/sci/ - Science & Math

Why imagine when we already live in such a universe?

Hey.

Hey guys.

What if... like...

There were "nothing"-

Guys! Seriously!

What if there were "nothing"... instead of "something"?

Chaos would ensue.
If we didn't have patterns of behavior or weren't predictable, we would not be able to survive. We wouldn't be able to work together.
In fact, no sentient life could have formed.

You'd be living in a boring universe.

Let's try to imagine a rock with free will. What would it look like? What would the agents be free from? What is real freedom?

You guys have a stupid definition of free will
>you are free if you are never influenced by anything ever

>>4629040
>Chaos would ensue.
Do you even know what "chaos" is?
We already live in a universe driven by chaos.

>>4629024
OP, this is a fucking god awful thread. Please delete it. It's as though you've created a "Determinism vs. 'Free-Will'" thread, except you already started off with the assumption that the Universe is deterministic.

Determinism is a pipe-dream, folks. Get over it, already.

>>4629032
define free, define will, define define

>>4629056
actually, free will would be any will that is ever not entirely controlled by outside events ever.

>>4629060
>i imply social anarchy
>you imply the chaos theory
Autism at it's finest.

We live in a universe with free will. Just because free will isn't what people want it to be, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Free will is the decision making processes of complex, sensitive systems. That's the only free will that is possible, and it's the only free will worth having in any case.

>>4629068

How is that even possible?

>>4629060

Your peak oil is a pipe dream.

checkmate

>>4629081
exactly. All it would need for free will to exist would be for your will to be free from the restraints of the material world for an instant, but it's not physically possible.

>>4629070
Do you argue like this in real life?

I hope not. People must hate the fuck out of you.

>>4629093
Its not an argument when the other person has no idea whats going on. It's essentially me bullying a retard.

btw, you forgot your sage.

>>4629089

I mean how would it be free will? Free to will what exactly?

Does will even mean anything when separated from biological, neurological processes?

>>4629089
>>4629081
I'm not sure if you understand the principles and concepts behind Quantum Mechanics.

Learn about wave functions and probability. It's not that things in this universe are "Impossible". It's just that they are extremely unlikely.

If we're incapable of determining all of the factors within the system, then it hardly makes a difference whether it's deterministic or not. We simply observe it and continue basing our future predictions off of past conclusions anyway. That doesn't tell us for sure how the system works. But we still get enough of an idea to do something with it.

>>4629106
please fuck off, both of you.
>>4629110
Anything at all. And I don't know how it would be free will.

Couldn't even imagine something like that. It's just too fantastical.

>>4629106
I have no idea what's going on because your logic is completely incomprehensible.

>>4629119
please stop posting that ugly amerifat's face

>>4629116
I understand QM to the extent it's relevant in this conversation. In fact I think everyone does, given QM is not at all relevant to this conversation.

I'm not formulating a testable hypothesis, I'm giving a definition of free will that seems to be agreeable.
>>4629127
>mfw

>>4629127
She's british.

But you're probably trolling anyway.

>>4629119

It wouldn't be free will.

Free will IS the biological processes of the brain. Remove the brain, and you're not left with pure free will, you're left with nothing at all.

One may as well ask whether pure maths is possible. Well, computers can do maths. So get rid of the computer, and you're left with...?

>>4629119
>>4629125
Is that how you argue? People must hate-fuck you.

>>4629138
dudes he has us figured

>>4629130
>given QM is not at all relevant to this conversation.
QM is relevant to everything.

And you can't arbitrarily create distinctions between various sciences and suddenly claim that QM apply to Physics, but it doesn't affect Psychology. Especially when the human mind is governed by the principles of all the other sciences.

>>4629134

10/10 analogy

>>4629134
>Free will IS the biological processes of the brain.

That's a really, really stupid definition of free will. Nobody would argue that the brain doesn't do anything.
>>4629138
pic related

>>4629153
does 2+2=5?
how many letters does "dog" have in it?

>>4629153

Still, free will as a deterministic process is more satisfying intellectually than free will as a probabilistic process. I'd rather my decisions be the result of my experiences than just random chance.

>>4629138
>umad5.jpg
You have at least 4 other "u mad" images?

why.jpg

>>4629166

>>4629159
Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you don't understand probability

>>4629171
It's funny because I understand probability and you don't understand context

>>4629166
>he doesn't have a reactions folder
You new?

>>4629162
Doesn't matter. You're a probabilistic process either way.

Personaly, I find that far more satisfying to think about.

>>4629182
But for "umad"? That's just strictly used for trolling purposes. They can be funny, but 9/10 times, it's just some faggot who's trying too hard.

I could see you using them on /v/ or /pol/. But /sci/? It's the kind of thing I'd only use sparingly. For special occasions, like this thread.

>>4629177
I understand your context, but there are far too many lines of logic that you jumped across to think that your questions were directly relevant to the discussion.

Don't ask facetious questions. I already know where you were going with that, and I'm not going to play that game with you. I already have a hippy friend who does that bullshit all the time.

>>4629196
yes, because everyone has a folder specifically for this board, with only ONE umad pic with a txt file containing the official 4chan guidelines for posting reaction images.

Nigga u dum

>>4629201
Look, I'm just saying that if you have more than 3 "u mad" images, then you're probably not a good person.

Not that you care, but I'm still going to use that as justification to not take you seriously.

>>4629199
I have no idea what you are talking about.

QM is not relevant to definitions of free will if the definitions of free will don't explicitly involve QM any more than QM is relevant to my choice of shampoo. If free will requires dualism is true then free will requires dualism is true, I don't expect you to ask me to tell you what it is the material world is composed of.

>>4629155

How could you argue that the brain doesn't do EVERYTHING?

Which part of consciousness or willpower is not in the brain?

>>4629204
> you're probably not a good person
It's.... it's like you don't know where you are. Tell me, did you see a post on reddit mentioning 4chan and decided to take a look?

>>4629211
>Which part of consciousness or willpower is not in the brain?

Exactly, all of it's in the brain. Nobody is going to argue that the brain causes none of our decisions.

>>4629185

Well, yes. But that doesn't mean it's not strongly deterministic and weakly probabilistic. How often does a quantum effect change the activity of a neuron, and how often does this affect a thought? We don't really know, but it doesn't seem to be much.

>>4629219

Except that it does 'cause' all of our decisions. Cause is in tard quotes because it doesn't cause anything, it is the seat of our decisions, decisions are it's function.

>>4629209
If you agree that the Universe is composed of the particles we discuss in QM, then you inherently agree that the principles applied on quantum scales are necessary for considering the nature of all other principles within our Universe.

Science is not a closed system. You don't just simply determine that probability and wave theory applies to chemistry, but that it doesn't apply to biology when the two are directly related.

I know you might consider what I'm saying to be arbitrary, but trust me: it's not. The principles applied in physics are gong to resonate throughout the scientific world, and there's already a serious push to drop the particle-wave theory in favor of just a wave theory.

Hang on, I'll see if I can find a link.

>>4629231
oh my god just fucking kill yourself

You're not reading my posts, it's literally impossible for me to have a conversation with you if you try and correct me to exactly what I just said.

>>4629236
>If you agree that the Universe is composed of the particles we discuss in QM, then you inherently agree that the principles applied on quantum scales are necessary for considering the nature of all other principles within our Universe.

If you agree that quantum mechanics and probability are relevant then you must also agree that the probability that quantum mechanics is a good set of theories is relevant, in which case the political biases of the people involved are relevant, in which case the history of their social group's political leanings is relevant, in which case upper classes circa 0AD are relevant, in which case jesus is relevant. See what I did there? while that's all technically true, none of it is in any real sense applicable to this situation.

>>4629237

You say nobody is going to argue that the brain causes none of our decisions. This leaves wiggle room for something else to cause some of our decisions.

I say the brain causes all of our decisions. And right now, this seems to be the case.

I was trying to be clear.

>>4629248
It depends on what your objective is.

If you're going to question the origin and validity of quantum mechanics, then yes, everything you just stated is relevant. If we're discussing free will and determinism, then everything I listed directly applies the question at hand.

Unless all of the sciences are in agreement and on the same page, I hardly see how we can expect any work to get done when we can't even properly convert quantum mechanics into anything past basic chemistry.

It's okay if the various sciences speak different dialects. But for the love of god, can we all just start speaking the same language already?