/sci/ — Quantum effects are not random and probabilistic. They have

>>17000477 (OP)
Ok. Show us your experiment or math that led you to that conclusion lol.

>>17000487
search your heart, mate. It will click

>>17000488
>just trust me bro

Oh, neat. This is useless. In my opinion we're the future reaching into the past to build a scaffold which must exist in order to create the future. Sounds deep, but it's actually just a series of words I dredged from my rectal cavity.

>>17000477 (OP)
i was about to agree with you but then i realized it would make me an anti semite so i wont

>>17000477 (OP)
I don't think it's random either, we just can't understand wtf is going on and attribute that lack of understanding to mean it's random. At the end of the day it's all copium cause we don't like the idea of reality being deterministic.

>>17000614
Habibi, how about... quantum immortality is real, but we're all not. The universe is from the perspective of Dave, from Minnesota, who digs trenches, and has no idea he's cursed with eternal existence. We're all just in his reality while he stumbles into a future he can't see or avoid.

>>17000623
Ya know, back when I thought too hard about something like a subjective immortality that involves everyone around you dying and you living forever, avoiding all destruction and lucking into bizarre circumstances, it raised some weird paradoxical issues. Imagine you're Dave, the cursed quantum immortal from his perspective. Everyone can die from Dave's perspective, but there will be people in his timeline that realize Dave is surpassing normal mortality limits, and they might think something like "well, that means from my perspective also, I will live forever, but not the me that Dave interacts with from his perspective, but also that should mean Dave isn't qi because my subjective experience is on the longest lived timeline... "

and such. You'd end up with this weird mush of almost quantum immortals, like someone that defies all odds but does stop being the observer after 67 trillion universal cycles. See what I'm saying?

>>17000644
I don't think anybody would think themselves the NPC in a different person's timeline. Everyone's the main character from their own perspective. It's a mind fuck. What would you do if you were just a background character in somebody else's story, but the universe was really realistic so the background characters all got full lives and had no idea?

>>17000667
That's the thing, you have to think that way to make subjective qi work. You're having a subjective experience but because it's not MY subjective experience, it's by necessity of a different, less valid quality. You have whatever quality of inner experience should collapse the wave function and ensure your branch, but you don't, because I do. So if I put a bomb in between us, I should be harmlessly carried away but you blown to fuck, and vice versa, but what does that say about the you from my perspective just before the bomb went off? We didn't "change branches," that's not how the thought experiment works, rather we should each find ourselves on one respective immortal branch. Even self locating probability can't solve for both of us should one privileged perspective be required.

File: 1774385734529003.jpg (34 KB, 496x600)

>>17000477 (OP)
is ANY of this quantum stuff applicable in a way that can improve my life or help me find meaning, or is it all just for breaking codes on crypto wallets and helping big pharma calcify my penile gland?

>>17000477 (OP)
>Quantum effects are not random
No one ever said this. They are probabilistic. KYS tranny

>>17000614
>we just can't understand wtf is going on and attribute that lack of understanding
every experiment in the last 100 years and there were tens of thousands of them shows that's not the case

So there's this uranium atom that sat there in the Earth's crust for 4 billion years. Then, as nothing changed, it decayed. What's the cause of the decay?

Hard mode: you cannot specify a cause further into the future than the time it would take for projective dynamics to kick in, as that's not how quantum retrocausality is alleged to work.

>>17000488
>gottem
https://youtu.be/_f5ioBvQTVs?t=16m25s

>>17000901
No cause or future knowledge is required. Every possible decay configuration exists and leads to a different future. We have to be in one, doesn't matter which. We can't predict which one we will be in, because it depends on both unknown and unknowable information.