/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15702440
It's either quantum woo woo or religious woo woo. Unfortunately, there's no evidence for either.

>>15702440
>Let's assume
no, i don't think i'll assume that, thank you.

>>15702525
>>15702508
You think you're smart but you're retarded.

K2YAY

>>15702550
You didn't answer OP's question either, genius.

>>15702440
Antideterminism

>>15702440
well thats exactly what happen, programm disintigration but awarness cant die,
>>15702782
math and causality prof infinity, thats allready antideterminism.

>>15702782
>>15702820
no causaity + distance its actually causality + distance. or math.

>>15702508
>no evidence for quantum woo woo

>>15702823
If there's an afterlife, the closest theory is whatever deterninism isn't.

Determinism is already fake tho, we don't need an afterlife to disprove it, souls would explain why we're all born with different personalities and not an hivemind with the same brain

>>15702836
>we don't need an afterlife to disprove it,
You do. Only way to prove or disprove

>>15702836
>Determinism is already fake tho
proof? (there is none)

>>15702856
No proof that it's true, either

>>15702440
reincarnation, but no memories and definitely nothing like karma or whatever.

>>15702865
morality is a human construct and is subjective, if the afterlife exist there is likely no judgement or anything similar like karma occuring since the universe is amoral to your deeds

>>15702868
an altruistic person could reincarnate as an insect in his next life meanwhile a psychopath could reincarnate as an alien in an advanced civilization, it'd be completely random

>>15702440
I think our bodies are occupied by a "spirit", this spirit is an electromagnetic field in a toroid shape that is basically the source of our awareness/consciousness, our personality and mentality are a result of the body aka our brain, which means that after death, we are purified of the personality we had in our life, but continue existence in another body in another world that our spirit roam into

>>15702865
>reincarnation, but no memories
That's not reincarnation

>>15702862
so we're in a bit of a bind, aren't we? we have to answer this question, yet we cannot

scientists are obsessed to an uncanny level into tricking you the universe is a computer program

>>15702887
Why do we have to answer it if we know we can't? Seems a bit foolish, no?

>>15702902
because it has profound implications for any physical theory you may want to build. it's not a question that can be avoided. x led to y, but could it have led to something else? if the theory stays silent on this question, then the theory is by default deterministic, because it does not speak of other possibilities.

if an afterlife exist then surely a beforelife also exist, we didn't suddenly poof on earth in a womb out of accident because some people wanted to fuck

>>15702912
I stepped on a bug and it didn't rain. Then I stepped on a bug and it rained. I guess I don't get how that's supposed to matter to physics.

>>15702916
i don't understand your analogy

>>15702918
I don't see how stepping on a bug or not has profound implications for any physical you may want to build.

>>15702923
*theory

>>15702923
i'm still confused...

>>15702925
Maybe I am, too? What profound implications does determinism have for any physical theory? [>>15702912]

materialists who think of themselves as scientists: fuck off from this board already

>>15702931
it's a deep question about how reality works. either everything that happens is necessary (couldn't have been different) or it isn't (there are many different possibilities within this space).

>>15702933
proof that materialism is false?

>>15702937
But if you preface the question by agreeing that we can't answer it, why does it matter? (Certainly it doesn't matter on a daily physical level.)

>>15702947
it 'matters' in terms of building a true and complete theory of nature. if that isn't your goal or interest, then you can afford to not care about it

>>15702950
I agree that if you could assign a truth value to P, then P would matter. But you agreed that you can't, so how does (P or not P) matter?

>>15702440
Chemistry creates signals. Those signals create external physical reactions. Those reactions are aggregated in an alternate dimension and bind to a static signal base until steady state.

>>15702957
>I agree that if you could assign a truth value to P, then P would matter.
that wasn't, nor isn't my claim. i said it matters if you want to build a true and complete theory of nature. p and it's negation cannot both be true in nature, so in guessing, you can guess wrong here.

>>15703020
>p and it's negation cannot both be true in nature
I don't think I agree at all. How would (P = determinism) and (not P) affect nature differently?

>>15703030
p = all events in nature are necessary
not p = not all events in nature are necessary

>>15702440
Here's a possible mechanism for how quantum immortality could work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI

Here are other possible ways an afterlife could exist:

https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/

>>15702440
It's likely that reincarnation exists. Think about this: you exist. So, if you're just a configuration of matter and universal forces, you're replicable. This means that if the conditions that create you are met in another body, you would come into existence again.

However, if you're replicable, why do you only occupy this body and not another? One possibility is that this combination is so specific that only you exist in the entire universe. Another possibility is that there are other versions of you, but you don't realize it's you because there's no connection between these bodies. At the extreme, one might even consider that everyone is you. Whether you're everyone or just a few doesn't matter; what matters is that if there are other versions of you or if other versions of you will arise, then your subjective experience would continue to exist even if your current body dies.

That being said, there's no room for regret. Regardless of what you believe, your personality and memories are in your brain, and that will indeed be completely destroyed when you die. The likelihood of the sequence of events that formed your personality and brain being replicated in the same way is very low. Therefore, unless you make a backup, all of this will be lost. Your new self won't remember anything, just like your reincarnated ancestors, as they are in a similar situation.

Now, if you're talking about afterlife as another plane of existence, simulation theory explains it.

>>15703038
So if you assume P, then everything you see is necessary. And if you assume (not P), then everything you see isn't necessary. That just transfers the truth value of P to the truth value of N

>>15703051
>And if you assume (not P), then everything you see isn't necessary.
no, not p means that "not everything is necessary", not "everything is not necessary".

also just assuming doesn't make it so, i hope you're not implying this.

>That just transfers the truth value of P to the truth value of N
???

>>15703056
>"not everything is necessary", not "everything is not necessary"
There's no difference unless you're being intentionally daft. Obviously if not everything can be determined, then some things can be determined. ??
>assuming
Assuming what?

>>15703076
*may

>>15703076
>There's no difference
there is a huge difference. the former means some things are determined, but not everything, the latter means absolutely nothing is determined. actually, both are options if rejecting complete determinism.

>Assuming what?
the way you worded it, seemed like you might've been suggesting that one's assumption decides the truth. i doubt you were making this suggestion, but in case you were, it's highly questionable.

>>15703082
What the difference? I agree that whether P is true or false makes a difference. I don't agree that (whether or not) P is true or false makes a difference. For P to matter, we'd either have to assign a truth value to it or, at least, agree that it's possible to assign a truth value to it. No?

>>15703093
>I agree that whether P is true or false makes a difference. I don't agree that (whether or not) P is true or false makes a difference.
? aren't these two statements just contradictory?

>For P to matter, we'd either have to assign a truth value to it or, at least, agree that it's possible to assign a truth value to it. No?
no, i disagree with that. but it comes down to how you define 'matter'.

the only afterlife you will most likely get is the most likely thing that is possible after you die, for that you. including being resurected by some god through some (ultimately explainable) very high tech. I think the minimum requirments for that happening is that this universe must allow for that possiblity, somehow. as long as it does, you will experience that right after "dying". because you cannot process the span of time between death and resurrection, would feel like an instant or maybe like you just woke up after being out for two days or something.

>>15703104
The first statement assigns a truth value to P. The second doesn't. There's no contradiction unless you use P to imply Q. (P implies Q will happen.)
>no, i disagree with that
How?
>it comes down to how you define 'matter'
Matters in that it adds a variable to a "physical theory"

>>15703038
If not-p then all events in nature are contingent.

>>15703332
>let's change the word that means the same thing it meant before we changed it

>>15703341
It is a synthetic take on the issue. If p is necessary then np is its contingency. The synthetic a priori

>>15703373
What's p and np here? If P has no truth value, you can't use P as an argument for something else.

>>15702836
Ants have different personalities too even though they are part of a hive, they regularly kill queens and institute new ones if they some other queen is more in line with their personality, does that mean insects all have souls and heaven is filled with them?

>>15703020
>p and it's negation cannot both be true in nature
The negation of nourishment is deprivation and water can do both, either nourish your body with hydration or deprive it of life by drowning, so nature has no problems providing something that can both kill you and not kill you.

Holy mother of all pseud threads.

>>15703112
>How?
because definitions aren't objective

>Matters in that it adds a variable to a "physical theory"
it does have an impact on the number of variables. if things could have been different, then the theory will specify a certain number of alternative scenarios which could have obtained.

>>15703332
not p can also mean that some are contingent, some not.

>>15703577
'deprivation and nourishment' is not a true dichotomy, but this question of determinism is.

>>15703748
Kill and Not Kill are and water can kill you and not kill you.

>>15703756
>water can kill you and not kill you.
this is dichotomous, per person.

you could suppose that the laws are different in different areas of the universe, or they change over time, but i'm not going to suppose either of those.

>>15703768
Every person can be killed or not killed by water, thus nature has no problems with things that both do and don't do something, I don't need suppose anything about anywhere else because that is the reality of the situation here on earth.

>>15703780
yes, but both can't happen at the same time. same is true for determinism. it can't be true that for a given action (which happened at a given point in time), you both could have and couldn't have done differently.

>>15703786
Yes it can, you can have a water drinking contest where a bunch of people drink water, then it kills and doesn't kill.

You can have a recurring situation where you can do things differently but the outcome is the same, so you end up doing the same thing anyway despite doing it differently.

>>15703795
>Yes it can, you can have a water drinking contest where a bunch of people drink water, then it kills and doesn't kill.
yes, but per individual, only one thing happens

>You can have a recurring situation
this would be different points in time, but determinism is about whether any single event in time could have been different.

>>15703824
>yes, but per individual, only one thing happens
No, they can die then revived at the hospital, so that the water both killed them and didn't kill them.

Historical events were different than what we documented because our ability to document is very limited in scope.

>>15703838
>No, they can die then revived at the hospital
different points in time

>>15703842
>>15703020
>p and it's negation cannot both be true in nature
The drinking of the water (p) both killed and didn't kill them, you have moved the goalposts by just focusing one them at a time. Even then, in the moments your vitals are so fucked they can't get reliable measurements and are trying to revive you, you are neither dead nor alive, but also both at the same time.

>>15703856
>you have moved the goalposts by just focusing one them at a time
i should have specified at the start, but this is what i always meant.

>you are neither dead nor alive, but also both at the same time.
if you believe that reality is not definite, then you can't say anything about it, you cannot make any theories of it. there is no truth that people can be wrong about, or that you can be right about, including your own statements in this thread. you can believe that, but i don't.

Imagine how many lifeforms have died throughout history. I find it hard to believe these life forms still exist in another plane of existence.
The universe will forever be an enigma which we will never understand fully, so anything is possible I guess.
The most scariest thing that makes me shit my pants, is that my consciousness, my sense of self was taken out from the void, rose from nothing, evolved from this body. The universe has this incredibile power, of "creating" consciousness out of the void.
Void exists as we know it before we were born, while the universe exists, because we are living it.
>why is there something in the nothing?
>can we replicate it in the void?
If we cant replicate it, we dont know jackshit about nothing.

>>15702933
digits, based and truth pilled. material trannies have destroyed science

this thread along with the brainlet trying to use formal logic to seem smart is king pseud

>>15702440
What if I told you that science is just a tool of the devil meant to led us astray from the supernatural?

>>15704230
I would say..its meds time.

Your life just repeats except a single quantum particle somewhere in the universe oscillates slightly differently, each repetition bringing on another insignificant change until all possible states are exhausted

>>15702440
Some dumb theories.

Non linear space time with every moment technically always existing and therefore when we die we are still eternally living out every moment of our lives. Or maybye with metaphysical awareness we just loop our life over and over again with awareness just moving on the time line in a circle.

Or perhaps in an existence with probably infinite universes we die the universe is destroyed and reborn and over and over again we will be reincarnated as a similar but slightly different version of ourself due to the statistical inevitability within eternity.

Or perhaps the reason something was came from nothing at all is that the nothing is actually a state of infinite potential. So when we die our consciousness is returned to nothing which is actually infinity and and eventually our infinite potential is regurgitated back into reality from the seething chaos.

>Babby's first foray into metpahysics: The thread

"Before" and "after" are an illusion.

A wave does not cease to be made of water just because it crashes back into the underlying ocean it emerged from originally.

So no, the informational substrate of what constitutes "consciousness" (sapient or not) a priori cannot cease to exist in the actual sense of the term either.

>>15704317
"Chaos" is an abstraction on your part, lol.

I ask of you: Is it really "chaos" when everyhing that might ever possibly happen is already fully formed at the other side (which is no physical "side" at all from an eucledian POV) and merely waiting to become manifest/emerge from there?

>>15705196
>*metaphysics
It most assuredly is getting quite late for me now

>>15703945
>you can believe that, but i don't.
It doesn't really matter if you believe it, only if the doctors trying to save your life do.

>>15705196
>A wave does not cease to be made of water just because it crashes
Yes it does, the crashing you hear from the waves is a noise which are sound waves which are waves composed of air pressure, not water.

>>15702440
Unironically rebirth