In the words of physicist Anton Zeilinger:> [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.How is this not a form of cope? “Waaah, the observer effect isn’t le special, waaah”. Oh grow up. Observation doesn’t predate the thing - the physics leading up to it - making it even possible to begin with. How the fuck did people suddenly forget this?WHY do people think that free will is Lolsorandom?
Free will has a makeup like anything else in existence. It will always be an illusion or construct of a kind. You still struggle ordering sandwiches. Choice isn’t infinite and you can’t just choose to be a turtle.
>>16958190indeterminism is not science.
>>16958203Neither is believing that things literally come out of fucking bum fuck nowhere
>>16958217agreed
>>16958190> WHY do people think that free will is Lolsorandom?Religious tier thinking. It’s akin to believing nothing came before God. Perhaps there -is- basest essence to existence, somewhere down the line, but it surely isn’t quantum randomness. I doubt it’s something humans can ever assess.
>>16958190Ok look if you just divide the size of goalpost in the size of the ball you will know where the ball will go in to the exact point if you just simulate all points as once
