Quantum mechanics rubbish

Indeterminism/probabilistic != free will anyways.

But randomness is more elegant and mathematically easier than determinism.

>QM disproves determinism
you are confusing your determanisms.

QM disproves determinism in the sense that arbitrary accurate measurements at some time cant be used to predict the universe at some later time. It does not disprove the philosophical idea that everything that will happened has already been determined due to time being a social construct, or whatever is popular now.

This.Indeterminism is a popular science shitpoop.

>doesnt mean that there isnt a deterministic causality behind

Sure, you can have determinism in your interpretation of QM but you have to throw out locality for it to work [1].

>Ref.
>[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

I think otherwise but I don't smoke weed
literally proven wrong
lmao

>Just because when it comes to the micro we are unable to mesure exactly doesnt mean that there isnt a deterministic causality

What makes you think there is one?

I agree QM doesn't disprove determinism. Uncertainty principle and Gödels incompleteness theorem just rise from limitations of human knowledge, and not actual natural laws.

I disagree that hard determinism would be best explanation for universe. It wouldn't make any sense. Where are this "rules"? Are you saying universe has a "rule book"? More likely is there's both determinism and probabilities.

so why do most people say that QM disproves determinism, that s my problem with it

you are like obelix. just that your hippie mother smoked so much weed that you have to suffer the repercussions kek

what makes you think there is none?
Just look at the universe. Everything you see and do happens because of a causality, why should it be different?

Why wouldnt it make any sense? Except for how everything started, it makes perfect sense that the universe is deterministic.

Yes, we have just limited abilities to understand this world, but looking at everything, and all the physical laws etc I cant imagine a different explanation. Maybe it is my limited capabilities but I cant work with idea that things just do things with no impetus

Well one example would be:
1. Universe has always been
2. Universe behaves randomly, but has inertia, meaning that things need time to change to other things, but basically any thing can change to any other things, just slower than to other things
3. This inertia evolves to create rules that enhance this inertia. If you have thing X and it could behave in infinite different ways, but one way is 10^700 times faster than other things, it will over time become dominant, even though there is no rule for its absolute domination

The probabilities are determined by the fundemental nature of the universe.

Like, if you think about human, there is no mechanism to STOP harmful reactions, enzymes just happen to do the good reactions (homeostasis) million times faster than what harmful reactions do. Life is *enormously* fast.
>In one second, one cell in your body uses (and creates) about 10 mil ATP molecules
>Enzyme can catalyze about 20'000 reactions in a second
>You have over 100 000 mrd mitochondria that are replaced every 8-10 days

It doesn't matter what the probabilities are. Order will arise somewhere in the universe as long as just two different things exist (aka zero and one). All information can be represented with just two numbers.

>so why do most people say that QM disproves determinism, that s my problem with it

Well, because throwing out locality is odd, whereas we can reconstruct all the evidence we have for determinism from the actually non deterministic QM.

How the universe started or if it has always been there is too far away for me to have an opinion. Maybe in a few hundred or more years when we have more knowledge we can start talking about those things. Determinism and causality is something we can determine (kek ) now

So there is a causality that makes that the physical rules we have nowadays are there. How can that be random? If it would be random there would be no explanation

Have you ever studied QM?

no I have, beside the basics, no physical, mathematical background.

I´m just interested in the world and have read many books about biology, free will and studies about these subjects.

My knowledge about QM is superficial. I have read about that the equation is deterministic but there are problems with the measurement. So if you go into the micro-area you cant predict anymore or less where the quants appear,

Therefor with my knowledge I possess I cant think of a way that there is no causality. if something happens, like the laws of physics, it is because it couldnt have happened differently.

Therefor when it comes to quants, in my opinion, there have to a causality that makes that it is the way it is. There is a cause, why we cant measure where the quants appear. We just dont have the knowledge or devices to see the cause.

And the determinism is ubiquitous in the macro-world. Why shouldnt it be like that. the mere thought of something happening with no cause is unimaginable for me. How should that be possibly, where is the point of it.

That first part sounds more like a philosophical argument rather than a physical one.

>There is a cause, why we cant measure where the quants appear. We just dont have the knowledge or devices to see the cause.

This is a popular theory (local hidden variables) but people tested its implications with Bell's Theorem (if things worked this way then the results of QM would be measurably different) and found it simply can't be true unless we throw out locality (meaning things can travel faster than light and violating the principles of general relativity, which we can observe to be true)

>And the determinism is ubiquitous in the macro-world. Why shouldnt it be like that. the mere thought of something happening with no cause is unimaginable for me. How should that be possibly, where is the point of it.

On the other hand it's much easier to throw out this idea of hidden variables and retain locality, since it wouldn't actually violate the macro world. If the outcome of a result was determined by flipping a coin, then the outcome of many many results is determined by the results of flipping many coins, and we know that has a predictable result- it should be half heads, half tails. We live in a world made of many many small things and generally measure results that are actually the sum of many small interactions, so they appear to always have a physical result that roughly corresponds to half heads, half tails in the example of our many coins. This is why people thought for years, measuring macroscopic results, that the world was deterministic.

This is different from the world being actually deterministic which would be analogous to saying we will always have half/half, instead of some variance.

The example with the coins is an argument for determinism.

If we would know everything in the universe we could definitely predict the outcome

>Uncertainty principle and Gödels incompleteness theorem

>Together in the same statement

Is this a meme?

>The example with the coins is an argument for determinism.
>If we would know everything in the universe we could definitely predict the outcome

How so?

If we have 1 million coins, we can predict the probability distribution, but you can't say for certain what the result is.

You forgot that our reality is just a computer simulation. There is a large list of "random numbers" saved somewhere and every time a "random" event happens the simulation look simply looks at the next number in that list to decide the result.

If you know every variable: what angle, how much energy etc then we would know the outcome.
If we know the outcome of all coins, we would know the endresult, because we would, if we would know every variable, also how the coins would react with eachother etc ( coins are probably a bad example for the reaction with each other)

The Schrodinger equation is deterministic. The solutions represent statistical distributions of measurements.

But what kind of universe does the computer that simulates us live in?

See Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

That argument is to provide intuition for how determinism can appear to emerge from randomness. If you like, I could use the analogy with quantum mechanical spin up or down instead.

Every universe is simulated by another one. It's an infinite descent.

>Hard determinism still remains the best explanation of the universe
It literally explains nothing.
>Why did this thing happen?
>Something caused it to happen
>But what caused it to happen?
>Determinism doesn't tell us that
>What if we can never measure what caused it?
>I dunno, but something caused it lol
>Wow, thanks for that extremely useful information

Brainlet detected