Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 460 KB, 1600x1062, determinism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10510787 No.10510787 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>hurrr the world is deterministic durrr

Ok, so you're telling me that I have the same amount of free will as this rock?

>> No.10510790

>>10510787
You have the same intelligence as one, go kys

>> No.10510792

>>10510787
The fundamental particles that you're made out of are the same as the ones in that rock, so essentially yes, i would even go further and say that the rock has more free will than you.

>> No.10510802

>>10510787
Lmao there's no determinism at all, so yes, you have the same (null) amount of free will as that rock.

>> No.10510820

>>10510790
Intelligence is based on free will. If you can't have the ability to _chose_ intelligently between options, you cannot be intelligent. Your IQ meme doesn't even exist.

>> No.10510859
File: 399 KB, 700x790, anime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10510859

>>10510787
Question for you, anon:
Let's say you made the choice this morning to eat porridge instead of pancakes. Let's say nothing of importance happens the rest of the day. Then when the sun sets, all of time reverses back to the point where you were making the decision in the morning on what to eat. Every particle has the exact same properties as when you made the choice. Your brain is in the exact same state, could you have chosen differently?

If you really like the idea of free will, you could do what some philosophers have done, define it as "being able to choose based on your personal preferences and desires", instead of arguing that human will can somehow manifest without being influenced by the universal law of causality

>> No.10510870

>>10510859
>Your brain is in the exact same state, could you have chosen differently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Since the atoms are ruled by uncertainty: yes. I absolutely could've chosen something different by mere chance alone. Two particles in the same state at time t0 may enter two different states at t1 depending on the observer, I am the observer.

>> No.10510992

>>10510787
Yes. The only difference is, the rock isn't a dick about it, shitposting on 4chan.

>> No.10511009

>>10510992
Hey it's not my fault, the world is deterministic, it's basically my destiny to shitpost on 4chan. I just do what my aligned atoms in my brain tells me to do.

>> No.10511020

>>10510870
Yes, and so? Whether QM is probabilistic or deterministic, it doesn’t enable free will

>> No.10511032
File: 135 KB, 645x729, 1553627622104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10511032

>>10510870
>I am the observer
>>/x/

>> No.10511036

>>10510870
Brainlet there's literally no way of proving randomness. Not even us physicists agree on what is the correct interpretation for QM.
>muh cuckenhagen
You know there are other interpretations which give the same results but using a deterministic approach right? well you clearly don't.

>> No.10511043

>>10510870
>muh observer is consciousness
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
Youtube videos aren't enough to understand QM, please go back to wherever the fuck you came from.

>> No.10511046
File: 1.82 MB, 300x160, nice.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10511046

>>10511036

>> No.10511060

>>10511032
Are you saying I'm not a observer of my surroundings? If I'm not, then who/what is? I am aware of my own existence, I observe it. And therefore I must have an effect on the quantum mechanics which enable said existence, otherwise i wouldn't be aware of it.

>inb4 muh decartes

>> No.10511063

>>10510787
I don't think determinism matters. Even without it you have no free will.

If randomness and random quantum processes are a thing, you have no control over them, so you don't decide anything

>random coordinated quantum fluctuation makes the atoms of my left arm to move and slap you in the face
>guyz free will

>> No.10511064

>>10511060
I hate how physicists using the word "observer" have confused so much people.
No anon, being a observer doesn't mean being conscious. It has nothing to do, as >>10511043 anon pointed out, relating consciousness and wave collapse is just quackery.

>> No.10511077

>>10511036
>You know there are other interpretations which give the same results but using a deterministic approach right

None of them work and basically every physicist rejects them. The universe is stochastic, deal with it, brainlet.

>> No.10511111
File: 44 KB, 509x598, qmpoll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10511111

>>10511077
>None of them work
>Gives the same results
Retard. They work just like Cuckenhagen does. Because, these are not theories but interpretations you brainlet.
>every physicist rejects them
I don't. And a lot don't as well.
>Pic related
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/17/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-modern-physics/

>> No.10511117

>>10511111
It's even going lower each year.
>www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331074-600-physicists-cant-agree-on-what-the-quantum-world-looks-like/amp/
Most don't even think about interpretations because it is useless when calculating, so they stick to the "orthodox" interpretation (Cuckenhagen).

>> No.10511149

>>10511111
Basically all those interpretations in the poll are stochastic, not deterministic. Except for De Broglie–Bohm, and that is at zero, and rightly so.

Also, as this poster shows, large amount of physicists do not even understand these interpretations or bother to have an opinion. Because it is pseudoscience. Shut up and calculate.

Thanks for proving my point.

>> No.10511162

>>10511060
when did this board turn into reddit?

>> No.10511201
File: 5 KB, 250x174, 1553714592669.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10511201

>>10511149
>Everett is not deterministic
So you're double digit IQ

>> No.10511217

>>10511149
>Also, as this poster shows, large amount of physicists do not even understand these interpretations or bother to have an opinion. Because it is pseudoscience. Shut up and calculate.

That poster (>>10511117) is me you brainlet
>Shut up and calculate.
If you truly believed and acted according to this, you just wouldn't bother if the universe is stochastic or deterministic. You just do "shut up and calculate" whenever it fits you. >because it is pseudoscience
So you were defending your magical santa claus cuckenhagen interpretation and now that I debunked your shit you just say "it's pseudoscience" lmao

>> No.10511225

>>10510787
free will is an incoherent meme, even philosophags agree with this although they like to cope by redefining the term to the point of meaninglessness

>> No.10511231

>>10511201
Many worlds is deterministic until you take into account splitting of worlds and which one will the observer, then it becomes stochastic as usual. So it is not really deterministic at all.

>> No.10511236

>>10510870
Either way you don't decide which one happens, genius

>> No.10511241

>>10510787
Free will and determinism aren't referring to the same thing. You could be in a non-deterministic world and still lack the ability to pick which thought pops into your head and which you decide to do.

>> No.10511298

>>10510787
Every decision you've made was due to something that happened before. And that was caused by something else that happened earlier.
This goes all the way till the creation of the universe.
With enough data and computational power, you could predict every event in the universe, down to a subatomic level.
Predictability is determinism. So yes, you have as much "choice" as that rock.
Imagine it like this: The universe is an ocean. Right now, it is perfectly still. No change, blank slate. You drop a stone into it, it starts moving. Each wave, each ripple can be predicted based on that initial impact.
There is no randomness in the universe. Are there things are current technology cant observe and predict? Of course. Are these predictions *impossible*?. Not at all.
Get what I'm saying?

>> No.10511325

>>10511298
>With enough data and computational power, you could predict every event in the universe, down to a subatomic level.

I'm a deterministic but i'll have to disagree with you. This is not possible because of the uncertainty principle

>> No.10511383

>>10511298
>down to a subatomic level
No, not at all. Welcome to QM 101.

>> No.10511576

>>10511201
Everett doesn't actually solve the measurement problem, and doesn't claim to. The global wavefunction evolves deterministically, but the outcomes you observe are entirely stochastic.

>> No.10511611
File: 200 KB, 1024x731, die.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10511611

I don't know what number the die will land on
>the world is stochastic

I know the expected number from the die an infinite amount of die rolls will average to (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5
>the world is deterministic

Why can't it be both? Most things aren't black and white, why would this most fundamental part of everything be? The instant is completely stochastic, a series of information is deterministic and converges towards a probability.

>> No.10511921

>>10510820
>intelligence requires free will
El em ayy lmaoh
Aside from that, what do you think free will is?

>> No.10511948

>>10511241
good example of >>10511225

>> No.10511957

>>10510787
https://www.quantamagazine.org/math-proof-finds-all-change-is-mix-of-order-and-randomness-20190327/
The world is a mix of determinism and chance. It is long established that chance does not allow for freedom. It allows for CHANCE. Chance is not freedom. Freedom is not chance. Freedom is freedom. Chance is chance.

>> No.10512069

Would it be free will if you were completely omniscient and knew everything that led to you naturally making a certain decision but you go against it?

>> No.10512079

>>10512069
You probably just wouldn't be able to go against it, and you would be conscious of that as well. God is not a puppeteer.

>> No.10512080

>>10510787
you dont have free will

>> No.10512092

>>10512080
>"you don't have free will"
>live in land of the free

hmm??

>> No.10512099

>>10512079
So is free will a universal impossibility then? What would free will look like if it were real?

>> No.10512103
File: 43 KB, 419x767, ef6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10512103

>>10512092
>he believes the land of the free is actually free
Good goy, keep it up

>> No.10512106

>>10510787
Probably yes, not that I give a fuck.

>> No.10512108

>>10512099
I have no idea. Free will is like art, in that it is a conception we made up from thin air. It's a cultural trope and little more. Free will can be whatever you want it to be, like art, because it's made up.

>> No.10512146

Everything can be predicted, we just aren't intelligent enough to predict it yet.

If you have a few thousand years to examine every moment of a persons life, and examine the location of every particle for every second of their life, and you could perform tests and scans on every cell. Then using some sort of advanced algorithm you could predict what choices they were going to make.

The vast majority of people aren't actively making the choice to not commit suicide every day, they breathe, use the bathroom and seek out food and water without thinking about it. They aren't making the choice to live They aren't making any choices at all.

>> No.10512149

>>10512146
There is an AI already in existence that can predict when someone will die with great accuracy. We're well on our way.

>> No.10512155

>>10512149
precisely, AI can use algorithms to make original works of art.
And you could also scan an exsisting work of art and break it down into elements, concepts and emotions.

No matter how surreal or abstract a piece of art looks you can break it down and see exactly why it was created, and how the person came to create it in that way.

>> No.10512157

>>10512149
[citation needed]

>> No.10512165

>>10512146
And when they do weigh the question of questions, to be or not to be, it is either because there is something wrong with their brains, or external factors have affected them so severely that the burden of going on living has become too great. I see no real choices here either.

>> No.10512206

>>10512146
>>10512165
>an apple tree "apples"
>as the earth "peoples"

>> No.10512236 [DELETED] 
File: 94 KB, 800x768, 1543785636603.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10512236

>>10512092

the probability of me (a person) living in the supposed land of the free is 330 million divided by 7.5 billion

which is 4.4 percent

now to add on to that, the probability that i would have taken the time to write this post is magnificently smaller

and the probability that i would have wanted to write this post coupled with the fact that i am living in the land of the free is even smaller than that.

the probability that the land of the free is in reality free... well, that is up to the observer to decide.

if you say yes, you might be deceived, but you will believe that you indeed free and whatever actions you will have will be supposed "free" actions

but if you say no, you might "give in" to the powers that be and succumb to the darkness.

don't succumb to the darkness and roll a dice

you don't know how many different timelines there are waiting for you

>> No.10512240

>>10512146
>Everything can be predicted
nah

>> No.10512245

>>10510787

A rock doesn't have a will at all.
Other than that... Yeah, this is what determinism implies.

>> No.10512248

>>10512240
In theory, a lot can be, theoretically, predicted. In practice that is virtually impossible to do.

>> No.10512252

>>10512236
the probability of you existing at all is practically nil
yet here you are shitposting

>> No.10512253

>>10511036
>Not even us physicists agree on what is the correct interpretation for QM.

Pretty sure they agree that the wave function is deterministic.

>> No.10512260

>>10510787
Basically, yes

>> No.10512286

>>10510787
Determinism causes free will. If you can't figure out how to define how that's separate from the method by which determinism causes a rock to be a rock, then yes, you have the same amount of free will as a rock. But only be your own measuring stick.

>> No.10512335

>>10511036
what about shrodingers diferential being used for calculating probability of a particle being in some point in spacetime? superposition is a concept? or what about q tunneling? just asking questions here bcs nerd for qm

>> No.10512340

>>10512248
>a lot
aka not everything

>> No.10512608

>>10510790
based

>> No.10512829

>>10510792
Yes, because the rock doesn't experience or act, it remains fairly consistent, whereas you are constantly tugged along by determinism.

>> No.10512835

what if rocks have free will, they just choose to obey the laws of physics?

>> No.10512843

>>10510787
So you're telling me you believe you can bypass the chain of causality?

>> No.10512854

Take the occasionalism pill.

I took it an became top of my class and got a good job

>> No.10512893

>>10511611
brainlette

>> No.10512926

>not realising that all predictions are only probabilities and therefore nothing is truly deterministic.

>> No.10512932

>>10511576
Categorically wrong. It claims that what you observe (which "world" you're entangled with) only appears to be stochastic, because you're now limited to accessing only a reduced (mixed) state. It's still entirely deterministic. You are probably conflating various ideas of Copenhagen interpretation into many-worlds, because the schools ingrain Copenhagen so fucking hard into how we learn QM.

Keep in mind I'm not claiming that MWI is "correct" or anything. But you've got it wrong.

>> No.10513104

>>10512932
nah, he's right. you're nitpicking. fact remains that which world you (and i mean you you, not some ensemble of parallel yous) get entangled with is stochastic

>> No.10513106

>>10510787
Yes

>> No.10513115

>>10510790
fpbp

>> No.10513120

>>10510787
that's a dumb question, but you definitely don't have any more than a rat

>> No.10513146

>>10513104
No, it's not literally not. If that's how you want to interpret QM, fine, but don't conflate that with MW and Everttianism.

>> No.10513365

>>10510870
uncertainty principle has to do with our ability to measure the particles momentum and position, just because we can not say for certain that the particles were in one state to begin with doesn't change the fact that if you reverse time they will always be in the same state that they were.

>> No.10513376

>>10510787
That is one interesting rock. It might fall over one day, if it so chooses.

>> No.10513379

>>10513146
MW (i.e. Everett’s interpretation) agrees exactly with what i said. even in MW the outcomes of measurements are stochastic. you can’t argue this

>> No.10513383

>>10513365
>uncertainty principle has to do with our ability to measure the particles momentum and positio
WRONG

>> No.10513430

>>10513383
>"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables such as position x and momentum p, can be known."

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action