/sci/ - Science & Math

Doesn't it ever strike any of you as odd how the same "people" start the same thread every single day, usually multiple times per day, making the same "arguments"? If someone was paying shills to obsessively post daily demoralization threads, what would it look like?

>>15164360
Everything that has ever happened was determined, so you are capable of determining what will happen. Free will is this capability. I fail see the issue.

Science (knowledge) proves God however. God can be omnipotent and omniscient while you still have the choice to serve Him or not. Omnipotence doesn't mean having to use it to control your choices. Omniscience doesn't mean you aren't still making the choice. Although this isn't the board for philosophical discussions on freewill.

>>15164362
i wish i was getting paid for this but no sadly i've apparently been psyoped into doing it for free. would love for somebody to show how quantum state transitions happen often enough in the brain that we actually do have our destinies affected and to be called a retard, but so far no cigar

>>15164373
i don't follow. i understand i have some agency, but any decision i make will have already been determined.

>>15164374
i almost put "an active, interceding god" instead but you get the idea. i also almost posted this in /his/ but i imagine the only thing philosophy is good for on this topic is the best way to cope with it

>>15164360
you are failing in the realisation you are incomplete in your path of thought.
there is an implication to the concepts of determinism and lack of free will, that evolution exists and has generally been the overriding concept of the universe especially as life has come into existence and continually adapted(evolved)

to what end, i believe, is the free will you dont believe in.
to what end would an unrestrained and unfettered being have? we couldnt possibly imagine

ask me whatever you think is missing from my concepts

our existence is the observation of our absolution through evolution

>>15164360
You're looking at it all wrong.

You only have an attachment to the concept of freewill because our limited language makes it out to be some intrinsic good. Even if you live in a deterministic universe, you still have the sense of moving in the right or wrong direction, of affecting these paths, even if you're not. That you truly have no ultimate control is just a technicality.

Freewill, as an artifact of human perception, is still a meaningful concept. Do you understand? You've never seen a moving image on a screen, just a series of lights flickering. Does it really destroy your sense of motion happening?

>>15164376
So you're not even getting paid for posting these zero-intellectual-content, obsessively repetitive corporate-sponsored demoralization threads? Time for you to kill yourself.

>>15164376
Every decision you made will have been determined. Not every decision you make.

>>15164360
why are you acting so shocked? especially when you keep making similar posts?

obviously determinism has to be true. what's shocking is that some of us are determined to experience horrible things.

>>15164410
>obviously determinism has to be true
Obviously, determinism is false.

>>15164414
it can't be false. indeterminism is incoherent, requiring something from nothing in time.

>>15164422
it can't be true. determinism is incoherent, requiring something from nothing in time.

>>15164424
that is false. determinism only supposes something that always existed, so it never came into being. whereas indeterminism supposes things come into being from nothing. this is impossible.

>>15164429
that is false. indeterminism only supposes something that always existed, so it never came into being. whereas determinism supposes things come into being from nothing. this is impossible.

>>15164433
keep trolling, it shows that you have no argument.

>>15164434
Everything I wrote is as well-supported as anything you did.

>>15164435
no it's not. indeterminism means the future of a system is not determined by anything. therefore, its future state comes into being from nothing. you haven't refuted this, instead you have resorted to childish mimicry.

>>15164440
>indeterminism means the future of a system is not determined by anything.
I'll be charitable and suppose this dubious statement is true.

>therefore, its future state comes into being from nothing
How does that follow? How does something changing in a non-deterministic manner imply something new and unrelated spawning into existence from nothing?

>>15164444
nothing dubious about it. it logically follows, by necessity. not anything = nothing. if 'not anything' determines it, then that is equal to saying nothing determines it. so you're claiming that its new state came from nothing. indeterminists can't surmount this problem.

>>15164448
Okay. I can see you're mentally ill now. Auto-hiding all your posts.

>>15164449
you have no counterargument then, ok.

>>15164360
That free will doesn't exist becomes obvious when you bother to introspect on your actions and thoughts and see how you lack control over them.

>>15164466
>introspect on your actions and thoughts and see how you lack control over them
Like when you feel the irresistible compulsion to deny other people's agency and try to rationalize your actions as being drivel by reason, while simultaneously insisting that they are rooted in mere physical happenstance, and that the same happenstance forces you to believe that you are right regardless of whether or not it's actually true? :^)

>>15164468
Kys schizo, I'm auto hiding all your posts from now

>>15164469
looks like he really got under your skin

>>15164468
yes, and it is true.

>>15164485
In your universe, your claims have no more intellectual validity than those of your opposition, by definition. People are assigned mututally-exclusive opinions by happenstance and all are condemned to view theirs as truth.

>>15164488
no, belief and truth are two separate things. just because one is determined to believe something, doesn't make it true.

yes, we are condemned to our beliefs. just as we are condemned to die, or experience anything else that we experience. denying death won't grant you escape from it.

>>15164500
> just because one is determined to believe something, doesn't make it true.
Show me where that was even remotely implied in my post. The people on this board are so stupid and dronelike it's despairing.

>>15164503
>Show me where that was even remotely implied in my post.
"your claims have no more intellectual validity than those of your opposition, by definition."

>>15164510
So you're telling me you're so lacking in metacognition that you're going to insist on your dumb misinterpretation even after it's explicitly called out?

>>15164513
>refuses to explain what he apparently 'actually' meant

>>15164514
I meant exactly what I said: your predetermined spergouts have no more intellectual validity than anybody else's. I don't know what mental disability forces you to rewrite it as "all statements are equally true".

>>15164517
>your predetermined spergouts have no more intellectual validity than anybody else's
but you haven't explained why.

>>15164518
I have explained why in the same post. Your IQ is legit <90.

>>15164519
because they're all determined? that was my original interpretation. but you called it a misinterpretation. not sure why you're being dishonest.

>>15164522
Your IQ is <90 and you're also suffering from a delusional mental illness.

>>15164524
one dishonest dodge after another. reply when you're prepared to engage in good faith.

>>15164525
There's nothing more I need to do. I post specifically because I know every determinitard is 90 IQ and mentally ill, and the game is to lead them into a corner where they are forced to show the extent of their retardation and mental illness. This one is completed. Have a nice day.

>>15164530
200 IQ, yet nothing to show for it, just rotting away on a horse ranch. so much for that huh

>>15164545
Your actual meds. Take 'em.

>>15164374
christcuckold cope

>>15164360
To count as rational, a belief must be freely chosen, which according to the determinist is impossible.
Any kind of debate seems to be posited on the idea that the parties involved are trying to change each other's minds.

>>15164575
>To count as rational, [headcanon]

>>15164360
Write left

>>15164575
Determinitards can't grasp the fact that a position can't be rational if the process of its conception is dictated by physical happenstance and therefore independent from truth.

>>15164583
>a position can't be rational if the process of its conception is dictated by physical happenstance
false.
>and therefore independent from truth.
false, non-sequitur

>>15164576
Does a clock get intellectual credit for showing the right time? Is it by its own merits that it happens to be set up right? What about that broken clock that's only right twice a day? I don't suppose determinitards are right all the time, even though their mechanisms condemn them to think so. :^)

>>15164591
>random word salad

>>15164373
>I fail see the issue.
Yes, we know. Everything was determined before you even existed, so you don't determine shit. Or it's random, so you have no conscious control.

>>15164591
nailed it. beautiful illustration

>>15164591
>Does a clock get intellectual credit for showing the right time?
yes.
>Is it by its own merits that it happens to be set up right?
no, but that's irrelevant.
>What about that broken clock that's only right twice a day?
what about it?

>>15164600
Sorry, that post wasn't really meant for you. It was meant for those who are human.

>>15164575
>To count as rational, a belief must be freely chosen
No one cares what you count as rational. What a retarded post

Threads like this really drive the point home that humans should segregate themselves from the determinitard subspecies. You can't have a functioning society where half of it is driven by denial of humanity.

@15164609
Tell your handlers to give you your meds

@15164614
Hm... I guess they don't want segregation for some reason. They froth at the mouth with hatred against those who challenge their nihilistic worldview but shrink away in fear and rage at the mere suggestion that they should have a society of their own. Maybe they know their existence is a parasitical one, deep down. They feed off of the corpses of civilizations created by the human spirit that they lack and abhor.

@15164619
Schizo seethes and hallucinates in fear when its handlers are mentioned

>>15164609
>>15164619
tone it down with your antisemitism

There is literally no definition of 'free will'.

Try to define it. I dare you.

>>15164740
Free will is the intractable chaos of self-reflecting minds.

>>15164360
Why does it have you fucked up? Why do you care that the universe is deterministic?

>>15164740
Libertarian free will is an incoherent mess that doesn't work regardless of whether determinism is true or not. Retards don't consider this though, they appeal to the libertarian free will because they have a meme understanding of the problem.
Compatibilist free will is such will that is not subject to coercion by another agent. This makes lolberts seethe because they want free will to be like a random number generator that will produce different results each time you rerun a scenario. However, a non-retarded observer should see that such an account of will can hardly be called any more free.

>>15164788
deranged

>>15164793
Cope. The existence of libertarian free will never be a respectable position to hold. It only makes sense if you assume immaterial souls acting as uncaused causes, and if that's your position, you can fuck off to /x/.

>>15164801
>mental illness intensifies

>>15164804
Ok little budy, explain how exactly libertarian free will can work in any meaningful way.

@15164815
>being this desperate to be acknowledged
LOL

>>15164819
ebin trolle

@15164821
>hurdurtarian free will bad b-b-b-because it's not respectable, okay?
>p-p-please d-debate my debraged spergout

>>15164823
Did you choose to act like this, was it predetermined, or both?

>>15164824
I choose to shit all over you. Why?

>>15164826
Do you choose to talk about your disgusting fetishes, or are you predetermined to constantly bring them up like a socially maladjusted autist, or is it both?

>>15164827
I do what I do by choice. Your blood pressure is spiking deterministically as you are reading this. My agency angers you.

>>15164833
Is this choice not determined by anything? If it is determined by something, what is that thing? Is that other thing determined by something else?

>>15164839
>Is this choice not determined by anything?
What does "determined" mean in this context? Notice your blood pressure spiking, your jaw clenching, and your desperation to somehow deflect from this question.

>>15164843
Brought about by causal relationships, obviously.

>>15164851
I take various factors into account in my decision. None of them is "causing" my actions since it's up to my discretion what factors I take into consideration and how much weight I give each one.

>>15164853
So then if your actions ultimately aren't "caused" by any outside factors, it would follow that your will acts as an uncaused cause.

>it's another abhorrent platonist thread

>>15164857
They are caused by me. How does it feel to be consumed by impotent rage?

>>15164860
>when the nonhuman drone tries to use terminology it can't parse

>>15164861
Then it is "you" that is acting as an uncaused cause by determining your will.

>>15164867
>it is "you" that is acting as an uncaused cause
Prove that your monke brain cause-and-effect model is applicable to sentient, self-reflecting beings in the first place. You can't. (You may now commence dronelike looping).

>>15164872
If you are to affect anything in the external world in any way, your physical person has to have some causal powers. If your will is to have any effect on what your physical person does, it also has to have some causal powers.
You are just positing an uncaused cause again.

>>15164874
Prove that my ability to "cause" things to happen means that your monke brain cause-and-effect model is applicable to sentient, self-reflecting beings in the first place. You will loop again.

>>15164880
You tell me how you can affect the external world without exerting any causal powers.

>>15164881
Yep. You're looping. Your lack of sentience has been demonstrated. Confirm by replying to me again and shitting out something about "arguments" or "concessions".

>>15164883
I'm "looping" because you never answered this point of mine. You can say "heh you're an NPC because I predicted how you'll point out that I'm responding to your arguments", but that's a pretty weak prediction. I know gypsy astrologers who can do way better than that, anon.

>>15164886
Thanks for confirming your nonsentience. You never make a single step beyond asserting over and over that your obviously flawed model is valid. Auto-hiding all posts form you. Your lack of sentience will prompt another fully deterministic reply from you.

>>15164889
I didn't assert my model is valid, I asked you how you can affect the external world without exerting any causal powers.
Tick tock.

>>15164740
Free will = acausal self-determinacy

>>15164925
>free will = magic
>there is no magic
>there is no free will

>>15164860
crystal cafe anti tranny girl is CUTE!!

It has been pre-determined that large women and small men are the future

>>15164931
>magnets = magic
>there is no magic
>there are no magnets

>>15164942
so the juggalo guy was right and we can't explain magnets?

>>15164360
It’s not the first time I step into a church and “accidentally” step on my shoe laces and untie them.
I never kneel inside a church. I kneel for no one and he knows it. Me and God had a laugh together about it. And I’m not crazy, ok.

>>15164382
>>15164410

this is my first time posting this. i'm sorry if this is a frequent topic on here but this board is the only place i can put my woes to writing and i didnt see any on the catalogue

>>15164740
Free will is the ability to pick between two or more futures. Because our universe is deterministic, there is only one future.

>>15164360
Determinism is a meme since nature is random. Hidden variables have been decisively disproven.

>>15165122
cope

>>15165127
how is that cope? It's true, there are no hidden variables and nature is random

>>15164933
You can't free-will your own chromosomes. You will always be a male.

>>15165180
I want to be a male, thoughever.
I am going to genetically modify humanity to make men (males) small, lean, and super athletic, and women (females) tall, thick, and super fecund. We're only like a year away from this.

The crystal cafe biogirl (I don't know her name, bio-chan?) is CUTE!!

>>15165122
no they haven't. it's a common misconception that bell tests disprove hidden variables. they don't. they just ahow that at least one of the assumptions of the theorem is wrong.

>>15164360
you are watching a movie

>>15164360
>Therefore, there is no such thing as free will.
wrong, see 5th argument
https://crossexamined.org/5-arguments-existence-free-will/

>All laws of nature can be described with differential equations.
Yeah that's why the gran unified theory is here already and physics certainly isn't completely rotten
cosmology Has Some Big Problems - Scientific American Blog Network

>This has got me fucked up, bros.
Then watch some truth, this world is not purely material and God transcends our mortal notions of causality and physical logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UYrFzf0B1I

>I thought at least we could take comfort in being the masters of our own destiny,
You can't even hold your own farts or determine which hair will fall from your head you delusional arrogant

>Even if science killed god
Science never killed anything other than humans and its own proposal. God is and will always be, even if the wicked insist in being retarded and go against Him despite all the vidence presented that science is fake and gay and that God is true and based,

You sodomties will never learn will ya? Even when the "god killers" you idolize have abysmally low fertility rates thus literally losing on their own pseudoscientific game of evolution since they won't pass their genes forward

>This has got me fucked up, bros.
>mental self-castration and believing in lies hinders my intelligence and consciousness
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00020/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5209362/
https://qz.com/628829/the-important-psychological-benefit-of-believing-in-free-will
https://www.spring.org.uk/2022/11/free-will-belief.php
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12293
Who would've imagined that admiting the truth to be true is actually beneficial for your intelligence and personality?

You will never experience the Ruach HaKodesh, so seethe and dilate, impious, enjoy being thrown in the pits of fire for a long time.

>>15164362
Demoralization just starts with a few seeds and then the people become demoralized and actually spread it, so you don't need to keep planting the seeds. Also if something is true like determinism, then you should be demoralized and this world is a torturescape.

>>15165192
>they just ahow that at least one of the assumptions of the theorem is wrong.
The only person who claims statistical independence is wrong is that one failed female German physicists on youtube.
If randomness didn't exist, how do you explain the universe's existence? The only two options are through random processes (which means randomness is an inherent property of nature) or through intelligent design (which would necessiate free will).

>>15164362
It's either Russian/Chinese/Indian professional demoralizer shills or complete loser neets who have nothing left except for posting negativity on 4chan (since not even their parents want to talk to them anymore).

>>15164360
>...
>Quantum mechanics is truly random, on the other hand, but they aren't influenced by anything else in nature. That's what makes it truly random.
All fine but why do stop short just of the potential solution to this conundrum and the reverse of the latter: quantum mechanical effects on larger systems. Couldn't you for example take decisions based on quantum outcomes which are random?
-> answer this: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/505873/could-quantum-randomness-be-transformed-into-classical-macroscale-randomness

>>15165284
The latter option is the correct one obviously.

>>15165361
In any case, determinism is wrong. Glad we agree on that.

>>15165284
no, it is not only sabine who challenges statistical independence. also, einstein himself also advocated for hidden variables. he just didn't know that the key was to challenge the statistical independence assumption.

>The only two options are through random processes (which means randomness is an inherent property of nature) or through intelligent design (which would necessiate free will).
first of all, this is a false dichotomy. these are not the only two possibilities. for example, we can conjecture a variable, call it lambda, which just exists and is responsible for creating the entire universe, but it didn't "intelligently design" it.

also no, intelligent design doesn't necessitate free will. in fact free will cannot exist in any universe with time; intelligently designed or not.

>>15165391
>in fact free will cannot exist in any universe with time
You're not that schizo who believes in time mirrors, are you?

>>15165275

I wish I could ignore this like it was bait but I know you're being sincere. You're the exact phenotype of ignorant, belligerent retard that I'm having trouble coming up with a label for. It's the kind of guy who handwaves decades of scientific understanding because of a few flaws or unexpected outcomes in some peer-reviewed experiments, while simultaneously basing your entire worldview off of 2-hour psuedoscientific Youtube documentaries.

And the vitriol in your post, anon! As if I was happy that free will didn't exist and came out swinging against the concept of a God rather than using "science killed god" as an analogy for my discomfort with the concept of determinism. You just have no nuance, you saw something that challenged the way you understand the world and you saw red. I'm not Laplace's demon but even I can see your story ends in an alcohol-related motorcycle accident on some Alabama back road.

>>15165442
>I can see your story ends in an alcohol-related motorcycle accident on some Alabama back road.
IDK if you noticed from the language in his post but he's an Orthodox Jew.

>>15165442
You're seething because he's more intelligent than you.

>>15164379
Best answer so far, or at least, the one that comforts my existential dread the most.

>>15165352
All fine but why do stop short just of the potential solution to this conundrum and the reverse of the latter: quantum mechanical effects on larger systems.

That's... a good question. Admittedly QM is confusing to me, but I always imagined quantum non-determinism to be state transitions that occur with the electrons in our brains, which doesn't seem likely. Maybe I was over-complicating things though. If I just do a quantum coinflip by looking at a system and basing my next action off what the spin of the first particle to appear is how the fuck would that have been determined from the Big Bang?

>>15164410
>obviously determinism has to be true because... because otherwise God exists and I can't accept being responsible for my moral choices!

What is the definition of free will though?

If I choose to do what I do and have no questions or regrets then it doesn’t really matter if free will exists or not.

Just don’t be a chump.

>>15165530
God precludes free will, christshit.

>>15165530
>obviously indeterminism has to be true because... because otherwise I'm not free, which I can't accept!

>>15165565
there is no question that free will doesn't exist. the real, sensible question is this: why do we get the specific wills that we get?

>>15165571
What kind of midwit told you that? Free will has been a solved problem since the 11th century at least.

>>15165275
>science is fake and gay and that God is true and based
Lmao.
>Link to Frank Turek video
He is a retard.
>God transcends our mortal notions of causality and physical logic
You didn't even understand the retard's video you linked to.
>You sodomties will never learn will ya?
Notice how op didn't mention being gay or sodomy.
>>Even if science killed god
Misunderstanding the true meaning of that phrase, which is fitting based on your level of intelligence. You are fascinated and terrified by things you don't understand like a neanderthal worshipping fire and fearing the night.
>You will never experience the Ruach HaKodesh, so seethe and dilate, impious, enjoy being thrown in the pits of fire for a long time.
Schizo babble.

>>15164360
"Free-will" as a flawed, human concept might not be important or applicable at all to whatever "reality" or "the nature of of the universe" even are. I don't worry about it too much. I noticed how most of my behaviors are unconscious. How much free-will juice is used for unconscious motions? Whatever drives me to learn more or to direct, organize, steer myself and so on: sure, these drives could be unconscious too. Maybe the whole idea of "consciousness" is a flawed, human concept too. It could all be a shared misunderstanding. I figure you have already thought about quantum biology. Frankly, I think consciousness is located somewhere in the relationships of material in the CNS, but it likely includes the whole human body, and it might even include our relationships with the other human bodies and people around us. Whatever "consciousness" is, it must be a rather complicated nut to crack: it requires a whole ecosystem full of psychological elements that I frankly do not understand.

I saged since all I'm giving are incoherent mumblings about psychology, consciousness, free-will, and quantum biology. I'm not a liar. I will be frank about the situation and tell you, "lol, dunno," when it comes to this free-will topic. I don't let it worry me too much, and I try to remain responsible with my life despite having (or not having) any free-will.

>>15165677
What next? Are you going to link a Craig video?

>>15165571
Because God knows our fate (which we chose)?

>>15165283
>denying the obvious demoralization shills
Suspicious...

>if something is true like determinism, then you should be demoralized and this world is a torturescape.
Suspicion confirmed. Fuck off, demoralization shill.

>>15166919
the world is a hard place to live, anon. you should learn the difference between people observing that fact to spite you and people observing that fact on their own

>>15167442
It's easy to tell the difference between actual people and determinitard shills on a demoralization mission. Telltale signs:
1. The latter will insist that determinitard metaphysics is a "fact" (protip: that's a category error)
2. The latter will insist that determinitard metaphysics has some profound implications on how you should regard life and your actions (protip: it doesn't)

Why do you keep framing it as though determinism is a demoralization campaign?

>>15167626
Why do you pretend determinitards start these threads to objectively discuss determinism when they always use it to justify some biological automatonism/kiddie nihilist doomer angle?

>>15164360
I was like you but then I realized so much of human understanding accepts this but doesn’t outright say it
For example:
>live life to the fullest because you might die any day
>everything happens for a reason
Etc etc. You start to think of the alternative and it really makes no sense. Why would a criminal continue to be a criminal when their free will can make them realize “oh yeah this is bad I’m gonna be an upstanding citizen right now” everything happens rationally, even irrationality happens rationally so there’s nothing to worry about because everything happens as expected. The rules don’t suddenly change you just have yourself and the capacity to change.
Think of it this way, the universe big banged and then eventually you were born. These are two inseparable events, if you were never born then this universe as we know it wouldn’t exist because we’re in the universe where you’re born. Now apply that to anything that happens ever

>>15167774
>Why would a criminal continue to be a criminal when their free will can make them realize
Sometimes they reflect on it and decide they no longer want to be a criminal, despite everything pushing them to continue down the same path. No idea what the rest of your schizobabble is about.

>>15167783
Exactly, it doesn’t just suddenly happen which can be said for everything else

>>15167814
Determinism is a simple-minded metaphysical fantasy. I'm sorry about your lack of sentience.

>>15164360
>Therefore, there is no such thing as free will.
Quantum Physics disproves this and all your kvetching won't change that. It also points to things like Simulation Theory. Retards like you always look at a single tree up close instead of trying to get a bird's eye view of the forest.

All these theories and ideas work together to point towards one thing. You can't look at one thing by itself and make any sense of it. The paranoia over free will is actually kinda funny to me. It's nothing I ever worry about as I sense and utilize my free will everyday.

Are all those determinist shitposting threads a new psyop? They align pretty well with "eat the bugs", "own nothing", " live in the pod", "get the vaxx" etc.

>>15164360
>All laws of nature can be described with differential equations.
wrong
there's no such thing as a "law of nature"
physical laws are just habits
>The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.
free will is all there is, there's no such thing as determinism

>>15168968
Yep. Now you're getting it. Deteminitards, consciousness deniers, anti-natalists and AI replacement fetishists are the same handful of posters. They are either wittingly or unwittingly serving the globohomo demoralization campaign.

>>15169189
don't group people in like that according to your own projections
of course free will and consciousness exists, but anti-natalism is what everyone should strive for, because existence is inherently full of suffering, and conceiving another child is the most heinous and despicable crime imaginable

>>15169251
>don't group people in like that
Why not? The overlap is very prominent. You can usually guess a drone's entire worldview just form their take on one of those issues.

>>15169273
sounds totally wrong
in my experience, natalists are typically the biggest NPCs around

>>15169279
I don't what what it "sounds" like to you.

>>15169279
I don't care how it "sounds" to you.

>>15169286
well, try this: you're wrong
you can't group anti-natalists in with consciousness deniers and deniers of free will when natalists are the biggest NPCs
people who are anti-natalists are the ones who know fully well that consciousness exists, and also the extent to which it applies, and also who fully engage with their free will to put an end to human reproduction
so you're just blatantly wrong to group those in together

>>15164360
For the umpteenth time, free will doesn't make sense.
Free will is not a well-defined concept.
Determinism isn't even the issue. Even if the world were indeterminist you would still have no free will, because free will cannot exist.
What good will it do you even if events were random? Whether your brain makes random decisions or determined decisions, what difference would it make? You're not calling the shots either way. Something that happens randomly is not magically willed into existence by you; it just happens randomly.

>>15169287
Those groups overlap almost perfectly. Your feminine cries of NAXALT don't change this.

>>15165677
>Free will has been a solved problem since the 11th century at least.
It has been solved a lot earlier.
Saint Augustine conclusively showed that free will does not exist.

>>15169292
you are low iq, you aren't capable of participating in intellectual pursuits

>>15169293
they don't literally the diametric opposite of the truth
deniers of free will and consciousness are almost always natalists
people who acknowledge free will and consciousness are heavily represented among anti-natalists
you can cry and scream about your own delusions all you like, still wrong

>>15169300
If you actually, genuinely believe what you said, that only goes to illustrate the depths of your delusional mental illness. I'm glad you're going out of your way to demonstrate it.

>>15169301
what is I said is the truth
you're the one who is delusional and mentally ill, since you believe in something which has no basis in reality

>>15169310
I don't care what you think. I'm not out to prove anything to the nonhuman hordes. I'm just letting others who have made the same observation know they're not the only ones.

>>15169296
A low-IQ thread deserves low-IQ posters.

>>15169313
clearly you do care, and you also seem rather triggered that I'm pointing out that you're blatantly wrong
what you're stating is not an observation, it's some delusional construction of your mind with zero basis in reality
if you were to actually observe, you'd see that the blindly reproducing masses are the ones who are prone to denying free will and consciousness
in contrast, those who fully acknowledge consciousness and how life is full of suffering are the ones who promote using free will to abstain from reproduction
you've got it 100% wrong
too bad for you, but feel free to be wrong all you like

>>15169319
Deteminitards, consciousness deniers, anti-natalists and AI replacement fetishists are the same handful of posters. They are either wittingly or unwittingly serving the globohomo demoralization campaign.

>>15169327
>Deteminitards, consciousness deniers, anti-natalists and AI replacement fetishists are the same handful of posters.
wrong
deniers of free will and consciousness are typically natalists
acknowledgers of free will and consciousness are more often anti-natalists
in other words: you're 100% wrong
try again

>>15169319
>but feel free to be wrong
>free
No such thing.

Deteminitards, consciousness deniers, anti-natalists and AI replacement fetishists are the same handful of posters. They are either wittingly or unwittingly serving the globohomo demoralization campaign.

>>15169336
>Deteminitards, consciousness deniers, anti-natalists and AI replacement fetishists are the same handful of posters.
wrong
deniers of free will and consciousness are typically natalists
acknowledgers of free will and consciousness are more often anti-natalists
in other words: you're 100% wrong
try again

>>15169319
you IQ smells like shit

>>15169337
I will impregnate your filthy snatch and force you to go through with the pregnancy. I don't care that you're a disgusting femcel. I will cover your face with a plastic bag and pump you full of my seed.

>>15169347
>get BTFO
>start spouting incoherent gibberish
every single time
rekt

>>15169251
You should clarify that you're arguing from a white privileged point of view. Imposing anti-natalism upon BIPOC would be deeply racist and white supremacist.

>>15169353
You WILL be impregnated whether you want it or not. Seethe, whore.

>>15169357
>>15169360
you got BTFO, and now you're truly reaching for some hilarious cope
thanks for the laugh
you're still wrong, though
try again

>>15165442
>It's the kind of guy who handwaves decades of scientific understanding because of a few flaws or unexpected outcomes in some peer-reviewed experiments
yes
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/are-the-last-half-centurys-worth-of-results-from-widely-used-spectroscopy-tool-wrong/4011157.article

>>15169367
Your filthy snatch gets wet when I mention your forced impregnation despite your preprogrammed antinatalist talking points.

>>15169357

>>15164360
Arent determinists literally a minority in the physicist and philosopher communities? It requires some extra steps on top of God not existing.

Which sucks because I regret so many things I do so determinism would have been nice to live life instead of the anxiety of choice

>>15165869
>You didn't even understand the retard's video you linked to.
>Link to Frank Turek video
Who? What?

>>15169377
>Arent determinists literally a minority in the physicist and philosopher communities?
Its the opposite actually

>>15169377
>It requires some extra steps on top of God not existing.
Einstein believed God does not play dice.
In other words, he saw no problem with believing in some kind of God and also in determinism.

Also, plenty of people believed in geocentrism in the Middle Ages but that didn't make it true.

>>15169373
deniers of free will and consciousness are typically natalists
acknowledgers of free will and consciousness are more often anti-natalists
in other words: you're 100% wrong
try again

>>15169383
I am pretty sure I seen polls from Sean Carroll on this a few years ago and the vast majority like 60% of professors etc are compatibilists. Determinists were like 16% from what I remember

>>15169404
Compatibilists are determinists so you re clearly confused

I wish determinism was true but I am not sure what to believe. The idea of destiny being true is so cozy and could lead to a pretty heroic life if free will turned out to be real.

>>15169410
Maybe but Emmanuel Kant put it better than I can. He seemed to believe everything was determined until man grew a conscious and allowed him to remap actions instead of being a pool ball like the matter and animals before him

>>15169421
>He seemed to believe everything was determined until man grew a conscious
Lmao what a retard. You can't grow a consciousness. Just stop posting

>>15169421
>Emmanuel Kant
nigga pls

>>15169413
Judaism has the principle of faith that everything in your life was predetermined, except for your moral choices ("everything is from heaven except the fear of heaven"), so technically you can have both

>>15169481
just because some delusional religion tells you you can have both doesn't mean you can actually have both

>>15169515
you realize you're calling God delusional?

>>15169524
there's no such thing as a creator deity, retard

>>15169530
>The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
>They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

>>15169533
You can't use the bible as a source because it's fiction, retard. Make argument YOURSELF, not just repeating desert fairytales.

>>15164360
As someone who doesn't understand compatibilism you are doomed to keep making retarded posts like this.

>>15169537
>You can't use the bible as a source because it's fiction
Fiction? Weird, it does exactly what it promises, the people who follow it earn exactly what the Bible describe those people would earn, and the people who don't earn exactly what the Bible describes those people would earn.

But I guess such a perfect model of reality is just a correlation right? Even though it predicts from the individual to the societal level, I guess the atheist sociologists and policy makers do know better

>>15164360
>All differential equations contain initial values that I from what is measured at any point in time from those initial conditions
No they don't. Look into stochastic differential equations. This is the problem with undergrad education, they spend far too long in the 18th and 19th century and not enough time on modern mathematics and the full incorporation of statistics and probability into STEM.

>>15169537
>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT USE THE BIBLE AS THE HECKIN SOURCERINO

>>15169576
Nta but,
Why are you even on this board. 90% of the people here are likely hardcore materialists. Your religion has no evidence for it being true and no way to test it's validity. Naturally it is dismissed by /sci/entists because it has ZERO explanatory power.

>>15169533
>t. religious retard

why are there people who hate science who post on this board all the time

>>15169650

>>15169655
This isn't true. You read pop sci memes and then get angry at pop sci

>>15169650

>>15169677
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are accurate descriptions of nature, evolution is true.
You disliking this does not mean anything.

>>15169612
God doesnt play dice midwit

>>15169689
>God doesnt play dice
Stop telling God what to do.

>>15169650
I studied science. I'm legitimized to hate it.

>>15169697
No you didn't

>>15169700
I did though. Why does it make you seethe?

>>15169704
No, you didn't.
"science" isn't a field, you would specify the actual field

>>15169706
>nooooo, you're not allowed to gain education in multiple areas of knowledge because ... uhm, because it's discriminatory against people of low IQ

>>15169709
My undergrad was a double major in math and computer science and I'm in graduate school for biology. I am not saying you can't study multiple fields, I am saying that YOU have not done so

>>15169689
>God doesnt play dice midwit
Empty words.

>>15169565
we're not talking about policy or sociology you colossal sperg, we're talking about nature, which by the way did not begin with the creation of Earth

>>15169722
Low IQ.

>>15169884
>t. angry bible/science denier

>>15169712
And you say that solely on the basis of you seething over a single sentence of my post. You're absolutely pathetic and deserve to be ridiculed eternally.

>>15169296
Do you seriously believe this shitty bot's results unironically? It's literally just a detector for how many long and obscure words you can use, only a moron would take this as a serious IQ estimator

>>15169987
I'm pretty sure they keep doing it mainly because it consistently triggers a defensive reaction from midwits like you.

>>15169987
It detected your midwit posting style from a random sample of your posts. Cheating because you dislike the results it gave you is merely a sign that the bot was correct.

>>15170001
>>15170002
I'm not even involved in the argument, that was my first post in the thread.

>>15170002
>Le meme words and my schizophrenia pretending to be science is showing

Woah amazing anon

>>15170008
>I'm not even involved in the argument
That only goes to prove my point.

>>15170023
How if your point only applied to that one guy you were replying to, who is not me? At this point your brain isn't even functioning anymore, you're just looking for excuses to lash out in butthurt for no reason

>>15170029
>How
You'd know if your IQ wasn't so low.

>>15170072
You're just a moron.
>how is 2 + 2 equal to 3
>you'd know if your IQ wasn't so low

>>15170079
I don't know what to tell you at this point. I know I said you're a midwit but I take it back. You must be a certified, clinical retard if this post is too difficult for you to wrap your head around: >>15170001

>>15170090
There were two replies quoting my post, i assumed i was talking to the person who made the one which appeared more likely to be the guy i was responding to initially.

>>15164362
Go back to your containment board, you fucking mentally unstable schizophrenic loser. Nobody wants you whiney incels posting on sci.

>>15170113
>exposed&seething
You are unwanted on this website.

>>15170106
Don't care. I was just informing you that you're a certified midwit at best.

>>15170141
Your opinion is completely irrelevant.

>>15170159
No opinions were involved in the making of my posts. It's remarkable just how good this "IQ estimator" is at railing up midwits. You don't even have to target them specifically. All midwits within a 100 mile radius start screeching at soon as it comes up.

>>15170159
No opinions were involved in the making of that post. It's remarkable just how good this "IQ estimator" is at riling up midwits. You don't even have to target them specifically. A mere reminder of its existence triggers every midwit within a 50 mile radius.

>>15170167
If this shitty test is to be the end-all for everything, then so be it. I command you to bow down and stay silent in the presence of my irrefutable superiority. Midwit.
I await the cope.

>>15170172
>f this shitty test is to be the end-all for everything
Holy shit, you sure are stupid...

>>15170185
I don't think so.

>>15170187
Go back and re-read >>15170001 until you understand what it says. lol

>>15170195
That post assumes second-intentions from criticism of retardation such as yours from the very get-go, so it's nothing but dishonest wishful thinking. You've got your head so far up your ass to a point where you can't even conceive someone might just find the act of believing some faggot's cheap test retarded. And of course your defense is always "i didn't actually mean to be this retarded, i was just pretending in order to bait for replies". Sure thing we believe you dude, you're merely pretending to be a moron and totally not an actual moron in any way whatsoever

>>15164429
>being from nothing. this is impossible.
It simply has to be the case. What's impossible is "always existed."

>>15169167
>there's no such thing as a "law of nature"
travelling back in time is possible
sometimes the entropy of the universe decreases
electrons in an atom can occupy a continuum of energy levels
fuck da police

>>15169426
Were you conscious as an embryo?

>>15169481
>everything in your life was predetermined, except for your moral choices
that doesnt even make sense
your life experience will fork every time you make some moral choice

>>15170185
>Holy shit, you sure are stupid..
Is this what it looks like when a midwit is triggered?

>>15164362
fpbp. I was glazing over all the different forum sub-sections and when my eye passed over /sci/ the thought triggered into my mind science fiction and so I backtrack my gaze and clicked on it. Lo and behold this is the first thread on here and it is science fiction. I hate paid shills because they'd rather be doing something else while people like me who post for fun get paid nothing.

>>15170246
Yes.

>>15170282
It's what it looks like when retards (like you) repeatedly fail to comprehend a post as simple as >>15170001. At some point there's nothing left to do except to admit I was wrong: most people here are significantly below midwit level.

>>15170217
I read the first four words of your post before my eyes started to glaze over and I stopped reading. I stand by >>15170167

>>15170254
>that doesnt even make sense
to a human being? perhaps, but it does to a being not limited by human concepts like time, space and causality, this is explained in those links
https://youtu.be/tFxWTVBtLRo?t=8214
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGTEsNWc9uo

>your life experience will fork every time you make some moral choice
Indeed your life experience changes for the worse or for the better depending on your moral choices (for example, your daily actions determine how easy or how hard your money will be earned). But the point is that you will always have a choice to make no matter the situation (there are a few exceptions though, like for kings and very wicked people, where their free will is restricted), like to stare or not to stare at that woman crossing the street wearing basically nothing?

>>15170464
Expounding a little bit

Essentially, everything you have is predetermined (if you will get married, who you will get married with, how much you will earn in any given year, what your job will be, if you will get robbed or not this year, if you will have children and if so how many, if you will be healthy or not this year, etc.). But, there is a catch. You can change your "luck" (mazal), so to say, by becoming more spiritually elevated, or even by having your name changed.

For example, when you were born, there was a destined wife for you (assuming you're a man). But as you wasted seed and became spiritually lower, you might have lost that wife to someone else who deserved her more, instead, a worse wife, compatible with your spiritual standing would be presented to you. If you do teshuva though, you might get her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyPHDqZ51FU

For money specifically and "fun" in general (parnasa), there is an exception. Whatever money you use for mitzvot, you will get it back. So for example if you spend 100 dollars in Shabbat, in donations, etc. you are guaranteed to get that money back, it doesn't count to your "yearly earnings" that was predetermined in Rosh HaShanah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFR_7qF_2z4

For parnasa it doesn't matter what your profession is because even if you earned double the amount, HaShem can make it so that every month your expenses eat half your salary, or all of it even, thus making you actually poorer for accepting a seemingly better job. In the same fashion, HaShem can turn you into a billionaire from night to day with no difficulties, there are many stories about this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_woOvel_Ng

>>15170473
it can even reach a point in your personal spiritual development that whatever you say is fulfilled, be it a curse or a blessing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5fLG44dnmI

about money again, depending on what you do with it, that is, your moral choices with regards to money, a couple of things could be determined for your life as well. These things may sound irrational, even a scam, but trust me, the more irrational and senseless it sounds, the more it works, I've seen it happen with my own eyes that it's true, but at the end of the day it's your choice to believe in it or not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3wVC8bZMk8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV8-Wc0b6PM

>>15169612
>90% of the people here are likely hardcore materialists.
weird, the majority of the great scientists in the past centuries were not "hardcore materialists", they were all theists

>>15164468
>Like when you feel the irresistible compulsion to deny other people's agency and try to rationalize your actions as being drivel by reason, while simultaneously insisting that they are rooted in mere physical happenstance, and that the same happenstance forces you to believe that you are right regardless of whether or not it's actually true? :^)
This post was so based it deserves to be in the sticky

>>15164500
>no, belief and truth are two separate things. just because one is determined to believe something, doesn't make it true.
truth doesn't exist in determinism because it cannot be verified, all of it is just attributed beliefs by external forces

>>15164575
>>15164583
anti-determinists are clearly more intelligent (at the very least they don't believe themselves to be literal chatbots), but what are the non-deterministic positions so far?

>>15164360
If your idea of determinism is both coherent and correct (it isn't), then why worry? You have already created a line of reasoning that debunks your individual agency. having emotions or worries of any kind is beyond absurd.

>>15164588
>false
Because?

>>15164609
This, having people that don't believe in the nonphysical attribute of consciousness is really dangerous as they will always e prone to programming by their handlers

>>15164740
>Try to define it. I dare you.
The capacity of having moral choices

GO BACK TO POL

YOU ARE AN INCEL

GO BACK TO POL

YOU ARE AN INCEL

GO BACK TO POL

YOU ARE AN INCEL

>>15164857
>it would follow that your will acts as an uncaused cause
Uncaused by anything material, that is, anything bounded by physical laws, specially causality

>>15165442
>while simultaneously basing your entire worldview off of 2-hour psuedoscientific Youtube documentaries.
He's just that good at separating the noise from the signal, sorry you're jealous

>>15165442
>I wish I could ignore this like it was bait but I know you're being sincere. You're the exact phenotype of ignorant, belligerent retard that I'm having trouble coming up with a label for. It's the kind of guy who handwaves decades of scientific understanding because of a few flaws or unexpected outcomes in some peer-reviewed experiments, while simultaneously basing your entire worldview off of 2-hour psuedoscientific Youtube documentaries
That kind of guy is exactly the same one that turns out to be right about covid vaccines, despite all of the scientific and medical establishment believing the contrary.

Who would've thought that some schzios on fringe video platforms knew more truth than entire scientific journals and media conglomerares heh?

>>15169251
>and conceiving another child is the most heinous and despicable crime imaginable
I'm going to have 10 children just to spite you

>>15169279
>natalists are typically the biggest NPCs around
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

>>15170614
You can have sloppy seconds when I'm done with her.

>>15169300
>deniers of free will and consciousness are almost always natalists
That's why atheists have piss poor fertility rates right?

>>15169313
Thanks

>>15169681
>evolution is true.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/when-monkeys-surfed-to-south-america

>>15170621
Not marrying non virgins, sorry buddy

>>15170649
It's not up to you

determinism is basically tracing the end to the start using a chain of causes and effects. by "believing determinism" you believe that every end can be traced back, and a recursive process of defining causes removes the illusion of agency that a human tries to explain as his "free will".

laplace's demon is defined as a demon precisely because the ability to trace back all causes in this reality is a superhuman task, so it makes no sense to say that determinists shouldn't plan for the future or kill themselves for knowing that the future is predetermined, since in a human's frame of consciousness the chain is completely opaque and the future cannot be predicted if the causes are unknown. It's called having a destiny, as unknown as it might be.

you could argue about tracing back all causes of some arbitrary event but then some moralfag wouldn't have a tangible object with an end in itself to blame all their problems into, so they lash out by telling determinists "you don't have reasons to live", which is the biggest cope since if the chain is traceable, everything is connected through solving a set of chaotic systems.

>>15170797
yes, it is up to me

>>15169949
>still hasnt even mustered the will to lie about his "studies"
lmao

>>15170885
I never lie. That would be immoral. Just like your existence is immoral.

>>15170501
>back in the day

>>15169381
The crossexamined guy his name is Frank Turek and he is a retard.

>>15165352
Why is this simple question so hard to answer?

>>15165352
Duh that is what schrodinger’s cat is

>>15173243
That's a thought experiment, what about a real experiment where you get the outcome of a quantum event? Can such an experiment be made / can you get the outcome of a quantum event and in a way as to be able to base a macrodecision on it?

>>15173262
Sorry deleted my earlier comment because I was going to write more details

To respond to your question though, you can carry out the Schrödinger cat experiment in real life, it’s not that complex. (You don’t have to kill the cat, do something else instead.)

>>15166686
Modal fallacy, when will you retards learn

>>15169251
>I'm suffering so clearly others are!

You read Ligotti recently?

>>15174575
She doesn't read. Her only hobbies are eating birth control pills, getting drunk and getting railed by unwashed cocks.

>>15169251
Suffering existing and being inevitable =/= suffering inherently outweighing positive/acceptable experiences.

>>15169251
>existence is inherently full of suffering
How so?

>>15164360
yah no shit i told you dumb shits this year's ago

>>15174575
Ligotti is actually a really good author and it's worth noting, in spite of how sincere much of it may be, that Conspiracy Against the Human Race is first and foremost an attempt at existentialism mixed with cosmic horror.

>>15164374
you serve him by simply existing whether you know it or not or like it or not. we are all simply remote controlled vehicles in the cosmic drama. most of us were cleverly made too retarded to ever realize this (hykics). for the ones that are smart enough to realize it (pneumatics) it is mostly a curse

>>15176404
* hylics
fucking phone

>>15165275
Determinismbros, we got too cocky...

>>15176440
not a lot of excessive abuse of polysyllabics in that post and yet its still ranked at an extraordinarily high IQ. its nice to see that some people are able to honestly conjure high IQ scores from that software without resorting to cheats. no doubt those who feel driven to cheat are green with envy at those who attain high scores effortlessly

>>15164360
>take a theory as fact and let that poison your view
But why are you killed, knowing either no one or only god can be and is in full control, and our job is to discover and fulfill our destiny as to oppose it in order to feel like in control of it?

>>15176440
>>15176446

>>15165442
you would never get him, midwit

>>15164360
First, we can model nature but we can't know the nature nor can anything within the nature know the nature.
Second,
>everything that would have ever happened was already determined from the beginning.
"it was determined" has vague meaning here. Either by IT you mean nature or something outside the nature. If I said that "evolution determined that there will be monke" I am antropomorphizing the evolution as if the mindless optimization process knew its outcomes. Nature does not determine anything, it just evolves. If you mean something outside the nature: we just don't know, thus we can't be certain of it.

>>15165283
Go kill yourself, then.

>>15169251
>suffering bad
Soiboy mindset

>>15176855
it's not vague. "it was determined" just means that the future of all systems can only be one way, the way in which it actually obtains. nature does determine everything, we just don't know how precisely it does that.

>>15165283
>if something is true like determinism, then you should be demoralized and this world is a torturescape

there's nothing inherently demoralising about determinism. what's demoralising, is negative life experiences. those happen whether or not the world is determined. and think about it, one can easily have a perfect dream life which is nonetheless determined.

yes we should be demoralised, but not because the universe is determined. we should be so because there are horrible things in the universe. but one could easily avoid feeling this way if one were lucky enough to enjoy all or mostly positive experiences.

>>15164360
Can a differential equation describe a differential equation?

>>15164360
No shit. I realized this when I was 14. It's best not to think about these things.

>>15178022
> The future of all systems can only be one way, the way in which it actually obtains.
Ok, I assumed that "Determine" means act of assigning high probability to one particular future, implying existence of precise model. If determine just describes a property of all possible futures, then it doesn't really change the prob.distro. over possible futures.

>>15164360
Why does it matter?

And why wouldn't it be free will? Just cause you already made all your decisions at the beginning of the universe doesn't make them any less your own decisions.

You're one person today but the string through time that is your life started eons uppn eons ago and the ripples of your life, no matter how small, will in some form remain for eons still. Stop crying over spilt milk, live

>>15164360
>there is no such thing as free will
because "free will" only applies in contexts where there is a slave and a master, where the master is the only one with self-determination

this bullshit of wanting to be anyone and anything RANDOMLY without a beginning or an end simply cant exist and makes no logical sense, if you want to be this bullshit so much then go take a bunch of drugs

>>15164360
well, you can't truly decide anything it's only up to you to enjoy the ride or don't

>>15179810
the probabilities of alternative futures become zero.

>>15164360
>This means that when the universe was created, everything that would have ever happened was already determined from the beginning
assuming a "solid" creation

>>15164360
If "quantum mechanics" is "truly random", then the universe isn't deterministic. Stop clusterfuck posting.

>>15164360
Doesnt matter, we cant compute that shit anyway, might as well be random.

>>15181803
qm is truly random, but qm is also not fundamental, nor is it internally consistent.

>>15181903
Randomness is a concept more fundamental than any theory. Ultimately it's synonymous with G_d.

>>15181903 So you think qm is just a flawed description of reality? At its current state or generally? I don't think if at this point that would be a reasonable claim to make...it seems to be the right language to describe reality, if it's not what do you suggest to look into?

>>15182376
*don't know whether
And I also don't know if there really are internal inconsistencies but I doubt that, especially since you didn't name any example

>>15182386
the main internal inconsistency of quantum mechanics is that the quantum measurement process is nonlinear, yet the schrodinger equation is linear.

>>15182305
randomness is an apparent lack of any pattern. but clearly this is arbitrary because what would constitute a 'non-pattern'? even randommess has a distinct signature of its own, so is a kind of pattern. 'random' is just a label used by humans to distinguish between different types of pattern.

some want to define random as that which cannot be predicted. but unpredictability is obviously a result of human limitations, it is not any indication that the universe is uncertain about what it will do next. hesitancy cannot be a property of the universe. it is a feeling experienced by conscious beings.

the universe is only random in another sense of the word: it has some kind of fundamental nature for no reason. that's the only sense in which it may be deemed random.

>>15164360
What is the equation to calculate the quantity of life beings that die (counting bacteria, protozoos and such) when you come into a tissue paper?

Asking for a friend, to see if it counts as a sacrifice to Birgheish

>>15164360
The universe wasn't created, it is infinite. Infinite regression infinite progression. I used to have a picture that visualized it pretty well but I can't find it anymore.

>>15183123
Hey Google, is chaos just misunderstood order? Also, is absolute order certain destruction?

>>15183189
>is chaos just misunderstood order?
yes and vice versa, because the two are arbitrary categories with no well-defined boundary between.

>absolute order certain destruction?
no i don't think so

>>15165122
whered you get that idea of bells theorem? youtube or wikipedia. be honest.

>>15180199
Well in Bayesian view, there is something, lets call it reality, that produces evidence and based on that you refine beliefs. The reality can be that one trajectory in phase space, but we don't have access to the reality itself rather we only have beliefs, i.e. prob distro over trajectories. "More real trajectories" would just change the distro over trajectories. Thus we can't distinguish beliefs made from ignorance or non-determinism and our ignorant decisions can be as well non-deterministic decisions.

>>15184342
not sure what you're trying to say.

>we don't have access to the reality itself
we do, to the extent our senses allow. we experience reality so we have some access to it

Why isn't the index updating? Halp Jannies