>>16899957
>How strong really is the science around the theory that the universe is deterministic?
Extremely strong, in that non-deterministic phenomena have never been observed.
>Like what is the percentage likelihood that it's true based on the strength of the evidence?
About 69.420%

>>16899988
>non-deterministic phenomena have never been observed.
*laughs in quantum*

>>16900044
Laughs in quantum, indeed.
Nothing in quantum science provides evidence that the universe is non-deterministic when you look past pop-philosophy.

>>16900044
*laughs in superdeterminism*

>>16900048
What causes a particular atom to decay when it does?

>>16900067
Ask your physics professor, or judging by your maturity, your physics teacher.

File: R÷r = Sqrt[2] .png (19 KB)

19 KB PNG

>>16899957
Look what I drew.
I wrote the "pseudocode",
and Gemini wrote the corresponding Python code.
I couldn't draw the hole in the middle of the gear,
because I don't know what its radius is.

File: exposition.png (66.1 KB)

66.1 KB PNG

>>16900067
the rest of the universe, obviously

>>16900082
The interior angles are π/3 and 3*π/2.

File: gear.png (391.4 KB)

391.4 KB PNG

>>16900082

>>16899957
Not too strong, since 99% of models can't predict shit.

>>16899988
>non-deterministic phenomena have never been observed.
Eh, basically any result in an experiment would be considered deterministic. You could have a guy boiling water with his mind and Science fags would still try to blame subatomic dominoes. Determinism has no null hypothesis

>>16899988
>non-deterministic phenomena have never been observed.
Deterministic phenomena have never been observed. You can't name a single one. It's pure fantasy fiction that falls apart under basic scrutiny and any kind of real-world conditions, including meticulously arranged lab conditions.

>>16899957
>How strong really is the science around the theory that the universe is deterministic?
There is no science around it whatsoever. It's metaphysics through and through, a game of make-believe about Laplace's Demon that paradoxically carries on even in the face of solid physical proof that Laplace was wrong in his most basic assumptions.

>>16900048
Explain closed-loop Kochen-Specker violations.

File: sbahj.png (33 KB)

33 KB PNG

>>16899957
how much backlash is in all those gears

>>16899988
Causality is unverifiable

>>16902445
>Causality is unverifiable
Causality doesn't imply determinism, either way. Unless you wanna go down the route of causes causing causes in an infinite regress, you have to settle for some fundamental factors that can't be accounted for causally. They can act as sources of nondeterminism in a strictly causal system. Causality can even amplify nondeterminism to an arbitrary degree via chaos.

>>16900108
>the rest of the universe
Which is also comprised of quantum states. Not sure if this is the slamdunk insight you think it is.

File: va8j16bvmeob1.png (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB PNG

>>16900044
non-determinism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, not scientific law.

>>16902395
We don't need no jaters.
Just say no to jate.

>>16899957
Non deterministic cult followers are the same as christcucks
>LOOK!!!! PHENOMENON X ELUDES OUR UNDERSTANDING!!! IT'S NOT DETERMINISTIC
>scientists develop a better theory and find it's compeltely predictable
>W-WAIT!! HERE'S ANOTHER PHENOMENON WE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND!! GOTCHA

Basically, non determinism of the gaps

>>16903091
>ummm ACK-CHUALLY
>just because it's an inherently nondeterministic theory doesn't mean you should interpret it as non-deterministic

>>16903329
>Basically, non determinism of the gaps
>No, I can never predict a specific outcome with full confidence, but muh hidden variable of the gaps
Mentally ill retards always project. And they always do so clownish.

>>16899957
What physicists mean when they say quantum science has an indeterministic aspect to it is that space is continuous, rendering finite measurements inaccurate since you would require an infinite amount of precision to achieve absolute predictive power.
It has nothing to do with causality, however. If we were to copy-paste the universe with all its physical properties, it would behave identically to the current universe.

Indeterminism and causality are compatible in this way.

>>16903847
>t. hallucinating biobot

>>16903857
Just like you faggot

>>16903864
>n-n-n-no U!!!!
Sorry, but you're a retarded biobot who doesn't know what he's talking about, but also does not (and in fact cannot) know that he doesn't know.

>>16899957
>Like what is the percentage likelihood that it's true based on the strength of the evidence?
It's impossible to prove one way or the other.
No matter how deterministic something looks, you can't prove it was not just the result of chance.
No matter how random something looks, you can't prove it there was no hidden mechanical cause.

>>16903947
>No matter how deterministic something looks
No system looks deterministic in real life. Not in any objective terms.

>No matter how random something looks, you can't prove it there was no hidden mechanical cause.
Ok, but this unfalsifiable Determinism of the Gaps fantasy has no intersection with scientific thinking.

>>16904057
>No system looks deterministic in real life.
Considering before Heisenberg physics was very close to develop a 100% deterministic description of the universe, I'd rather say the opposite.

>Ok, but this unfalsifiable
So is the alternative.

>>16904068
>considering [completely irrelevant and incongruent tangent]
You didn't even dispute what I wrote, let alone actually refuting it.