swansont

Yup. You find them in math, and the math is internally consistent, but math is not necessarily representative of the behavior of nature. That’s an additional burden that science imposes. e.g. Euclidean geometry. We know it’s not how the universe behaves (though it can be used for approximations under a lot of circumstances). It’s internally consistent but at least one axiom will fail if you’re in another geometry.

Natural and real aren’t contradictory or incompatible in any way, so I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to skip over the context that I’m sure you have in your head, but we can’t read minds, so this just reads as a non-sequitur. So what?

Axioms are made up; they can be incorrect. It only matters for internal consistency of the theorem. The idea must still match up with experiment. Many proposed theories fail to do so. The thing is, even if it were relevant, you’re made reason a result of causality, not determinism. In any event, you can’t base QM on human behavior. Tell me, what was QM like before humans existed, and there was no “we use it”?

What “implication”? All of which is beside the point. There are atheists and agnostics who are happily married.

RFK Jr is a quack. His crackpot views have no effect on the objective scientific facts

Some of the galaxies we observe are oriented perpendicular to us, which simplifies the issue of light travel time. In any event, it’s a solvable issue. Spiral galaxies are rotating; the spirals are not some accident of light travel time. The thing you’re not taking into account is that we get red- and blue-shift information from spectrographic analysis, which tells us a velocity component. We can get actual rotation information. Conservation of angular momentum is a real thing. IOW, your concern about the finite speed of light is not consistent

That’s not what you said, though. “I like science but today there are conflicting view such as is there climate change or not? Are vaccines good or bad? Sounds like science is being as misused as religion.” There are e.g. objective ways to show that vaccines are good, that they do what is intended — they save lives. How is that “misuse”? And if they can’t find a wife it’s God’s will. All paths lead to the same conclusion. No chance of falsifying the premise because the conclusion is not based on evidence. It’s not objective, and makes no effort to be. You have to trust your plumber know’s what they’re doing when they fix the toilet, too. You trust people to follow the rules of the road when you go out on a drive, bike ride, or go for a walk. You put trust in people all the time. It’s not an unusual thing. Vaccines are bad for you? They “made it bad”? Are you expecting others to inherently understand such cryptic statements? Ah, yes. The inevitable shifting of the blame. No, I have not been brainwashed.

“which violates (insults) reason itself” is not a rigorous statement. It’s subjective. It’s saying you don’t understand how it can be that way, therefore it’s wrong. It is argument from incredulity, which is fallacious.

But not of the offspring in question. So not the mother of science, which was your claim.

Well, it’s Colin Leslie Dean, so probably not, but just posting links violates rule 2.7 And “scientific”? Hahahahahaha

Great grandmother, perhaps. Curiosity was around long before science. Rigor is a closer relative. People dropped things and “studied” gravity in this way, and thought heavy things fell faster and that persisted because they didn’t test it.

No problem. Physics doesn’t pretend to speak to an underlying reality. Physics describes how the universe behaves. This is just a bullshit argument. As joigus says, it’s fuzzy. Vague. Not rigorous. As I said before, it’s a you problem. A lot of people don’t find QM to be intuitive but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

You can’t use speculations to support a topic in a mainstream thread, or advertise your pet theory

So now all you have to do is demonstrate nonlocality in some unambiguous fashion. But you claim it’s all one or all the other in order to claim everything is determined. And earlier you said “Undetermined or unknown state is due to observer ignorance only. It is not due to broken causality, which in principle, is impossible” but now we’re back to broken causality. How, exactly, does being in an undetermined state break causality?

Fermions obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics shows that they are identical.

Moderator NoteHijacking a discussion to rant against mainstream science or promote a pet theory is not permitted. Such speculation can only be discussed in its own thread in speculations.

Not conforming to your Reason” or logic is a “you” problem. Not evidence of a flaw in the theory Superposition is not an object. Many things in physics are not real objects, and there’s no real pretense that they are, though we can get careless about it and treat them as such because it doesn’t really matter (holes, shadows are some obvious examples, but fields, too. Phonons. The list is long. But superposition is a new and somewhat bizarre one to claim) People familiar with my posts know I am quite vocal in pointing this out. <something that’s not an object in physics is not an object!> is a characterization that, in my experience, is made by people not particularly familiar with physics.

Theorem 1 “Assume particle 1 is indeterministic (causality broken, e.g., unpredictable state).” Apologies. I mistakenly assumed you were familiar with your own work. But if the premise is incorrect the conclusion is invalid. Another clue to this is that we can measure states, so indeterminism is not universal. There are counterexamples to step 2 as well. A particle in an undetermined state could interact with a particle in a determined state but not have sufficient energy to change the state. Or it could interact in such a way that one must return to a determined state (e.g. an excitation into a maximal angular momentum state only has one decay channel, so you know what state it’s in) You can’t “convince” an AI.

What do you mean by “full determinism”? Particles are never in an indeterminate state?

I pointed it out. No, that’s not true. Let’s say you have a particle that’s spin 1, and you measure the state. Then it decays into two spin 1/2 particles. Their spins are undetermined. If they had determined but unknown states you can measure effects from that. Then why did you say that it was? And your “proof” relies on it I asked which one. Will you answer that question? Your post is curiously well-formatted . You did all that for a forum post? And made it look like a bunch of other posts that used AI? That seems…unlikely. (And AI is not trustworthy to check your logic) Superposition depends on your basis. It’s a fairly trivial exercise to change from one basis to another. Kinda pointless to deny this. Nobody says it’s an “object” “Reason” doesn’t really enter into it. QM interpretations are not QM, they are each a framework to help with a more intuitive understanding of QM. You don’t like e.g. wave-function collapse? Fine. You have other options. It doesn’t change QM one iota.

To be clear, since the OP has said we are not discussing their conjecture, it’s not. I’ve moved this to philosophy, since it’s on the nature of the universe.

You’re reifying these laws. That’s an assumption. What’s the evidence that the laws of the universe exist as some kind of tangible entity?

Would a company settle a lawsuit that would bankrupt them? If they lose they’re likely ruined, so I’m guessing a settlement would allow them to continue operating, if they think they can raise the money to keep going. Otherwise why settle? Is there some downside to losing as opposed to settling, if both destroy the company?

<deleted; didn’t see that this was in the sandbox>

It’s not really a proof. Being in an undetermined state does not mean that causality is broken. Please disclose which AI you used for this.