/sci/ - Science & Math

Good job anon. I guess the only question now is will you fight? Or perish like a fucking dog?

>>11294588
Not science.
Fuck off with your drug induced dogshit like free will and simulations.

>>11294588
>The universe being a simulation explains why free will doesn't exist (we are just programs in a computer) and also means that maths are a subset of computer science.
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>11294594
Based Mickey

>>11294618
[citation needed]
https://youtu.be/OFazP2nBIqQ

If the universe is a simulation how do you explain the concept of infinity? How can you program something which has no end such as numbers?

>>11294588
If we were computer simulations we would all look much better

>>11294642
as an illusion

>>11294644
Not an argument.

>>11294642
theres no such thing. it's just man-animals trying to comprehend very small/large numbers

>>11294671
So you're telling me there's a limit in numbers? At some point you physically cannot add another zero or another decimal?

>>11294676
yes. you will get a runtime error. we just haven't gotten advanced enough to see it yet

>>11294682
Good luck with proving that lol

>>11294632
>[citation needed]
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]

>>11294694
>scientific consensus as a proof

>7 percent did not answer the question
based

>>11294698
>>scientific consensus as a proof
Well yes, demonstrating the scientific consensus that free will exists is proof that the scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>11294705
>(A may or may not imply B) => (A may or may not imply B)

>>11294717
I was asked for a citation and provided one. What's the issue?

>>11294618
the scientific consensus is cutting your dick off is now perfectly normal while playing video games is a mental illness

>>11294642
Infinity would only be the time since the program started running this a silly question anon. Inside the sim you would have no knowledge of way of measuring what happened before the program started other than "someone plugged it in and turned it on" ala the big bang

>>11294728
nvm, not even OP, just as confused about consciousness, free will and shit
the point was proofs don't require consesus

>>11294588
>The universe being a simulation explains why free will doesn't exist (we are just programs in a computer) and also means that maths are a subset of computer science.
define "free will"

>>11294742
How is the time since the program started equal to infinity?

>>11294588
Delet yourself.

>>11294632
>[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_probability
Sam Harris is a dumbass.

>>11294653
That I don't have an argument is just an illusion.

>>11294694
>scientific consensus
>philosophers
???

There is no scientific basis for thinking that free will exists.
>your genes
>how those genes are expressed
>your memories
>your culture
All of these shape who you are and you didn't have a choice in any of them. Just as a bowling pin doesn't have "free will" to fall over if a bowling ball hits it, neither do you have a choice about which neurons fire at which points and in which way depending on events.

Even a soul (if you believe in that sort of thing) and randomness don't allow for free will, because you didn't choose those either.

>>11294886
You're implying some determining factors have to be chosen for free choice to exist. Why? I find it entirely conceivable that I have not chosen any determinants and yet that I have free will.

>>11294748
Because it is only infinite within the system. Just like a heart pumps for infinity after you are born until you die. Inside the system all you know is it keeps going til it doesn't.

>>11295086
Not infinity meaning epistemically without finitude; infinity meaning never-ending (not to be confused with ever-growing) numbers, obviously.

>>11294642
Is that a real question? This happens all the time by accident even when you are trying to write finite programs, creating infinite loops. If you are in a loop that repeats endlessly, from any point, it's infinite in both directions

>>11294886
>>scientific consensus
>>philosophers
>???
Most philosophers are scientists.

>>11295130
How can you program something which has no end such as numbers? It's like you didn't even read. If you find it so easy to refute anyone, stop and think "Do I actually understand what they're saying?"

>>11295389
philosophy is not a science. gb2/x/

>>11294642
Haskell

>>11296808
>philosophy is not a scienc-

Free will faggots delude themselves into believing that claim based off of no evidence other than experience. They confuse the thoughts that appear in the awareness of now as them doing the thinking and are uncomfortable with the idea they have no control. All that can be said is the future is uncertain in certain domains and we have a complex experience of the present moment. I ironically feel less inhibited and more spontaneous because I relinquished the desire for control and let things flow naturally, not getting bogged down in overanalyis for "choice".

I never fucking hear an actual argument to support the claim we have free will from anyone they just say things like "dude just choose to do something right now"

>>11294588
So? Who the fuck cares. If anything that means nothing matters giving you more free will to do anything in this poorly done pay to win, unbalanced, shoddy game

>>11296937
You feel like it does, therefore it does
prove that determinism exists

>posting in a determinism/freewill thread

>>11296931
>Free will faggots delude themselves into believing that claim based off of no evidence other than experience. They confuse the thoughts that appear in the awareness of now as them doing the thinking and are uncomfortable with the idea they have no control.
On the contrary, anti-free will faggots delude themselves out of believing it since they're uncomfortable with the idea of having accountability.

>>11295130
>If you are in a loop that repeats endlessly, from any point, it's infinite in both directions
That's false, it could theoretically run infinitely in one direction if it has no valid exit condition and the machine processing the loop is itself indestructible and unstoppable but it cannot be infinite in the reverse direction because you both programmed and started the loop, meaning it always has a finite number of iterations since it began.

>>11296949
>>posting in a determinism/freewill thread
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOW DARE YOU TALK ABOUT SOMETHING I DON'T WANT YOU TO

One thing I always had trouble with the free will argument is how you even define what free will is exactly and how it's different from not having free will.
Thoughts?

>>11297013
No i really meant the caption in a non-facetious way, you son of a bitch i’m in!
As for the reasoning? We simply don’t know.

>>11297049
>No i really meant the caption in a non-facetious way, you son of a bitch i’m in!
>As for the reasoning? We simply don’t know.
Ok understandable