frightful_hobgoblin @ frightful_hobgoblin @lemmy.ml

Posts

52

Comments

893

Joined

2 yr. ago

groupthink is not exclusive to small populations

People upvote everything they agree with, downvote everything they disagree with.

That's the reality, no matter what they say.

You can easily see this in a thread where two dissenting opinions are present: one opinion gets upvoted consistently, the other gets downvoted consistently, and it's not based on the quality of their prose.

Don't let the media fool you

1700s but yeah

Ok, we are in agreement on everything.

Good comment

You should read the meta-analyses of the ganzfeld experiments.

Can you prove a positive where the supernatural is involved?

Science will never be able to prove a negative

Oh dear. There are already two lemmings in this thread spreading this one.

Would you and @muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee and @Didros@beehaw.org please just look up "can you prove a negative or not" using your research method of choice. Make this the day you learn.

This is just not even remotely true.

???

I think I am misunderstanding you.

My simple uncontroversial claims: A) indeterminism means natural/observable causes are not sufficient to explain all experimental results, B) plenty of physicists (most) believe in indeterminism. Then my funny claim for the craic was C) you can use the word 'supernatural' to describe those effects because they are not natural ("Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.")

When you say my claims are "not even remotely true", and you want me to "support what you are proposing", which of these claims is it?

It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that's just the definition of indeterminism like. What is your counter-claim? If you deny that indeterminism means things aren't determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?

An example in a textbook: "If the world is genuinely indeterministic in this way, then it isn’t possible to provide a dynamical explanation of how a system produces a particular outcome in a quantum measurement — the outcome is intrinsically random." – that's from Ch.7 of Quantum [Un]speakables II, edited by Bertlmann and Zeilinger. You can also read section 3 of Ch.1 of Dirac's 1930 textbook.

link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing

I have linked two papers and an encylopædia entry already; you have not substantiated your claims with anything.

Here is an example of indeterminacy being "certified" in experiment that you might find interesting: Pironio, S., Acin, A., Massar, S., Boyer de la Giroday, A., Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Olmschenk, S., Hayes, D., Luo, L., Manning, T.A., Monroe, C.: Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature 464, 1021 (2010)

Heisenberg proved in Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik in 1927 that there is an uncertainty associated with measurement. There are deterministic interpretations (e.g. many-worlds: "The existence of the other worlds makes it possible to remove randomness" or Bohm's interpretation of nonlocal hidden variables) and indeterministic interpretations (e.g. Copenhagn: "Today the Copenhagen interpretation is mostly regarded as synonymous with indeterminism")

I’m tired of fighting unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I make.

I have not dodged anything. I'm not sure what "point" you're making. You seem to be saying that indeterminism doesn't mean "things aren't determined by observable causes" but yep that's what indeterminism means.

rainy

sure

A woman menstruating proves the negative on her being pregnant.

Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.

Right. We are in agreement. And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results. There is something going on in Aspect's experiment

Determinism: things are fully explained by natural phenomena, i.e. by observable elements of the physical universe

Indeterminism: observable elements of the physical universe are insufficient to explain experimental results; there is something else, like randomness

AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.

We must be misunderstanding each other somewhere. Surely you're not saying that zero physicists argue indeterminism? Obviously many/most physicists believe in indeterminism.

• A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics (2013) by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger found that 64% of physicists believe that "Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature" and 48% believe "The randomness is irreducible". For the question "What is your favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics?", the most popular answer by some way was the Copenhagn interpretation (which as you know is anti-deterministic)

Lev Vaidman: "Historically, appearance of the quantum theory led to a prevailing view that Nature is indeterministic.... Quantum theory and determinism usually do not go together." (Vaidman, L. (2014). Quantum theory and determinism. Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations, 1(1-2), 5–38. doi:10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4)

You made a ludicrous claim

Yes. And these ludicrous claims are standard in physics for decades now. Specifically, the ludicrous claim that most physicists believe is that there are things going on without natural causes (Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”). That's an extremely standard ludicrous claim about our ludicrous universe.

and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit

That's false.

yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.

Please calm down.

That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural.

Go on then: what definition do they use?

Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.

Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)

State your position calmly. What are you trying to say?

Using insults doesn't make you right.

I have an M.Sc

reddit.com

If I say something this person burst into flames for supernatural reasons, I mean without a measurable cause in the observable universe.

Yeah all the Bell stuff