The rot in bourgeois society is all pervasive. It is to be found at the most fundamental level: the quantum level. We need to start by clearly and plainly stating: the Heisenberg-Bohr clique is wrong.
Let us not be mistaken; the mathematics of quantum physics as developed in the early 20th century is correct, within its presupposed assumptions and scales of interest of course. However, the so-called Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. It is as its name implies, only an interpretation, and a wrong one at that. Bohr and Heisenberg's conservative and anti-communist personal beliefs are well-known, this inevitably led them to wage war on the materialist conception of physics with fanatic vigour. When one moves beyond the level of pop-science and one delves into the details of this interpretation, specially its history, it is clear that Bohr and Heisenberg (mostly Bohr) behaved like goons in promoting their mystic interpretation and bullied materialist opponents such as De Broglie, Bohm and others. Even within their Copenhagen circle, they silenced and shunned self-avowed Marxists like Rosenfeld who raised pertinent questions about their interpretation. Marxists must not blindly take the word of pop-scientists and bourgeois Ivy League professors; Marxists must take the pain of reading and understanding the source material (the physics, the mathematics AND the socio-history). The Copenhagen Interpretation, in short, is the Hayek, the von Mises, the Milton Friedman equivalent of physics. It is to no surprise that old wolves like Einstein and Schrödinger were never convinced and kept howling materialist critiques at the idealist drivel. Comrades, let us take a pause from the endless IDpol, the endless revisionism v/s orthodoxy, the endless Bordiga v/s Pannekoek debates, and let us focus on the more important issue: the suffocation of correct materialist science in favour of idealist, metaphysical, quasi-religious 'science' promoted by often brilliant physicists who behave more like Gurus and Caliphs because of their conservative and reactionary personal beliefs.
This will be a very slow discussion, it'd take me days to give a response that isn't a shitpost
Perhaps repost in
>>>/edu/>>2496614Understood, looking forward to your response.
No, having it in /leftypol/ is best and most democratic. In /edu/, I will have quality responses but only from intellectual types. In /leftypol/, this topic will be visible to all kinds of users.
>>2496589BASED
Also the Big Bang didn't happen
>>2496708true
though to be more correct, there is no satisfactory evidence to either prove or disprove the Big Bang
The physicists extrapolated highly-sensitive data in an incomplete theory beyond its region of applicability and arrogantly took the irrational result as gospel.
in english, doc
>>2496758
british trots denied the big bang theory
>>2496758
the criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation and the Big Bang existed well before Sabine Hossenfelder. Specially in communist circles.
It's funny that just because you discovered this topic through Sabine, then that necessarily means that everyone who talks about this is necessarily a Sabine-stan.
You refuse to understand that some people go beyond 5-minute YouTube videos and they try to wrestle with source material as far as possible.
>>2496760OP here. My apologies, English is my second (or third idk) language, so that's the best I can do. My apologies, I tried my best.
cringe and gay, materialism is for midwits
>>2496774Prove them wrong by taking a hammer and striking your skull as hard as you can
>>2496775the idealist will not do this. Because the idealist will first ponder for decades what is 'hammerness' and its relation with 'skullness'. After five decades of pondering, when the answer is at hand, he will abruptly stop and start to deconstruct the discursive recursive normative hierarchy of the meta-framework which includes the hammer and the skull but which until then, excluded their possibility to fully express their hammerness and skullness. AD INFINITUM.
>>2496761I get not liking it, but denying it is just obscuring the dark of history of shite tv
>>2496794Without the big bang theory, there would be no young sheldon!
>horns blare >>2496802that's it
this thread is going down the cringe path
maybe in another lifetime, I can assemble chads who dare oppose the DDC (Danish Disease of Copenhagen).
Very clear OP hasn't read Marx as usual. Marx wasn't a physicist or a metaphysician. Marx was not an ontological materialist. Literally read the German Ideology and the fifth thesis on Feuerbach. What Marx meant by practical materialism is that the basis of social reality is human sensuous activity and labor i.e. social constructivism. This is why Marx wanted a practical materialism that focuses on human praxis, not a philosophy of inert matter or material substance, which is the basis of his whole critique of Feuerbach. If Marx wanted a strictly materialist conception of reality, he wouldn't have made the distinction between material and intellectual forces. The claim that matter is the only substance and everything is simply different combinations and modes of matter (including human thought and sensuous activity) and that said matter exists independently of human cognition (note the contradiction here) comes from Engels, Kautsky, and Bernstein, not Karl Marx. What the later Marx meant by material conditions is that economic factors determine the context of human thought and decision making and that human activity makes that social reality.
Marx's critique of Feuerbach could resonate with the Copenhagen Interpretation. (I don't know too much about it so I can't say). So your whole tirade against physics is totally worthless shitflinging.
>>2496815OP here. I don't see where I claimed that Marx was a physicist. It seems to me you have read a lot of Marx but none of quantum physics.
>>2496815>your whole tirade against physicsOk so you do not understand anything. That was a tirade against the Copenhagen Interpretation, not at all against physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation has many opponents within physics.
You morons have internalised the Doxa so well that any critical discourse is seen as rejecting science wholesale.
>>2496589🤔 People get really spooked about set theory, decidability and non-determinism. In practice, working with constructive math and decidable equality is a massive fucking pain. There are some clever things you can do with dependent type theory in an automated theorem prover but there's not a really a good enough standard library or good enough modularity IMO. I also don't really like the Lean theorem prover TBH. IMO you really just need specialized support to create your own little DSL. IMO the best way to do it requires inductive-recursive types. I think Agda had some support for the facilities you really need but I don't like how they do codata. Overall not really a fan of the state of automated theorem provers. You really want some bullshit with definite description and Meinongian logic for proper modularity but I really couldn't figure out the right details for it. Just real finicky shit.
>>2496824No, but your concept of materialist seems completely off the mark. Marx wasn't a materialist in the sense you are using the term so I see no use in defending this cheap understanding of materialism.
>>2496827What I don't understand is the need to attack the Copenhagen Interpretation because its "not materialist." OP seems to claim that CI is anti-Marxist and anti-materialist mysticism. I don't find those plausible grounds to reject the Copenhagen Interpretation. If you want to criticize it from the perspective of physics, fine. If you are a crass materialist and want to defend it on those grounds, fine. But what does that have to do with the rest of us? Like OP is making out that we should all unite to attack this evil evil idealist nonsense for political reasons. We do not.
Big words hurt my head. Why exactly does this fool thing quantum physics is incompatible with materialism, in simple English?
>>2497303anti-communist hands typed this post
>>2497305Remember the following is an absolute shitpost
The major problem is that if you keep following the philosophical implications, it turns out that grandma isn't the person you chucked into a nursing home to rot, but rather your happy memories of her
Macroscopic material reality is an emergent system arising from the interactions of fundamental particles and forces at the quantum level.
>2497727
If information were fundamental wouldn't that mean that it isn't part of the universe, but something that is outside of the universe, outside of time and space, something that is eternal and constant?
>>2497738>emergent system arising from the interactions of fundamental particles and forces at the quantum levelAccording to the current understanding of physics, we can split the stuff of the universe into various orders of magnitude based on their size and energy levels. From the galaxy, to solar systems, down to a planet, a person, their atoms, the quarks in their atoms, etc, each is a distinct order of magnitude of reality influenced by different physical properties. How physics behaves on an atom is different to how it affects a supermassive black hole.
Their is also an understanding that things that exist on lower orders of magnitude influence the behaviour of things on the higher order of magnitude via the emergence of properties on the higher levels.
For example, a collection of atoms, when viewed at a higher order of magnitude, isn't just a group of atoms with atom-like properties, but becomes a defined cell with new emergent properties of a cellular organism. A solar system, on the higher order, is subsumed into being a part of the galaxy with it's own distinct rules.
What is really whacky though, given the scale at which orders of magnitude appear as discrete levels, there appears to be a gap of 17 layers, between that of the subatomic particles and that of the smallest possible size (the planck length) which are totally empty, a gulf of "missing" layers. The laws of physics are what they are, but it feels instinctively weird when what appears to be a structure in the laws of physics just has some big empty unexplained abyss in it that breaks the otherwise consistent mathematical pattern with no clear reason as to why.
And even stranger, is UV/IR mixing, which is the theory that structures which exist on higher orders of magnitude, contrary to common understanding, do influence the behaviour of the lower orders. To oversimplify this is like saying the behaviour of a galaxy influences the behaviour of atoms within it.
>>2497783>there appears to be a gap of 17 layers, between that of the subatomic particles and that of the smallest possible size (the planck length) which are totally empty, a gulf of "missing" layers. The laws of physics are what they are, but it feels instinctively weird when what appears to be a structure in the laws of physics just has some big empty unexplained abyss in it that breaks the otherwise consistent mathematical pattern with no clear reason as to why.It's probably because what we think are fundamental particles are not actually fundamental nor are they really particles, things like quantum field theory delve into this.
>>2497783>What is really whacky though, given the scale at which orders of magnitude appear as discrete levels, there appears to be a gap of 17 layers, between that of the subatomic particles and that of the smallest possible size (the planck length) which are totally empty, a gulf of "missing" layers. The laws of physics are what they are, but it feels instinctively weird when what appears to be a structure in the laws of physics just has some big empty unexplained abyss in it that breaks the otherwise consistent mathematical pattern with no clear reason as to why.And even stranger, is UV/IR mixing, which is the theory that structures which exist on higher orders of magnitude, contrary to common understanding, do influence the behaviour of the lower orders. To oversimplify this is like saying the behaviour of a galaxy influences the behaviour of atoms within it.
Gib articles
>>2497373very good straightforward metaphor tbh
you are a smart tank
There's an interesting episode on this on a podcast named subliminal jihad
https://m.soundcloud.com/subliminaljihad/sj-95-copemorehagen-deceptionI roll my eyes at the parts where they say this or that vindicates islamic theology, but it's a decent overview otherwise.
>>2497918was in the middle of trying to post this but the mp3 is 200mb lol
its p good
mf will present themselves as the top materialism defender and than tell you materialism is when things are deterministic and idealism is when things are indeterministic
sad
>>2497960nobody said that
you make up things in your mind
>>2497961then I don't see how materialism and copenhagen are supposed to contradict each other
>>2497963it is okay to not understand, just study more.
>>2498020idealist retard
physics having random elements has no bearing on materialism
>>2497960Obviously materialism is how much stuff you have and idealism is when you have ideas about the future. This is how the online left talk about materialism so it must be right.
>>2497303Marx literally got his materialism from Paul Henri Thiry d' HOLBACH
>>2498209you have not understood the OP post at all
The following is still a shit post, but it's less of an absolute shitpost than my prior post
The whole issue is that it's difficult to even have a proper conversation on this because there are two Copenhagen interpretations, the original which OP is discussing and a modern synthesis that can accou t for the flaws in the original
>>2498600not a single argument has been given for why copenhagen is idealist ITT
What the fuck
>>2499183it's fine, you have much time to study and properly understand
>>2499183The Copenhagen interpretation, particularly in its popularized form, posits that at the most fundamental level, reality is governed by probability and chance. The collapse of the wave function is an inherently random event. This creates a universe where certainty is impossible and unpredictability is a fundamental law.
A key aspect of Copenhagen is that reality is not defined until it is measured. The act of observation by a conscious observer (or a measuring apparatus) is what collapses the wave function from a cloud of probabilities into a definite state. This places a peculiar form of subjective idealism at the heart of physics.
It discourages asking what is "really happening" between measurements. The wave function is considered a tool for calculating probabilities, not a description of an objective reality.
It presents change at the fundamental level as acausal and random, undermining any notion of deterministic, predictable historical processes.
The emphasis on the observer elevates the individual's act of "measurement" to a world-shaping status. It mirrors the bourgeois focus on the individual subjective experience over objective, collective social realities.
By declaring the underlying process unknowable, it creates a realm of mystery where science cannot tread. This is ideologically convenient, as it leaves room for non-material explanations and discourages a fully materialist, deterministic understanding of the world.
The reason Pilot-wave theory was marginalized for decades (despite being empirically equivalent to Copenhagen) is not solely scientific, it is also ideological. The physics establishment, reflecting the dominant bourgeois ideology, had a preference for a framework that emphasizes randomness over determinism, gives a privileged role to the observer/measurement and is comfortable with a fundamental level of unpredictability and mystery.
A deterministic, holistic theory like Pilot-wave is philosophically unpalatable to them because of its implications, that reality is an interconnected, law-governed whole that can be fully understood, it is radically at odds with the bourgeois worldview of isolated individuals in a fundamentally chaotic market.
>>2499845>experimental psychologyLmao
At the quantum level, just merely observing something can cause a change in it because to observe something is not the instantaneous magical process that we think it is. For reality to logically make sense, nothing can happen instantaneously, there must be a fundamental speed limit to every kind of process; thus observing something cannot be an instantaneous transfer of information, otherwise you would be able to observe something before it actually happens. Since observation is not a magic instantaneous transfer of information, the information has to actually travel through time and space to reach its destination, this means that to observe something means to physically interact with it.
>>2496708BASED
Big Bang is just the creationism for liberals. Ecpyrotic universe / eternal chaotic expansion is what our existence
actually is.
>>2499845>consciousness causes collapsethis isn't even the mainstream view. the collapse is caused by 'observation' which is the same thing as physical interaction eg a rock next to a rock collapse each other
>>2499923>just merely observing something can cause a change in it becauseits called the measurement problem and it happens because everything is interrelational. measuring something, even light with eyes or a camera, is the same as physically touching it, so of course it changes. not just the object but also the observer. it actually does happen instantaneously, reality has been proven nonlocal, but the information cant be interpreted by a conscious agent because of the speed limit. bohmian mechanics solves the measurement problem by not isolating the observer from the observed in the system. or as hegel says "substance is subject". this proves meterialist dialectics to be correct and the motivated reasoning for remaining in this ignorance holds scientific advancements back
>>2499944Also from a purely scientific perspective, the Big Bang narrative arises by ‘rewinding’ the current cosmological equations. Problem is, these cosmological theories have stuff like dark matter and dark energy which have ZERO evidence so far.
So we cannot even trust that model for current observations without the ‘magic’ of dark matter and dark energy, but sure, lets reverse the time direction, obtain a singularity and believe that without question.
A singularity in mathematics denotes a region where a modle breaks down or atleast a region not described by the model, it is not something one is supposed to just accept as correct.
>>2500139I personally suspect that the Chinese concept of the Tao is the closest we've ever gotten to a model that illustrates the real fundamental truth that unifies all of existence. I think that beneath all the emergent phenomenona there is one fundamental Truth that is infinite and inherently unknowable and cannot be described with any language because information is a product of distinction between two discrete things.
>>2500383i think its a reasonable conclusion but since the observer is the observed we can derive absolute truths about the universe since we are a part of it. truths that hold for one hold for the other, as above so below. lenin got really mad at this for what he called "agnosticism", the type of thing where people like kant say we cant know the
thing in it self. if reality is in principle unknowable then we cant really know if anything exists and you ultimately fall into solipsism or at least something like descartes demon or the modern version which is simulation theory. just because a thing is indescribable by the nature of it being a part of the whole and us not having infinite time to list its properties in relations, which would be in the end describing everything, as we are limited by our existence as finite beings, doesn't mean it is unknowable in principle. our ability to discover and use these natural laws is proof that we are apprehending something real about the system of which we are a part and so material practice overcomes theoretical agnosticism. its not that the universe is unknowable, it is actually infinitely knowable, and life is one of the ways it knows. i dont get as mad because like i said i think it makes sense we just have to be careful not to be neoplatonic that the One is some kind of ideal nor matter as an object in vulgar materialism but matter in motion as a relation.
Unique IPs: 27