What is the biggest COPE in science? Some candidates:>many worlds>superdeterminism>dark matter>falsification What else?
Real numbers existing.
all of it
That OP's opinion matters.
>>15753988Go on. Define existence.
>>15753985manmade global warming.
>>15753985Impact factor
>>15753985superdeterminism isn't a cope, it's correct.
>>15753985String theory
>>15754244LOL>muh hidden variablesWhat a GARBAGE theory
>>15754244It's unfalsifiable.
>>15754480>It's unfalsifiable.which means it isn't science
>>15754074>the absolute biggest cope in science is>>scientists are smart and high iqespecially ever since they let all the women in
>>15754519no it's unfalsifiable sciencethis is departure from the science you've grown to know and loveit is unfalsifiable science is to sciencewhat quantum physics is to classical mechanicsit is a paradigm shiftget used to itif you can't get behind it, move out of the way for the smart people, the difference makers, the trailblazers, the revolutionists.you've had your time, now let us have ours!
>>15754470because?
>>15754480it's exactly as unfalsifiable as quantum mechanics. you can't test indeterminism either.
>>15754848Because inventing a theory with zero evidentiary support is garbage. Might as well hypothesize that we're a brain in a vat. Same level of conjecture.
>>15755142>Because inventing a theory with zero evidentiary supportyou mean like quantum mechanics?
>>15754256Actual best answer.
Everett, superdeterminism, RQM all reducd to Copenhagen anyways; since none of these effectively remove the measurement postulate from QM, all are equally pointless for describing observations made by measuring physical systems (which is, you know, the entire purpose of physics...no big deal!), thus shut up and calculate (i.e. Copenhagen).
>>15755153Funny joke.
>>15755142I hypothesize that beneath the Planck scale, everything is just little photos of me doing your mom
>>15755372>Everett, superdeterminism, RQM all reducd to Copenhagen anywaysfalse
>>15755153So you disagree with the observed phenomenon based on what?
>>15755765see>>15754850
>>15753985>>15754132You:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11lPhMSulSU
>>15753985gravitational singularities
Is "dark matter" sort of like the Heisenberg Compensator on the Star Trek TNG transporter, about which, when quizzed on how it works, the production designer answered "very well, thank you!" ?
>>15758907kek
>>15753985the theory of gravity
>>15754244>>15754470>>15754480>>15754519>>15754559>>15754848>>15754850>>15755142>>15755765>>15756182Both determinism and indeterminism are falsifiable. To falsify a non deterministic theory, you construct a deterministic mathematical model/theory that you can then use to predict with 100% accuracy what is going to happen to the particle (i.e. you can predict with 100% accuracy when a proton decays or which slit the particle goes through). This would falsify non determinism.To falsify a deterministic model, you produce a counter example that can not be predicted using that model. This would falsify the deterministic model.As it is now, there is no deterministic model to explain quantum mechanics, but it is in principle falsifiable. Thus the scientific position is that determinism is false and the universe is not deterministic.
>>15761013There is nothing in that post that is word salad. Non determinism is the currently accepted scientific position. Sorry that you're not a scientist.
>>15760974wrong.determinism =/= predictability
The scientific method.Science is solar guided. Like a spider building it's web, humans conduct science. You don't have just one method, though experiment or elimination is common, doing an experiment is simple. You can do science on your own, you don't need to ledge anything or provide evidence to people like you're in court. What you're looking for is results via any method that discovers them.It's a big academic con.
>>15761201>you don't need to ledge anything or provide evidence to peopleYou do if you want people to believe you didn't just pull something out of your ass. >>>/b/ is more your board.
>>15761204This isn't church. I'm not looking for attention. Chances are, if I discover a new tech, I'll build it and sell it. Or use it, if it's a super advanced retard repellant, on you.
>>15761207GET BWNED KYADS
>>15753985>many worldsIsn't this more of an anti-cope or am I misunderstanding what we're coping with here? Many worlds is downright horrific in its implications.
>>15761264>Many worlds is downright horrific in its implications.what are you going to do? cry about it?
>>15753985chromosomes.
>>15761271Believe COPEnhagen instead.
>>15761264>Many worlds is downright horrific in its implications.How?
>>15761292How?
>>15761325chud pls
>>15761332What?
>>15753985>GravityThen why aren't objects floating around me retard
>>15761310Nothing whatsoever matters and is all inevitable and one of infinite minute variations of the same event except with an opposite spin particle in a distant galaxy as well as infinite versions where something different happened. If you murder someone in many worlds, well, you did that in infinite other worlds, but you also didn't do it in infinite other worlds, for example.
>>15753988who said that they exist retard, mathematics is made up
>>15761264They Invented it to save their stupid theory
>>15761337One, you quoted the wrong person. Two, all natural law is a mental construction.
>>15760941i'm so sorry that you're clinically retarded
>>15753985>What is the biggest COPE in science? Some candidates:All humans are equally intelligent.
>>15753985got to be mathematical platonism
>>15761507>nigeria, uganda, sierra leone all have higher IQs than north africaWhat's going on here?
>>15754256String theory is pretty valid
>>15761460No it isn't >>15761464Wrong>>15762188Wrong
>>15762742cry about it
>>15762834Math is real and the laws of nature are real. Cry about it.
>>15762887maths is real insofar as psychological constructions are real, yes. i'm glad we agree
>>15762963Nope. Math is real because quantity is real. It is not contingent on mental constructs. Quite the opposite, mental states are mathematical constructs.
>>15762971the concept of quantity is a mental construct. the natural numbers are an abstraction of our experience with discrete objects; the real numbers are an abstraction of our experience with measurement, andsoforth. but these are all psychological constructions, things we invent to describe what we experience
>>15762976>the concept of quantity is a mental constructNope. Quantity is real and not a mental construction. We use our mind to understand quantity. Doesn't make quantity contingent on a mind. The opposite, the mind is contingent on quantity.
>>15753985uninformed midwits discussing science on 4chan boards instead of actually doing it
>>15762981Which one?
>>15762551string theory is gay as fuck>WE'RE IN A HECKIN STRING OF GALAXIES IN THE UNIVERSE IM A DUMB FUCKING GOOKno thanks, sticking to logic
>>15761507link me a study that said that
>>15762981>>15762976Guys. The truth is both. Math is made up in the mind, but the mind is the only thing that is "real." You're both right. Read Kant.
>>15754074This but realising that IQ is a midwit concept.
The Axis of Evil in cosmology. Look into it.
>>15753985Dark matter definitely is. It's just an excuse for 'our model is wrong,' and 'a magical form of matter that conveniently gets to ignore certain laws of matter' is easier than 'our understanding of gravity is wrong and needs to be replaced.'Many worlds isn't science, it's just some weird bit of fantasy fiction. It makes no predictions, it can't be tested. Useless.
>>15766195>Get IQmogged by some chad>He does literally everything faster and better than me>For some reason though, he lives his life differently than me?>Says the things I do and value are objectively worthless!?>While he's assembling Exodia with his life, I'm furiously hustling to win Uno!Yeah these high IQ copers never show me their superiority in the things that I care about! That means I win!
>>15766195Chad is never going to fuck you and he isn't even going to exist in a few years when we begin to genetically modify humans.
>>15764904This. Even Steven Pinker carefully admitted we're not equal. Only Bill Nye tier """scientists""" say there's no evidence
>>15764904>link me a study that said thatExact opposite, find **ANY** standardized IQ test that shows ZERO racial differences.
>>15766238"Broken System"
NONE of the top 100 universities in the world are in Africa.NONE of the world's top 500 largest companies are in Africa.
>>15764893Think again m8
>>15754256the greatest cope is the most accurate description
>>15753985mrna "vaccines"
>>15754074nerds think life is an rpg and presume that they since they didn't get blessed with athleticism or charisma then they must get extra bonus points elsewhere. they happily disregard the theory of evolution they profess belief in when it comes to self assessment its all a massive cope. evolution dictates that some members of every species will be the ones with bad genetics
>>15753985"infinite universe"> mfw Zeno's paradox proves the universe is finite
>>15766969>evolution dictates that some members of every species will be the ones with bad geneticsYou're such a member
>>15753985Dark matter does exist though. All attempts at MOND failed real world examples.Dark energy also exists.
>>15754244So you believe the universe conspires to trick observers? The absolute state of jewtube retards.>>15758907Dark matter just describes a type of matter that is even harder to detect than neutrinos but which must exist.
>>15766189>It's just an excuse for 'our model is wrong,'The other theory aka modified gravity has been debunked too many times to be a serious contender anymore.>and 'a magical form of matter that conveniently gets to ignore certain laws of matter'How is it any more magical than neutrinos you fucking retard?
>>15766238you made the claim bruh, you know how it works
>>15753985>determinism is a copeu wot mate? it's the free will "i earned my life" "personal responsibility" cucks who are coping. and hard.
>>15767521Considering randomness seemingly exists and is local (spanning billions of light years) hidden variables have been debunked, determism isn't a real thing in our universe. Whether that means free will is real or not is unknown.
>>15753985>dark matterAs a layman isn't this shit just some made up force so the existing equations add up?Like if I claimed 2 + 2 = 5 because you also have to add the dark 1 as well
>>15767579We can observe that our universe behaves in a way that indicates there's more matter than what we can actually see. To explain that, two major theories have emerged to explain that phenomenon: dark matter (aka hard to detect matter) and MOND (aka gravity acts differently on large scales). MOND has so far failed to account for several real world examples of galaxies while dark matter has been consistent with all real world examples so far which indicates that there really is a form of matter that exists and is hard to detect, even harder that neutrinos.
>>15767578>randomness seemingly existsa seeming is not proof of anything. anyway, randomness does not seem to exist anymore than it seems not to exist. there is no evidence for or against it, because it's impossible to test for it.>hidden variables have been debunkedno they haven't.
>>15767968>a seeming is not proof of anything.Determinism doesn't exist locally tho, that much is proven.> anyway, randomness does not seem to exist anymore than it seems not to exist.That's your opinion but actual physics indicates it either exists or hidden variables are global (i.e. the universe conspires to trick us).>because it's impossible to test for it.It's reasonable enough to believe it does exist.>no they haven't.Locally they have been debunked.
>>15767990>Determinism doesn't exist locally tho, that much is proven.no it isn't, lol. nonlocality has NOT been proven, by any bell test, or any other kind of experiment."One merely has to note that measuring violations of Bell's inequality, no matter how entertaining the experimental setup, cannot tell us which of the assumptions to the theorem were violated."(source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2020.00139/full)
They keep trying to push the whole "Dinosaurs actually had feathers!" thing, but if you actually look at the list, it's a bunch of stuff like the Chingchongasaurus discovered in 2019 and the Qiaoxiuiuiu Xinjiangius discovered in 2020Chinese lie about everything else, I bet they're trying to ruin dinosaurs toohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-avian_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers
>>15758907Dark Matter/Dark Energy is a magic number that gets trotted out whenever some behavior of the universe does not fit general relativity. Because no one has come up with a better idea than general relativity, magical matter is still an object of earnest search.As more observed phenomenon conflict even with dark matter/dark energy handwaving, it becomes increasingly likely that general relativity is just wrong, but no one's even close to presenting a superior broadly-applicable replacement. I assume for experts it's pretty frustrating to be stuck between searching for something that almost certainly doesn't exist and trying to replace a theory that seems largely irreplaceable.
>>15761339Good thing it's basically just something a pothead came up with on a couch and isn't relevant to serious people anywhere outside of fiction.
>>15761507I'd say a bigger cope is that there isn't clear speciation within homo sapiens. Those lines are not necessarily where we might draw them, but they're definitely there and speciation has happened more quickly in similarly complex species besides humans.
>>15767452Because it has never been directly observed despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of man-hours, decades of attempts, god knows how much energy, all while being (allegedly) the vast majority of matter in the universe, found everywhere.Neutrinos have been directly observed. Even a black hole has been observed more directly than dark matter despite being, by definition, impossible to directly observed. You just need to produce one (1) directly-observed dark matter particle. Until then it's fairy dust, it's God, it's 'trust me bro.'
>>15753985>unified theory>quantum computing>fusion power>green energy>objectivity
>>15769163>objectivityadd "ethics" to that list. every scientists has their price, its often extremely cheap
>>15769133kek what a retardstick a fork in the wall socket bro
>>15754036Existence doesn't exist. Non-existent abstractions (like "gravity", "force" (as a noun), etc., which "physics" is riddled with) are usually of verbs or adjectives, in this case of the verb exist, which means located measurably distant from from the tree in my front garden.
>>15769697Just as soon as you produce one (1) particle of directly-observed dark matter. I'm not too worried about that happening though, lol.
>>15753985>Real Life>Intelligence is a natural trait (it’s beamed)>0/0 is undefined
>>15753985>what is consciousness
>>15770235>just as soon as you produce dry water broyeah dw about it lmao
>>15753985Physicalism/materialism is a massive cope that some peoploids are less than human and born as lesser animals. If you don't have a self-evident component of your identity that exists in the mental plane then you are a less than human automaton.
>>15764893Racism is not permitted outside of /b/. Read the rules.
>>15753985two words: wave function collapse
>>15770507Cool, keep believing in magic.
>dry waterits called ice
>>15771024vapor is dry until it condenses
>>15753985the big bangbiggest soience atheist cope of all time
>>15753985The refusal to look into NDEs.But NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7oAs this NDEr described their NDE:>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-existSo anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique.
>>15753985science itself is a cope for know-it-alls with severe personality disorders. thats why science nerds all also have such tremendous difficulty socializing. they even go to the length of abusing science to make up "scientific" reasons that excuse their social problems.
>>15753988Ikr. How do these people conclude that real numbers don't exist? I just can't fathom it.
>>15761201I agree, Barkun
>>15753985>studies finding>records showing>research suggestinganything that doesn't say proves in a very direct manner.
>>15761193For the love of god just go back
>>15773782Some people say it's better than nothing but this is careless considering that means a waste of money.>Have scientists considered evaluating how a method works first before starting the actual research so that the correlation is not vague?Perhaps yes, perhaps no, it depends on the scientist. Surely in the end, my take is we need a good foundation of math to conduct a research. What I mean "good foundation" in math, is to be really good at it with deep understanding and not just surface level. Deep understanding in math and its principles is necessary so we did not make conclusions that were "hanging on the air".
>>15754244Determinism and co isn't science, just a philosophical thought experiment
>>15773962indeterminism and co isn't science, just a philosophical thought experiment
>>15760974>This would falsify non determinism.no it would not.
>>15774152And you would be correctlol i seriously hope that wasn't a "gotcha" you wanted to do there
>>15774438so nothing is science then, because determinism and indeterminism covers everything.
>>15774441Incorrect, both views are impossible to prove or disprove thus completely detached of consequence and importance for our real material world.
>>15774441Just insert determinism as an axiom into any science that dosn't need to operate on the quantum scale if that makes you feel better. No need to get autistic about determinism and indeterminism if you don't have to.
>>15774552>completely detached of consequence and importance for our real material worldwrong.>>15774556>just switch between them according to conveniencelazy and obviously wrong approach.
>>15774566>wrong because it just is!Compelling argument
>>15774570all scientific theories are either deterministic or indeterministic. by throwing both of these out, you throw out all theories, existing ones and possible ones.
>>15774575Define both of those shortly in your own words.
>>15774584determinism - things could NOT have happened differentlyindeterminism - things could have happened differently
>>15774566>lazy and obviously wrong approach.You don't understand what an axiom is, do you? >>15774588You also don't understand the concepts we are talking about, gotcha
>>15774588In any experiment in which the result goes along any of the two views could also be said that the opposite view could have happened.
>>15774597no - if the theory doesn't explicitly define things possibly happening differently, then it's automatically a deterministic theory. and if the theory attempts to permit both, then it has committed a simple contradiction, and is therefore a bunk theory.
>>15774596don't talk to me about understanding when you genuinely believe that determinism is a property that could possibly vary at scale. lol
>>15774610>NoHow are you certain?
>>15774654i explained it. it's on you to refute what i said.
>>15753985The job market for science graduates
>>15774662Doesn't seem to me that you are certain, you are talking of "coulds" and "if" but that's nothing beyond conjecture when applied to any theory, any case could show the opposite end.
>>15774677you're repeating the same point which i already refuted
>>15774683>i already refutedYou didn't, you only spoke in hypotheticals.
>>15773767>they even go to the length of abusing science to make up "scientific" reasons that excuse their social problems.Yeah, the people who abuse science to claim that they have no control over or responsibility for how they act are just saying "I'm perfect and I refuse consider changing the way I behave, you must accept my repulsive personality and not complain about it" in a complicated way. Its pure self-centeredness. We were better off when getting a psychiatric condition diagnosed meant being locked away isolated in a rubber room until you were willing to correct your behavior.
>>15774695no. it's not a hypothetical, it's a fact that all theories (at least of physics) are either one or the other. so at minimum you are throwing out physics as a science entirely
>>15761339How is that horrific at all?That is like the opposite of horrific.
>>15767443I don't see much of a reason to think that DE exists.
>>15773221Why do people from different cultures have different NDEs?
>>15774792What you fail to comprehend that its ultimately useless to derive whether some theory/practice is deterministic or not.
>>15774938that depends on how you define 'useful'. new theories may lead to new technologies. anyway, the question can't be avoided when we're attempting to describe 'how the world works'.
>>15774962Doesn't seem useful at all, both words are obfuscated ways of saying predictable and unpredictable and at their very absolutist definitions they both are unmeasurable and unfeasible even.
>>15774974>both words are obfuscated ways of saying predictable and unpredictableno, predictability has nothing to do with whether things 'could have been different'. they are 2 separate issues
>>15774984There's no difference between both pair of concepts
>>15774988predictability concerns whether we can know the future. in/determinism concerns whether the future is fixed or not
>>15774990>whether the future is fixed or notImpossible to know, impossible to prove and disprove and thus completely inconsequential to us.
Where the dark matter particles?
>>15774993this whole chain started because superdeterminism was described as a "cope". the main point is, it's not a cope any more so than standard quantum mechanics, which commits itself to the equally unfalsifiable view of indeterminism.
>>15775001If its not cope then prove to me that these exist outside of a vague thought experiment, i think my previous post nailed exactly what i wanted to mean.
>>15775004it can't be tested, as you said. so call it a cope, but know that if you don't think that quantum mechanics is equally a cope, that you are being inconsistent.
>>15753985sun holes
