[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 60 KB, 400x365, 1269997791343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023407 No.1023407 [Reply] [Original]

If the world is deterministic, then you already posted in this thread.

>> No.1023415

No I didn't.
Wait.

>> No.1023454

Bullshit. I posted in this thread because I chose to.

>> No.1023479

Newtonian Physics describes the world in a deterministic quality. Ironically, Newtonian only covers some of what is viewed through science. Quantum Physics destroys determinism as a universal characteristic.

>> No.1023482

but do i really post if i sage?

>> No.1023485

If it's deterministic, you will have posted in this thread.

>> No.1023494

>>1023479
Nothing in quantum physics destroys determinism, which is a philosophical concept, not a scientific one.

>> No.1023503

Until you observe this post it simultaneously exists and does not exist.

>> No.1023505

>>1023494
Determinism is a concept in classical mechanics. Quantum physics is probabilistic instead.

>> No.1023506

You argued that the world is deterministic. The world is viewed through many sciences. All of which overlap. Philosophy is derived from all sciences including physics

>> No.1023508

>>1023505
>Determinism is the philosophical view that every event, including human cognition, behavior, decision, and action, is causally determined by the environment
>philosophical

>> No.1023514

>>1023508
philosophical > epistemological > scientific method > classical mechanics

herp derp

>> No.1023518

>>1023494
Quantum mechanics prevents you from determining the state of a system with out altering it, therefore destroying the determinism of its evolution.

>> No.1023523

>>1023508
I know a lot of modern philosophers are too high to admit this, but observation of the universe does influence philosophy.

>> No.1023527

>>1023518
Just because we can't determine the state of the universe doesn't mean it's not deterministic.

>> No.1023528
File: 39 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023528

>implying quantum observer effects have an effect on the macroscopic world

>> No.1023532

>>1023518
It's even nastier than that. Particles don't even have an exact position until you measure them. They're little bastards like that. Fucking 2 slit experiment.

>> No.1023535

>>1023523
Of course. But the issue is that you can't disprove a philosophical concept like determinism with science. It's outside the scope of epistemology.

>> No.1023537

Would you then also say that just because we can't prove there is not a God, he must exist?

>> No.1023540

i saged this thread

>> No.1023553

>>1023527
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

>>1023528
Implying quantum effects weren't what caused the universe to randomly separate into galaxies instead of be a completely uniform ball of particles.

>> No.1023564

>>1023532
>>1023553
>double slit experiment
Doesn't disprove determinism.

>> No.1023572

>>1023528

non scientist fag here. I have rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics. Anyway the other day I was reading that some scientists observed particles bigger than the usual exhibiting quantum behavior...now why can't macroscopic objects exhibit this behavior? and does the fact that these scientists found this behavior in large particles implies that in theory, the macroscopic world COULD behave as the quantum world?

>> No.1023581

>then you already
There's still time, you just haven't done something yet.

You wouldn't say a plane with no engines and coming down from cruising altitude HAS hit the ground. It's basic grammer.

>> No.1023582

HOLY FUCK, I CAN'T EVEN NOT POST OUT OF SPITE

>> No.1023590

>>1023535Of course. But the issue is that you can't disprove a philosophical concept like determinism with science. It's outside the scope of epistemology.

It depends on what you mean by determinism. If you're talking about predestination than sure, philosophical bs, not worth worrying about. But if you're talking about the scientific rules of a system then some systems are deterministic or probabilistic (it's an issue of math/logic, not BS philosophy)... let me give you a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyX8kQ-JzHI

>> No.1023594

>>1023553

>implying that anything we don't fully understand yet has to be totally random

>> No.1023596

===================
/sci/ I'm tired of this shit...
===================
DETERMINISM IS OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE.
Quantum mechanics DOES NOT DISPROVE IT, BUT IS DOES HIDE IT YOU FLAMING RETARDS.
That is all.

>> No.1023597

>>1023553
>quantum effects
>Non-random distribution of SOLID PARTICLES THAT ARE HOT AND THEREFORE NOT AT A STATISTICALLY PERFECT DISTRIBUTION
whatthefuckamireading.gif

>> No.1023607

>>1023590
The most common definition of determinism is the philosophical one. If it's used in any other context, it should be specified. I think it was pretty clear that this thread is about philosophical determinism, though.

>> No.1023611

>>1023572.now why can't macroscopic objects exhibit this behavior?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html

>The first ever quantum superposition in an object visible to the naked eye has been observed.

>> No.1023630

>>1023607

Philosophy intersects the other sciences. You can't say one science is completely excluded from another.

>> No.1023631

>>1023527
Well, we have incomplete information about the system then, which makes the question of determinism moot.

>> No.1023640

>>1023607The most common definition of determinism is the philosophical one. If it's used in any other context, it should be specified. I think it was pretty clear that this thread is about philosophical determinism, though.

As this is /sci/ the mechanical definition of determinism should be used. The philosophical version is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Take that shit to /x/ or bbwchan or wherever the fuck else but not here.

>> No.1023641

We cannot actually know (yet?) whether the world is actually deterministic or actually random, it cannot be proven one way or the other. But if you're a scientist in the realm of the quantum world, you just deal with the particles as if they ARE random, whether or not they ACTUALLY are is irrelevant.

>> No.1023646

MUST POST IN THREAD!!!!!

>> No.1023651
File: 57 KB, 364x500, sweetnipplestache500x50ku0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023651

>>1023611

>motherofgod.jpeg

>> No.1023653

>>1023611
awesome

>> No.1023657

>>1023630
What. All sciences are a SUBSET of epistemology, which is a philosophy, but not all philosophies are a science. Get your definitions right.

>> No.1023659

>>1023631
This. It's not possible to predict behavior at the quantum level, at our current level of understanding it is probabilistic.

>> No.1023672

>>1023640
Scientific determinism is basically causality. There's nothing to argue there.

>> No.1023678

I hereby refuse to post in this thread.

>> No.1023680

>>1023641
It's kind of funny that individual particles are random but on a large scale they're approximately deterministic. Like reverse chaos theory, a simple system can result from a massively complex one.

>> No.1023690

free will is not the opposite of determinism chaos is, and free will is not chaos.

>> No.1023695

>>1023630
>philosophy interjects the other sciences
By completely disregarding them and doing whatever it wants.

>> No.1023697

>>1023672Scientific determinism is basically causality. There's nothing to argue there.

My universe is only causal on Fridays.

>> No.1023698

>>1023690
free will is deterministic

>> No.1023704

>>1023695

Touche'

>> No.1023709

>>1023690
Neither a deterministic or probabilistic/chaotic universe allows for free will. Free will is a myth to make you feel like you have control of your life, it's an illusion. Drop it.

>> No.1023711
File: 15 KB, 160x225, 1274497653190.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023711

>>1023697

>> No.1023721

yeah

>> No.1023723

>>1023709
How wouldn't free will be possible in a deterministic universe? Any entity will respond to the environment with its chosen behavior; this is deterministic.

>> No.1023731

>>1023723
If an entity responds to its environment in a predictable fashion governed by the laws of physics it's not really free will. At least not a very solid definition of free will anyway.

>> No.1023732
File: 18 KB, 350x350, wtfamireading_155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023732

>superposition in an object visible to the naked eye has been observed.

>superposition... has been observed

>> No.1023751

>>1023732
Alas, you couldn't actually see the effect happening, because that very act of observation would take it out of superposition.

Good catch.

>> No.1023759

>>1023723
Ignore him and move on.
The definition of free will implies choice, which would look like a chaotic or probabilistic system from an objective viewpoint.
Chaos and probability are not themselves implying free will, but they look exactly like it.
Also, it's unprovable and therefore not science.

>> No.1023772

>>1023759
In theory once we get the brain figured out, the whole free will thing will be falsifiable and therefor sort of science. If it's wrong.

>> No.1023784

>>1023772
If we can ever get that far, then yes.

>> No.1023787

you got me dude

>> No.1023806

>>1023772
So... if we can disprove free will then it's science but it's wrong. If we can't disprove free will then it's not science and not even wrong.

>> No.1023809

>>1023759
>>1023772
I don't understand why being able to predict someone's behavior suddenly means it's not their chosen behavior. Of course a person is going to choose the choice they choose to choose. Free will is NECESSARILY deterministic.

>> No.1023817
File: 22 KB, 400x456, emmawtf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1023817

>can both oscillate and not oscillate at the same time. Alas, you couldn't actually see the effect happening, because that very act of observation would take it out of superposition.

>> No.1023826

>>1023809
Uh, free will by definition IS NOT deterministic.

In REALITY, there is no such thing as free will, as we are all bound by our brain's chemistry.

>> No.1023827

>>1023809
For the same reason that a wind up monkey doesn't have free will. Its choice is to wind down and play but the system is deterministic so it doesn't actually have a choice, only an illusionary one.

>> No.1023844

>>1023806
Exactly

>> No.1023845

>>1023809

its funny because despite the traditional definition of free will, this is actually more compatible with realistic situations

>> No.1023848

>>1023826
>free will by definition IS NOT deterministic.
What definition of free will are you using? If the choices I make cannot be determined based on who I am, how can I say that they are my choices? It's not free will if my personality doesn't have control over my choices.

>> No.1023861

>>1023817
>>1023732
Dem fucking quantum physicists man..

>> No.1023874

>>1023809
It causes paradoxes.
Imagine someone predicting your behavior (with 100% certainty, this is deterministic, not probabilistic). They share the result with you, and you now have the ability to choose not to do it. Therefore it is not deterministic.
The only way to have deterministic free will is for it to be non-deterministic.

>> No.1023876

It's not that I already have. It's that the laws of physics to this point lead me to do it.

/anti troll

>> No.1023882

>>1023874
>>1023874

your example fails hard on grounds of reality: behavior predictors must inherantly take into account all possible altercations of behavior, since in the case of a behavior predictor it would have to predict its own effect (and thus an infinite regress) such is impossible

>> No.1023883

>>1023848 If the choices I make cannot be determined based on who I am, how can I say that they are my choices? It's not free will if my personality doesn't have control over my choices.

Congratulations you just proved that free will absolutely must be an illusion and is fake. Actual free will requires an impossible paradox.

>> No.1023890

Alright. I've been trying to NOT post for the last 10 minutes, but I keep seeing this thread on page 0.

You got me. Fucker.

>> No.1023891

>>1023827
But in a nondeterministic universe, that definition would mean that the monkey has free will. So, you are saying the same thing as me, but with the words "deterministic" and "nondeterministic" swapped.

A deterministic universe gives you control, and a nondeterministic universe gives you options. Which is more like "free will"? Is it "free will" to have control over your decisions, or to have a variety of outcomes?

>> No.1023897

>>1023882
Making it unpredictable and non-deterministic...
That's the paradox.

>> No.1023900

>>1023897

>implying unpredictability violates determinism

nigga u dumb

>> No.1023913

>>1023891
If your choices are random then you do not have free will because randomness is not free will.
If your choices are mechanically deterministic then you don't have free will because you only have one possible option.

Free will can not exist in either situation, therefor there is no such thing as free will.

>> No.1023923

>>1023900
Did you read the previous post, I meant in my example of a deterministic, non-probabilistic scenario. Actually deterministic, not "hidden" philosophical deterministic.

>> No.1023925

>>1023848
>>1023913

between these, we can pretty much agree "free" in free will is sum super paradox

>> No.1023936

>>1023925
It's an illusion. You are not free. Your decisions are either mechanically predictable or randomly chosen. You do not have free will, you just think you do so you don't kill yourself.

>> No.1023939

>>1023913
The only problem is that a random/probabilistic universe LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE a universe with free will (the choice kind, if I need to specify, definitions are shoddy up in this thread) from an objective perspective. There is no way to tell the difference between one and the other.

>> No.1023950

>>1023939
FATALITY
/thread

>> No.1023955

I don't get the joke. If the world is deterministic, then I will have already posted in this thread? What does that mean?

>> No.1023957

>>1023939
Sure there is. A probabilistic universe has a fixed set of probabilities. Once you have the mind broken down to those levels then your decisions are based on those probabilities and not on your desires independent of the physical structure.

In short; Ghost in the Shell bullshit is bullshit

>> No.1023964

>>1023955f the world is deterministic, then I will have already posted in this thread? What does that mean?

It means that the future has already been determined so everything that will happen has effectively already happened.

>> No.1023968

>>1023939
But we've already shown that free will cannot exist by elimination.

a) Free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.
b) Free will cannot exist in a nondeterministic universe.
c) The universe is either deterministic or nondeterministic.
d) Therefore, free will cannot exist.

>> No.1023989

To predict the outcome of behavior you'd have to know the inputs which are attached to the actions. It's a form of the n-body problem where n is fucking huge.

>> No.1023992

>>1023968
a) Free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.
b) Free will looks the same as (some) nondeterministic universes.
c) The universe is either deterministic or nondeterministic.
d) Therefore, free will cannot be shown to exist/not exist.

>> No.1023998

Even if the universe is non-deterministic, think about it. The cells in your brain, even the molecules that make up those cells, are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LARGER than the atoms/quantum effects from the atoms. The brain CAN effectively be simulated with physics equations and a large enough computer. Everything you do is decided by physics equations, not by some free "soul" that makes decisions on its own.

>> No.1023999

Most people think time is like a river, that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you, they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm. You may wonder who I really am, and why I say this. Come, and I will tell you a tale like none you have ever heard.

>> No.1024005
File: 31 KB, 384x493, 1274761236922.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1024005

>> No.1024012

>>1023992
In a nondeterministic universe, my behavior cannot be determined with 100% accuracy. Therefore, my decisions are, at least partially, based on some unknown factor independent of my existence. Since the entity that is me does not have complete deterministic control over the decisions that I make, they are not truly my definitions. Therefore, I do not have free will in a nondeterministic universe.

>> No.1024025

>>1023998
Well yeah pathetic human brains are deterministic. I was hypothesizing whether free will was possible for any sort of thing in this universe.

>> No.1024039

>>1023998
But quantum fluctuations don't just disappear, the fundamental root is there, and perhaps something deeper. But until we build a brain from scratch this is all speculation. You cannot disprove free will, it is your own opinion (if that indeed exists) that it's not there. Whatever mechanic that free will would work by would be something hidden below the "semi-deterministic" macro world anyway.

>> No.1024046

>>1024039
>You cannot disprove free will
Define free will in such a way that it cannot be disproven.

>> No.1024054

>>1024046
The ability to make decisions (independent of cause other that the choice itself).

>> No.1024059

Who the fuck cares if we have free will or not? If the illusion is subjectively perfect, then how would things change if it wasn't free? Honestly, why is this bullshit non-scientific philosophy repeated on the science board?

>> No.1024068

>>1024059
Exactly. You can't confirm or deny it, so don't go around preaching your "hurr durr you decide" as fact.

>> No.1024072

>>1024068
lol that is
"hurr durr you [can't] decide"

>> No.1024073

>>1024054
That definition is weak. Any stimulus presents a choice, therefore we are proven to have free will.

Let me rephrase. Define free will in such a way that it can be neither proven nor disproven.

>> No.1024118

>>1024073
Maybe I should rephrase it...
Basically, the ability to decide. I can't think of how to word it right. The physical world obviously affects your decisions (lol, LSD), but your decisions are independent of any physical cause, if that makes sense. Free will is free will. And hard to define precisely.

>> No.1024122

>>1024012
>>1024012


o shi-

>> No.1024143

>>1024118
In that case, free will is a paradox and cannot exist. Your decisions can be affected by the physical world, or be independent of it, but not both. It is a logical impossibility.

The reason free will is hard to define precisely is because any definition for a sentimental concept like free will is either a) unsatisfyingly weak or b) impossible.

>> No.1024145

we may as well be arguing about whether we exist or not. Oh wait, some people actually do that.

>> No.1024147

>>1024039 "semi-deterministic" macro world anyway.

I think you mean "approximately deterministic"

>> No.1024149

>>1024122
>implying not 100% can't equal 0%

>> No.1024154

>>1024145
Protip: I do, you don't

>> No.1024155

>>1024147
Yes? Thank you, I think?

>> No.1024165

>deterministic macro world

fucking turbulance, how does it work?

>> No.1024170

>>1024154
No, I obviously exist, and you clearly don't.

>> No.1024198

>>1024170
As you are nothing but a figment of my imagination I will will you to cease.

>> No.1024220

>>1024198
>>1024170
Woah it worked.

>> No.1024224

>>1024198
hahaha faggot you can't do th

>> No.1024237

>>1024224
haha newfag can't candle ja

>> No.1024266

>>1024143
I'm saying the "soul" for sake of giving a name to the unknown mechanism by which free will works; it implies nothing of afterlife, etc.
What I'm trying to get at is that soul and physicality are not separate. The soul is part of the universe, is governed by laws like causality (the forward-time direction stuff, not determinism), but it is not "made" to do anything by matter/energy (what I mean by physical world). So, the soul is physical (as in part of the universe), but separate. The soul obviously arises from something special about the brain (and in human brains is highly present) and brings with it self-awareness and such, but we don't yet know what about the brain causes it. Basically, how can something look at itself if there is nothing doing the looking? And will two souls in the exact same states and environments make the same decisions?
That's about as legible an ideology as you'll get from me right now... Sorry.

>> No.1024321

>>1024266The soul obviously arises from something special about the brain

The brain does not violate the laws of physics.

>> No.1024340

>>1024266
All that the "soul" concept does is personify the uncontrollable factor the nondeterministic universe scenario. Since it is independent of my physical self, it is not me. It is some other entity that makes my decisions for me. No matter how you look at it, this is not free will.

>> No.1024352

>>1023407
that's not how it w... GODDAMNIT!

>> No.1024381

>trollface.jpg
>112 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

Dammit /sci/ not again!

>> No.1024402

>>1023723
BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHOISE OF ACTION or possible alternative actions!

>> No.1024421

>>1024402
uh yeah just because I am destined to logically choose to eat a sandwich when I'm hungry doesn't mean I never had the option of not eating a sandwich

I had a choice, I just chose the choice that I would choose given the circumstances.

>> No.1024530

>>1024421
If you decided to eat the sandwich then you did not have the option to not eat the sandwich.

>> No.1024544

>>1024530
In that case, deciding anything would invalidate free will. The only way to truly have free will is to never decide anything at all.

>> No.1024555

>>1024544
No, because if you never decide anything then you were determined to not decide anything and you don't have free will.

>> No.1024634

>>1024555
Well I can either choose to eat the sandwich or choose not to eat the sandwich. Let's say I'm destined to eat the sandwich. Therefore, eating the sandwich would mean I do not have free will. So my only option, if I have free will, is to not eat the sandwich. But since that is my only option, I do not have a choice... therefore I do not have free will.