/sci/ - Science & Math

Honestly, to talk about free will, just scribble "Quantum Mechanics" on the paper and he should be cool with it

>>2914188
wat

>>2914188

7-9 pages, so I'll throw it somewhere in there. And my teacher is a woman, so she'll probably wat too.

If you have free will, don't reply in this thread.

Even if the principles of QM were based on some purely deterministic features of the universe, it doesn't matter. From a personal perspective, free will would still seem apparent.

Nope, we're all slaves to the universe. You can't do anything about it.

all glory to the hypnotoad

How can you believe in evolution when it's just a theory (a geuss)?

>>2914197
fuck you for making me reply.
at first I was all
>ok then, I won't reply
then I was
>fawk, him telling me not to reply means I'm listening to him and not act according to my own free will.


shit.
so
sage

>>2914255
countersage!
successful troll is successful

>>2914181
The universe is not deterministic, but this doesn't mean anything like "free will" exists. Free will and determinism are not a dichotomy; disproving one doesn't automatically prove the author.

If the universe is deterministic it must be possible to determine how the future will unfold. One of the major statements of quantum mechanics is that when dealing with the behavior of individual small particles like electrons and photons, you can't predict what they will do.

Some people split hairs and say:
>>Well maybe the universe is determinate, humans will never be able to know what this determination is because of QM, but that doesn't matter

The thing is that the laws of QM apply to everything in the universe, so there really isn't any difference between a universe which is indeterminate, and a determinate universe where its impossible to know what the determination is. Maybe if the universe was a computer simulation the programmer of it could know the result of every quantum action, but for all of us inside the universe that's impossible.

>>2914283

Thanks for the helpful reply. I worded badly, I'm just trying to prove determinism false, not free will true.

>>2914197
You telling me not to post would be a contradiction of free will, not in support of it. Fuck you poster - you thought you outsmarted me.

The universe is completely deterministic, but it's behavior is much too chaotic for us to accurately predict. The illusion of free will is thus created.

hard determinism is bullshit

if anything, we have some free will, but not as much as people would like to believe.

>>2914471
>universe
>chaotic

not really, it's acutally be damn orderly, it just seems chaotic to us

>>2914471

>The universe is completely deterministic, but it's behavior is much too chaotic for us to accurately predict. The illusion of free will is thus created.

Humans are completely deterministic to the universe, but Human behavior is much too chaotic for us to be accurately predicable. Free will is thus created.

FTFY

>>2914181
I think you'll have to discuss how imprecision in measurement combined with the unknown quantities that exist beneath planck's length create enough uncertainty that makes current understanding of determinism impossible.

However, if we ever unify gravity with the other forces, then determinism could become a reality.

Which at that point, we would have to accept determinism, but be willing to admit that the only way for us to be capable in understanding it is to escape the box, which itself is impossible.

>>2914318 I'm just trying to prove determinism false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

tl;dr:
If you never try to figure out where an electron is and how it is moving you will never be able to predict where they will be in the future.

The only way to observe an electron is to bounce a photon (light) off of it. Electrons are so small that this changes their momentum, so any information you just got about the speed of an electron is no longer correct. This makes it impossible to ever know exactly where an electron is and how it is moving, which makes it impossible to predict where it will be in the future.

its something like free determinsim, we know where it can, be but we dont.

If all actions were pre-determinied, it would be impossible to know because the act of knowing itself would be pre-determined.

Once humanity finds the number one TV show to be "Sit on couch and watch", and Mcdonalds "Happy Pills" are the most sold meal.

Determinism will be proven true.

>>2914181
>that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle along with Chaos theory to show that our lives aren't determined

False. You will fail the assignment. The universe is still determistic if you can take into acoount EVERYTHING!

It is only appears probabalistic when you try and isolate a small part of it and say it is a closed system.

The lesson EVERYTHING INTERACTS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE! YOU CANNOT HAVE A CLOSED SYSTEM.

\thread

>>2915129
>I'm just trying to prove determinism false

>>2915198
The universe itself is a closed system.

>>2915198

I'm just trying to finish a paper, not make a breakthrough in philosophy/physics.

>>2915198
>The universe is not a closed system

I feel that this violates the laws of thermodynamics, in principle...

>>2915198
Incorrect challenge. The behaviour of quanta is well established to be random at base. The great anomaly at the heart of physics.

Read, bitches.

>>2915199
DURRR

Yes, the unisverse is the only closed system, and it is completely deterministic.

All "sub-systems" within the universe are not closed, and are probablistic.

THIS IS BASIC SHIT! YOU WILL FAIL!

>>2915206
I DIDNT SAY THE UNIVSERE WASNT A CLOSED SYSTEM. YOU ARE FUCKIN RETARDED!

>>2915211
This doesn't make anything non-deterministic. WE have no control over what the probabilities will come to. WE have no control over how the randomness of the quantum world will turn out. We are determined by the outcome of this randomness, and it is not determined by us.

Fucking dumbasses.

>>2915205
If you want to write a paper, pick a position.

>Determinism no
Quantum particles, photons acting funny, and unexplained phenomena about electrons pressed across a plane replicating. Google subatomic particles and go at it. Maybe add in something about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Many Worlds Theory

>Determinism yes
Newtonian and Einsteinian physics explain all macroscopic phenomena accurately. Even accounting for Quantum goofery, there is no real "chaos" to the universe. Even so, the absence of understanding of a phenomenon does not make it magical. It follows rules, and those rules don't change.

Do your homework, kid.

>>2915198
So I here you liek my double slit experiment.

You can't predict where an electron in this experiment is going to appear in advance. It is completely indeterminate. You can use this single random variable to kill a cat, detonate a bomb, encrypt a file and many other things which will effect the macro world.

>>2915216
>YOU CANNOT HAVE A CLOSED SYSTEM.
>I DIDNT SAY THE UNIVSERE WASNT A CLOSED SYSTEM

Therefore, you cannot have a universe. Or, less mercifully, a univsere.

>>2915217
That's equivocation. Physical determinism is not the same as philosophical determinism.

Asking whether the universe is deterministic or chaotic has nothing to do with Free Will, and you know it.

>>2915235
So what are you arguing then? Are you arguing for compatibilism or incompatibilism?

>>2915217 WE

We, and every other person and thing in the universe. The laws of physics are universal. You've got to dream up some imaginary friend who doesn't follow the laws of physics; because that's the only thing that would be able to violate QM.

>>2915217

Yeah, which is why I was agreeing with that sentiment.

>>2915221

Thanks man, that was helpful. I might do it on that determinism yes portion you wrote, sounds easier.

>>2915134
still some patterns, still some determinism, but never, never, 100%.

you get it

>>2915262
It depends.

Determinism yes is easy if you want a solid, reasonable position that disregards Quantum Physics.

Determinism no is easy if you don't care about that shit and want to finish your paper so you can go do something else.

In the absence of conclusive proof of mathematical impossibility one way or the other, no scientist worth talking to will deny that either one is possible. Improbable, sure. Impossible, no.

Thus, you should ignore 9/10 of this thread and just write your paper instead of dicking around on 4chan.

>>2915286
but can you say that for certain.

What if 8/10 of this thread should be ignored?

>>2915714
Mathematically, if 9/10 should be ignored, then 8/10 must be ignored by definition.

>>2915198
>he |believes in many-worlds> and he |doesn't>

>>2914181
chaos theory wouldn't lead to undeterminism
quantum mechanics leads to probabilities, which leads to probabilityism(?)
None of the above mean free will exist, it just makes it impossible for us to predict the future of what a human will do with certainty. There is no magic device that allows the brain to make it's own decisions, given a lagrangian for a while human, you can read off probabilities for everything a human will do.

>>2915722
No, I mean, what if you're wrong, and you've ignored 1/10 of the data that shouldn't have been ignored.

>>2915212
its not a closed system, it is an isolated system.

bump

Determinism is absolutely correct, therefore there was no way I was ever going to take the time to write this paper seriously, and there's nothing I can do to change it. QED.