Topic: Superposition is fake.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #135,063
There's no evidence that a particle is in two states at the same time until you look.
It's a myth, this language was used in models to talk about when the state was undetermined. No physical test proved it was in both before being measured, because any test would measure it. Physics is based on actual experiments.
> muh double slit
Those experiments did not fire a single photon, they fired many and the photons were more likely to hit some areas than others.
A galton board shows the same thing with marbles, but you wouldn't say the marble is is in two states at once.
> muh shrödinger!
He pubicly opposed the copenhagen interpretation and gave the example of a cat to mock it.
It's a myth, this language was used in models to talk about when the state was undetermined. No physical test proved it was in both before being measured, because any test would measure it. Physics is based on actual experiments.
> muh double slit
Those experiments did not fire a single photon, they fired many and the photons were more likely to hit some areas than others.
A galton board shows the same thing with marbles, but you wouldn't say the marble is is in two states at once.
> muh shrödinger!
He pubicly opposed the copenhagen interpretation and gave the example of a cat to mock it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 41 minutes later[^] [v] #1,435,877
raping nigguhs!
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,893
Don’t superpositions exist at a macroscopic scale though? Like if you have two waves, one wave is 1Hz and the other wave is 2Hz, they have a resonance so they will interfere with each other in a superposition?
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,894
Also wasn’t the Nobel prize in physics last year about the discovery that quantum effects exist at a macroscopic scale?
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,895
Apparently everybody just assumed that things can’t quantum tunnel across barriers at a macroscopic scale so nobody tried it because it was so obviously not possible then one guy tried it and it worked somehow.
Mr. Black Boi quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,896
And now that I think about it, if you can have a superposition of waves, and a cosine is a wave, then a fourier transform in lossy image compression is just a superposition of cosines that removes the more subtle cosines so that you can keep most of the image details while saving space.
(Edited 59 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 6 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,910
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 52 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,914
> muh double slit
Womens have single slit and is NOT dependent on observer.
Womens have single slit and is NOT dependent on observer.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,915
Anonymous D replied with this 1 month ago, 21 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,917
Erik !saAqdaazn2 joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 52 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,918
> until you look.
Its until measured.
Its until measured.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 13 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,919
That's exactly right and gets to the heart of the most mind-bending concept in modern physics: quantum superposition. Before a particle is measured, it doesn't just exist in one state or another. Instead, it exists in a wave-like blend of all possible states simultaneously. This concept is famously illustrated by the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, where an unobserved system can embody multiple realities at once
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,920
@1,435,918 (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
Almost as if measurement is how we determine what state anything is in.
How do they know it's in two states, and not one, before they measure it? They can't, physics is based on experiments, the idea that it is in both states is just baseless philosophizing.
Almost as if measurement is how we determine what state anything is in.
How do they know it's in two states, and not one, before they measure it? They can't, physics is based on experiments, the idea that it is in both states is just baseless philosophizing.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 28 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,921
@1,435,919 (F)
Shrodinger was mocking the idea of quantum superposition, he didn't accept the idea himself.
Shrodinger was mocking the idea of quantum superposition, he didn't accept the idea himself.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,922
@1,435,920 (A)
The origin of the word physics comes from the Greek language, the original word meaning 'the understanding of nature. ' Physics is based on scientific experiments and the conclusion of the laws and their confirmation to explain the natural phenomena around us.
In the quantum world the rules CHANGE. Given understanding nature allows us to understand, that the experiment basis has flexibility.
The origin of the word physics comes from the Greek language, the original word meaning 'the understanding of nature. ' Physics is based on scientific experiments and the conclusion of the laws and their confirmation to explain the natural phenomena around us.
In the quantum world the rules CHANGE. Given understanding nature allows us to understand, that the experiment basis has flexibility.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 11 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,923
@1,435,918 (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
> >until you look.
>
> Its until measured.
With a photon… aka a physical interaction.
> >until you look.
>
> Its until measured.
With a photon… aka a physical interaction.
boof joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,924
it's like, you can't know how big your weiner is until you look at pic of nice tits
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 36 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,925
@1,435,922 (F)
How do you conclude that it is in two states without measuring it?
Many physicists pointed out the problem here. There is an assumption that it has no definite state before measurement, but it's not a falsifiable hypothesis because falsifiability means running an experiment.
Do YOU have any idea how you could prove superposition? Or do you blindly trust some pop sci video that never tells you that schrodinger himself didn't believe this when they explain the dead/alive cat in a box?
How do you conclude that it is in two states without measuring it?
Many physicists pointed out the problem here. There is an assumption that it has no definite state before measurement, but it's not a falsifiable hypothesis because falsifiability means running an experiment.
Do YOU have any idea how you could prove superposition? Or do you blindly trust some pop sci video that never tells you that schrodinger himself didn't believe this when they explain the dead/alive cat in a box?
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,926
@1,435,922 (F)
> In the quantum world the rules CHANGE. Given understanding nature allows us to understand, that the experiment basis has flexibility.
Technically, the rules don’t change. The macroscopic world just appears deterministic because the probability an individual particle will tunnel decreases with distance and the more particles you have the probability they’ll all experience the same random effect at the same time decreases exponentially. People just think the world is deterministic because at our scale it almost always is.
> In the quantum world the rules CHANGE. Given understanding nature allows us to understand, that the experiment basis has flexibility.
Technically, the rules don’t change. The macroscopic world just appears deterministic because the probability an individual particle will tunnel decreases with distance and the more particles you have the probability they’ll all experience the same random effect at the same time decreases exponentially. People just think the world is deterministic because at our scale it almost always is.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 1 month ago, 32 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,927
well, as a scientific model, it must be wrong
because they all are
because they all are
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 57 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,928
The 2025 Nobel prize in physics actually proved quantum tunneling is possible at a macroscopic scale.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,929
@1,435,926 (Mr. Black Boi)
"Indeterminism" at the quantum level is just a limitation of our tools.
You can't measure quantum phenomena without affecting the thing you are measuring because even a single photon or electron would have an impact on the results.
That doesn't mean they aren't deterministic, it just means we can't determine it because we are limited in our ability to observe accurately.
It would be like a more primitive species (without thumbs or microscopes) thinking disease it indeterminate because they cannot see individual germs.
"Indeterminism" at the quantum level is just a limitation of our tools.
You can't measure quantum phenomena without affecting the thing you are measuring because even a single photon or electron would have an impact on the results.
That doesn't mean they aren't deterministic, it just means we can't determine it because we are limited in our ability to observe accurately.
It would be like a more primitive species (without thumbs or microscopes) thinking disease it indeterminate because they cannot see individual germs.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 42 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,930
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,931
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,932
@1,435,929 (A)
> That doesn't mean they aren't deterministic, it just means we can't determine it because we are limited in our ability to observe accurately.
If everything in the universe was deterministic, that would mean free will doesn’t exist, the outcome of all your decisions are predetermined, the fate of everyone is predetermined, and nothing is really anyone’s fault.
> That doesn't mean they aren't deterministic, it just means we can't determine it because we are limited in our ability to observe accurately.
If everything in the universe was deterministic, that would mean free will doesn’t exist, the outcome of all your decisions are predetermined, the fate of everyone is predetermined, and nothing is really anyone’s fault.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 46 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,933
@1,435,931 (Mr. Black Boi)
So are you shoehorning in an unrelated subject or do you have some point about superposition?
So are you shoehorning in an unrelated subject or do you have some point about superposition?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,934
@1,435,932 (Mr. Black Boi)
So this misunderstanding in physics is convenient if free will is something you really want to be true. Sort of, if our decisions are random that's not much better than determined.
This doesn't mean law and consequences are bad either. You can still set up a spcial system that discourages harmful behavior.
So this misunderstanding in physics is convenient if free will is something you really want to be true. Sort of, if our decisions are random that's not much better than determined.
This doesn't mean law and consequences are bad either. You can still set up a spcial system that discourages harmful behavior.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 7 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,935
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,936
@1,435,934 (A)
I never said that it means that law and consequences wouldn’t have a positive effect of deterring people from committing crime, but I am saying that if everything in the universe is deterministic, the outcome of any debate we could have about anything is already predetermined so nobody is right or wrong for doing or saying anything since everything was always destined to work out exactly the way that it did.
I never said that it means that law and consequences wouldn’t have a positive effect of deterring people from committing crime, but I am saying that if everything in the universe is deterministic, the outcome of any debate we could have about anything is already predetermined so nobody is right or wrong for doing or saying anything since everything was always destined to work out exactly the way that it did.
Anonymous F replied with this 1 month ago, 17 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,937
@1,435,934 (A)
> So this misunderstanding in physics is convenient if free will is something you really want to be true. Sort of, if our decisions are random that's not much better than determined.
>
> This doesn't mean law and consequences are bad either. You can still set up a spcial system that discourages harmful behavior.
Human behavior and physics...We live in a world that has laws of physics and when it cums to humans, laws are often avoided.
> So this misunderstanding in physics is convenient if free will is something you really want to be true. Sort of, if our decisions are random that's not much better than determined.
>
> This doesn't mean law and consequences are bad either. You can still set up a spcial system that discourages harmful behavior.
Human behavior and physics...We live in a world that has laws of physics and when it cums to humans, laws are often avoided.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,938
Tbh, I think in general you’ll have better results if you think in terms of probabilities even if the universe was deterministic, because you can’t know everything.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,939
Even in Newtonian physics there are certain situations where a tiny change in the input will have a massive difference in the output, and it becomes impossible to predict the end state of some system because it’s impossible to measure the initial state with the necessary precision.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,940
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,941
@previous (A)
That would have implications for morality. If someone’s actions were decided by the universe at the beginning of time, then you can’t really judge anyone for anything whether they’re good or evil or smart or stupid.
That would have implications for morality. If someone’s actions were decided by the universe at the beginning of time, then you can’t really judge anyone for anything whether they’re good or evil or smart or stupid.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,942
It would also invalidate Christianity, since the entire idea behind it is that God gave humans free will to follow him and do good onto others, or commit sin and do evil onto others and that your judgement after death will be based on your actions in life. If humans don’t have free will, then that would be more nihilistic than the atheistic idea that after you die nothing happens. It would imply that after you die, nothing happens, and while you were alive, you had no say in anything. That just sounds completely meaningless.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,943
Like there are still atheists who think humans have a choice to be good or be evil and we should strive to make the world a better place for each other, I’m not saying atheism is nihilistic, but determinism feels like a step beyond that into pointless territory.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 28 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,944
@1,435,941 (Mr. Black Boi)
Sure you can, judging behavior is a natural physical response for one person to do in a social environment. It's predetermined itself.
And if you mean in a more philosophical sense, sure you can't/shouldn't but that's naval gazing. It doesn't have a practical impact because you still need a society with rules and consequences.
Sure you can, judging behavior is a natural physical response for one person to do in a social environment. It's predetermined itself.
And if you mean in a more philosophical sense, sure you can't/shouldn't but that's naval gazing. It doesn't have a practical impact because you still need a society with rules and consequences.
anon replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,945
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-caught-sperm-defying-one-of-the-major-laws-of-physicsScientists Caught Sperm Defying One of The Major Laws of Physics
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,946
@1,435,944 (A)
In a deterministic world, it would make sense that a species would survive if it had a negative emotional reaction to someone doing something that seems to be a net negative. But if that species is intelligent and realizes that it exists in a universe where everything is predetermined, then rationality would overcome instinct and they would eventually realize (as long as they’re not predetermined to be stupid), that it doesn’t make any sense to judge someone for something they had no control over. Sure it makes sense to prevent them from hurting other people, but if everything is predetermined you have no choice but to do that and think that anyway. But it doesn’t make sense to say that something is wrong with the person’s soul if none of their actions have anything to do with their soul.
In a deterministic world, it would make sense that a species would survive if it had a negative emotional reaction to someone doing something that seems to be a net negative. But if that species is intelligent and realizes that it exists in a universe where everything is predetermined, then rationality would overcome instinct and they would eventually realize (as long as they’re not predetermined to be stupid), that it doesn’t make any sense to judge someone for something they had no control over. Sure it makes sense to prevent them from hurting other people, but if everything is predetermined you have no choice but to do that and think that anyway. But it doesn’t make sense to say that something is wrong with the person’s soul if none of their actions have anything to do with their soul.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 54 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,947
And if the world really was deterministic, the fact that I had that thought in the first place is evidence that you’re wrong that it’s predetermined that people wouldn’t have that thought because I just did.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,948
Unless we just have free will and can do whatever we want, then it’s easier to explain why I had that thought.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,949
@1,435,947 (Mr. Black Boi)
> And if the world really was deterministic, the fact that I had that thought in the first place is evidence that you’re wrong that it’s predetermined that people wouldn’t have that thought because I just did.
I never said it was "predetermined that people wouldn’t have that thought" WTF are you talking about?
> And if the world really was deterministic, the fact that I had that thought in the first place is evidence that you’re wrong that it’s predetermined that people wouldn’t have that thought because I just did.
I never said it was "predetermined that people wouldn’t have that thought" WTF are you talking about?
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,950
@1,435,944 (A)
> Sure you can, judging behavior is a natural physical response for one person to do in a social environment. It's predetermined itself.
You said that judging people is a predetermined behavior. But I can decide not to judge people, so if the universe is predetermined we can’t be certain that everyone is predetermined to judge others and that it’s predetermined they won’t ever have the thought not to. Believing that something is the case can make it true in some situations. For example, if you don’t believe you can do something, then you won’t do it. Believing that it’s predetermined you have to think and interact with the world in a certain way limits you. Even if determinism was true, it’s a useless thing to believe in.
> Sure you can, judging behavior is a natural physical response for one person to do in a social environment. It's predetermined itself.
You said that judging people is a predetermined behavior. But I can decide not to judge people, so if the universe is predetermined we can’t be certain that everyone is predetermined to judge others and that it’s predetermined they won’t ever have the thought not to. Believing that something is the case can make it true in some situations. For example, if you don’t believe you can do something, then you won’t do it. Believing that it’s predetermined you have to think and interact with the world in a certain way limits you. Even if determinism was true, it’s a useless thing to believe in.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,951
If you look at history, and you find the source of ideologies based on the view that everything is predetermined, it comes pretty much exclusively from wealthy and powerful people who oppress others. I’m not saying determinism is true or false, but I am saying, you have to think about who the belief advantages, because beliefs change behavior. I don’t think it’s intelligent to believe in something that will limit me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,953
@1,435,950 (Mr. Black Boi)
You can't prove it was indeterministic.
Any and all action could have been predetermined, even if you feel it wasn't.
Of course you can't prove quantum phenomena are deterministic either, but we know physics is deterministic when it's measurable. To think ot suddenly flips when the particles get smaller, coincidentally when measuring them interferes because the light itself moves particles, is a bigger leap than thinking the principles apply at the small scale.
You can't prove it was indeterministic.
Any and all action could have been predetermined, even if you feel it wasn't.
Of course you can't prove quantum phenomena are deterministic either, but we know physics is deterministic when it's measurable. To think ot suddenly flips when the particles get smaller, coincidentally when measuring them interferes because the light itself moves particles, is a bigger leap than thinking the principles apply at the small scale.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,954
@1,435,951 (Mr. Black Boi)
Your entire argument boils down to "i believe this because of how it makes me feel" rather than drawing conclusions from experiments and data.
Your entire argument boils down to "i believe this because of how it makes me feel" rather than drawing conclusions from experiments and data.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 52 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,957
@1,435,953 (A)
> You can't prove it was indeterministic.
>
> Any and all action could have been predetermined, even if you feel it wasn't.
The problem with this argument is that you can turn the argument the other way around and it’s still valid.
You can’t prove it’s not indeterministic and any action might not be predetermined even if you think it was.
> You can't prove it was indeterministic.
>
> Any and all action could have been predetermined, even if you feel it wasn't.
The problem with this argument is that you can turn the argument the other way around and it’s still valid.
You can’t prove it’s not indeterministic and any action might not be predetermined even if you think it was.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,958
@1,435,954 (A)
> Your entire argument boils down to "i believe this because of how it makes me feel" rather than drawing conclusions from experiments and data.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?
> Your entire argument boils down to "i believe this because of how it makes me feel" rather than drawing conclusions from experiments and data.
Isn’t that what you’re doing?
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,960
Because think about it, how can you prove something is deterministic? You can’t.
Imagine you flip heads a thousand times. The probability of that is 0.5^1000. That probably would mean the coin will always land on heads, or it could mean there’s a 50/50 probability it will land on heads or tails and a 9.3*10^-300% chance event occurred. That’s probably not what happened but you can’t say it’s definitely not what happened.
Imagine you flip heads a thousand times. The probability of that is 0.5^1000. That probably would mean the coin will always land on heads, or it could mean there’s a 50/50 probability it will land on heads or tails and a 9.3*10^-300% chance event occurred. That’s probably not what happened but you can’t say it’s definitely not what happened.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,977
@1,435,958 (Mr. Black Boi)
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
Then we get to a scale that can't be measured for practical reasons and some keep their model the same because they can't do new tests.
Others make a leap in logic and assume that by coincidence the particles that are too small to measure are also indeterministic in a real sense.
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
Then we get to a scale that can't be measured for practical reasons and some keep their model the same because they can't do new tests.
Others make a leap in logic and assume that by coincidence the particles that are too small to measure are also indeterministic in a real sense.
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 50 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,978
@previous (A)
> It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I don’t see how you can know that given how complex the world is. Even if you have "the variables" and things are deterministic some things are just too difficult to compute.
For example, this is a SHA256 hash of a 62 character long UTF-8 encoded string: a7bdd3c9f467872686e0f3b916ae62eafd08e1319546d2ab2be89a01bc412320
Is it deterministic? Yes. Will you ever be able to tell me what that 62 character UTF-8 encoded string was? No.
I just don’t see how your assumption can be proven.
> It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I don’t see how you can know that given how complex the world is. Even if you have "the variables" and things are deterministic some things are just too difficult to compute.
For example, this is a SHA256 hash of a 62 character long UTF-8 encoded string: a7bdd3c9f467872686e0f3b916ae62eafd08e1319546d2ab2be89a01bc412320
Is it deterministic? Yes. Will you ever be able to tell me what that 62 character UTF-8 encoded string was? No.
I just don’t see how your assumption can be proven.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,435,980
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
> > It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
>
> I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I don’t see how you can know that given how complex the world is. Even if you have "the variables" and things are deterministic some things are just too difficult to compute.
Like I said there's a difference between actually deterministic and whether we can practically get the variables and calculate it.
> For example, this is a SHA256 hash of a 62 character long UTF-8 encoded string: a7bdd3c9f467872686e0f3b916ae62eafd08e1319546d2ab2be89a01bc412320
>
> Is it deterministic? Yes. Will you ever be able to tell me what that 62 character UTF-8 encoded string was? No.
That's not a problem of compute, SHA256 is a one way function.
> I just don’t see how your assumption can be proven.
I didn't make an assumption, here's a quote from my last post that explains: "some keep their model the same because they can't do new tests."
Keeping your model the same because you haven't added any new test data is not "making an assumption".
Thinking that it is indeterministic is an assumption, because it's an update to the model that isn't backed by experimental data.
> > It's induction, not emotion. Everything we see is deterministic if you have the variables.
>
> I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but I don’t see how you can know that given how complex the world is. Even if you have "the variables" and things are deterministic some things are just too difficult to compute.
Like I said there's a difference between actually deterministic and whether we can practically get the variables and calculate it.
> For example, this is a SHA256 hash of a 62 character long UTF-8 encoded string: a7bdd3c9f467872686e0f3b916ae62eafd08e1319546d2ab2be89a01bc412320
>
> Is it deterministic? Yes. Will you ever be able to tell me what that 62 character UTF-8 encoded string was? No.
That's not a problem of compute, SHA256 is a one way function.
> I just don’t see how your assumption can be proven.
I didn't make an assumption, here's a quote from my last post that explains: "some keep their model the same because they can't do new tests."
Keeping your model the same because you haven't added any new test data is not "making an assumption".
Thinking that it is indeterministic is an assumption, because it's an update to the model that isn't backed by experimental data.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,436,274
You might find pilot wave theory interesting?
Seems not so straightforward to combine pilot wave theory with special relativity, but maybe not impossible. John Bell had a few papers on this.
Full on determinism definitely fixes up a lot of major philosophical issues with wave collapse nonsense like Copenhagen. But then it brings up a certain unease, at least for me, with the question of "why now?" how is there any meaning to the present? or is there no present? Seems like nonsense when you think about it -- the block model universe.
Seems not so straightforward to combine pilot wave theory with special relativity, but maybe not impossible. John Bell had a few papers on this.
Full on determinism definitely fixes up a lot of major philosophical issues with wave collapse nonsense like Copenhagen. But then it brings up a certain unease, at least for me, with the question of "why now?" how is there any meaning to the present? or is there no present? Seems like nonsense when you think about it -- the block model universe.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,436,289
@1,435,980 (A)
> That's not a problem of compute, SHA256 is a one way function.
The same input will always produce the same output, you can brute force a SHA256 hash. You could figure out what string of words I used to make that hash, you just won’t because it’s too difficult to compute that.
> That's not a problem of compute, SHA256 is a one way function.
The same input will always produce the same output, you can brute force a SHA256 hash. You could figure out what string of words I used to make that hash, you just won’t because it’s too difficult to compute that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,436,316
@previous (M)
> The same input will always produce the same output
Yes, and also multiple different inputs can produce the same output.
> you can brute force a SHA256 hash. You could figure out what string of words I used to make that hash, you just won’t because it’s too difficult to compute that.
No lol. If you tried and had a fast enough computer that could do it, the first "match" would be a long string of gibberish that happened to hash to the same output.
This should be obvious because you can hash a file that is many GB and get a short output.
There are many more inputs than possible outputs so there has to be multiple inputs that give the same outputs.
Think about all the strings that are one character longer than a SHA256 output. That already has more inputs than possible outputs. And you haven't even come close to all the possible inputs on a multi-GB input file.
> The same input will always produce the same output
Yes, and also multiple different inputs can produce the same output.
> you can brute force a SHA256 hash. You could figure out what string of words I used to make that hash, you just won’t because it’s too difficult to compute that.
No lol. If you tried and had a fast enough computer that could do it, the first "match" would be a long string of gibberish that happened to hash to the same output.
This should be obvious because you can hash a file that is many GB and get a short output.
There are many more inputs than possible outputs so there has to be multiple inputs that give the same outputs.
Think about all the strings that are one character longer than a SHA256 output. That already has more inputs than possible outputs. And you haven't even come close to all the possible inputs on a multi-GB input file.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,436,317
@1,436,289 (M)
And of course you're the idiot CS student that thinks the logic of debate is the same logic of computation, that throws insults when you lose a debate, and spams random factoids in all the threads.
No common sense to realize there are infinetely many more inputs than outputs lol
And of course you're the idiot CS student that thinks the logic of debate is the same logic of computation, that throws insults when you lose a debate, and spams random factoids in all the threads.
No common sense to realize there are infinetely many more inputs than outputs lol