I never recall saying that. You are far too versed in pop culture to be six years old anyway.
Which proves you did not bother read my posts: see #23 for where the six years old thing is coming from...
Ah yeah, sorry for missing that.
If you guys can have a discussion about things, only with other people sharing the same slang and accepted knowledge you have got, what is the point of having it, in a place where most people will be left out of it, when you can't be bothered to type to them better than a one line or two, throwing at our faces how ignorant we are? Why can't you be bothered explaining us what you think you know?
Damn, open the debate to the common!
From experience, it’s because people don’t want to learn, and if they do, there is a lot of misinformation or arguments about the fundamentals. It doesn’t hurt to try, though.
Ah yeah, sorry for missing that.
To be fair, he did say 4 years instead of 6. That’s why I missed it. 
To be fair, he did say 4 years instead of 6. That’s why I missed it.
I'll tell Einstein your correction when I see him!
NM, he didn’t. However, 4 is better. Thanks for affirming that time travel is possible.
Thanks for affirming that time travel is possible.
But I did not say anything such.
“I'll tell Einstein your correction when I see him!”
How else can you see him?
Determinism is not true in our Universe. This is a conclusion based on experiment (specifically Bell's experiments).
I don’t know how one could possibly know the difference between something being truly random or having an unknown cause.
Learning quantum mechanics.
A non-answer.
QM is governed by probability by its math. We can know the difference, as math can differentiate between probability and an underlying concept. Probability explains part of the nature of particles, but so may something else underlying, like string theory. Here is a summary of why QM has probability.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/where-quantum-probability-comes-from-20190909/
Sure, you can make predictions using probabilities that are reliable. This is still vague. How can you tell the difference between non-causality and unknown causality?
Let’s say X (appears) to be random. How do you *determine* there is no unknown cause?
Sure, you can make predictions using probabilities that are reliable. This is still vague. How can you tell the difference between non-causality and unknown causality?
Let’s say X (appears) to be random. How do you *determine* there is no unknown cause?
This is along my point: when people of Science, chose to believe, there will be no further factor, unknown so far, that will infringe on their previous observations and findings, I find it unbearably arrogant, when history of Science, proves that, many times, such thing happened.
I don’t believe the scientific consensus is that determinism has been falsified.
I don’t believe the scientific consensus is that determinism has been falsified.
Huh... It seems to me, what you said here needs a rephrasing, I'm not sure what it means...
In science “falsified” colloquially means to be disproven.
Sure, you can make predictions using probabilities that are reliable. This is still vague. How can you tell the difference between non-causality and unknown causality?
Let’s say X (appears) to be random. How do you *determine* there is no unknown cause?
This is along my point: when people of Science, chose to believe, there will be no further factor, unknown so far, that will infringe on their previous observations and findings, I find it unbearably arrogant, when history of Science, proves that, many times, such thing happened.
I don’t believe the scientific consensus is that determinism has been falsified.
Well, to be precise, the deep and fundamental assumption of causality plus the statistics of loophole-free Bell's experiments make determinism impossible. The quite subtle conclusion is due to the observed entanglement.
The only ways round this conclusion essentially come down to versions of the idea that everything we observe is a predetermined fake (most especially including all choices and unpredictable outcomes) so as to give the impression that our understanding is correct. There is no conclusion about the real world that is not vulnerable to such an artificial explanation so, if you don't reject it, anything we believe may be entirely false.
Sure, you can make predictions using probabilities that are reliable. This is still vague. How can you tell the difference between non-causality and unknown causality?
Let’s say X (appears) to be random. How do you *determine* there is no unknown cause?
This is along my point: when people of Science, chose to believe, there will be no further factor, unknown so far, that will infringe on their previous observations and findings, I find it unbearably arrogant, when history of Science, proves that, many times, such thing happened.
I suggest that you read a "Bell's Theorem for Dummies" treatment. If you can follow the logic, you will have to abandon ANY sort of "hidden variable" explanation.
Here's one:
Bell's Theorem with Easy Math (drchinese.com)
I suggest that you read a "Bell's Theorem for Dummies" treatment. If you can follow the logic, you will have to abandon ANY sort of "hidden variable" explanation.
Here's one:
Bell's Theorem with Easy Math (drchinese.com)
Thank you for the link. I began to read it, and duh, it's a hard read to me, and I'll need to read it like 4 or 5 times before I'm sure to get it all.
Still on a more "to the root" side of things, if you conduct an experimentation, or spit out some theory, letting out some "hidden elements", and because of that, find out there is no hidden elements, and can't be any... No matter how logical and pure your reasoning is, it was then built on a sand castle.
So, it's no fair game, to tell people "If you don't agree, or can't see how right I am, it's because you can't follow the so fancy and cool logic I used!"
Just saying.
I'll try to give you a simple overview of what the Bell Inequality demonstrates. That might help you to understand the article that I linked.
Quantum Field Theory makes a very startling and counter-intuitive prediction. It predicts that objects DO NOT HAVE properties unless those properties are being measured. It isn't just that an electron's location is unknown until we measure it... it's much worse than that: the electron doesn't HAVE a location until we measure it. Nor does it have a spin, nor a polarization... until we measure those properties.
"Properties" (such as position, velocity, spin, polarization, mass, momentum, etc) are associated with MEASUREMENTS... and not with objects such as electrons or photons.
To us (not just to you, but to me as well), this sounds silly. Is the Moon not really there unless I'm LOOKING at it? Does my cat only exist when I'm petting it? The whole idea sounds crazy.
Unfortunately, the experiments based on Bell's Inequality demonstrate conclusively that any theory that includes local hidden variables... that is, any theory in which objects have inherent properties, even when we aren't measuring them... must be wrong.
Sure, you can make predictions using probabilities that are reliable. This is still vague. How can you tell the difference between non-causality and unknown causality?
Let’s say X (appears) to be random. How do you *determine* there is no unknown cause?
This is along my point: when people of Science, chose to believe, there will be no further factor, unknown so far, that will infringe on their previous observations and findings, I find it unbearably arrogant, when history of Science, proves that, many times, such thing happened.
I don’t believe the scientific consensus is that determinism has been falsified.
Well, to be precise, the deep and fundamental assumption of causality plus the statistics of loophole-free Bell's experiments make determinism impossible. The quite subtle conclusion is due to the observed entanglement.
The only ways round this conclusion essentially come down to versions of the idea that everything we observe is a predetermined fake (most especially including all choices and unpredictable outcomes) so as to give the impression that our understanding is correct. There is no conclusion about the real world that is not vulnerable to such an artificial explanation so, if you don't reject it, anything we believe may be entirely false.
I will read up on the specifics of that later. It seems absurd on its face, but I’ll keep an open mind. For now let me ask a general question.
You have a phenomenon, and you do not know the cause.
Generally speaking, how is it possible to tell the difference between an unknown cause and no cause at all?
Elroch <<<<The only ways round this conclusion essentially come down to versions of the idea that everything we observe is a predetermined fake (most especially including all choices and unpredictable outcomes) so as to give the impression that our understanding is correct. There is no conclusion about the real world that is not vulnerable to such an artificial explanation so, if you don't reject it, anything we believe may be entirely false.>>>
Sadly, a great many people believe this. The idea is that in order to survive, we need a will to do so, which is provided by the elaborate deception of being induced to believe we have free will due to an illusion that our choices are meaningful, whereas in reality, our actions and thoughts are all determined.
I sometimes tell people who believe this that it doesn't square with evolution, since how could our minds evolve if they were actually of no use whatever? It doesn't usually help, though. They've made a choice to believe it.
I don’t adhere to reality being a predetermined fake. I’ll post the same question to you that I posed to elroch:
You have a phenomenon, and you do not know the cause.
Generally speaking, how is it possible to tell the difference between an unknown cause and no cause at all?
It isn't possible, unless you accept that something causes itself. That in itself would be unknown cause, equivalent to us as no cause.
To claim that something is truly random is to claim something has no cause.
I don't accept the Big Bang, for instance, and I get into trouble with Elroch, who hasn't been keeping up with the latest thinking. The Big Bang is sometimes thought of as the cause of the universe but of course, it couldn't be, because even if it had existed, it would be a process and not a cause. So I tend to go for the continuous creation theories that went out in the 1970s. I believe the likelihood is that something along those lines is correct. So we would have a universe which is continually creating itself. You could say that coming into being is a property of existence. That isn't so crazy, because it's largely how quantum mechanics works. Entities appear and disappear. They borrow energy and do things they shouldn't, like tunneling and so forth. They flash on and off. They have properties but it is impossible to observe all their properties. If one is observed, another is hidden and vice versa. Objects are waves until they interact, maybe with another wave or with an object. Observation really means interaction. So does "measurement", also. It is clear, I think, that we do not understand the simplest concepts, such as existence. That is one reason I have such a problem with scientists who are so gullible that they think they have the origin of the universe all neatly tied down.
The Big Bang is accepted as the best explanation for our local presentation of a universe. Scientists do not know what, if anything, existed prior to the Big Bang.
There are cosmological models for a finite universe, an infinite universe, and a multiverse. It’s an unanswered question.
I'll try to give you a simple overview of what the Bell Inequality demonstrates. That might help you to understand the article that I linked.
Quantum Field Theory makes a very startling and counter-intuitive prediction. It predicts that objects DO NOT HAVE properties unless those properties are being measured. It isn't just that an electron's location is unknown until we measure it... it's much worse than that: the electron doesn't HAVE a location until we measure it. Nor does it have a spin, nor a polarization... until we measure those properties.
"Properties" (such as position, velocity, spin, polarization, mass, momentum, etc) are associated with MEASUREMENTS... and not with objects such as electrons or photons.
To us (not just to you, but to me as well), this sounds silly. Is the Moon not really there unless I'm LOOKING at it? Does my cat only exist when I'm petting it? The whole idea sounds crazy.
Unfortunately, the experiments based on Bell's Inequality demonstrate conclusively that any theory that includes local hidden variables... that is, any theory in which objects have inherent properties, even when we aren't measuring them... must be wrong.
This also feeds into the 2D simulation theory, since once you've determined that properties don't exist until observed, it starts to smack of a Truman show situation.
I have a draft sci-fi story idea about a race of nearly omnipotent (but not omniscient) beings that are being overthrown by their fellow omnipotent beings, and the way they do it is by making the omnipotent beings perceive that they are severely limited beings born into a limited universe...i.e. us, in a big, mostly empty prison trapped at the bottom of a gravity well. The more you present immediate issues to be researched and tackled, the less scrutiny on what's actually happening overall ...it works pretty well as a narrative.
I don't accept the Big Bang, for instance, and I get into trouble with Elroch, who hasn't been keeping up with the latest thinking.
You have been extremely vague about your eccentric lack of belief in the Big Bang ("eccentric" because the large majority of cosmologists and other people with relevant expertise would have no hesitation in saying they accept the reality of the Big Bang).
Unless your beliefs are very wacky indeed, you believe in most of the Big Bang cosmology. Please be specific about what part(s) of it you don't believe in.
This is a thread to discuss topics with issues relating to speculative physics that don't fit with the topics in other threads, such as the Global Warming thread. I typically will not block people unless they make low-quality posts frequently, so back up your claims with sources, try to make your arguments clear, and have fun with it.
To start off, should the multiverse be considered, "scientific"?
That really depends. If the Multiverse does really exist, and each universe is in fact just an extension of one's choices, than it is technically Quantum Mechanics, allowing it to be placed into the scientific algorithm. (Source: My Dad who's had an interest in this for years)
Determinism is not true in our Universe. This is a conclusion based on experiment (specifically Bell's experiments).
I don’t know how one could possibly know the difference between something being truly random or having an unknown cause.
Learning quantum mechanics.
A non-answer.
QM is governed by probability by its math. We can know the difference, as math can differentiate between probability and an underlying concept. Probability explains part of the nature of particles, but so may something else underlying, like string theory. Here is a summary of why QM has probability.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/where-quantum-probability-comes-from-20190909/