Determinism vs Indeterminism: Quantum Mechanic Discussion

Consciousness consists of electrical impulses of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a blossoming of the authentic.

Indeterminists simply hinge their argument on: we don't know because we can't know

and there have been a lot of things we "couldn't" know for most of recorded history

>>8987224

I don't think that's actually what Indeterminists are about. Both have extremes

Extreme determinism for example, borders towards the implication that nihilistic tendencies are acceptable, at least on paper.

>>8987231

seems to be the basis of the Copenhagen argument

File: 1468359606581.gif (253KB, 447x415px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 447x415px

>>8987231
>implication that nihilistic tendencies are acceptable

I hate you. Why does a perfectly acceptable discussion about determinism always end up being about whether we should send some cunt to prison or not?

Why do you care? cant we just keep things beneath an atomic level?

>>8987197
Uncertainty is a necessity for avoiding paradoxes. If determinism was true, then a sophisticated enough machine could calculate the future location and velocity of any object.

So what? You say. Somebody could just interrupt it. Well, a consciousness could.

Therefore: Consciousness is a natural byproduct of randomness. You could even go as far as to say individual consciousness is a particle in the consciousness field, which is what the universes uses to collapse waveforms, since the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows us that it's not the detectors in the double-slit that collapse the waveform, it's us.

Here's a fun thought experiment:
If it's consciousness that collapses the waveform, is it only human consciousness? Why don't we train a dog to bark when a screen goes white, and do nothing if it stays black. We then hook that up to the double-slit detectors.

Does the dog bark because his consciousness is adequate to collapse the waveform, or because we're observing the dog and the information is required by us, so the waveform collapses?

>>8987257
>If determinism was true, then a sophisticated enough machine could calculate the future location and velocity of any object.
Nope.

>>8987257

>If determinism was true, then a sophisticated enough machine could calculate the future location and velocity of any object.

why are you saying this is impossible

>>8987255

I didn't say anything about prison. I think indeterminism views taken to the extreme are more likely to result in wild, outlandish and nutjob-tier theories.

The truth of the matter probably lies somewhere inbetween the two extremes. But you know, that's just the philosophy.

File: 1474054430181.jpg (27KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 306x306px

>>8987265
>I didn't say anything about prison.

It was only one or two posts away though, I can tell.

>>8987263
Determinism may be possible if you follow someone like Gerard 't Hoof's ideas, in that the randomness is simply a manifestation of our own imprecision, mostly mechanically, but also mathematically.

If you could somehow measure the entire universe at a given moment, quantum phenomena would stop being random because you'd finally have all the facts. Which is an interesting viewpoint. Gravitational effects are infinite, for example (or unlimited I should say), but the room that the apparatus is in, and the trees outside, and everything, is weighing in on the measurement (no pun intended), but it's not accounted for.

>>8987270

You're just being insecure for no good reason now. Saying that extreme determinism lends itself to nihilism isn't the same as suggesting that prison is a good idea for them.

>>8987197

I openly admit I have no idea what any of it means because I don't know how to apply any of it. Yes, I've watched all the shows with those popular scientists entertaining more than explaining, yes I did some research on the topic for my inorganic chem, but if presented with data I wouldn't be good at applying them.

Simple as that. Because I don't use concepts I don't understand to either impress people or make a meme philosophical/spiritual implication because you think "the universe talks to you" or somesuch shit

>>8987273

>Determinism may be possible if you follow someone like Gerard 't Hoof's ideas, in that the randomness is simply a manifestation of our own imprecision, mostly mechanically, but also mathematically.

This is what I believe. Human imprecision and faultiness has caused a lot of our incorrectness but occasionally we strike it right and we add something new to our "objective" understanding of the universe, I don't think the fact that we can't adequately observe/measure/categorize some elements is in support of randomness and indeterminism, I think it's yet another facet of the universe we simply do not understand at this point in time.

>>8987255
>Why does a perfectly acceptable discussion about determinism always end up being about whether we should send some cunt to prison or not?
Because it's predetermined to happen

>>8987286

Oh shit

>>8987197
There is at least one deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, but it's not very popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
I don't really understand why its explicit non-locality would make it unpopular, but I am neither a physicist nor a science historian.

>>8987312
https://www.quantamagazine.org/pilot-wave-theory-gains-experimental-support-20160516/

>>8987257
>it's not the detectors in the double-slit that collapse the waveform, it's us.

fascinating...humans are special

>>8987321
Treat them kindly.

>>8987321

Well technically, humans are the only beings in existence(that we know of) that have affected particles in this way. Even if it's just the instruments doing it, it's humans that first caused it to occur, as far as we know.

Determinism "makes sense", whatever that means, but we've seen time and again that the universe doesn't. We need to finally accept this.