3 ms·

No, superdeterminism could very well be it and once again confirming Einstein was ahead of the game; even by today’s popular theory.

arrow7000 5y ago
"big if true" vibes
papito 5y ago
I subscribe to the view of the world in the show DEVS. Basically, given enough processing power to simulate every particle in the Universe, there is no randomness. I have a pretty crazy opinion about all of this, where I think creationism and science do not contradict each other. The book of Genesis and science describe the same exact thing, but in different languages. And it explains how, in the Bible, this God "person" was able to predict the future without fail, with unlimited horizon. It's like a video tape - fast forwarding and going back to the original point does not change the plot. See? I figured it out. Next question.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  No amount of processing power is going to tell you when an uranium nucleus is going to emit a proton next.
  - papito 5y ago
    Hmm. To an observer, an apple falling from a tree is random. How would you know when it happens? But all random events have precursors. To me, the idea that something happens out of nowhere, on its own, is pretty farfetched. I doubt anything in the Universe is truly random. What if you have all of the information? And I mean, ALL of the information?
- SkittyDog 5y ago
  That's what most physicists thought, in the early 20th century, until they became aware of the implications of quantum mechanics... Are you familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle In short, it's fundamentally impossible to completely and precisely describe the current state (position & velocity) of any particle. The more precisely you measure one of those values, the more uncertain the other becomes, in proportion. This is a fundamental physical reality of the universe... It's not just an imperfection of how we take measurements. At a quantum level, the universe is actually random in it's behavior. You can make statistical predictions, which in larger & larger quantity can asymptotically approach certainty, under the right conditions... But at a macroscopic level, outcomes will always reflect some amount of randomness. By implication, you cannot fully predict the future behavior of a system by knowledge of its current state. This was a tremendous shock to the worldview of many scientists, including Albert Einstein. But over the last century, every attempt to disprove the reality of this fundamental randomness has failed.
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    It is possible to predict the future state of a system in QM from the initial state. QM equations are parabolic/hyperbolic and so from a global initial state one can deduce both future and past. What one cannot do is to deduce the future or past of a local patch based on the state of that local patch at a particular moment in time. The QM state is global and there is no way to isolate the local patch from influence of arbitrary far away points.
    - papito 5y ago
      Yes! When we talk about "simulating the Universe", you cannot just simulate the Earth. A tiny event taking place somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy will have some sort of an effect. You have to take into account the whole system, in its entirety.
SkittyDog 5y ago
Superdeterminism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism) isn't really a falsifiable theory, per se... It doesn't actually have testable predictions that can ever differentiate between a universe wherein Bell's Theorem is true, vs a universe governed by Superdeterminism. It's kind of like saying "All our experiments appear to come up with consistent results, only because God intervenes in all our experiments to create those results." That statement can never be made falsifiable, so it's not a scientifically interesting statement to consider, because by definition it can never yield testable predictions. That does not mean Superdeterminism is uninteresting... Just that it's a matter of theology or literature, not science.

arrow7000 5y ago

"big if true" vibes

papito 5y ago

I subscribe to the view of the world in the show DEVS. Basically, given enough processing power to simulate every particle in the Universe, there is no randomness. I have a pretty crazy opinion about all of this, where I think creationism and science do not contradict each other. The book of Genesis and science describe the same exact thing, but in different languages. And it explains how, in the Bible, this God "person" was able to predict the future without fail, with unlimited horizon. It's like a video tape - fast forwarding and going back to the original point does not change the plot. See? I figured it out. Next question.

gpderetta 5y ago
No amount of processing power is going to tell you when an uranium nucleus is going to emit a proton next.
- papito 5y ago
  Hmm. To an observer, an apple falling from a tree is random. How would you know when it happens? But all random events have precursors. To me, the idea that something happens out of nowhere, on its own, is pretty farfetched. I doubt anything in the Universe is truly random. What if you have all of the information? And I mean, ALL of the information?
SkittyDog 5y ago
That's what most physicists thought, in the early 20th century, until they became aware of the implications of quantum mechanics... Are you familiar with the Uncertainty Principle? • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle In short, it's fundamentally impossible to completely and precisely describe the current state (position & velocity) of any particle. The more precisely you measure one of those values, the more uncertain the other becomes, in proportion. This is a fundamental physical reality of the universe... It's not just an imperfection of how we take measurements. At a quantum level, the universe is actually random in it's behavior. You can make statistical predictions, which in larger & larger quantity can asymptotically approach certainty, under the right conditions... But at a macroscopic level, outcomes will always reflect some amount of randomness. By implication, you cannot fully predict the future behavior of a system by knowledge of its current state. This was a tremendous shock to the worldview of many scientists, including Albert Einstein. But over the last century, every attempt to disprove the reality of this fundamental randomness has failed.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  It is possible to predict the future state of a system in QM from the initial state. QM equations are parabolic/hyperbolic and so from a global initial state one can deduce both future and past. What one cannot do is to deduce the future or past of a local patch based on the state of that local patch at a particular moment in time. The QM state is global and there is no way to isolate the local patch from influence of arbitrary far away points.
  - papito 5y ago
    Yes! When we talk about "simulating the Universe", you cannot just simulate the Earth. A tiny event taking place somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy will have some sort of an effect. You have to take into account the whole system, in its entirety.

SkittyDog 5y ago

Superdeterminism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism) isn't really a falsifiable theory, per se... It doesn't actually have testable predictions that can ever differentiate between a universe wherein Bell's Theorem is true, vs a universe governed by Superdeterminism. It's kind of like saying "All our experiments appear to come up with consistent results, only because God intervenes in all our experiments to create those results." That statement can never be made falsifiable, so it's not a scientifically interesting statement to consider, because by definition it can never yield testable predictions. That does not mean Superdeterminism is uninteresting... Just that it's a matter of theology or literature, not science.