/sci/ - Science & Math

Is that Ciel Phantomhive?

By fate you must surely mean that everything must happen exactly as it is supposed to happen. A lot of people have odd notions that only specific events are fated and that no matter what you do that event will happen. That idea is just stupid though. Why would we have free will only half and time and what would be so special about specific events that they would be fated. If fate exists at all, everything is fated. And if it does exist, that means you don't have free will.

>>2724773
EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Determinism could be interpreted as fate.

>>2724787
Except determinism was crushed by quantum mechanics.

>>2724795
no it wasn't

Fate implies intention to a universe that has none.

>>2724795

0/10

Oh boy, incoming semantic shitstorm.

>162 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

The universe is determistic. You have free will, but you will make the same decision because you are influenced what came before, which was influenced by what came before.

walk up to someone and say elephant. you will change their life forever. but that was always going to happen

If we knew EXACTLY how the human brain worked and could know every single particles position and velocity we could predict the future.

Fortunately we can't

>>2724795
Quantum mechanics and determinism is unifiable. Wanna know how?

>>2724814
>>2724818
>>2724809
>>2724804
Apparently nobody has heard of the uncertainty principle. And please explain, how is quantum mechanics and determinism unifiable.

>>2724826
Many-worlds interpretation. Everything that can happen, does happen but in alternate universes, one for each new possible outcome. Everything can be backtraced absolutely deterministically, but all aspects of quantum physics can be observed.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_theory

>>2724854
Oh god. You reference the MWI? That shit theory? If you can even call it a theory. I need to stop visiting /sci/. It's just filled with underage people who read only Machio Kaku and Stephen Hawking books. Besides the MWI does not consolidate determinism with quantum mechanics. Even if a new universe appeared at each new juncture you only live in one and have no way of interacting with other universes. In your universe you cannot predict the outcome of an event in quantum mechanics. It just isn't possible. Therefore, determinism fails.

>>2724881
Read the fucking stanford article before you go on a rampage.

>>2724887
I already know all about the MWI. I don't need to read your ridiculous article. But since you really want me to, here is one thing they say that I think makes your case invalid.

"To observe the collapse we would need a super technology, which allows "undoing" a quantum experiment, including a reversal of the detection process by macroscopic devices. See Lockwood 1989 (p. 223), Vaidman 1998 (p. 257), and other proposals in Deutsch 1986. These proposals are all for gedanken experiments that cannot be performed with current or any foreseen future technology. Indeed, in these experiments an interference of different worlds has to be observed."

They claim to prove it we need a magical "supertechnology" that can reverse quantum processes and in order to prove MWI we have to interact with other worlds. They also say they don't think this is possible. I might as well say God exists and we can prove he does by inventing a supertechnology that will allow us to see him. Although lets not turn this into a debate on the validity of MWI. MWI does not even reconcile quantum mechanics and determinism as you seem to suggest it does, even if it were true.

>>2724795
>>2724826
>mfw when science fans dont understand what the uncertainty principle is

Determinism hasnt been disproven yet. There are some interpretations of QM that rely on inherent randomness, but there are also deterministic ones. Non have been validated yet

If the MWI theory is true, then my female loli dimension-traveling self will appear next to me after this post.

>>2724965
The uncertainty principle states that at any given time you cannot accurately know both position and momentum (or other pairs of observables). That is not an interpretation, that is a law of nature. That means that no matter what you do, you can't predict a future position or momentum because you do not know the current position or momentum. Thus determinism fails.

>MWI theory
its not a fucking theory, you're as illiterate as the creation science douchebags

>>2724967 here again. Turns out MWI is true.

>>2724977
determinism isnt the ability to predict the future

The more I learn about the universe the more feasible determinism becomes. That's science. Build up a model of understanding in which there holds an internal symmetry. If God appeared out of a wormhole tomorrow and said he created everything and these are the laws which govern you all; I would perhaps be obliged to change my interpretation of the world.

>>2724984
Fine, MWI hypothesis.

Silly humans always pleasing their ego with deluding themselves that they are of importance to our great battle

>>2725001
"Determinism is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states"

If a particle does not have a prior state (which it doesn't because of the Uncertainty principle), there is nothing to determine new states. A particle cannot have a momentum in the future as a causal effect of it's momentum now because it's momentum now is not well defined. It is statistically smeared out over phase space. You still fail.

>>2725009
Apparently you need to learn a bit more. I doubt you've even gotten past classical mechanics.

>>2725013
Better.

>>2724997
Best blowjob evar.

>>2725016
now you have misrepresented the uncertainity principle.

Whereas before you stated it is a law of measuring velocity and location of a particle simultaneously you have now implied that the particle does not have a fixed location and velocity, this is a completely seperate hypothesis known as the copenhagen interpretation

please try to be abit more consistent in your arguement

/x/ is that way. --->

>>2725048
The particle doesn't though. Due to the fact that the uncertainty principle cannot allow one to simultaneously know position and momentum with 100% accuracy. In fact, it's not that we can't know it, it's that the particle doesn't have it. I don't want you sitting here quoting stupid interpretations and what other people think at me. If you go through and learn about it (which you obviously haven't) you'll see it's entirely true. The concept arises purely by talking about the nature of particles and nothing is assumed. Particles do not have well defined momentum or position. This is a fact of nature, not an interpretation. You're arguments are getting less feeble and farther from proving your point. At most all you can do is cite other people's ideas on why I'm wrong, but I see nothing from you showing why you're right.

>>2725016
The point where many worlds theory fails is, as you say, in having a particle which is undefined in its position in space-time means determinism breaks down. However, if we have a section of matter which behaves according to the laws of the universe and which only a certain outcome is witnessed, although many more may have been possible by the human desire to predict events, then determinism upholds itself.

>>2725081
What? This was completely incomprehensible. "if we have a section of matter which behaves according to the laws of the universe and which only a certain outcome is witnessed, although many more may have been possible by the human desire to predict events, then determinism upholds itself." What does that even mean?

>>2725021
Way to be defensive. I didn't say anything regarding the content of my understanding so your assumption is unjustifiable.

>>2725101
Was I right though?

What is going on in here?

>>2725069
what you said was nonsensical jibberish, there is no evidence for the lack of a fixed position and velocity of quantum particles. I suspect you are projecting your own opinions.

The uncertaintity principle is just a principle of measurement nothing more, you wont find a single scientific journal that says otherwise. Hence why there are so many deterministic interpretations as well as non-deterministic interpretations of QM that are still considered valid.

Peace out anyways, when you come to research this topic again leave you preconceptions out of it and you may get a clearer picture of the theories and principles

Everyone on this board is a faggot, this board containing 100% faggot was fate.

>>2725167
...says the desperate engineer.

>>2725114
Not the guy you've been talking to, but
> there is no evidence for the lack of a fixed position and velocity of quantum particles. I suspect you are projecting your own opinions.
>The uncertaintity principle is just a principle of measurement nothing more, you wont find a single scientific journal that says otherwise.

This is just wrong. Particles do not even in principle have both precise position and velocity. And here's a source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-uncertainty/

The most relevant bit is probably this, which is prefaced by saying this is the part <span class="math">everyone[/spoiler] agrees with:

>Uncertainty relations can be considered as statements about the spreads of the probability distributions of the several physical quantities arising from the same state. For example, the uncertainty relation between the position and momentum of a system may be understood as the statement that the position and momentum distributions cannot both be arbitrarily narrow -- in some sense of the word "narrow" -- in any quantum state.

Treat MWI as an Axiom. That is, it's something that we can't prove yet but assume to be true and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

MWI basically fixes all our problems with conventional physics, like randomness and action at distance.

>>2725475
No it doesn't. That is the stupidest statement I've ever heard. How does MWI fix action at a distance? If you knew anything of quantum mechanics, you'd know action at a distance isn't a problem and doesn't violate anything because nothing is moving faster than light. And you cannot treat MWI as an axiom. That is a horrendous suggestion.

>>2725475
Deducing based on MW is like shooting physics in the foot. It's practically creationism.

>>2724984
It's a gauss