/sci/ told me /x/ may be the board of choice for discussion of

>>19231046
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbRVnC92sMs

>>19231046
>Has quantum mechanics disproved materialism?
No. Because even those tiny things are material. All it does is further explore that material at the smallest scales we know of.

>An abstract mathematical superposition of a cat might be able to describe multiple possible states simultaneously but a material cat can't be alive catching mice and lying there dead at the same time.

Which was the entire point of Schrodinger's cat. It was to show the flaws in a particular theory of quantum physics, not proposed as a literal fact of quantum physics.

>>19231075
>material
>wave-like probability fields

What does "material" even mean at that scale?

>>19231099
It means that the material world is a lot weirder than we first understood. But it hasn't proven any kind of materialism wrong. All it did was further show us the nature of these things. To show that materialism is wrong it would need to show something spiritual or beyond the material and it doesn't show that. It just shows that matter is weirder than we see from our limited human senses.

But I see why you'd be confused. A lot of people jump on pop-sci articles about quantum physics and throw in a lot bullshit it never said. Like the misinterpretation of Schrodinger's cat, saying the Bootes void is from aliens who had dyson spheres (not knowing that it is nearly the second smallest void and we actually live in the largest known void), etc. It's just people with a bad understanding of science going "that sounds awesome!" and throwing out their own theories.

>>19231051
>hidden variable theory
No. Bell, Leggett inequalities. Realism is false.
>>19231136
>material world is a lot weirder than we first understood. But it hasn't proven any kind of materialism wrong
When "material objects" are probability waves describing possibilities that actualise to a specific state only when observed how much weirder does it need to get before it's not material anymore?
>beyond the material
What does "material" even mean?
Does material have definite properties independent of observation? If so QM describes something beyond the material.
Or does "material" mean 'whatever quantum physicists say reality is made of' so materialism can be immortal?
>misinterpretation of Schrodinger's cat
So if Schrodinger's cat is material what happens to it? In a superposition (which means what for the cat)? Alive or dead?

>>19231136
>It means that the material world is a lot weirder than we first understood. But it hasn't proven any kind of materialism wrong. All it did was further show us the nature of these things. To show that materialism is wrong it would need to show something spiritual or beyond the material and it doesn't show that. It just shows that matter is weirder than we see from our limited human senses.

no. There is nothing material about wave-like probability feilds, in any meaningful sense. A concept like material goes completely out the window. Quantum physics shows that materialism is false and myopic because what is claimed and perceivd to be material is not material at the smallest scales ie it is not made up of material. What you are trying to do is arbitrarily say that no, actually, the quantum world is material now, therefore, materialism is salvaged.

>But I see why you'd be confused. A lot of people jump on pop-sci articles about quantum physics and throw in a lot bullshit it never said.

maybe if you actually read more material explaining what quantum theory actually means then you'd know more about it, instead of shunning the idea of popular science educating anyone about quantum physics, because you fear its ontological implications. And want it to be protected knowledge available only to scientists and engineers so that what it actually tells us about the nature of our universe is never discussed or known widely among the public.

>>19231311
>it is not made up of material
but what is it then?