It’s kinda hard not getting jaded when entitled people (or companies) expect commercial grade support for something you work on your free time for pennies or for free, and to top that usually are pretty abusive from the get go.

My simple uncontroversial claims

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.

It appears from context to be the first: the claim that indeterminism means events are not explained by their causes. But that’s just the definition of indeterminism

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.

If you deny that indeterminism means things aren’t determined by observable causes, then what does it mean?

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

the outcome is intrinsically random.

Emphasis mine. That means, there is no cause, it’s an intrinsic property of the theory, especially in 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.

you have not substantiated your claims with anything.

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.

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:

• locality
• realism
• independence of measurement

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.

I don’t think many people have good understanding of what living standard even actually means, which in turn causes fear and anxiety when they are told it would drop. And I think it is much overexaggerated how much this drop would actually affect daily life for majorty of the people around the world.

"But the Finnish position is clear: We are not right now sending any troops and not willing to discuss that.”

This is why you read the articles, folks.

Sweeney has had a chip on his shoulder with Linux for at least 15 years. It’s honestly a bit weird since if you look at stuff before around 2005, he had quite a different tone.

According to nearly each and every climate scientist: No.

According to every IPCC report so far: No.

According to fossil fuel lobby: You bet!

Yeah, if the video was less conflictory and was framed in a way that didn’t scream polarisation to me, I wouldn’t be as quick to dismiss it as a propaganda piece.

As a side note, I’m actually surprised that Germany has such divide within the left.

Yeah, my mother is an evacuaee from Karelia (though she was a small kid back then), so definitely relatively fresh - at least for my generation.

I’ve seen some of that America bad so Russia good - line of thinking in Finnish Internet forums too. But from what I’ve gathered, in our left wing it’s usually more “both suck”, which was certainly visible in our NATO discussion, but even then most of the Left Alliance (our most leftist party that isn’t a complete joke, we have communist party too, but they’ve never held seats in parliament) supported joining NATO. When it comes to financing Ukraine I’d say it’s way more unanimous “yeah, fuck Russia with this one”.

Of course, the commie party is pretty much “yea, surely Russia not that bad, we need peace” from what I’ve seen, but well, they hardly have enough people to be able to keep the party an official party (requires 5000 signatures every 2 elections with no seats).

And if the video didn’t make sweeping generalisations this would be a fine point to tackle. But it’s not saying “half of the german left”, it is saying “the western left”.

It’s not OK to leave this kind of stuff as a side note in small print, that is one of the prime tactics propaganda in general uses.

Sorry. I’m not American and I don’t know anything about that except what quick google search told me.

There’s a certain kind of reactionary-left personality that I think is more common in parts of the west that used to be colonial powers, where if you’re far enough along the political spectrum that the mainstream parties all look like different variations on corporatist-fascists, you’re particularly vulnerable to messaging from geopolitical enemies of your own country for the simple reason that they’re opposed to the political structure you’re also opposed to.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

Here in the US I’ve run into a few such people, and it’s also clear that Russia’s soft-power operations have made efforts to cultivate relationships with the American left wing (people like Jill Stein and others in the Green Party). It’s pretty obvious, though, that they’ve had less success than they have on the right. It takes a particular kind of useful idiot to think, as a anti-colonial socialist or communist, that an oligarchic and socially-repressive right-wing autocracy is actually in your political corner.

I have to admit I know very little about the US politics. I’m fairly certain Russia tries that here in Finland as well, but well, our communist party is pretty much dead (and good riddance). Aside from the usual far-right wackos, their best bet here is probably to try to affect the peace movement people. Though even most of those I’ve talked with, with some exceptions, know that aggressors in wars should not be rewarded in order to keep the peace.

I have to say that Russian soft-power ops are scary. A lot of people here think that they are just the few wackos who everybody laughs at, and then think that when a certain popular right-wing party repeats Russian talking points they are completely unaffected by all that.

Finland. Living next to Russian border might bring some reality checks here.

And yea, I can imagine you could dig some nutjob podcaster here too, but can’t imagine finding those people walking around IRL.

But the thing I’m most against is “western left”, which is the point where I call out the BS. Vice seat of our right-wing party literally went to a Putin propaganda camp in Russia in around 2015 (by his own admission, no less), yet it is somehow “western left” that gets the blame for few tankies who are nowhere to be found.