mouth-breathing imbeciles who can't even comprehend classical physics hypotheticals?
>>16829969I think the fact the universe exists is absurd, no matter the conceivable reason. So I don't think it's fair to dismiss indeterminism just yet. Maybe that's just how the universe works. Im agnostic on it
>>16829973>Where did that ‘doing’ come from anonPlease consult >>16829975
>>16829975Are you some sort of anti-materialist? You’re assuming something can arise from nothing again. “He has always been”. Are you religious?
>>16829975>>16829977>brings up black people (breakfast meme is based on low iq blacks)>resorts to wojak memesYou’re some sort of edge tard.
>>16829978>You’re assuming something can arise from nothing againPlease consult >>16829975
>>16829982Now you’re resorting to an endless loop yourself. I accept your concession.
>>16829985I do indeed concede that you're a mentally ill retard who can't even reason about the simplest possible example that illustrates his error.
>>16829976>So I don't think it's fair to dismiss indeterminism just yetDismissing deterministic existence is more or less denying existence as it is. Shit happens. Unless you think that nothing is happening? Big doubt. It’s more likely that everything everywhere every when exists all at once to justify shit like time travel logic at all. If time travel to the past is possible, then this is just affirming that everything everywhere every when exists all at once.
>>16829986All you’re doing is going right back to the initial “he has always been” comparison. You already made a blunder by assuming that light - which comes from somewhere - moving eternally without stop is a case of a lack of cause. All you’re doing is showing that you don’t understand the relation between the two.
Quantum mechanics are far too specific to be truly random. If they were truly random they’d actually be, y’know, random. But they’re not. It’s just fuzzy. It’s an incredibly specific sort of fuzziness.
>>16829959>A particle going in a straight line through the vacuum forever is a perfectly deterministic setup but its determinism has nothing to do with causality.The other side of this is that a random process or event can act as a cause in a nondeterministic system and a causal mechanism can add structure to randomness, creating non-uniform random distributions. Complex classical systems tie determinism and causality together in that the initial state of the system predicts all the interactions that will occur and thus any causal chain you care to read into it, but in principle these are distinct concepts.
>>16829988You're an obsessed and mentally ill retard. Be sure to write another post that I won't read.
>>16829959To most physicists who aren’t pedantic. If anything is moving at all, it’s what it is. It’s not not causal, or not not deterministic. It is absolutely doing something.
>>16829994>a random process or event can act as a cause in a nondeterministic system and a causal mechanism can add structure to randomnessNone of this is truly random. Not that guy.
Motion is itself inseparably causal/deterministic by the by … You cannot even have a hypothetical existence without it. Otherwise nothing is happening. Sad!
>>16829998>If anything is moving at all, it’s what it is. It’s not not causal,Right. And it's also not causal. The concept of causation simply doesn't apply in that scenario. The concept of determinism obviously does, though.
>>16830002Well. No. All motion comes from somewhere. I don’t know why you’re so angry about something so basic.
>>16830002You’re splitting hairs like an autistic person.
Causality is the relationship between a cause and its effect, and determinism is the view that this chain of cause and effect is fixed, inevitable, and leaves no room for chance or other possibilities. Causality is the mechanism, determinism is the outcome/assumption. Inseparable.
>>16830003>but i did eat breakfastMentally ill and obsessed.
>>16830002The argument suggests that causality and determinism are not fundamentally different because, in many physical systems, one event fully determines the next. The idea is that a cause is not just a trigger but an event that, under physical laws, necessitates a specific outcome. It’s determined. >>16830008>leaves no room for chance or other possibilities. All chance, all possibility, are forms of determinism. What’s available. Possible. Free will is the collection of possibilities that causality, determinism, has allowed.
>>16830011Do you really think something can come from nothing? Nowhere at all? Again, this is religious thinking. No different from one sided conjuration. “Always been”.
>>16830014>for the thousand time, i tell you i did eat breakfast>yes, it was only the local pastor's ass, but it was very nutritious
>>16830013>can't comprehend simple concepts and distinctions>reverts to LLM slopPottery.
>>16830018>>16830019Okay so you’re just aggressively losing this one.
>>16830018Are you mad that you’re just now realizing that you’re indistinguishable from a retarded religious person?
>>16830021>you're heckin' losingI don't know what it is you think I'm playing with you. We're not even on the same intellectual plane. I gave you the simplest possible example to illustrate a distinction between two different concepts, you got filtered even by that and that's where any possibility of a discussion between us ended.Whether 90 IQs grasp it or not, determinism is not causality. Determinism describes a system whose initial state unambiguously determines all future states. Causality relates distinct events to the necessary conditions that (supposedly) effectuate them. The former is a completely abstract descriptor that can be applied to systems without any distinct factors or events; for example, if the system's evolution is described by some continuous function. The latter is a philosophical concept that implicitly relies on some unobservable source of causal efficacy that "makes" things happen when certain conditions are met. Neither concept necessarily corresponds to reality. This is the objective bottom line of this discussion. Nothing you shit out can make a dent in this.
>>16830026>determinism is not causalitySure. You could have just said this and left it at that. No need to cope with such a long post about why it’s totally correct.
>>16829243"I didn't tell Bohr what to do or say." -- God deflecting
>>16830026>Determinism describes a system whose initial state unambiguously determines all future statesSounds like cause and effect to me. *eats cereal*
>>16830026>; for example, if the system's evolution is described by some continuous function.Misuse of semicolon; opinion discarded.
>>16830027See >>16830026. Your mentally ill gurgling doesn't matter. Determinism neither requires causality nor implies it; nor is it implied by causality. They're two distinct concepts that "common sense" retards mistakenly treat as inseparable.
>>16830031>>16830032>mentally ill retard keeps obsessingPlease consult >>16830033.
>>16830026Whether something is ambiguous or unambiguous isn’t the separator you think it is. Whether something is assured or unassured doesn’t mean it’s not cause and effect. Probability exists within cause. Not outside of it.
>>16830037>mentally ill word saladPlease consult >>16830036
>>16830033>Determinism neither requires causality nor implies it; nor is it implied by causalityThis level of stupid belongs on Reddit not here https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1huxxlr/causality_is_an_illogical_illusory_concept_within/
>>16830041See >>16830026. Your mentally ill gurgling doesn't matter. Determinism neither requires causality nor implies it; nor is it implied by causality. They're two distinct concepts that "common sense" retards mistakenly treat as inseparable.
>>16829964>Indian reply syntax
>>16830033Determinism absolutely requires causality you rancid cauliflower
> Determinism neither requires causality nor implies it; nor is it implied by causality. > They're two distinct concepts that "common sense" retards mistakenly treat as inseparable.This is what’s called a Troll.
>>16830044See >>16830026. Your mentally ill gurgling doesn't matter. Determinism neither requires causality nor implies it; nor is it implied by causality. They're two distinct concepts that "common sense" retards mistakenly treat as inseparable.
>>16830047See meds.
why do religion tards badly want to be like science? stick to molesting altar boys or praying to skydaddy and leave science to men with brains
>>16830067>he still doesn’t see the irony ngmi
>>16830026>The latter is a philosophical concept that implicitly relies on some unobservable source of causal efficacy that "makes" things happen when certain conditions are met.A spectre is haunting /sci/ - the spectre of Hume.
>>16829236only god knows where the electron will move
bump
>>16830528>"""bump""">skim through the thread>it's a bunch of retards repeatedly conflating determinism with causalityWhat did you do this for? Are you a psychopath?
>>16830558I’m pretty sure you’re the only one who’s splitting hairs.
>>16830558One comes after the other. Causality does not require determinism—but determinism requires causality. Causality is the relationship between a cause and its effect, while determinism is the doctrine that every event, including human cognition, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. Causality can be probabilistic, meaning a cause may increase the likelihood of an effect but not guarantee it, while determinism asserts that a cause will lead to a specific, inevitable effect, which is in-effect just a very specific or narrowly assured form of cause and effect.
@16830575>incoherent bot replySee what I mean? This thread is completely worthless.
>>16830581To most people who aren’t pedantic dolts causality and determinism are one and the same. Determinism is a form of cause and effect.
@16830581>LLM slopNice "science" board.
>>16830583>>16830587>Indian reply syntax
>thread bumped>no new repliesMentally ill retard caught by the filter. Nice.
>>16830597>Indian reply syntax
>>16829236What are "quantum quacks" and "quantum uncertaintists"?>Bohr was a God thumperNo?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr"So too is a well-fortified atheism. Bohr ended with no religious belief and a dislike of all religions that claimed to base their teachings on revelations."
>>16830607Bohr’s stance is indistinguishable from that of a God thumper’s, is the point, and your refusal to spot the parallels is why it is so funny. Believing in quantum uncertainty is a variant of God logic. “It always was. There was no before”. How is this not apparent?
>Bohr’s stance is indistinguishable from that of a God thumper’s, is the point, and your refusal to spot the parallels is why it is so funny. Believing in quantum uncertainty is a variant of God logic. “It always was. There was no before”. How is this not apparent?
>>16830617You’re not smart enough to connect the dots.
>You’re not smart enough to connect the dots.The absolute board of this state...
>>16830617You’re having a mental breakdown because that anon is pointing something out. Something that you don’t like. This is called cognitive dissonance.
>You’re having a mental breakdown because that anon is pointing something out. Something that you don’t like. This is called cognitive dissonance.Unironically what does this retard think he's pointing out? What did Bohr actually say that riled him up so much?
>>16830627Do you even know what the Bohr-Einstein debates were about
>>16829836It's mostly pre- and postmodernists telling everyone to knife themselves in the dick for either god or the worker's party that's ruining science.
>Do you even know what the Bohr-Einstein debates were aboutUnironically what does this retard think he's pointing out? What did Bohr actually say that riled him up so much?
>>16830617>>16830624>>16830627>>16830635Are you twelve
Notice how the retard can't actually point to anything specific Bohr said that implies "God thumping" or whatever the fuck his schizophasic jargon was.
>>16830639What the fuck do you think Bohr’s stance even was
Notice how the retard can't actually point to anything specific Bohr said that implies "God thumping" or whatever the fuck his schizophasic jargon was. He has demonstrated this several times so far and his next post will show the same.
>he can’t look in the mirror
>>16830659
>>16830613Quantum mechanics is a scientific theory. Every scientific theory is built from starting assumptions / hypotheses / postulates / laws. Hypothetical judgements are part and parcel of ordinary logical reasoning, as one typically learns in high school level courses. The scientific method requires falsifiability of theories, i.e. acknowledgement that they could later be experimentally refuted, that the theory may be "right" only temporarily, as one typically learns in elementary school. "God logic" rejects this possibility, demanding willful ignorance of experimental facts. This renders the assumption set impervious to contradictory evidence, hence it is no longer considered a scientific theory, but a delusion, by definition. I couldn't find any records of Bohr treating "quantum uncertainty" in such a fashion. He didn't demonstrate tendency towards delusional thinking in earlier work he was involved in, for example when the BKS theory was falsified he wrote"there is nothing else to do than to give our revolutionary efforts as honourable a funeral as possible"He did make some analogies that quantum mechanics was very unlikely to be wrong, for example using the validity of arithmetic on two-dollar bills"We may hope that it will later turn out that sometimes 2+2=5, for this would be of great advantage for our finances."Likelihood, however, isn't "God logic", but just statistical inferencehttps://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#7t37:16Biologists for example employ similar colorful analogies when creationists claim that maybe one day the second coming of Jesus will happen, falsifying evolution once and for all.
>>16830707The majority of the scientific community will shun you for taking a deterministic stance anon. Stop saying “it’s just a theory” as though these people don’t actually believe it.
>>16830707>I couldn't find any records of Bohr treating "quantum uncertainty" in such a fashion.“Don’t tell God what to do”
>>16830717That was in response to Einstein using the term "God", context and social etiquette matters. He didn't want to offend Planck eitherhttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-015-8106-6"It has often been proposed in discussions about the epistemological status of quantum mechanics that although the indeterminacy relations prevent us from ascribing simultaneous position and momentum to, say, an electron, it may very well be the case that the electron in itself has both a definite position and momentum. Or, to put it differently: If an almighty and omniscient God exists, he will know the exact position and momentum of the electron at any moment. We are precluded, however, from obtaining this knowledge. This is a very common argument.""In the so-called 'Last Interview' he mentions that in a discussion Max Planck had advanced the view that God was able to know the exact position and momentum of an electron from his divine point of observation.""Bohr's comment in the interview ran as follows:Planck really was religious.... he said that a God-like eye could certainly know what was the energy and the momentum [The position being known]. And that was very difficult you see. And then I said to him when we came back from it. .. . You have spoken about such an eye; but it is not a question of what an eye can see; it is a question of what you mean by knowing."
To assume we’ve hit the bottom is stupid sorry
>>16830037>>16830039That anon wasn't your enemie
>>16830067We got molesting moged by all those secular politicians.Cristian boy.>>16830050
>>16830585Me new anon.I think most people see determinism as everything being a 100% acurate chain of cause and effect.But they don't see cause and effect the same because you need everything to be part of the chain for it to be derminism.
>>16830707>but a delusion, by definitionKind of gay anon.
>>16830826You can just as easily say that causality is collectively deterministic in its whole. Anything that’s allowed. What’s allowed will be inevitable. Determined.
