The law of identity (A is A) implies the law of causality. How

>>8995776
>Logical autism
Lmao no one cares. QM is too predictive.

>A is A

Not true. The statement actually contains two different objects; "the left A and the right A", or "the first A and the last A". Thus, although both objects are called "A", they hold a quality that can be used to separate them from each other. Therefore they are not one and the same.

Similarly, if you hold two apples in your hand, it is clear that they are not the exact same apple, since in that case we would be talking about one apple instead of two apples.

File: epicycle-epicycle.gif (2KB, 240x180px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 240x180px

>>8995807
Epicycles were very predictive too. They didn't describe the physical reality though, they were wrong and prevented humanity from progressing.

>>8995811
No, A is A means that anything that exists has a specific identity (its own identity). Thus, under certain circumstances that entity can only act in one way (law of causality).

For example, if you let go of an apple, it will fall to the floor. That's the only possible outcome; it's not going to go up, or disappear, por burst into flames for no reason. The apple has a specific identity and so only one outcome is possible under specific conditions.

If I said that there's a 50% chance it will fall to the floor, and 50% chance it will rise up and hit the ceiling, I'd be saying that the law of identity and law of causality aren't true. It seems to me that that's what modern physicists are doing with QM.

>>8995834
>prevented humanity from progressing

lmao
Ever heard of paradigms, kid? Of a past model is less good at predicting than current models it doesn't mean it was holding anyone back. There's no such thing as right or wrong, there are just progressively more adequate theories.

>>8996209
Not the guy you were talking with but holy fuck you are a massive brainlet.

>>8995834
>He thinks physics describes reality
The map is not the territory brainlet.

>>8996237
>He thinks physics describes reality
If the goal of physics is not to describe reality, what is it supposed to describe, retard?

File: light_orbital_angular_momentum.png (287KB, 452x673px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 452x673px

Probabilistic interpretations were invented because (((they))) were unable to understand or visualize the mechanics of what was going on. What a coincidence that the one place where causality ceases to operate is exactly the place where Heisenberg and crew bumped up against the limitations of their own understanding.

They abandoned physics and truth and logic the moment they abandoned causality. Now they have people believing in the uncertainty principle, curved space, point-particles, virtual particles, borrowing from the vacuum, backwards causality, entanglement, symmetry-breaking, and all sorts of other shit-brained notions. Having no mechanical understanding they must escape into mathematical and heuristic treatments which leave them completely in the dark as to the motions of real bodies.

>>8996311
the part of reality you can measure

reality is much richer and more intricate than that

https://youtu.be/RwdY7Eqyguo?t=15m55s

>>8996452
>(((they)))
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

>>8995776
>The law of identity (A is A) implies the law of causality.

Prove it.

>>8996311
The goal of physics is to create models that match experiments.

>>8996452
>they abandoned causality.
But they really haven't. In fact physics goes to great pains in order to preserve causality, and one of the more (for me at least) was the emergence of the so-called micro-causality in QFT.

>>8996938
Those expirements are reality.

>>8996973
I think you triggered a existential crisis on that anon

>>8995776
law of identity is actually terrible thing for use outside of mathematics. remember that aristotle created his laws according to the science of those days (quite simple in comparison to todays). it reminds me of the fact that universities taught that fly has 6 legs because aristotle said so.
in day-to-day usage this "law" doesn't really work since things you talk about are not words (as aristotle claimed - rock is a rock because it is its name and falls down to earth because it seeks its proper place), since words are only symbols we use to describe objects (in other words, we are abstracting). one example I use during general semantics classes:
ivan is a human being, having a wife and children, he enjoys long walks with his dog and does some papercrafts. this father works at chemical plant where he fixes vents etc. our worker also participates in local politics in some nearly forgotten moscow district.
we were moving from one order of abstraction to higher and higher ones (from a loving father enjoying walks with his dog to a russian politician) and we were leaving out more and more details. If I sat on a chair, then the chair is not a chair anymore, it turned to several pieces of wood and nails. Science of aristotle is not science 2017, so science does not equal science. you have to keep track of the order of abstraction that youre curently on. I would recommend Korzybski's book Science and Sanity, if you are more interested in this problematics.

>>8997583
*sat on a chair and it broke* is what I wanted to write

>x=<x
this is what mathematicians believe