Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)FH
frightful_hobgoblin @ frightful_hobgoblin @lemmy.ml
Posts
52
Comments
901
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • 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)

  • Take 'natural' to mean 'being fully explicable by states in the observable world'.

    'Supernatural' means everything not natural by that definition.

    You have results (like Aspect's experiment) that prove that the world is not naturalist: the world is not fully explainable by observable states causing other states.

  • Short videos are hosted by very invasive companies and don’t have any APIs or anything to make custom privacy-friendly frontends so it’s out of the question (fortunately imo because that things are addictive and can degrade a person in months).

    If you view tiktok content thru ProxiTok, it fails to be addictive because things like autoplay and recommendations are disabled.