/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11406612
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
Every time with this shitposter.
You've been shut down over and over again. Stop reposting this retarded bullshit line about a consensus you got from wikipedia that refers back to studies completely contradicting what you believe in.
In case anyone here hasn't seen this already, here's what this anon is talking about:
>>/sci/thread/S10789017
>Who said there's scientific consensus on free will?
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists (see below)
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]
>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]
Her evolutionary biologists wiki source is this:
http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/Evolution%20in%20America/evol%20religion%20free%20will.pdf
And the "scientific consensus" was 149 evolutionary biologists.
Also this was the survey question they had to answer:
>Our questionnaire offered evolutionary scientists only two choices on the question about human free will: A, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, but humans still possess free will; B, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, and humans have no free will. To our surprise, 79 percent of the respondents chose option A for this question, indicating their belief that people have free will despite being determined by heredity and environment.
Either answer you choose states "organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment."

>>11406612
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
Every time with this shitposter.
You've been shut down over and over again. Stop reposting this retarded bullshit line about a consensus you got from wikipedia that refers back to studies completely contradicting what you believe in.
In case anyone here hasn't seen this already, here's what this anon is talking about:
>>/sci/thread/S10789017
>Who said there's scientific consensus on free will?
The scientific consensus is that free will exists (see below)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]
>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]
Her evolutionary biologists wiki source is this:
http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/Evolution%20in%20America/evol%20religion%20free%20will.pdf
And the "scientific consensus" was 149 evolutionary biologists.
Also this was the survey question they had to answer:
>Our questionnaire offered evolutionary scientists only two choices on the question about human free will: A, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, but humans still possess free will; B, all organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment, and humans have no free will. To our surprise, 79 percent of the respondents chose option A for this question, indicating their belief that people have free will despite being determined by heredity and environment.
Either answer you choose states "organisms are locally determined by heredity and environment."

>>11180885
If you accept the premise that the host will be absolutely incapable of ever revealing a winning door to you after your first pick (because doing so would be deciding to just give you a car instead of getting you to make another decision, kind of defeating the purpose of the game), then this changes probability.
It's like if someone all of a sudden got rid of some portion of a deck of cards you were playing with, and you knew which specific cards were removed and are no longer a possibility to draw. Doing this would change the probabilities for each of the remaining cards getting picked since instead of 1/52 they would now each be 1/30 or whatever the remaining number of cards left is.
So in this case, your first pick is a 1/3 (easy enough).
Host shows you a door that isn't a winner.
Now you have the door you picked first and a door he didn't pick.
Without any knowledge of what happened so far, you would think it's a 1/2 chance.
But you DO have knowledge, and that includes knowing the host's reveal wasn't entirely random if you didn't guess right the first time. If you did guess right, then he randomly picks either of the two remaining loser doors to reveal to you. But if you guessed wrong the first time (and 2/3 chances you did), then his choice was constrained to only being the loser door remaining and not the winning door.
And speaking of having 2/3 chances you guessed wrong first, we can now say you also have 2/3 chances the remaining door you didn't first guess and the host couldn't reveal is the winner. He has no choice but to pick it in the 2/3 times you guess wrong at first, so if you switch every time that's identical with your chances for the one remaining that you switched to being right. It's the chances switching will win.

>>11129671
>Cauchy didn't formalize calculus for nothing you know.
I imagine his motivation was taking an intuitively clear and effective way of thinking about things and shitting all over it.
Infinitesimals make perfect sense. You can't divide by 0 so calculus is born from doing what you need to solve those equations by getting an arbitrarily small nonzero stand-in value over to a safe place where it's not a divisor so you can eliminate it and see the answer.
Limits meanwhile are obnoxious satanic bullshit meant to confuse and irritate you. I have no idea how anyone is able to comfortably think in terms of that fucked up needlessly convoluted reworking of what used to be a pure and sensible infinitesimal based system.

>>11109585
>Consciousness has no material basis.
If that were true it wouldn't make much sense why there's extreme amounts of consistency in data that's been verified by multiple independent parties and checked against data captured mechanically and data predicted by abstract mathematical models information.
In contrast with one person subjective anecdotes, or even more to the point, the reported content of dreams.
Just think about how dreams play out. THAT is your purely subjective / material-free world, exactly because nothing that happens is beholden to any sort of causal relationships, impersonal logic you aren't personally aware of but which happens to be true of the objective reality outside your own mind, or consistency in what's happened and what will happen. Things that are completely impossible in the world independent of any one of us are able to take place in the subjective dream world.
Not even getting into the 100% predictable way you can shut down consciousness given enough blunt force trauma or psychoactive compounds of the right sort and you already have a fatal problem with your theory.