3 ms·
I also don't think it is real, it is just that science kinda acts like it could be real. Any science experiment relies on the observers actually being observes
by 1718627440 10mo ago
I also don't think it is real, it is just that science kinda acts like it could be real. Any science experiment relies on the observers actually being observes, that the observer isn't the one that is experimented with, that e.g. your eyes do tell you something about the state of the universe, and that your thought process models the logic of the universe.
If there is total determinism, there is no guarantee, that measurement tape next to an object for one person shows 10cm, for a second 9.3cm and a third sees a unicorn.
- defrost 10mo agoPost-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation. Thanks to Stephen Smale's Horseshoe map, Lorenz's Butterfly, the limits of instrumentation and Heisenberg's uncertainty the notion of perfect knowledge and strict determinism are out the window even for simple fully isolated systems that show chaotic behaviour with a few weights on coupled axles. Even with all the datacentres on earth and in space there'll never be a precise and accurate forecast of a vortex in a stream.
- 1718627440 10mo ago> Post-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation. Yes, but the also assume that the observer isn't part of that system, which only holds true if there is free will.
- defrost 10mo agoThe problem that negates any determism exists with or without any observer interacting with physical systems.