Physics, coding and black metal.
Vyssiikkaa, koodausta ja bläck metallia.
Apparently also politics when it doesn’t devolve into screaming into aether.
And indeterminism says that those natural things are not sufficient explanations of experimental results.
According to who, exactly? This is just not even remotely true.
If you want to continue this, link me the papers that have any support to what you are proposing, I’m tired of fighting vague, unsubstantiated claims and you dodging every point I try to make.
Go on then: what definition do they use?
Natural means pretty much “element of the physical universe, identified by observation”.
You’re claiming in another comment to this thread that you have M.Sc., you should be aware of this, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
Slapping “quantum” in front of something generally makes it involve indeterminism (excepting the many-worlds interpretation)
Indeterminism is by no means non-natural, and it does not make things any less observable. We can observe quantum states just fine.
And as for
Yeah all the Bell stuff
“All the Bell stuff” doesn’t have anything to do with “Didn’t some quantum nondeterminism prove the existence of effects without a natural cause?”
And no, it didn’t. AFAIK there are exactly zero physicists who argue that.
You made a ludicrous claim, and are unable or unwilling to back it up even a bit, yet somehow you feel continuing this without anything to show is a good use of anyone’s time. If you are not going to make an actual argument, I do not see value in continuing this conversation, as all it does is make this thread more difficult to read for others who most likely are not very interested watching yet another internet argument sidethread.
There have been plenty of discoveries opposed by religion X. Those historically do not have significant impact on prevalence of such a religion.
I do think answers explaining why any answer to the original question suffers from logical fallacies are equally good to those that do try to get to the OP’s intent, and I think it is good to have both. I do think the literal answers are more “straight” (and I tend to go to the literate mode when talking about science), so that’s what I went up with.
That has very little to do with anything related to the arguments you’ve made before, and I am not interested in participating in a Gish Gallop.
That is not the definition that natural sciences use for natural. Going down that rabbit hole is completely meaningless, since we are no longer talking about science at that point.
In addition, if using your definition, nothing is natural according to our current understanding.
If they were, it has nothing to do with nature being supernatural. It just means that nature’s state is not locally real. That does not tie into religion in any objective way.
In addition, both of those articles are (slightly) wrong. There was a lenghty discussion about how in r/physics when they came out. The tl;dr is that it boils down to:
Pick two.
But that has no relevance to religion other than you can make either philosophical or religious argument out of anything.
No
Slapping “quantum” in front of something does not make it magic.
Science deals with the natural, gods are by definition supernatural.
Science can not either prove or disprove existence of supernatural. It may only erode the reasoning why supernatural should exist.
That reasoning is subjective, and as such, there are no definite answers to your question unless we add additional constraints.
Bird species, most of the time. I look for a bird that seems to have some connection with the intended purpose of the box, then use that. e.g. my work computer’s hostname is cormorant.
I guess it would’ve been a bulletting board system that people used a 14k modem to connect to, one at a time, and it would completely block the phone line.
My parents weren’t thrilled, but hey, we had a message board and LORD running there.
I am placing careful (nevermind that, this seems very nice) interest in this.
Few questions (since I’m on mobile, and it’ll take me a while to get back to my computer to find out for myself):
x64_64 only?If missing, are those on roadmap?
Vaultwarden and git are in daily use. Everything else comes far behind.
I’d recommend going with the vanilla Raspberry Pi OS then. Sure, it’s not as lightweight as one would usually hope from a SBC OS, and it has the usual problems that apt has, but it general, it works. It has the firmware stuff ready, so no hassle with that. It has device trees set up in a generally-usable way from the get go, etc.
I didn’t go that route myself and spent couple of days trying to get hardware acceleration to work where I wanted with the VideoCore chip, after which I gave up. VideoCore just isn’t that well supported by the general software stacks, but this was a year or so ago, so it might’ve improved.
Also note that this is all RPi4 specific. Older RPis work quite well.
RPi uses a lot of software hacks to get its low-cost hardware running. It is certainly doable on other distros, but using anything but the official ones on RPi is asking for trouble, and you better know how to deal with device trees, etc.
If you want SBC that is more standard-compliant and has better mainline driver support you should look at e.g. Pine64’s SBCs, such as RockPro64.
None of these is uncontroversial, C isn’t even well-defined. I’d argue that B is correct only if A is correct. And A cannot be correct, since it leads to multitude of cotnradictions, one of which I’m going to demonstrate.
No, it most definitely is not. If you used this as a definition, I’m fairly certain that most physicists would absolutely not agree with your B.
Indeterminism means that if an experiment is repeated with the same parameters, there are no guarantees to get the same result. Nothing more than that.
Your definition implies that there needs to be a cause in the first place. And that is bordering on begging the question, because with that definition you are guaranteed to reach a point where there is something “unexplainable” (since there are infinite amount of layers), which can always be attributed to whatever supernatural thing you choose. There is absolutely no need for this to be the case.
In fact, you yourself quoted the textbook
Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, Copenhagen interpretation, which is the status quo, . As your definition implies a cause, it cannot apply here. There are other contradictions, but this one is simple and I only need one to show that the premise is flawed, and your other points rely on that.
My only claim is that you are incorrect. There aren’t really too many papers written about that. (I hope) I’ve shown your premise to be false because of faulty definitions, what more would you need? None of the stuff you quoted is supporting you, and in fact contradicts you, unless we specifically assume that other people use the definition you’ve given, which, again, is already shown to be erroneous.