/sci/ - Science & Math

it was impossible to not do science

>when you're telling people that the atoms in your brain are forcing you to spout your opinion and hold on to your beliefs whether they are right or wrong, but you still expect to be taken seriously.

>another free will/consciousness thread

>>14740385
>>14740339
Are you going to answer the question then?

>>14740334
/thread

>>14740316
>>14740633
>If free will doesn't exist, how would it be possible to do science in the first place?
Yes.

>>14740649
Then answer.

>>14740316
>If free will doesn't exist, how would it be possible to do science in the first place?
From the perspective of life, problem solving is the most important ability second only to reproduction. If a single celled life form cant figure out how to find food then it dies. We are commanded to do 'something' by our neurons in order to prevent us from not finding food and mating. Much as mammals learned to climb trees, or how bees learned to make hives, problem solving advancement and the scientific method were inevitable

>>14740316
Science is done with intelligence, not with randomness.

>>14741460
Sure, but if evolution only gives us traits that ensure our survival, how does that correspond to actual truth? Is cuteness an objective truth about reality, or is it an illusion evolution gave us to give us the incentive of protecting our offspring? Evolution gave us certain equipment not to accurately perceive the world, but to help us pass on our genes.

>>14740339

Everyone asks why questions when theyre children, but then when they realize it requires math they say, oh i guess its not that important

>>14743535
This is why materialism is retarded, yes.

>>14743535
>all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we can not prove
I dont get it

>>14741460
why do animals make mistakes then after nearly a billion years of evolution?

>>14743996
Humans make mistakes that can lead to death, but do monkeys make mistakes that can lead to death?

>>14740316
Think of any action you've taken that doesn't have a chain of causes.

Free will doesn't exist.

>>14744055
Maybe risk-taking has probability involved.

>>14744078
Supposedly there's probability involved in some decision making, how does random decision making lead to "free will"? It doesn't

Do you know what we call people who believe their bodies are moving on their own without any causes? Schizos.

>>14740385
there are like 5-10 of them every fucking day. Thousands every year. And they all have the same stupid shit dumb nigger posts every fucking time.
>>14740316
why is this question so hard to answer, brainlet?
and no, your example does not prove free will
>IF A COMPUTER HAS NO FREE WILL THEN UHH HOW CAN IT DO SCIENCE? LOOK *SHOWS MATLAB WINDOW*

>>14743600
It requires math... how, retard? Does it require math to start a science? You rigorous formalistic dumb niggers should just kill yourselves and leave it to computer to replace the entirety of your existence, if what you do and think is 100% formal shit

>>14744097
>Do you know what we call people who believe their bodies are moving on their own without any causes? Schizos.
Do you know that if I punch you right now your instinct is to blink and cover your face before you even think about it?
Or what about the ability to use logic? Don't tell me you discovered that the universe is uniform when you were a child? Or did you just assume it because every mammal can do it?

>>14744055
New chain of causes get created all the time therefore free will does exist.

>>14744265
Think of any cause, new or otherwise, that does not previously have a cause

>>14744013
humans evolved beyond instinct, which is the main problem. they can reconsider evolutionary drives. but what excuse does that leave for animals?

>>14743507
Strawman fallacy. Nobody argues for infallibility.

>>14740339
>hold on to your beliefs whether they are right or wrong
projecting christcuck

>>14740316
Science has nothing to do with free will, but everything to do with abundant uncertainty.
If your will was completely free, there would be no science, you would just decide what reality would be instead of having to observe and trying to quantify it.

>>14743600
Math is just another type of language, a language of value, and it is incredibly illogical in its current form since the original value is defined as its own negative value, a logical contradiction that leads to an explosion in arbitrary infinite value.

>>14744013
Yes, monkeys die all the time, you can see youtube videos where they fall out of trees and tease the wrong predator.

>>14744277
They have no idea if anything in particular caused covid other than just some random mutation in a virus.

>>14744617
0 = -0 is not a contradiction.

>>14744675
A value being equal to its own negative value is the definition of self-contradiction.

>>14740316
>If free will doesn't exist,
Free will is literally incoherent trash that can not exist.

It can not exist because the free will experts are literally presenting impossible criteria while describing it.

Either way you are overthinking what essentially is retarded theology made up to cope how god can know the future perfectly and how humans can have a choice.

And Christians are like this since their retarded self disproving (and self contredicting) book full of bronze age schizo garbage must be defended somehow.

>>14744683
It doesn't follow.

>>14744989
It doesn't need to follow anything it is true by the identity property it is a contradiction because self-negation is a common definition of a contradiction.

Stating that some value is simultaneously itself and its own negative, its own opposite value, is exactly what a contracting statement is by definition.

>>14745027
>she thinks mathematical negation is logical negation
Zero units to the left and zero units to the right are obviously the same spot on the number line, gigaretard.

>>14745072
>zero units
>nothing of something
Another contradiction, you can't logically have nothing of something, you either have nothing or something else, but not nothing of something, that would quickly explode into nothing of everything.
A zero unit isn't a unit, it doesn't make sense as a unit, you have to make up special rules to ignore its contradiction, if you try to use it as a unit, it must self contradict because it doesn't make sense and will inevitable explode into illogical outcomes like 0^0=1.

>>14745089
>zero is nothing
That's another one of your mentally ill, low IQ schizophrenic hallucinations. This board needs some serious moderation.

>>14745094
That is another impotent low tier fallacy because you have no logical mind.

Zero, the empty set, is quite clearly a poor self-contradicting attempt to implement the value of nothing.

If you have an amount of something and add nothing, what other number more represents the amount you added?