Is determinism r

[Nenestar]

I don’t think there is any randomness

In quantum mechanics, there is inherent randomness.

 

[Wilk]

So high IQ that he died after reading that

 

[Knight]

In quantum mechanics, there is inherent randomness.

I heard a theory about if a ghost had every info about every atom in the world he’ll know the future

 

[Wilk]

In quantum mechanics, there is inherent randomness.

Using probabilistic models partially due to our inability research deeper

 

[Wilk]

I heard a theory about if a ghost had every info about every atom in the world he’ll know the future

He don't need to do that in human scales. No need to know atoms. We can already use predictive models with big data to social engineer everything. The 70's revolution with informational and game theory advances were paying the way to that. Just like Foundation by Isaac Asimov

 

[Wilk]

Another high IQ move that made someone immediately explode after reading it

 

[Nenestar]

I heard a theory about if a ghost had every info about every atom in the world he’ll know the future

Using probabilistic models partially due to our inability research deeper

Those are false.

In current consensus quantum systems exhibit inherent randomness. It comes from the Born rule iirc, when you measure a quantum state, there's the wave function collapses to some state, which you get from that. I don't remember much though, it's like 4 years since I took that course.

But what I'm saying, randomness is inherent to it, and it's not just a inability to "research deeper."

 

[Wilk]

Those are false.

In current consensus quantum systems exhibit inherent randomness. It comes from the Born rule iirc, when you measure a quantum state, there's the wave function collapses to some state, which you get from that. I don't remember much though, it's like 4 years since I took that course.

But what I'm saying, randomness is inherent to it, and it's not just a inability to "research deeper."

Yes, that's how it must be interpreted, it's a cognitive model that is incomplete. It doesn't know the entire reality. It's just a rendering of model that consider randomness as that

 

[Wilk]

Those are false.

In current consensus quantum systems exhibit inherent randomness. It comes from the Born rule iirc, when you measure a quantum state, there's the wave function collapses to some state, which you get from that. I don't remember much though, it's like 4 years since I took that course.

But what I'm saying, randomness is inherent to it, and it's not just a inability to "research deeper."

By the way I like you. Not everyone can have this pleasurable talk , I am finally having this pleasure, pleasures only the intellect can experience. Ainhm, gonna cum

 

[Knight]

Those are false.

In current consensus quantum systems exhibit inherent randomness. It comes from the Born rule iirc, when you measure a quantum state, there's the wave function collapses to some state, which you get from that. I don't remember much though, it's like 4 years since I took that course.

But what I'm saying, randomness is inherent to it, and it's not just a inability to "research deeper."

but if randomness is truly fundamental, how do interpretations like Bohmian mechanics or Many Worlds explain measurement outcomes without relying on inherent chance? Doesn’t that suggest there might be a deeper explanation beyond just accepting randomness as a given?

 

[Nenestar]

Yes, that's how it must be interpreted, it's a cognitive model that is incomplete. It doesn't know the entire reality. It's just a rendering of model that consider randomness as that

Well physics isn't my strong suite, so I'm mostly talking off my ass. But as how things are now, it's quite certain it's inherently random, and not a model problem.

By the way I like you. Not everyone can have this pleasurable talk , I am finally having this pleasure, pleasures only the intellect can experience. Ainhm, gonna cum

Haha, I'm not that smart. There're plenty geniuses in my program, though. They were fun to talk to. IMO, and IPHO medal winners.

but if randomness is truly fundamental, how do interpretations like Bohmian mechanics or Many Worlds explain measurement outcomes without relying on inherent chance? Doesn’t that suggest there might be a deeper explanation beyond just accepting randomness as a given?

Haven't heard of the former, for latter, It's the branching of the universe's wave function or something like that, you should listen to Sean Carroll podcasts if you wanna know more about that. He's quite the advocate off that idea. Really smart fellow.

Not really, I think it's just randomness. Sad as it sounds.

 

[Knight]

Yes, that's how it must be interpreted, it's a cognitive model that is incomplete. It doesn't know the entire reality. It's just a rendering of model that consider randomness as that

@cr1st14n thoughts?

 

[Knight]

so I'm mostly talking off my ass

We all are

 

[Anxietypilled]

You having a car and the place you’ll choose is predetermined

By who? The universe? God?

 

[Knight]

By who? The universe? God?

There is different views on that as @Nenestar said earlier

 

[Wilk]

it's inherently random, and not a model problem.

It's not a model "problem", it's simply the current interpretation of reality by those models.

 

[Wilk]

By who? The universe? God?

That's an extremely deep question, really

 

[Wilk]

By who? The universe? God?

Change your profile Avi it's too erotic

 

[Wilk]

By who? The universe? God?

What would you understand by god?

 

[Nenestar]

It's not a model "problem", it's simply the current interpretation of reality by those models.

Well yes, true. You cannot be certain, but it's definitely leaning to an actual randomness.

 

[Wilk]

Well yes, true. You cannot be certain, but it's definitely leaning to an actual randomness.

Randomness is a phenomenological shit.

Just as weirdness is a impression expirienced by the mind instead of exact objects (not saying about the material compilation of the manner in which weirdness manifest itself in physical intelegences)

 

[Nenestar]

Randomness is a phenomenological shit.

Just as weirdness is a impression expirienced by the mind instead of exact objects (not saying about the material compilation of the manner in which weirdness manifest itself in physical intelegences)

You can't know, though. Randomness could be a fundamental property. Nothing says it can't be.

 

[Knight]

Randomness is a phenomenological shit.

Just as weirdness is a impression expirienced by the mind instead of exact objects (not saying about the material compilation of the manner in which weirdness manifest itself in physical intelegences)

So randomness is subjective in your opinion?

 

[Knight]

You can't know, though. Randomness could be a fundamental property. Nothing says it can't be.

This reminds me of the meaning argument but you were the one saying it’s subjective jfl

 

[Nenestar]

This reminds me of the meaning argument but I you were the one saying it’s subjective jfl

Meaning can be subjective though (I think!!!!!!). I produce it in my head. This is about how the universe works fundamentally, then there's just one objective reality. IMO.

 

[Knight]

(I think!!!!!!)

Dw we are not getting into this again lmao

This is about how the universe works fundamentally, then there's just one objective reality. IMO

Even tho we don’t know what is that reality until now tho ?

 

[Nenestar]

Even tho we don’t know what is that reality until now tho ?

Yeah we don't know, but there're good educated guesses we can make. And you really can't rule out randomness, when the most used models, and the current consensus kinda imply it.

But yes, we don't know.

 

[n4evis]

i think it is, we don't have "free will", because our desires/motives are shaped by factors we can't control but we do have the freedom to act according to them

 

[Knight]

i think it is, we don't have "free will", because our desires/motives are shaped by factors we can't control but we do have the freedom to act according to them

Then you don’t really have the freedom. Also from a neurological point of view your brain starts working before you are even conscious about making the decision so your brain controls you not the opposite

 

[n4evis]

Then you don’t really have the freedom. Also from a neurological point of view your brain starts working before you are even conscious about making the decision so your brain controls you not the opposite

i get what you're saying but we do have the capacity to act according to those desires, its like a freedom to act according to our nature, even if we don't freely choose that nature itself (like how we follow or resist impulses for example)

 

[Darkeningstar]

dark? like @Darkeningstar ?

(mentioning darkeningstar for some traction)

Quantum mechanics