/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12510258
To be more precise, according to the infinitist schizos there is an explicitly defined Cauchy sequence (x_n) of rationals which provably converges to 0 if Collatz conjecture is true and 1 if it's false. According to them, it explicitly defines a unique real number, which is provably a natural number in {0,1}.
Let k be the natural number (they love using the word "let"). Define the explicit function
f:{0,1}->{a,b,c,....,z,0,...,9}^*
f(0)="The Collatz conjecture is true"
f(1)="The Collatz conjecture is false"
So since n is a well-defined natural number and since f is a well-defined function,
f(n) is the explicit answer to the Collatz conjecture.
>b-but what actually is it?
It's f(n). What don't you understand? Just like e+pi evaluates to e+pi. In infinitist schizo math you're allowed to delegate infinite tasks to some platonic oracle (which obviously exists!) and claim to have come out with an explicit answer.

>>12162967
>quantum mechanics only work on small particles, saying otherwise is just making stuff up
Quantum mechanics has huge effects on large bodies, as I already explained in my previous post. Let me give you another example:
I take an atom that easily splits and decide to perform an experiment. If I observe that the atom is split, I go on a killing spree. If the atom stays put, I stay as I were before. Now the splitting of the atom is a strictly quantum mechanical phenomenon which cannot be deterministically predicted.
Now if my going on a killing spree could be deterministically predicted, that would mean that the splitting of the atom could be deterministically predicted. But it can't. Therefore the large scale phenomenon of me going on a killing spree and killing lots of people, having massive influence on the world, cannot be deterministically predicted.
>Now you have this particle that can change its course on its own, they interactions of other particles with this one free will particle will result in a cascade of events that will fire a neuron. This is the argument as I perceive it.
If you're talking about me then no, that's not my argument at all. I do not seek any reductionistic explanation for free will. I don't think it is needed, as long as we can reasonably believe we have free will, just like we don't need to have a reductionist physical explanation for consciousness or memory in order to believe we have one, in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Now you may propose that your given explanation is the only possible physical explanation of how free will occurs. I see no good reason to believe this. Why is it reasonable to call a particle a "free will" particle?
>Now my problem with this is that free will is part of the detention of Being
I've no idea what you mean by this sentence.
<cont>