/sci/ - Science & Math

Also known as determinism.

But QM suggests that determinism is wrong and right and a quantum supposition of true/false if you don't observe it.

The funny thing is most people who reject determinism do so because they believe in free will. But in a non-deterministic universe free will would be ultimately dominated by random chance, your entire life down to the throw of a dice.

>>3161242
>I just feel like everything has lost meaning...
Welcome to nihilism, the ultimate end of logical analysis.

a) The initial conditions of a chaotic system are impossible to measure classically.
b) Even if they were measurable, Heisenberg would make them unmeasurable again.
Oh and congratulations on writing 15 lines on discovering deterministic chaos.

Then how do you explain why you feel as a independent beings instead of being subconsciousness systems? In that case we shouldn't feel anything, only our subconsciousness should react in situations.

Quantum mecanics says no.

>>3161242

You don't know enough yet, you stil gotta learn a lot.

Chaos is sensible dependece on starting values of parameters, i.e., change your input calue by only a really tiny bit and you'll get extremely different outcomes à la weather systems.

Have you ever been on an arab market? They know how to throw dice. You can train it. Not even magic.

>>3161267

no and no

why do all tripfags fail so hard?

>>3161289
>change your input value by only a really tiny bit and you'll get extremely different outcomes

Still, put the same input value and you'll get the same outcome.

>>3161294

Did not deny that.

Chaos exists, chaos doenst cancel determinism, it is a part of it.
Chaos is our perception of long complex events.
No one said chaos theory is random.

Mathematicians and scientists know this.

Also to the quantumfags:
Uncertainty principle doesn't cancel determinism.

Lrn2ACTUALscience.

>>3161294 Still, put the same input value and you'll get the same outcome.
Mathematically, yes. But that's a system the DE doesn't describe anymore, since you cannot isolate your system from the environment (hence a noise term in your equation), and the idea of measuring anything with infinite precision is unrealistic. You're valuing the equation higher than reality, when it is the other way round.

Your flawed thinking is that you can actually collect that information to the precision you need. You may be able to predict it more successfully than pure random, every so many rolls quantum effects will become the decision making interaction and in that case, randomness wins because you can never know what the quantum interaction will be produce because you can't know those particles momentum and position at the exact same time.

12 year olds discover that classical physics is deterministic. Who is shocked?

>>3161301
This is gay because we don't need infinite precision.

>>3161320
In a chaotic system, we do.

>>3161317

> quantum effects for dice roll

Are you fucking kidding me?

>>3161320
yes you do

after finite time we need infinite precision

that's what chaos is

>>3161329

Every so often they will come into effect. Not on every role but when they do you can't predict it. It would be rare as helll but it would eventual happen. Then you are no longer the dice god.

>>3161334

Newfags don't know 'bout quantum decoherence.

No quantum effects taking place.
That's like claiming if you ran against a wall there's a slight chance you would tunnel through it. This will not happen.

>>3161335

> you will never tunnel through a wall

sadfrog.jpg

>>3161324
No you don't. Chaotic systems are deterministic. You need to take continuous measurements to predict near future that's all. Which is exactly what weather satellites do.

>>3161339
But we're interested in finding a solution, not an approximation to one. By the way, my weather forecast for today was wrong, and I doubt that was human error.

>>3161339

> You need to take continuous measurements to predict near future

To a certain extent. The error in your measurement may still cause a large enough gap between your prediction and reality, i.e. your data says it will be rainy and no clouds will form.

Weather forecasting works differently though.

>>3161339
you are so retarded

chaotic systems have a time after which you do need total precision, with weather it averages about 5 or 7 days.

with dice rolls it's probably half a second after hitting the table

>>3161342
Wrong. We are not interested in precise measurement at all. We are interested in measurements withing a permissible limit of error.

>>3161339
You're not talking about a chaotic system but a chaotic system with a control force by the way, which is standard control theory.

>>3161346
in chaotic systems ANY tiny error is magnified exponentially. NO MATTER HOW TINY.

got that?

jesus, stfu and google the butterfly effect.

then come back and apologise for being so embarrassingly wrong

>>3161342
I don't think you can find exact solution for any system with imprecise starting contditions. But yes, for chaotic systems it becomes blatantly obvious.

>>3161346 we
You're not working with nonlinear DEs.
Here's an example: KPZ equation. Many applications, one of them is growing heterostructures. It's basically a Burgers equation with a white noise term. Since measurement is not available during epitaxy, it's important to know how the system will react depending on the boundary conditions.

>>3161349
hehe

>>3161319

Me, because now they discuss chaos theory which they clearly misunderstand.

>>3161351
Negligible differences in boundary conditions are negligible in the solutions as well. If you've got a linear wave equation it's not important whether it's a centimeter more on the left or right, but if you're trying to predict when a tsunami will form such deviations are pretty important.

>>3161242
There is such a thing as luck because it is an ideal manifested in our mind to describe a sequence of events.

What you mean is that there is no such thing as chance.

>>3161352
Its not very hard to guess that we are talking about physics and physical observables. Measurement there means something different than in mathematics. When you want to measure something in practice you only care about precision to a particular value for several reasons. As long as that precision is achieved why the heck would you want to know more?

The means to this may vary: Single precise model + accurate single point => All solutions for all time.

Imprecise model + accurate point => some solutions for some time

precise model + imprecise point => some solutions for some time

imprecise model + imprecise point => some solutions for short time

In practice we deal with the last two. Thus we have to resort to methods that are implicitly deterministic but require constant measurement to catch up with the prediction time.

Now I am sure we understand each other and its the time to sage

Fun fact:

Did you know the butterfly effect actually got its name from how the Lorenz attractor looks like and not because of the saying "a butterfly can change the weather in vietnom"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorenz_attractor_yb.svg

>>3161366

nevermind, tripfaggots are the biggest trolls on here.

You seem to be new here so you're not a troll, just stupid and the cancer ruining 4chan.

>>3161366
I'll just post it again.
>Here's an example: KPZ equation. Many applications, one of them is growing heterostructures. It's basically a Burgers equation with a white noise term. Since measurement is not available during epitaxy, it's important to know how the system will react depending on the boundary conditions.

>>3161378
>GAUSSIAN NOISE
>NOISE
>UNKNOWN PARAMETERS NOT TRULY PROBABILISTIC

>>3161383
Mexican hat potential, identical initial conditions, no control force (and none available); red solution is bumped by a bump of height 0.001 and width 0.1 at t=20. oh my god what is happeniiiing

>>3161387
Dude if you introduce noise in a system, its no longer deterministic.

>>3161390
Who says that, it's just a function with delta-correlated values. The archetype of a non-differentiable exterior force.

>>3161394
I thought you were reasonable. But you are just a faggot. Goodbye.

>>3161395
Aaaaand I win again. (I wonder how many self-proclaimed experts I've gotten to drop their trip yet.)

>>3161398
Yup. You are the winner of the faggots race indeed.

>>3161398
Though /sci/ has its share of faggots there are some good people here.

>>3161407

And none of the good people wears a tripcode.

As said, those are the biggest trolls/idiots. I propose to you to get rid of yours, you seem to be an cool guy.

>>3161407
you are all faggots now stuf all of you>>3161267>>3161324>>3161404

QM doesn't disprove determinism, it only states that it is impossible for us to precisely know any outcomes.

>>3162063
>>3162077
>>3161404
>>3161398
>>3162099

These posts were made by the same guy.

You can't defeat chaos: You can't know the initial conditions perfectly.

You can't defeat QM: The outcomes of quantum interactions are not definitely predictable, even in theory.

Therefore, you cannot predict the future, even in theory.

>>3162086

> doesn't understand QM
> talks about it

>>3162106

> talks about the real world in a discussion about ewuations
> doesn't see the difference between mathematics and real physical measurement

>>3162086
>QM doesn't disprove determinism, it only states that it is impossible for us to precisely know any outcomes.
You don't understand QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
There are no local hidden variables. You can know everything there is to know about a system, perfect knowledge of the state as it is, and you will still not be able to predict the outcome. Bell's Theorem proves that the universe is either nondeterministic or nonlocal. That means that either you're shit out of luck with your bullshit, or you have to know everything there is to know about the entire fucking universe before you can make certain predictions.

We've already proven that the universe is either nondeterministic or nonlocal. If you pretend to know that it's the latter, that's just not rationally justified.

>>3162106

> You can't defeat QM: The outcomes of quantum interactions are not definitely predictable, even in theory
> Therefore, you cannot predict the future, even in theory

wut?

Development of states in QM is perfectly easy to be calculated. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Answer: No, no you don't.

>>3162106

> You can't defeat chaos: You can't know the initial conditions perfectly.
> You can't defeat chaos

Weather prediction, how does it work?

So many faggots, so little knowledge, this thread.

All the same.

>>3162145
It works for about a week. Don't you know anything about chaos theory?

>>3162130
I'm
>>3162118

Read up, motherfucker. All QM calculations are probabilistic.

>>3162154

> It works for about a week. Don't you know anything about chaos theory?

Idiot. They gather their data, compute results, then are able to predict weather, that's exactly "defeating chaos", even if it only works for about a week, idiot.

>>3162164
You really ARE a fucking moron, aren't you?

>>3162154

> Read up, motherfucker. All QM calculations are probabilistic.

No, you didn't get it at all. Better read that article again.

Let's say i have a state \Psi_0 at some timt t=t_0.

The state t seconds later would be

e^(-iE/\hbar t) \Psi_0 e^(iE/\hbar t)

which is perfectly deterministic.

>>3162164
>>3162168
Guys, the point is that Chaos Theory is deterministic.

QM, however, isn't. Unless you buy the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. And so far the difference between it and nondeterministic interpretations is not testable.

>>3162168

u mad i refuted you?

You said you can't defeat chaos, i said they do when they forecast weather. I win.

>>3162175
Wave function collapse says you're a faggot. You can only calculate the probabilities of various permitted outcomes.

>>3161319
/thread

>>3162180
>defeat chaos
There will never be weather prediction that is good for a month.

>>3162186

It's going to rain next year.

>>3162181

> uses the outdated wave function "collapse" notion
> calls me a faggot

laughinggirls.jpg

I even provided the calculation of the time development of a state. What is it you don't get?
You should probably see some QM lectures.

Chaos is not a fundamental principle of nature. Its the property associated with the model (equation) and not a phenomenon.

To imply that somehow chaos is central to ideas of determinacy/indeterminacy is moronic.

>>3162186

And?

Chaos is still defeated for a week, which proves me right.

>>3162186

Not even if we improve our measuring devices so we get better observables?

>>3162200
Yeah, I'm done being trolled by you. I'm a graduate student working on a PhD in physics. I know that I know what I'm talking about, and you're not going to listen to anything I say or read anything I post.

>>3162208
The errors grow exponentially. If you make your error bars ten times smaller, you only get about double the prediction time.

>>3162202
>hurdurr semantics ego I'm right
If you can survive cancer for two years instead of one, have you defeated cancer?

>>3162213

> has been proven wrong
> doesn't accept it

I'm working on my PhD as well. Deriving limits on the graviton mass through fixed point quantum gravitation theory.

You said QM calculations are probabilistic, i provided the calculation of a state at a later time. Therefore, you're wrong and i'm right, faggot.

>>3162213

> implying you even provided a single argument

gtfo troll

you are probably not even an undergrad student

>>3162230

> implying that's a good comparison

We can get chaos under control for about one week -> we defeat chaos for this amount of time.

>>3162231
Whatever faggot. Time propagation of a wave function is does not produce definite predictions from what is inherently a probability distribution. Your "prediction" is "Well, it will definitely be a 20% of this range of outcomes and an 80% chance of this other range at time t".

>>3162230

If in that year you don't have cancer in your body and get another cancer, yes, yes you did.

>>3162241
This applies perfectly to the cancer analogy. You've defeated cancer for two years instead of one.

That's hardly the understanding conveyed from saying you've just "defeated cancer".

>>3162255
clever, but irrelevant.

You can't do that with chaos.

>>3162251

> changes subject
> will get away with it because i don't care enough to point it out again

>>3162262

Weather prediction.

Professional here.

A coin flip and the information about an electron are both deterministic but also unpredictable by us.

The difference between those two comes that we are physically capable of eventually with super tools to predict each time a coin flip but we are not physically capable of predicting a quantum state.

When it comes to quantum states its like fucking for virginity.
We want to see the virgin(quantum state), but the only way to do it is to fuck her, but doing so she instantly becomes a no-virgin and so we are stuck there, not knowing.

Because that is the way quantum world is built up.

A non-deterministic world is: impossible.
Its just impossible, no matter how much you want it, a non-deterministic universe is a universe of no form, no laws, no energy, no existence.

One you grasp what determinism actually means, then there is no going back.

>>3162265
>You said QM calculations are probabilistic, i provided the calculation of a state at a later time. Therefore, you're wrong and i'm right, faggot.
You're referring to your previous post at >>3162175
That's just propagating the wave function.

I reply with >>3162251
which is entirely on topic.

>>3162262

See, this is roughly how it works:

Collect data of all weather observables you can and save them.
Do a measurement, get input variables. Put these variables into a good model for weather. Get Output variables that describe the weather tomorrow.
Compare these output variables to the set of data you gathered. See what happened on the days that have the same data. If 2 of these days had rain and 8 of them had sunshine, there's a 20% chance of rain.

Chaos defeated.

>>3162231
>i provided the calculation of a state at a later time

But your "calculation" uses an incorrect evolution operator.

>>3162281

My post was a QM calculation, which you said was pure probabilistic. It was deterministic.

You are talking about measuring(!) observables. Entirely different.

>>3162282
Monte Carlo simulation is useful, sure. But when your "will it rain or not" calculation strays from 0% or 100%, it just shows what you don't know.

Honest question, doesn't the "% chance of rain" also include some estimations of the amount of rainfall? I mean, if there are definitely going to be scattered showers over a city, so some places will get rain and others won't, what do you say?

>>3162275
I would like to clarify that. Its not either entirely right or unintentionally mistaken.

There are certain conservation laws that force histories of processes to be deterministic. i.e. completely reversible by reversing physical laws. In that way yes, the world indeed is deterministic.

>>3162283

Oh, yeah, that E was supposed to be the Hamiltonian of course.

>>3162288
>You are talking about measuring(!) observables. Entirely different.
If you think the probabilistic nature of QM is due to measurement error, I'm done talking to you.

>>3162290

You do contribute to this board, i just really wish you got rid of that fucking tripcode so i can take you seriously.

>>3162275
>A non-deterministic world is: impossible.
Its just impossible, no matter how much you want it, a non-deterministic universe is a universe of no form, no laws, no energy, no existence.

You're confusing nondetermism with an acausal universe.

>>3162293

> implying i said that

Now you're just trolling.

>>3162293

That's patronizing. Are you Josef?

>>3162293

A measuring process is not a QM calculation per definition. Are you retarded?

>>3162301
Then we're talking about wave functions, with no observations made (!). This is just math. As soon as you interact with anything, observations are made, and that REALITY (things that happen) is probabilistic.

What the hell did you THINK I meant? That you couldn't propagate wave functions? That would be just saying that there is no mathematical QM theory at all.

>>3162302
Nope. Is he patronising?

>>3162306
All interactions are QM.

>>3162307

sigh

you said, and i say this for the third time i think, "QM calculations(!) are probabilistic".

I then showed a QM calculation that was not probabilistic.

Then you talked about measurement(!) which is not a QM calculation.

>>3162314

idiot

>>3162319
I'm not seeing where this produces a deterministic reality.

>>3162319
>>3162307

I mean

> Then we're talking about wave functions, with no observations made (!). This is just math. As soon as you interact with anything, observations are made, and that REALITY (things that happen) is probabilistic.

This is correct of course.

>>3162326

I have never said it does.

Now you's trolling again.

>>3162330
OP:
>Definitively, this explains one thing:
>Fate exists, and is immutable.

"let's assume we have absolute and precise knowledge of all the factor in the surroundings of the dice"

You dumbass...so, there's no chaos because you would simply rather assume there isn't?

Troll harder fuckwit

>>3162343
Dice-throw is a non-chaotic system for those are wondering. The equations are linear as long as you abide by certain rules unless you make it unnecessarily complex (put it in high viscosity liquid od huge depth etc).

>>3162335

> implying i'm OP

?

>>3162354
You sure? I thought that chaotic systems were just any system with a positive lyapunov exponent, not necessarily nonlinear systems.

>>3162362
Nevermind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Minimum_complexity_of_a_chaotic_system
> Finite dimensional linear systems are never chaotic; for a dynamical system to display chaotic behaviour it has to be either nonlinear, or infinite-dimensional.

>>3162357
No, just that it's the central theme of the thread.

>>3162367
...

>>3162370

thread != that discussion

Seeing as there's an infinite number of things we don't know about any situation, I don't believe this argument has any applicability or ability to be tested.

Furthermore we know what's happened to groups that believe fate will do everything for them. The problem is that believing and relying on it changes their actions to very detrimental behavior - and thus the groups die out.

Taa daa. Stop assuming you know enough of what's going on to predict things perfectly. You don't. Even if you have enough data to predict a die time and time again, you still don't have enough to predict an atom. Once upon a time in the 19th century Newtonian physicists thought they were at the end of physics and that they could predict everything - and that's when the big electricity experiments started getting notice. It was an unexplained factor. We keep finding them. Good luck measuring and applying all of the factors in real time.