[ 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: 21 KB, 700x700, DpQ9YJl.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11086184 No.11086184 [Reply] [Original]

the universe is determined
free will doesnt exist

it was determined by the big bang that you'd respond to this post attempting to prove me wrong, but in futility

>> No.11086191

>>11086184
determinism =/=> no free will

>> No.11086202

>>11086184
i knew you'd make this post, Kyle

>> No.11086207

>>11086191
explain

>>11086202
shut up Dillon

>> No.11086432

>>11086207
You are a necessary part of the whole. Your will is not like a leaf helplessly riding the breeze of causality - that draws an unnecessary distinction between yourself and the rest of the world. Instead, your will is a part of that breeze. Influencing as much as being influenced.
You may say, "but determinism precludes me choosing otherwise." But to choose otherwise is to contradict your own will. A will which can be contradicted is not truly free.
If the whole world's history is to be described as "set in stone," then in the analogy, you did not sit by the sideline as your master declared your fate. You are a co-author who has yet to understand the completion of your own work.

>> No.11086441

>>11086184
How do you define 'free will'? The problem with these arguments is that people don't define their terms first, so everyone is arguing about something different.
Since you made the proposal that 'free will' doesn't exist, what is it you're saying doesn't exist? What are you saying people are incapable of doing?

>> No.11086485

>>11086184
the universe is deterministic if and only if all phenomena inside it are deterministic

is quantum mechanics deterministic? depends on what side u take

so is the universe deterministic? depends on what u think

is your post dumb as fuck? yes

>> No.11086490

>>11086207
>explain
The burden of proof is on you to show that determinism implies no free will.

>> No.11086493

>>11086184
boohoo I don't have the ability to choose to do something I don't want to do, who cares

>> No.11086495

>the universe is deterministic
prove that true stocastic phenomena can't occur

>> No.11086511

>>11086441
not the OP, but how would you define free will?

>> No.11086513

>>11086184
>free will doesnt exist
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>> No.11086794
File: 118 KB, 1032x736, Osho_HD_020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11086794

Free will is not there, and neither is determinism. Dependence and independence are both false words. They should be dropped completely, they should not be used. It is interdependence. I exist in you, you exist in me. That is the way life is: we exist into each other, we people each other. The breath that was in me just a moment before has now moved and has gone into you. Just a moment before I could have said, "This is my breath" - but where is it now? Somebody else's heart is beating through it.

In your body the blood is flowing; just a few days ago it was flowing as juice in a tree. It became a fruit, now it is flowing in your body. Again you will fall to the earth - dust unto dust, and again a tree will arise; you will become fertilizer. And again a tree will become alive, and a fruit will come and your children's children will eat it. You have eaten your grandparents - you are eating them.

And this goes on and on. The whole past is eaten by the present. And the whole present will be eaten by the future. Life is interrelated, deeply interrelated. It is just like a net.

>> No.11086805

>>11086513
You must be brain damaged or something.
I swear I always see this posted and I just feel sorry for you. Anytime someone asks for a source on that claim you just direct them to some buzzfeed article. Why are you even on this board?

>> No.11086806

>>11086184
Quantum mechanics disputes the concept of determinism, as it relies on the opposite, randomness.

>> No.11086816

>>11086805
>Anytime someone asks for a source on that claim you just direct them to some buzzfeed article.
Are you confusing me with someone else? I'm not a buzzfeed user.

>> No.11086823

>>11086806
Fuzzy determinism is a convergence of random states in localized observations.

>> No.11086826

>>11086816
Alright give your source then faggot

>> No.11086833

>>11086823
You think.

>> No.11086938

The universe being deterministic prove god existence

>> No.11086953

>>11086184
>free will doesnt exist
Yes it god damn fucking does. Just because it's limited by elements and variables outside of our scope doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>> No.11086960
File: 106 KB, 462x307, 1571454074797.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11086960

>>11086953
Define free will.

>> No.11086982

>>11086960
not him, but the only useful definition for free will (for humans) is that we feel and act like we have agency. whether or not that agency follows from the laws of physics is irrelevant. a depressed person has less free will because he feels and acts as if he has less agency. some more obvious examples: a paraplegic has less free will if he's in a dangerous situation and can't run away; a poor uneducated dumb person has less free will than a rich educated smart person because he can't move as easily within the structures of society to get what he needs or wants.
in the context of humans and their behavior, a definition of free will only from physics isn't useful because it's the same for everyone: we're determined by physical laws.

>> No.11086994

>>11086191
This.
Kys op you illogical scum.

>> No.11087007
File: 218 KB, 500x374, 1567313118165.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087007

>>11086982
Sounds like a cop out. I'm not buying it.

>> No.11087011

>>11086982
So free will is indistinguishable from opportunity, I call bullshit.

>> No.11087016

>>11086184
I don't thin free will exists for humans at least, but I'm not sure if the universe is predetermined or not yet. I can't prove any of this, just what I believe.

>> No.11087020

>>11087007
>>11087011
try thinking about this more rather than being so quick to dismiss.
it would probably work better if you thought about this on a different moment too. like when you're in nature or traveling or whatever. just a moment where your mind is at rest, and you're more open to new ways of thinking.

>> No.11087027

>>11087020
How about you offer a definition of free will such that it exists and is attributed to one or more real measurable physical phenomena or just get the fuck off my board you goddamn normalfag?

>> No.11087035

>>11087027
this is exactly why I advised you to think about this when you're not so angry and dismissive.
you've completely missed that humans and human behavior is a real measurable physical phenomena.
this just doesn't fit your narrow minded idea about what the definition of free will should be.

>inb4 another autistic response about physics

>> No.11087039

>>11086826
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

>> No.11087049

>>11086184

The entire physical universe is determinalistic but once conscience arouse then it became random. You see everyone's decisions altogether determines what timeline we're on

>> No.11087052
File: 51 KB, 739x415, 77A9B3BA-4DDA-4D6C-AAE2-B3094759F15B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087052

Free will implies that if you chose to do one thing, you COULDVE done something else. In order for that to be possible you would have to have the power to change the cause and effect which is constantly playing out in your brain according to the laws of physics. Or even if there is unpredictable randomness, your consciousness would have to have the power to influence that. So basically in order to have free will, consciousness needs to be a part of the laws of physics in itself.

>> No.11087068

>>11087035
>The only useful definition for free will is that we feel and act like we have agency

Please get fucking slotted you kike cock socking glownigger piece of fucking shit. You fucking cretin. You fucking whore of a bitch. Fuck you.
I'd advise you to get the fuck off my board REEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.11087069

>>11087039
why would I be afraid of a faggot?

>> No.11087072
File: 105 KB, 800x500, chadfreewiller-vs-doomernofreewill.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087072

>>11086184

>> No.11087080

>>11087068
ayy

>> No.11087093
File: 114 KB, 1944x308, you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087093

>>11086184
>>>/b/ >>>/trash/

>> No.11087141

>>11086805
>I just feel sorry
well it's your choice

>> No.11087220

>>11087141
still waiting on a fucking source numb nuts.

>> No.11087230

>>11087069
>why would I be afraid of a faggot?
That's what I asked you.

>> No.11087238

>>11086485
>is quantum mechanics deterministic? depends on what side u take
Schrodinger equation is obviously deterministic.

>> No.11087240

>>11086207
Without an actual mechanism that implements connection between them, they are independent.

>> No.11087245

>>11086495
Provide a mathematical model of mechanism that can provide stochastic phenomena.

>> No.11087246

>>11086511
Freedom from external influence.

>> No.11087251

>>11086806
Random interpretations of quantum mechanics are self-contradictory though, so no, QM doesn't rely on randomness.

>> No.11087259

>>11087220
>still waiting
well it's your choice

>> No.11087260

>>11086184
cringe

>> No.11087267

>>11087259
Are you trying to conflate choice with free will?
You're fucking retarded. You really do have brain damage.

>> No.11087295

>>11087052
Based and high iq

>> No.11087326

>>11086184
Okay fucktard if there's no 'free will' and everything is deterministic then what am I going to say next, hmm?
>he won't have an answer because he's suffering from severe microcephaly

>> No.11087327

>>11087052
>COULDVE done
You don't choose the past, you choose the future.

>> No.11087329

>>11086184
If everything is deterministic then you should be able to easily tell me what my tripcode is.

>> No.11087355

>>11087329
This bait isn't even slightly tempting. How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion?

>> No.11087356

>>11087355
Well, if you're so smart that you've deduced the True Nature of the Universe, then clearly and objectively you must be smart enough to deduce a trifle like a secure tripcode.
..or are you not that smart, and Just Another Shitty Troll, hmmm?

>> No.11087357

>>11087326
Next you'll say you were only pretending to be retarded.

>> No.11087358

>>11087327
could of*

>> No.11087362

>>11087356
Why do you think that the great cosmic mystery is unsolvable for all but a literal all-knowing super intelligence? This is a slippery slope of if then that doesn't even remotely follow. And if I am supposed to deduce your tripcode how does that constitute a guess? A deduction is not a guess you fucktard that's the whole god damn point.

>> No.11087365

>>11087357
>>11087362
>has nothing intelligent or scientific to say
>just posts meaningless insults
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK: >>>/b/
/sci/ is not for brainlets like you.

>> No.11087371

"The Big Bang" wasn't real. Just like black holes aren't real. Purely theoretical.

>> No.11087373

>>11087365
The more your pussy hurts, the harder my dick becomes.

>> No.11087374

Dark Matter is also not real. This shit is a religion not science.

>> No.11087383
File: 1.03 MB, 2085x1533, TIMESAND__ytffgtufxt2t1d14v752rcffvjj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087383

The law I told your ancestors not to turn away from was not only that you should fear me, but also that you should bring me a pleasing offering, and the final book in the Old Testament specifically spells out the case of breaking the covenant by present rotten on the Lord's altar.

I like tall, non-waifish athletic women with wide mouths and luscious, full lips, and tidy vaginas.

>> No.11087384

Instead of saying dark matter is not real, you should say dark matter does not exist.
Since there absolutely is something interacting gravitationaly that cannot be detected by spectral emissions.
Supplement by suggesting an alternative to the theoretical dark matter, for example, an aether of physical mass, acting as a medium for electromagnetic and gravitational (acoustic) waves throughout the universe.

>> No.11087386

>>11087246
Don't be a retard. Besides your inner cognition, all you have is external influence.

>> No.11087387

>>11087383
Sup Tooker, do you want them now or what?
What are you going to do if they don't show up, without directing me to whatever scripture?

>> No.11087389
File: 646 KB, 665x470, TIMESAND__ytffgtu35urvd3t1tutdf13t4tcet2t13t14v752rcffvjj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087389

>>11087384
>Supplement by suggesting an alternative to the theoretical dark matter
The real shape 3D and 4D shape of galaxies is different from the simplest possible shape that can be extracted from the 2D images that appear on the photographic plates in our telescopes. The galactic rotation anomaly, the problem "dark matter" was conjectured to solve is based on the assumption that the real shape of galaxies is the simplest possible shape that can be extracted from these 2D pictures we have.

>> No.11087397
File: 1.99 MB, 280x189, TIMESAND___4s5d26fx7yyiibddvvluppaa1uz8737xgg4uie7i911.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087397

>>11087387
>do you want them now or what?
Yes.
>What are you going to do
For one, I will take away the blessings of the priests who go to extreme lengths to traffic children to satanic pedophiles while refusing to take the 15 seconds it would take to present several dozen thick, beautiful, horny, adult women to me as a sexual offering. Then after I reject them as my priests, I will appoint their enemies as my priests over them, and I will mock those former priests when calamity overtakes them.

>> No.11087400

>>11087389
If the images we have obtained of distant galaxies are a misrepresentation of their actual shape, which I propose can not exceed 3D, then it must be because of lensing which we have failed to predict using current models, and thus establishes a need for revision of said models.
What do you propose this revision should be?

>> No.11087414
File: 488 KB, 503x500, TIMESAND___1bnjn5u7fffy3xf44eryrvjjr45-fewjtejtejstkmyry0ym08780000f2tuukjj24456546327.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11087414

>>11087400
The 3D shape is a surface of constant proper time along the 4D shape. Everything in the universe is 4D, this is known and has been taught in the undergrad physics curriculum for many decades. Furthermore, there is no general relativity in less than four dimensions, and we have ABSOLUTELY NO DATA about happens between a given surface of constant proper time and what we can see on the past light cone. You might as well write "here be monsters" between the past light cone and the hypersurface of the present because we have no idea what goes on there. I agree that dark matter is a better guess for the anomalous rotation, but the data has convinced me that there is no dark matter, and the only theories of dark matter which haven't already been ruled out by what we can see on the past light cone are completely fucking retarded and contrived, and when you compared those "dark matter" theories which are no yet ruled out to my "dark geometry" suggestion, my opinion is that dark geometry is a lot more reasaonable and more consistent with what is usually called "physical." I mean... "the dark matter chameleon field?" Are you fucking kidding me?

>then it must be because of lensing
That's completely not true, there's a million things it could be. It's even more not true because lensing is a classical optical effect and you can change it. All you can do with lensing is to calculate the Sachs-Wolfe effect and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.

Your suggestion "it can only be lensing" ignores the obvious truth: it can be any of an infinite number of things that no one thought of yet and whose fundamental principles are not yet fully understood. It's like saying, "My keys have to be around here somewhere!!!" The truth is, a burglar might have taken your keys while you were posting on 4chan.

>> No.11087415

>>11087414
>All you can do with lensing is to calculate the Sachs-Wolfe effect and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect.
should have added "etc" at the end there

>> No.11087432

>It's even more not true because lensing is a classical optical effect and you can change it.
***CANT CHANGE IT****

>> No.11087541

>>11087414
>>11087415
>>11087432
I think that the premise that the universe is 4D is false, and here's why. There can be only three intersecting axis which are each perpendicular to the others. In conclusion, I respectfully disagree with you about the shape of everything in the cosmos, and that is an impasse of sorts.
However, I am interested in what you are describing as a missing data set

>we have ABSOLUTELY NO DATA about happens between a given surface of constant proper time and what we can see on the past light cone.

In the penrose diagram? Tell me why I should think that
>The 3D shape is a surface of constant proper time along the 4D shape.

I'm super curious. It seems contrived, but you seem to think it's a very objective viewpoint.

>> No.11087546

>>11087541
If a 3D shape is a (two dimensional) surface on a 4D object, wouldn't it follow that a 2D shape is a (one dimensional) point on a 3D object?
That seems like a major contradiction.

>> No.11087552

>>11086432
You are trying to help him but what you say is wrong.

>> No.11087569

>>11087546
surface *of constant proper time*
point *of constant proper time*
also what is constant proper time?

>> No.11087986

>>11087546
If there is 11 dimensions as theorized, then every 3D object we see is actually 11 dimensions that we can't see?

What the hell does an 11 dimensional tree look like? So does every human have 11 dimensions we can't see also?

>> No.11088089
File: 276 KB, 1066x600, wojak retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11088089

>bro laws of psychics and cause and effect
>b-but the human brain is the only thing that can get outside of this because I feeeeel it

>> No.11088160

Not everything is determined; there is still randomless on the quantum level (unless there is a pattern and we simply don't understand it)
But obviously, choice doesn't enter into this at all. Free will is still a meme like religion.

>> No.11088201

>>11087386
If external influence is all you have, then yes, you're an NPC and don't have free will.

>> No.11088215

>>11086794
good post

>> No.11088504

>>11086207
one analogy
https://youtu.be/EJsD-3jtXz0?t=29m30s

>> No.11088507

>>11087230
why the projection?

>> No.11088508

>>11087267
well it's my choice

>> No.11088549

>>11086184
Consciousness is seperate from deterministic world. Consciousness can influence the deterministic world. You are using your free will to deny it.

>> No.11088553

>>11088549
>>>/x/

>> No.11088575

>>11087072
>conflating fatalism with determinism
This is why the free will brainlets will never win this argument

>> No.11088603

>>11088160
>unless there is a pattern and we simply don't understand it
This is most likely the case. Einstein himself argued this. That the reason we can't predict beyond quantum probabilities is due to ignorance.

>> No.11088608

>>11087358
You mean "could have". The fuck is "could of"?

>> No.11088619

OP here.

can someone explain how consciousness and choice can coexist with physics?

how does quantum mechanics, the copenhagen interpretation, defeat determinism?

>> No.11088630

free will is a spectrum

>> No.11088638

>>11088504
based dennett

>> No.11088869

>>11087986
String theory is not legitimate in the slightest. There are 3 dimensions, get over it.

>> No.11088899

Ancient Aliens for graduates edition.

When God gave humans free will, he didn't change us physiologically in any way. He just left us to our devices. Free will, as a philosophical concept is invalid or false, because it is inconsistent with reality.

However free will can be thought to exist by taking meaning strictly by definition.

If you roll a cylinder with nothing in front of it to obstruct it, does it not roll freely?

Free will as an ideal does not exist, but free will as unobstructed intent does exist, albeit in circumstantial cases only.

The failure to see past the apparent fatalism of determinism is a result of a lack of imagination.
Determinism is of course, salvation.

>> No.11088924

>>11087373
>on /sci/
>talking about his dick getting hard
>>>/b/ >>>/trash/
/sci/ is not for animalistic brainlets

>> No.11088927

Why is this troll thread still here?
It's clearly garbage. Why are you all attempting to have real discussions in it instead of just reporting it and seeing it deleted?