/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11321323
Name anything that happens outside a chain of causation.

>>11321323
observable reproducibility when variables are controlled for

Without surface deformities on the dome or ball, and neglecting any wind or particles hitting the ball, it would stay there forever.

>>11321334
sorry, I didn't post the full text which explains

>>11321328
>Name anything that happens outside a chain of causation.
The birth of the universe.

>>11321336
This is a real misunderstanding of time symmetry. I'm not talented enough to explain why so I'm going to defer to other anons

>>11321340
You can't prove it didn't.

>>11321336
>the ball may also start into motion sliding down the dome-at any moment in time and in any direction
y tho

>>11321352
>You can't prove it didn't.
By definition, there could not have been a cause. QED.

>>11321374
God here, I caused it.

>>11321383
God is part of the universe and did not have an initial cause.

>>11321391
Supergod here, I created him.

>>11321402
Then Supergod is part of the universe and has no cause, unless you mean to imply it's Supergods all the way down.

>>11321427
Yes, I am supergod number n as n approaches infinity; my value is undefined.

>>11321336
>>11321370
because it takes zero energy to move the ball an infinitely small distance downhill?

>>11321491
My intuition is that it does not take "zero" energy, but rather an "infinitely small" amount of energy too.
Not the same thing.

>>11321336
what kind of stupid shit is this ? does this nigga know what an unstable fixed point is ?

>>11321323
http://esotericawakening.com/is-free-will-an-illusion

>>11321340
Wrong, there is a higher dimension causation

>>11321340
He said something outside the chain of causation, not some event in the middle. We dont know anything about the Universe before the phase transition into the Big Bang. As far as we can tell, it was never born, it existed eternally before and likely after as well. The current observable Universe is a transitory between homogeneous states.

>>11322158
that was a very interesting discussion (on that pic) not because of the determinism issue but the time discussion at the end and the "hidden variable", clocks measure lenght not time, we don't have any way to measure "real time" at a primary level (is it even possibleto measure time without length?!) because every clock design even atomics are at the primary level based on lenght.

atomic decay or any other type of atomic activity that we use for timekeeping at the very fundamental levet is "lenght"

>>11322158
Your blog sucks. It's embarassing how relentlessly you advertise here.

>>11321340
>t.rust me bro!
>>11321336
>>11321491
>What is kinetic energy?
Did this retard prove this experimentally by putting a ball on top of a completely frictionless dome is a closed system with zero forces acting on it? No? Fuck off with this bullshit then.

>>11322597
How much energy does it take to push something downhill?

>>11321336
The explanation is in tgat page nusta below all that.

>>11322158
>>11322568
That is just bullshit by people that don't know anything about relativity.

>>11321323
There are none that hold water because causality is fake and determinism requires strict causality.

Causality is a presupposition, not an authentic force of nature or consequence of natural law. In modern formulation it completely breaks down wherever locality does not hold.
Causal paradoxes are just questions we are not fully equipped to answer, not some kind of universal contradiction which proves the validity of causality.

To make an argument for determinism you would have to first prove causality, and locality before that.

>>11321323
Determinism is a metaphysical inference. There are no scientific arguments, much less for determinism, kiddo. btw, you can just as easily search for "scientific arguments against determinism" to confirm pre-existing biases. You'll probably get something in the order of quantum probability dictating everything that goes on in the universe.
>>11321328
The question is whether that chain is predictable.

>>11321328
>Name anything that happens outside a chain of causation.

Fundamental randomness in quantum mechanics.

>>11321331
>observable reproducibility when variables are controlled for

Reproducibility is only approximate. Many experiments always give random results no matter how perfectly you control all the variables.


Strict determinism is 19th century tier theory. Science has long ago moved on.

>>11322844
Based

>>11322158
within the first two sentences:
>The followers of the Abrahamic faiths will point to their scriptures
stopped reading there. I don't have time for butthurt: the blog

>>11322568
Clocks measure time by measuring length, you pseud.

>>11321336
>what is unstable equilibrium
>what is potential energy local maximum
Yes, depending on the direction of the infinitesimal force acting, it can go in different directions, wow. It's almost as if even the shittiest classical mechanics book goes over this.

>>11321323
There are processes beyond fog of determinisim, which are deterministic but we can't see them.

Arguments for determinism are that universe just have it's functions defined and outcome is determinstic, however there is no machinery that can exactly predict outcome of photon pairs which can be used as random generators for universe to be less determinsitic.

Even electron function on the proteins in your brains is quite deterministic, but I highly doubt it can be fully measured.

>>11321331
You cannot control for all variables.
Additionally, some interactions are fundamentally probabilistic.

>>11322904
Hidden variables are mathematically impossible for some interactions.

All things have cause and effect. There are no non caused effects. There are no phenomena that don't obey this truth. Even if there's a green man inside your skull operating your body without obeying causality, the little man inside must also be subject to causality itself. And let the record be clear, there is no little man inside your head controlling your body. Hence all actions we take are all part of a long chain of cause and effect, with nothing interrupting it.

>>11322942
Causality is fake and not a real force or phenomenon.
Describe it mathematically to me without presupposing its existence.

>>11322844
How do you know that it's random and not just inaccuracy or incompetency in ability to predict behavior?

>>11322983
Some interactions are fundamentally probabilistic and mathematically incongruous with an unknown or hidden variable.

>>11322983
as far as I understand, if we assume hidden variables to explain away the apparent randomness of QM, they must really be in principle and forever hidden and not just currently inaccessible to us OR they would allow FTL signaling and therefore because of special relativity signaling backwards in time, which would have the obvious time travel problems. So the most reasonable assumption is that they are indeed hidden in this very strong sense. But if they are, then they have zero explanatory power for any potential observer's observations. The more parsimonious assumption is that they just aren't there. In fact depending on one's metaphysical views, one might argue that we basically defined them out of existence, a bit like in that Carl Sagan's analogy about the invisible dragon in the garage.

Even then you could always raise the bar for knowledge about QM indeterminacy - maybe FTl signaling really is possible for instance - however that is something you could always do with anything. It seems like the indeterminacy is nonetheless experimentally proved in a strong sense, insofar science ever prove anything, rather than being just an appeal to our current ignorance.

>>11322779
got news for you half wit, relativity ain't real you are just oo goofy to realize you are the one that doesn't understand it

>>11322588
your mom sucks faggot. You are just mad because I cracked codes of this reality and have an understanding of things you can't even comprehend that is what is embarrassing and actually quite sad if am being honest. It shows a petty sad little hack you are

>>11322863
Well in the past I wouldn't have blamed you however the Bible is cipher and was never meant to be understood by the masses it is written in code and all the codes to reality are in it if you understand the cipher and what it really means. Very few of the hacks here are able to understand it even when given a road map however so prob best if you stick to your undergrad shit for glorified accountants leave the real science to people qualified to do it. Thanks for sharing though I guess

>>11323041
It's not that they must remain forever hidden, it's that they mathematically cannot exist.
A proposed hidden variable being fundamentally unknowable does not change this fact of incongruity.

>>11321479
AKA Charlie Sheen

>>11323321
How so? Bell test experiments only ruled out *local* hidden variables.

>>11322983
Pleb answer: Bell's theorem
Real answer: naturalness

>>11322813
>Causality is a presupposition, not an authentic force of nature or consequence of natural law. In modern formulation it completely breaks down wherever locality does not hold.
So, in other words, it never breaks down?
>Causal paradoxes are just questions we are not fully equipped to answer, not some kind of universal contradiction which proves the validity of causality.
There aren't any observable causal paradoxes. While causality isn't proved (since its unprovable), there is no reason to assume it isn't real because every single event ever observed by anyone supports causality and there aren't any pieces of evidence against it.
>To make an argument for determinism you would have to first prove causality, and locality before that.
Nice try attempting to get someone to prove an untestable property, and you're incurring a second error by assuming causality requires locality. Not that it matters since we've never observed any non local effects. Quantum entanglement once threatened locality until it was discovered that the entangled particles are simply pre-synchronised and aren't truly physically connected nor are they able to exchange information.

>>11322844
>Fundamental randomness in quantum mechanics.
Gross misinterpretation. There is no fundamental randomness in QM, only apparent randomness due to lack of data and usage of an incomplete model. Determinism isn't proven, but to assume true randomness is is an oxymoron as true randomness is untestable by definition.

>>11322844
>Reproducibility is only approximate. Many experiments always give random results no matter how perfectly you control all the variables.
How convenient that it is physically impossible to even repeat any given experiment or measurement in the exact same way.

>>11322844
>Strict determinism is 19th century tier theory.
If you're a New Age pseud, sure. Actual scientists still hold the Universe to be deterministic and causal since every observation suggests it and no counter evidence has ever even been presented.

>>11322921
>You cannot control for all variables.
Correct.
>Additionally, some interactions are fundamentally probabilistic.
There's no proof for this. Some interactions appear to be random because you can't control all variables and we haven't yet discovered the underlying mechanisms. There isn't a single proof of random interactions, only suggestions that the models are incomplete.

>>11322972
>describe a purely temporal phenomenon using exclusively timeless and eternal notation
Anon, I...

well, MWI is the most reasonable interpretation of QM, and determinism is directly implied from it (although freewill also is implied from it simultaneously, so its implication of determinism aren't very meaningful)

>>11323041
>It seems like the indeterminacy is nonetheless experimentally proved in a strong sense, insofar science ever prove anything, rather than being just an appeal to our current ignorance
Its the exact opposite, though.

>>11323336
Finally a non pseud

>>11323468
This. Cope-nhagenlets on wavecollapse watch.

>>11323443
>it never breaks down
Wrong
>causality is unprovable
Wrong
>we've never observed any non local effects
Clinging onto the ever-degrading principle of locality doesn't make your worldview more correct, it makes you sound like a smoothbrain.

>>11323457
>there's no proof for this
I think you misunderstand. It's not that YOU can't control all variables, its that a concrete value cannot be assigned to all variables simultaneously even in principle.

>>11323460
>you can't describe time with math
Okay retard

>>11323443
Causality is a contradiction itself. It is just the prime mover paradox. There is reasons to doubt it because nearly all resolutions invoke a world primary to this one. Contradictions that come in reality, versus those in logical argument, do not really make the idea forbidden. The contradictions in causality do require a resolution for interpreting the world and your place in it, or in a philosophical sense. Most science doesn't really need to concern itself with it beyond acknowledging that they do indeed have pillars where they start and which leaves certain avenues open for other methods. Not that it is bad in any way, because it is just clarity and clarity is fucking good.

>>11321374
>By definition, there could not have been a cause. QED
That's not even a commonly used definition of "universe" in this context in modern times. Since we actually have i formation on the observable universe we're in now you're usually talking about that, not a word for every part of reality that might exist even including what we might have no access to information on. If this weren't the case there would be no concept of "multiverse" or even just prime mover going back to Christian philosophy.

>>11323500
>Wrong.
Care to actually provide a counter argument or example of experimentally confirmed acausal phenomenon?

>>11323505
We are talking of the same thing. I wasn't referring to any instrument limitations but about the actual physical uncertainties.

>>11323509
That's not what was asked, stop being intellectually dishonest. Go ahead and attempt to use mathematics to prove or disprove determinism. You're adamant that determinism is proven false, so it shouldn't be hard for you to show it.

>>11323514
Causality does not result in a contradiction in an eternal Nature where the Universe exists and frankly, if you're suggesting that causality is false and creationism is true, I don't know what you're doing in a science board. Is your position really that causal relations do not exist AND that existing Nature has a finite past and/or created itself ex nihilo?

>>11323556
Determinism is metaphysical speculation based purely in wishful thinking about causality.
You are being intellectually dishonest by pretending that a belief in causality, and by extension a belief in determinism, is anything more scientific and rigorous than a belief in a God or religious doctrine.

>>11321323
Many-Worlds being the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. The ball slides down in all directions, just in different Everett branches.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-winner-is-many-worlds

>>11321491
>the position is exactly x and time t
>actually it isn't lmao because muh infiniticimal

>>11323610
I'm bored after approximately the seventh paragraph of gibberish. I couldn't get that pesky rational thought, "why the fuck am I giving this guy time?" out of my head.