Has quantum mechanics disproved materialism? An abstract mathematical

It has disproved realism and at the very least undermined materialism.

If von-Neumann's 'consciousness causes collapse' hypothesis is correct then yes, QM does disprove materialism.

>>9006525
>von-Neumann's 'consciousness causes collapse'

eh, consistent histories.

>>9006259
No.
>>9006525
>Wigners interpretation
Neck thy self.

>>9006547
>>9006570
I said 'if'.

But the von-Neumann/Wigner interpretation is unfalsifiable. You have to put the 'Heisenberg cut' somewhere and it is at least conceivable that it could be where von-Neumann put it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

materialism btfo

>>9006599
Only Berkeleyan idealism can account for the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem.

Time you faggots accepted immaterialism and God.

Alright level with me for a moment guys.

If Wigner's interpretation is true, does this mean that when I spent $5 recruiting a random character in a pay-to-win mobile phone game, the fact that I got a shitty character isn't actually determined until a consciousness perceives the result of my expenditure?

>>9006604
>random

Einsteinean:
>I flip a coin in front of you, but don't show you the result
>I ask you what the probability is
Is it 50:50? For you it is. For me it's 100:0 because I know the result.

Other interpretation:
>function FlipCoin()
>just looking at the function without calling it, is it a Heads or Tails?
It's in a superposition of heads AND tails. It's not both, it's not neither, it's not heads and it's not tails. You haven't fucking called the function yet.

>>9006604
only if it's a quantum RNG

File: t-hooft.jpg (307KB, 1200x1580px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1200x1580px

Now listen here you little shits... Quantum formulations can circumvent Bell's Inequalities (i.e. local hidden variables) via superdeterminism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism
>Bell's theorem assumes that the types of measurements performed at each detector can be chosen independently of each other and of the hidden variable being measured.
>But in a fully deterministic theory, the measurements the experimenters choose at each detector are predetermined by the laws of physics. It can therefore be argued that it is erroneous to speak of what would have happened had different measurements been chosen; no other measurement choices were physically possible. Since the chosen measurements can be determined in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light.

>>9006707
't Hooft is a blessing. Watching the World Science Festival panels he really brought some interesting new angles to the discussion.

>>9006707
>let's unnecessarily add something extra to a theory that has been validated countless times because it doesn't match our preconceived notions of how reality should be

File: t-hooft2.jpg (26KB, 448x299px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 448x299px

>>9006725
>>Let's unnecessarily add something extra to a theory
I'm genuinely curious how you would propose Physicists discover new Physics if they don't question the existing Physics.

>discover something new, at the time, unexplainable
>IT'S GOD BECAUSE IT HAS X PROPERTY HOW CAN THAT BE PHYSICALLY EXPLAINED
>GET FUCKED MATERIALFAGS
>fastforward time
>it's been physically explained
>discover something new, at the time, unexplainable
>IT'S GOD BECAUSE IT HAS X PROPERTY HOW CAN THAT BE PHYSICALLY EXPLAINED
>GET FUCKED MATERIALFAGS
>fastforward time
>it's been physically explained
>discover something new, at the time, unexplainable

I still don't understand why people willfully ignore this endless cycle. Do you just sleep better at night?

>>9006957
But we haven't explained QM in any way that allows for determinism or materialism.

File: t-hooft3.jpg (100KB, 400x321px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 400x321px

>>9006957
That's pretty much how I see it.

>>9006973
>But we haven't explained QM in any way that allows for determinism or materialism.
Except Bohm and Bell have tried to explained it, and 't Hooft is working on a formalism to explain it.

>>9006973
Yeah, we also couldn't explain how some people look more like one parent than the other.

>>9006259
Stop spamming these shitty threads and go back >>>/x/

>>9006957
I never understood how people can't view science as a method of understanding God(s)' creation. It's not like if a God created something, understanding the creation invalidates the God.

Question: does quantum uncertainty/randomness/indeterminism actually mean anything on the macro level?

Whenever I hear this discussed, it's usually on a subatomic level. But wouldn't larger molecules and interactions between molecules be so abstracted from that level that such minor degrees of randomness wouldn't matter?

I'm by no means asserting this view as "correct," I realize I probably have no idea about any of this
t. synthetic biology brainlet

>>9006921
You have this completely backwards.

Quantum mechanics is the biggest scientific revolution in modern history. Superdeterminists, Everettians, Bohmists and so on, aren't trying to discover 'new physics'. They are trying to reinstate the old physics of classical determinism by adding new, unnecessary postulates and assumptions, completely without warrant.

In the process, they come up short in terms of their predictive power when compared to the standard approach. No Everettian has been able to derive the Born probabilities. With reference to Hardy's paradox, no Bohmian has been able to reproduce P=1/16 (validated in every single experiment).

These theories are ideologically driven caricatures of nature and manifestations of metaphysical prejudice.

>>9006957
More like

>discover quantum mechanics
>IT MUST BE DETERMINISTIC AND REALISTIC
>WHAT ABOUT LOCAL HIDDEN VARIABLES?
>local hidden variable theories disproved by experiments
>AH BUT WHAT ABOUT NAIVE REALISM??
>naive realism disproved by experiment
>WELL WHAT IF I ADD A BUNCH OF RANDOM POSTULATES AND ASSUMPTIONS TO THE STANDARD THEORY TO MAKE IT DETERMINISTIC??
>experimental evidence rules out new set of random postulates and assumptions
>BUT BUT BUT

And so on and so forth.

>>9007139
That's a valid assumption for a religious person and the only respectable one. God's existence not falsifiable, but that's the leap of faith. That's also another can of worms though.
>>9007224
The whole point and process of science is throwing out hypotheses and finding physical evidence for it. That doesn't necessarily rule out determinism. That's just wrong hypotheses. Cause -> predictable effect is the most basic assumption behind science.

I'm not going to sit here and say we know what the fuck is going on in QM and why out inability to predict, say, where an electron's exact location, is a thing. I'm not about to abandon determinism over what we don't know though.

Thousands of years ago, Ancient Greeks would have called you toga-shitting retarded for trying to quantify and account for random chaos and disorder, but entropy (and please call me out if I'm wrong Chemfriends) is a cornerstone for many chemistry-based calculations. This is just another turn of the wheel.

>I don't understand emergent properties

>>9007152
Quantum mechanics is how reality works, even on macro scales.
Double slit experiment has been done using buckyballs.
For larger things like cats we just need more sensitive equipment.

File: heisenberg.jpg (39KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 403x403px

>>9006570
>No.
Then where are all the quantum undead cats?
>>9006603
>Berkeleyan idealism
Idealism yes but Berkeleyan? Does it solve/cause other problems?
>>9007031
action at a distance 2 spooky 4 /sci/
>>9007496
>not about to abandon determinism over what we don't know
That's like not abandoning geocentrism because we don't know how gravity causes retrograde motion.
But we do know how QM works, it's electrons with location possibilities encoded in wavefunctions that collapse to single states when consciously observed. Why try to hold on to determinism?

>>9007496
>throwing out hypotheses and finding physical evidence for it
it rarely works that way in practice

>>9006603
underrated

>>9007496
God's existence isn't falsifiable because God's existence is necessary.

>>9008487
Depends how you define "God"

>>9008502
"The supremely perfect being" or, more conservatively, "the necessary being".

>>9008515
Too vague.

>>9008522
Which part is vague?

>>9008526
Well, all of it. Even the word "perfect" is subjective.

Which is perfect? A chainsaw or an apple? Well, it depends what I'm doing. Perfect is subjective to the situation. "Necessary" falls into the same trap.

>>9008529

t. someone who has never read any philosophy

That being said, how does 'necessary' fall into the same trap?

>>9008538
I read a lot of philosophy, there's no need to be rude.

Which is necessary? A chainsaw or an apple? Again, it depends.

All you need to do is include the conditions the being is "perfect" for in your definition. "The being that is perfect for..."

Perfect for acting as an intermediary between the quantum and relativistic worlds? That would imply a universal consciousness field, which like any other field could have "particles" of "pinched off" parts of the field, or individual consciousnesses. That would be fine.

Individuals are to the consciousness field as photons are to the EM field?

pro-tip: even if it's immaterial, it's still material

are you going to also deny that x = x?

>>9008541

Fair enough. However, in philosophy, perfection is not taken to be a subjective evaluation, but an objective feature of a being. That is why I supposed you did not know any philosophy; you are also not treating the term 'necessary' as a modal term, as it is used in philosophy. So I don't think I quite believe that you are that familiar with philosophy.

You are casting 'perfection' in terms of 'perfect for' as if something is to fulfill a pragmatic role. This is simply not how the term is used.

>>9008551
Okay, well who would you recommend I read up on?

>>9008557
The definition of God that I am using is found in Descartes' Meditations, and so is the notion of perfection that tends to go along with it. Primarily Meditations III and V.

Reality cant be undetermined inherently without an observer. That defies the notion of what it means to determine a systems state. A particle might be difficult to look at without affecting it, but thats an issue of the tools we use relying on photons.

>>9008571
>A particle might be difficult to look at without affecting it, but thats an issue of the tools we use relying on photons.

Since QM effects can be seen in something as "big" as Buckey Balls, which very definitely have a mass, do you think something like measuring the gravitational field produced by a Buckey Ball would determine its location without interacting with it? Perhaps if the double slit particle detectors were instead very sensitive gravimeters?

>>9008545
>even if it's immaterial, it's still material
this is what classicists actually believe

>>9008557
not sure about perfection
read on modal logic for what possible/necessary mean

>>9008719
Please tell me all about immaterial things, and how such things would exist without being material

>>9008759
Laws of logic like x=x exist without being material. Minds and ideas are all you need to explain reality. Why would you even think material exists?
What are material things and how do they exist? What does "material" mean? It can't just be 'stuff that exists'.

>>9008759
What even is a material thing?

Examples of immaterial things: ideas, minds, acts of judgment, willing, understanding, sensation, imagination, etc. God.

>>9006259
No, Bohmian mechanics has disproved quantum mechanics.

>>9009782
Nigga needs to learn some Bohmian jauns
watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs

File: t-hooft4.jpg (71KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1000x667px

>>9007218
They are not trying to creating new Physics, they are trying to create a new framework which may allow a certain type of new Physics to be discovered which cannot be discovered under the current dogma. The most optimal solution is not necessarily derived by a series of increasingly optimal solutions.

>>9009782
I hope you are being ironic.

>>9009790
Why?
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory

>>9009801
Well it depends on your definition of disprove, if you mean that it disproves predictions of quantum mechanics, you are sorely mistaken.

>>9007152
Recent research (2016?) showed certainty of quantum effects on biological systems suggested by earlier research. Google quantum effect on photosynthesis.