/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10007025]

There is no free will. Every event that happens in our universe, including you reading this post and your emotional reaction to it, have causes rooted in the pseudo-random motion of particles immediately after the Big Bang.

>tfw it was decided that you would be a lonely incel billions of years before you were even born

[Anonymous No.10007027]

My particles agree.

[Anonymous No.10007036]

>>10007025
>have causes rooted in the pseudo-random motion of particles immediately after the Big Bang.
>tfw it was decided that you would be a lonely incel billions of years before you were even born

no free will != determinism
/thread

[Anonymous No.10007038]

>>10007025
Free from what?

[Anonymous No.10007040]

>>10007025
>pseudorandom
Ummmm

[Anonymous No.10007041]

>>10007025
how can you prove that there is no true randomness in the universe?

[Anonymous No.10007046]

>>10007041
A truly random event would be one that has no cause, which cannot exist.

[Anonymous No.10007094]

test

[Anonymous No.10007111]

Entropy causes shit to fail randomly. A truck driver falls asleep at the wheel randomly, kills someone, people adjust to go to a funeral. That shits not deterministic.

A football game goes into overtime, a field goal kick, it's up its going in, wind picks up ( brownian motion causes erratic position) blows the ball wide, no good. Guy losses bet, gets leg broke on random bad bet. Not deterministic.

[Anonymous No.10007191]

>>10007046
A cause and effect universe cannot exist, it is an illogical infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.10007194]

>>10007036
>>10007041
>>10007111
It does not matter our universe is deterministic or not. Even if it is random you still are not in control.

[Anonymous No.10007199]

>>10007194
if our universe*

[Anonymous No.10007211]

>>10007111
>That shits not deterministic.
What makes you say that? Us humans not possessing ability to factor in all the variables at play in your example does not refute the argument for a deterministic universe.
>Not deterministic.
You keep saying that without explaining your line of reasoning. You may as well be attributing an improbable event to God´s will.

[Anonymous No.10007218]

>>10007194
Redpill: you are the universe and consciousness is both fundamental and universal

[Anonymous No.10007227]

>>10007194
if there is true randomness, then i can roll a dice and take an action according to it's result. so it would be non deterministic what i would do.

[Anonymous No.10007424]

>>10007041
Read about the evolution operator.

[Anonymous No.10007428]

>>10007191
Only as long as time is smooth.

[Anonymous No.10007431]

>>10007194
There's no evidence that can lead to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.10007598]

>>10007025
>have causes rooted in the pseudo-random motion of particles immediately after the Big Bang.
>after the big bang
>nothing before?
>causes came from nothing

There are people who are actually insane enough to believe this. I recommend you stop watching TV, specifically the Sci-fi and Discovery channel for starters.

[Anonymous No.10008195]

>>10007025
i could not care less about any of this crap

[Anonymous No.10008224]

>>10007218
Consciousness is the projection of the universe, something that you are part of

[Anonymous No.10008237]

>>10007025
Decay and quantum fluctuations completely destroy this archaic psuedo-science bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10008732]

>>10008237
>nature *seems* to exhibit some non-deterministic phenomena
>therefore free will exists

[Anonymous No.10008832]

>my experiences of freewill are an illusion
>my experiences of being told those experiences are an illusion are 100% not themselves illusions

[Anonymous No.10009031]

>>10007025
OP is correct, discussion is over

>>10000000

[Anonymous No.10009896]

So physics and chemistry have determined the atoms coming together to create myself and my thought patterns are just electrons and shit? All these are just patterns that were instigated since the Big Bang (as far back as we are currently able to perceive)

[Anonymous No.10009909]

>>10009896
No, science hasn't determined that at all and may be incapable of ever doing so

[Anonymous No.10012204]

>>10007025
what caused the first cause?

[Anonymous No.10012209]

>>10007025
you faggets cant quantify this

[Anonymous No.10012216]

>>10012204
that what caused the first cause would have been the cause itself

[Anonymous No.10012240]

>>10012216
Logically incoherent, nothing is caused by itself.

[Anonymous No.10012258]

>>10012240
my answer makes more sense than your question though

how can a cause be first when there was one before it?

[Anonymous No.10012268]

>>10012258
You have no reason not to assume the universe didn't cause itself then.

[Anonymous No.10012276]

>>10012268
yeah now that I read it again, it was badly expressed.

[Anonymous No.10012290]

The universe is non-deterministic and there most likely is no free will.

[Anonymous No.10012475]

>>10007025
Stupid reductionist argument, you start with simple particles and jump directly to conclusions about huge collections of them.
The brain especially is extremely complex with networks of billions of neurons, some firing from stimuli, some randomly, with feedback and inhibitory mechanisms, some of which you can actually consciously control.
Ever heard of emergent phenomena? I think that's exactly what free will is. The universe can be perfectly deterministic at its most basic, but it is also extremely nonlinear, so it does not make the concept of free will impossible to exist in very complex systems.

[Anonymous No.10012481]

>>10012475
>randomly

[Anonymous No.10012486]

>>10012481
it means without presynaptic input, you shitstained moron

[Anonymous No.10012493]

>>10008832
But they are. I never thought they weren't.
It's not an illusion tho, it's just not in our control. These words too

[Anonymous No.10012503]

>>10007025
atheism is a bitch - it's good to see my theories have been spread to someone here, and they understand the atheists are claimed fucking robots

You may kiss my .... the table, you could be infected...

[Anonymous No.10012506]

>>10012475
>emergent phenomena
Do you also believe in spontaneous generation?

[Anonymous No.10012508]

>>10012486
But that is not random. That is, in the worst case "unknown".

[Anonymous No.10012509]

>>10012506
you don't think complex systems exist?
what kind of retard are you exactly?

[Anonymous No.10012512]

>With respect to the Free Will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (premise)
>Whatever should be done can be done. (premise)
>If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. (premise)
>I believe in Free Will. (premise)
>With respect to the Free Will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 1,2)
>If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. (from 3,5)
>If determinism is true, then Free Will is true. (from 6,4)
>Free Will is true. (from 7)
You can't dispute this logic. It's indisputable and beyond your simplish mind.

[Anonymous No.10012546]

>>10012493
What's not an illusion? The illusion or being told about the illusion? If you accept real and vivid experiences can be false how do you choose which to trust?

[Anonymous No.10012613]

>>10012508
sure, but that's irrelevant to my main point

also the fact that the "random" firing of neurons is "unknown" is because they are complex system themselves, each composed of some [math]10^{14}[/math] different atoms

[Anonymous No.10012616]

>>10007025
>there is no free will
>defines free will as determinism
wew lad

[Anonymous No.10012670]

>>10007025
Awesome. I do think it's amazing the great creator set everything in motion so that I could find myself into his point in time where I'm cracking my pepper all alone in my room to furry porn and studying physics

[Anonymous No.10012701]

>>10012475
>so it does not make the concept of free will impossible to exist in very complex systems.
the concept obviously exists, period - try harder, put your will to it for the correct words YOU GOD DAMNED MORON

[Anonymous No.10012719]

>>10007025
>muh randomness muh particles
such deep very wow

[Anonymous No.10012745]

>>10012509
No, they don't. All phenomena we know can be reduced. What you say is like suggesting that gravitational influence does not exist in the atomic scale.
We can ignore it for many purposes, because it is weak (compared to the other fundamental interactions), but it is there. We know an atom has mass. And the behaviour of macroscopic objects is simply the addition of all those atoms.

There is no emergence. Only scale and more or less dominant influences.

[Anonymous No.10013001]

>>10012745
>All phenomena we know can be reduced.
you're just wrong
it's like saying I can show you a carbon atom and just from that you can deduce what cell it came from and what function it served, fucking stupid
see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergent_properties_and_processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_system

[Anonymous No.10013009]

>big bang

[Anonymous No.10013017]

>>10007424
>read X
most brainlet possible response to any question

[Anonymous No.10013036]

>>10013001
You are a fucking idiot. That article about emergence is literally saying the same thing I did. ""Emergence"" is nothing but the causal interactions between the parts of the object in question. And its unpredictability by human means is a completely different issue (which I don't deny).
And I don't know what nonlinearity has anything to do with this. That is a mathematical characteristic. Many systems are non-linear and there's nothing emergent about them (not even in the way I understand emergence). And this second article is also saying what I say, in case you wanted to prove anything with it.
I quote:
>Although such chaotic behavior may resemble random behavior, it is in fact not random. For example, some aspects of the weather are seen to be chaotic, where simple changes in one part of the system produce complex effects throughout. This nonlinearity is one of the reasons why accurate long-term forecasts are impossible with current technology.

[Anonymous No.10013052]

>>10013036
no, you are a fucking idiot, everything being reducible is a retarded hill to die on
read that emergence article again
"According to Laughlin (2005), for many particle systems, nothing can be calculated exactly from the microscopic equations, and macroscopic systems are characterised by broken symmetry: the symmetry present in the microscopic equations is not present in the macroscopic system, due to phase transitions. As a result, these macroscopic systems are described in their own terminology, and have properties that do not depend on many microscopic details. This does not mean that the microscopic interactions are irrelevant, but simply that you do not see them anymore — you only see a renormalized effect of them. Laughlin is a pragmatic theoretical physicist: if you cannot, possibly ever, calculate the broken symmetry macroscopic properties from the microscopic equations, then what is the point of talking about reducibility?"

[Anonymous No.10013058]

>>10007218
This, I love how mad consciousness makes autists

[Anonymous No.10013063]

>>10013058
They get mad because they don't have it and thus can't understand what people are talking about. Sad, really.

[Anonymous No.10013065]

>>10007046
>which cannot exist
How do you know it can't exist?

[Anonymous No.10013067]

>>10013052
>reality equals my ability to calculate its behaviour
I will repeat it for the last time: I am not talking about our possibilities as physicists, as humans. We are not Laplace's demon, and will never be. I am talking about the nature of the universe, which does not depend on the ability of any computer or mind to model it.

[Anonymous No.10013119]

>>10013067
b-but quantum uncertainty

[Anonymous No.10013139]

>>10013067
but exactly from the casual interactions between many parts at different scales completely new phenomena can emerge that do not exist in the individual parts since they're missing the interaction
how is that not in the nature of the universe

[Anonymous No.10013163]

>>10013139
what you say is not coherent
It's like saying that "3*2 + 1 does not equal 7" because 3, nor 2 nor 1 alone equal 7.
Of course a set of interacting elements is very complex, but that does not mean that it comes from nowhere.
There's also the question of: "how much?"
Where do you put the boundary? At which scale do you think those emergent properties you talk about appear? And how do you limit that scale? The only thing limiting fundamental interactions between all particles in the universe is the speed of light. In greater or lesser magnitudes, every entity in the universe interacts with the rest of entities. The only constraint is the speed of light.
So where does your emergent black magic appear? When 2 atoms are at a distance of 1 metre? When 10 atoms are at 1 millimetre from each other? 100 protons? 3 billion electrons at 1 nanometer?
If the answer is: "it appears gradually" then I ask: gradually in comparison to what? There's no such thing as an objective scale. Unless you can somehow justify it with non-scalar constants, you are just talking statistics and subjective measurements.

[Anonymous No.10013176]

>>10013163
PS: With non-scalar I meant dimensionless, sorry.

[Anonymous No.10013190]

>>10013176
i believe you mean 'unitless' but we get the thing

[Anonymous No.10013196]

>>10013190
Fuck, you are right. English is not my first language, I apologize.

[Anonymous No.10013219]

>>10013163
just because it's hard to define and put boundaries on it doesn't mean you can sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't happen
and doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the interactions between sufficient numbers of parts, in certain conditions those interactions may not amount to anything while in others they can enter feedback loops... nothing magic about it
living things are an example, among others

[Anonymous No.10013568]

>>10007111
You should think your opinions through a bit more before typing. Unpredictable =/= non deterministic

[Anonymous No.10013585]

>>10007025
>There is no free will
So what? It's virtual free will. Regardless of if me getting up right now to get a glass of water or not was determined at the opening moment of the objective universe, it still "feels" like I am making the decision or not.

[Anonymous No.10014156]

>>10007111

Spotted the low IQ

[Anonymous No.10014426]

>>10007218
This would raise the question of how we perceive ourselves as separate from the universe and not a congealed mass of organized psychic energy that is one with a wider sea of it that pervades the universe.

If consciousness was universal presumably "I" am also the Eiffel Tower and the Sun, yet I feel completely divorced from both.

Maybe that's what some drugs do-wear down the artificial boundary of your ego and allow you to sense what you've been evolutionary hardwired not to but which is nevertheless just a continuance of you-the surrounding psychic sea of the universe. The "self" of inert objects and cosmic reaches. I mean one of the classic hallucinogenic trip cliches is saying "it's all connected, we're all one" etc.