What is the best interpretation of quantum physics and why is it the Copenhagen interpretation?

only normies believe in hidden variables

>>zillions of additional universes created from nothing

This is a common misunderstanding of the term "worlds." MWI doesn't claim there are literally an infinite number of parallel universes.

>supposedly this is better than collapse

Collapse is unnecessary in MWI, because there is only one wavefunction. An observer simply becomes entangled with the particle he's measuring, because by measuring he becomes part of the same quantum system.

> hidden variables
> implying non-locality isn't the patrician's choice
> btfo quantum woo "wave collapse" by "observation" through "consciousness" maaaaaaaaaan
git gud

this
non-locality is literally fucking godtier

pilot wave theory.

>make sense
>no built in randomness

>Copenhagen
>universe is local
>wave functions are infinite in the space

How even?

Yep
> Reality is a unified field which interferes with itself
> Wave function describes the behavior of waves of/on this field
> Particles interfere with this field and are also carried along by it
> Uncertainty is due to small differences in starting conditions, as per chaos theory
> Corresponds with what religious teachers and mystics have insisted all along, that reality is ONE
How can Copenfags compete? They don't even have a unified theory of quantum gravity but want to shit on everyone else for not having a theory of everything yet

COPENFAGS COPE

>QM as an argument for free will?
If there's no free will because determinism then quantum indeterminism proves free will possible.
>You don't have control over your brain, thus you don't have control over yourself.
Assuming determinism/materialism/no free will.
But the data says you are in control of your brain. (Try consciously deciding to do something then light up the relevant parts of your brain to do it)
So the assumption is wrong.

>Try consciously deciding to do something then light up the relevant parts of your brain to do it

That "conscious decision" was caused by physical stimulus

actually the data says our brains know what decisions were going to make before were consciously aware of it, and the functioning of our brain does not incorporate quantum fuckery of that nature. With a human, the input determines the output.

if someone knew you as well as you did they would be able to predict your decisions.

on top of that if we had free will we wouldn't be bound by needs like food, money. emotional upkeep, boredom etc.

>That "conscious decision" was caused by physical stimulus
Assuming that's true it was, but there's nothing convincing about just assuming.
How is free will defined, how do we tell the difference between it existing and not?
>functioning of our brain does not incorporate quantum fuckery of that nature
Except everything it's made of obeys quantum physics.
>if we had free will we wouldn't be bound by needs like food
How is free will defined? If we had free will we wouldn't need to eat?
>data says our brains know what decisions were going to make before were consciously aware
>data
>consciously
wew

determinism doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist.

the randomness in quantum mechanics (which is what i think you mean by "quantum indeterminism") is not incorporated into the functioning of our brains to produce thought which can be described physically entirely by classical physics.

not to mention the randomness of quantum physics doesn't necessarily exist depending on which theory you personally believe in.

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. How do you have free will if you HAVE to make certain decisions?

>actually the data says our brains know what decisions were going to make before were consciously aware of it
source?
>on top of that if we had free will we wouldn't be bound by needs like food, money. emotional upkeep, boredom etc.
you are retarded

>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded. How do you have free will if you HAVE to make certain decisions?
What are our choices supposedly impeded by?

Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H. J. & Haynes, J. D. (2008). Unconscious Determinants Of Free Decisions In The Human Brain. Nature Neuroscience 11 (5), 543–5.
Voss, J. L., & Paller, K. A. (2009). An electrophysiological signature of unconscious recognition memory. Nature Neuroscience, 12

>you are retarded

you sure showed me.

>which can be described physically entirely by classical physics.
>implying the functions of our brains are anywhere near fully understood

The way I see it, Haag's theorem basically guarantees that our interpretations are flawed. Maybe the interaction picture is appropriately valid for perturbative methods, but definitely not for all field theories. Strongly coupled quantum field theories are so poorly understood, that there are physicists who are ready to even give up the construct of a Lagrangian field theory altogether.

Impeded by the nature of existing as a human.

You have to decide to eat and drink or you stop existing

you have to decide not run in front of traffic or you stop existing

you have to decide to interact socially with other humans or you begin to get sad.

our emotional states affect our decisions

our physical sensations affect our decisions

our past experiences affect our decisions

etc.

maybe i didnt articulate well enough. When i say "the functioning of our brain" i dont mean an understanding of thought itself or the emergent properties that come out of it, i meant in the way that our actual physical neurons interact and communicate on an entirely physical level.

what the fuck kind of reddit spacing haiku brainlet shite did you just try to post

>Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H. J. & Haynes, J. D. (2008). Unconscious Determinants Of Free Decisions In The Human Brain.
>In a previous experiment1, electrical brain activity was recorded while subjects were asked to press a button as soon as they felt the urge to do so. Notably, their conscious decision to press the button was preceded by a few hundred milliseconds by a negative brain potential, the so-called ‘readiness potential’ that originates from the supplementary motor area (SMA),
flawed proof. says the participants were asked to press the button whenever they "felt the urge to do so", not to choose when to press it. Also, that some things are done unconsciously does not mean that no decisions are made consciously.
didn't see the relevance of the other article.

>Impeded by the nature of existing as a human.
>You have to decide to eat and drink or you stop existing
>you have to decide not run in front of traffic or you stop existing
>you have to decide to interact socially with other humans or you begin to get sad.
So because some choices are naturally preferable to others that means free will doesn't exist? That's nonsense. The existence of negative consequences for some actions (or rather, our belief that those actions will have negative consequences) does not impede our ability to chose, it only informs our choices.

>our emotional states affect our decisions
>our physical sensations affect our decisions
>our past experiences affect our decisions
Our emotional states and our past experiences are part of what makes us who we are. All you're saying here is that who we are determines the choices we make, which doesn't mean that we don't make choices.
Our sensations are part of the environment in which we make our decisions, just like the consequences we believe our actions will have, and also just like them, it only informs our decisions.

[math](OP's way)^-1[/math]

>flawed proof
disagree
if the set up of the one experiment bothers you vsauce has an episode of mind field where they do the test except they ask people to chose to press the button conciously and the EEG reader still predicts it.

you can also just look at the second source i posted.

or the other experiments in the one youre saying has no value because of a passing mention of an experiment you disagree with.

>semantics
it sounds like you're saying free will is the freedom to make exactly the decisions you have to make based on the big mess of variables that make you the person you are.

>vsauce
Could only see the preview, which showed the experiment you mentioned.
Still lousy proof. Yes, they asked people to choose consciously when to press it, but if this is a type of situation where it's impossible to actually choose consciously, then that is completely meaningless. You can't consciously choose, for instance, to switch from breathing manually to breathing unconsciously. It's something that just happens whenever the conditions are right.
You have yet to show that the fact that some decisions are made without conscious input means that no decisions are made consciously. For that you would need to prove the nature of consciousness, or at least analyze the mental processes behind other types of decisions.
>it sounds like you're saying free will is the freedom to make exactly the decisions you have to make based on the big mess of variables that make you the person you are.
It sounds like you're saying that for free will to exist our choices must be made with absolutely no regard for their consequences and with our personal inclinations having no effect whatsoever on the decision-making process. That they must be made at random or else they can't be real choices.

any popsci link for this?

Not sure about popsci but...

Feynman basically showed that while a quantum state could tons of possibilities, only the more likely ones occur with any real amount of probability, aka principle of least action for the quantum world.

>What is the best interpretation of quantum physics
pilot wave theory

>wavefunction
>measurement
>no collapse
>zillions of additional universes created from nothing
>don't even get me started on the Born rule
>zillion observers all now entanged in what they tried to measure
>somehow they all make observations of specific states without anything collapsing
>have they all turned into hidden variables or what?
>what a fucking mess
>supposedly this is better than collapse
>what kind of idiot even thinks this is sensible

The Born rule open question is a valid one. But everything else in OP seems to just summarize to "I don't like it".

To me, it seems way more likely that the Born rule arises from the rest of quantum mechanics in some as-of-yet not understood way, than that there is a nonlocal asymmetric non-differentiable non-relativistic "collapse rule" that produces these Born probabilities.

Another thing about the vsauce vid. There is a scene which shows the button lighting up without the guy even making a move to press the button, which seems to suggest that the conclusion that the subconscious mind is the only thing behind the decision to push the button might be wrong, or at least premature.

>Well it is now.
fuck, I knew I should not perform the measurement.

>free will

That is what im saying, except for the random part that you made up.

in the episode he was told to hit the button while it was off

but the machine lit up when he was going to hit the button

so he didnt hit it because the light came on but he was intending to.

they repeatedly mentioned how the light seemed to come on right before they decided to hit the buttong

so is color, sound, and so on an illusion? the passage of time is definitely an experienced qualia.

just because you can describe things by combining logical gates doesn't mean that only those logical gates exist and everything else is an "illusion" as you put it. A DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A SYSTEM. abstraction only goes so far. for one, it leaves out the concept of "state" which is when you have one of many possibilities (which is by definition random on some level). it's impossible to have a state, any state at all, that's not random on some level by the nature of what a state is.

furthermore, free will is a red herring because even if everything was random it wouldn't make will any more free. randomness i not free will regardless of how many layers of abstraction you use to obscure it.

what exists is causal relations between subjective experiences. there's not physical universe out there, just qualia causing qualia.

fuck off with your archaic concepts like reality. bell inequities disproved the existence of a physical universe and just because you don't understand that doesn't mean that it exists.

If free will means our choices can't be affected by personal inclinations or the consequences of possible choices, then how exactly do you propose our choices would be determined in a universe where free will definitely exists?
Literally not an argument. All you did was describe the scene I mentioned.

>
>so is color, sound, and so on an illusion? the passage of time is definitely an experienced qualia.

The passage of time of course is experienced, what I said is an illusion is the belief that time is "created" in that instant, all space-time points are already made, its like a watching a movie basically, or like i said before a 4d picture

>just because you can describe things by combining logical gates doesn't mean that only those logical gates exist and everything else is an "illusion" as you put it. A DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A SYSTEM. abstraction only goes so far. for one, it leaves out the concept of "state" which is when you have one of many possibilities (which is by definition random on some level). it's impossible to have a state, any state at all, that's not random on some level by the nature of what a state is.

Superdeterminism is totally compatible with what we experience

>furthermore, free will is a red herring because even if everything was random it wouldn't make will any more free. randomness i not free will regardless of how many layers of abstraction you use to obscure it.

I agree, never argued in favor of free will

>what exists is causal relations between subjective experiences. there's not physical universe out there, just qualia causing qualia.

Thats exactly what a bunch of monkeys inmersed in a physical universe would say

>fuck off with your archaic concepts like reality. bell inequities disproved the existence of a physical universe and just because you don't understand that doesn't mean that it exists.

Or the archaic concept is locality, theres no point of talking of locality when we talk about the one big picture that is the universe

Is the argument against superdeterminism literally just "free will"? I can't imagine many serious physicists to have fallen for that desu.

Can someone explain Bell's theorem to a brainlet? I don't understand how it can rule out local hidden variables. I've read the wikipedia page a few times but it doesn't really help me.

Basically says that no theory, whatever it is, can reproduce the results we have seen and confirmed thus far from QM by means of a purely local "scope" alone like the Einstein field equations.

In brainlet terms, there is a fundamental degree of non locality in our observed reality.

It also hints at either superdeterminism, or a radically different fundamental reality

But how does it prove that? All I see from it is some correlation curve between two measurements. Why couldn't that sort of curve also just be explained by hidden variables?

The crux of the matter is that you can create the entangled particles (after which the results of the measurement would be fixed in a hidden variables theory) and only afterwards choose which axes to measure along. I don't like most Veritasium videos but this video is a pretty good pop-sci explanation: youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

Alright, so if I understand it correctly, it's simply a mathematical impossibility that hidden variables could lead to the same correlation between the two measurements along any combination of axes, without establishing some correlation between the two experimenters. Which is not the case, since they choose the axes independently and randomly.

Here's an example I found on physicsforums
>Suppose that someone always correctly predicts the numbers that will be drawn in lottery. One possible explanation would be that she has supernatural powers, or more likely that she cheats somehow. But consider the following alternative explanation: She just makes guesses, but initial conditions in the universe are so finely tuned that her guesses (determined by deterministic processes in her brain and its environment) are perfectly correlated with deterministic chaotic processes that determine the lottery numbers. Such an alternative explanation would be - superdeterminism.
Based on this analogy I can see why people reject superdeterminism.

youtube.com/watch?v=7zfnvGXpy-g
might be brainlety enough

>quantum states evolve perfectly deterministic through the schödinger equation
>physicist and his intrument are also at the fundamental level quantum systems therefore the physicist-experiment system completely deterministically governed by the schrödinger equations
>somehow get propabilities out of nowhere

where do they come from in the copenhagen interpretation?

PILOT WAVE THEORY COMING THRU BOUT TO FUCK YO BITCH

>he doesn't have control of his brain

>bell inequities disproved the existence of a physical universe
>what exists is causal relations between subjective experiences. there's not physical universe out there, just qualia causing qualia.
That's a rather weird interpretation you got going there, my dude.

If you go to the Wikipedia article on Superdeterminism, you'll read:
>In quantum mechanics, superdeterminism is a hypothetical class of theories that evade Bell's theorem by virtue of being completely deterministic. Bell's theorem depends on the assumption of "free will", which does not apply to deterministic theories. It is conceivable that someone could exploit this loophole to construct a local hidden variable theory that reproduces the predictions of quantum mechanics. Superdeterminists do not recognize the existence of genuine chances or possibilities anywhere in the cosmos.
>Bell's theorem assumes that the types of measurements performed at each detector can be chosen independently of each other and of the hidden variable being measured. In order for the argument for Bell's inequality to follow, it is necessary to be able to speak meaningfully of what the result of the experiment would have been, had different choices been made. This assumption is called counterfactual definiteness. But in a fully deterministic theory, the measurements the experimenters choose at each detector are predetermined by the laws of physics. It can therefore be argued that it is erroneous to speak of what would have happened had different measurements been chosen; no other measurement choices were physically possible. Since the chosen measurements can be determined in advance, the results at one detector can be affected by the type of measurement done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light.
>Thus, it is conceivable that freedom of choice has been restricted since the beginning of the universe in the Big Bang, with every future measurement predetermined by correlations established at the Big Bang. This would make superdeterminism untestable, since experimenters would never be able to eliminate correlations that were created at the beginning of the universe: the freedom-of-choice loophole could never be completely eliminated.

>I don't like most Veritasium videos
How so?