/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11482045]

the universe is non-deterministic, and we do not have free will

[Anonymous No.11482068]

>>11482045

[Anonymous No.11482072]

where is determinism broken?

[Anonymous No.11482075]

>>11482072
wave function collapse, anon

let me guess
>”MUH MANY WORLDS”
*chuckles*

[Anonymous No.11482078]

>>11482075
so once a wave function collapses, do you think that the result had no cause?

[Anonymous No.11482080]

>>11482045
>the universe is non-deterministic, and we do not have free will
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

[Anonymous No.11482085]

>>11482072
>where is determinism broken?
What caused the universe?

[Anonymous No.11482086]

>>11482075
many worlds is only deterministic in the sense that everything happens. It's not actually deterministic, the "reason" for branching and all that is not deterministic whatsoever and if any MWI guy tries to tell you otherwise he/she is being a fucking pedant retard and is purposefully being obtuse.
>>11482078
causality and determinism aren't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11482089]

>>11482072
>where is determinism broken?
What caused determinism?

[Anonymous No.11482091]

>>11482086
Explain to me in good faith, how
> wave function collapse
breaks determinism, if causality has nothing to do with determinism.

[Anonymous No.11482108]

>>11482091
causality has nothing to do with it. physics can be consistent with multiple future outcomes. the fact that quantum mechanics says that the outcome that is realized is random has nothing to do with anything but mathematical probability theory

[Anonymous No.11482111]

>>11482045
>*blocks you're path*

The reason that physics cannot pay explanatory debts generated by various causal hypotheses is that it does not itself possess an adequate understanding of causality. This is evident from the fact that in physics, events are assumed to be either deterministic or nondeterministic in origin. Given an object, event, set or process, it is usually assumed to have come about in one of just two possible ways: either it was brought about by something prior and external to it, or it sprang forth spontaneously as if by magic. The prevalence of this dichotomy, determinacy versus randomness, amounts to an unspoken scientific axiom asserting that everything in the universe is ultimately either a function of causes external to the determined entity (up to and including the universe itself), or no function of anything whatsoever. In the former case there is a known or unknown explanation, albeit external; in the latter case, there is no explanation at all. In neither case can the universe be regarded as causally self-contained.

In a self-deterministic system, causal regression leads to a completely intrinsic self-generative process. In any system that is not ultimately self-deterministic, including any system that is either random or deterministic in the standard extrinsic sense, causal regression terminates at null causality or does not terminate. In either of the latter two cases, science can fully explain nothing; in the absence of a final cause, even material and efficient causes are subject to causal regression toward ever more basic (prior and embedding) substances and processes, or if random in origin, toward primitive acausality. So given that explanation is largely what science is all about, science would seem to have no choice but to treat the universe as a self-deterministic, causally self-contained system.

[Anonymous No.11482115]

>>11482108
A+ in dodging questions, have a great rest of your night idiot.

[Anonymous No.11482124]

>>11482085
the source code of the simulation

[Anonymous No.11482132]

>>11482111
>Given an object, event, set or process, it is usually assumed to have come about in one of just two possible ways: either it was brought about by something prior and external to it, or it sprang forth spontaneously as if by magic.
fuck off langan. magic doesn’t real and if your incomprehensible gibberish relies on magic, as you are staring, then it is stupid

[Anonymous No.11482134]

>>11482132
*stating not “staring”

[Anonymous No.11482192]

>>11482045
Correct.

[Anonymous No.11482226]

>>11482045
>Now this lagrangian, to my left, represents 4chan

[Anonymous No.11482297]

NPCs think they have free will
PCs recognize that there's no reason to assume that the universe couldn't be a simulation, thus we don't have free will

[Anonymous No.11482313]

>>11482045
I think therefore i am.
You now explode and die bye i win

[Anonymous No.11482320]

>>11482045
>yes! I love having deep conversations about free will! What a mind-bending topic!

[Anonymous No.11482343]

>>11482045
What in the universe indicates that the universe is non-deterministic? You may say quantum randomness. My response to that would be that it's much more likely that something is either affecting the particles and we just can't detect it making things appear to be random, or that we are simply just wrong about quantum mechanics. Bearing in mind that it's incompatible with Relativity this is quite likely.

Also can someone explain to me the mental gymnastics behind some believing that we have free will and yet the universe is deterministic.

>>11482080
1) No it isn't.
2) The current scientific consensus is not unimportant but it's irrelevant when trying to decipher what is actually true. Scientists can be wrong and we shouldn't just blindly believe what they believe.

[Anonymous No.11482350]

>>11482320
Retard

[Anonymous No.11482353]

>>11482350
>Retard!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11482373]

>>11482343
>Also can someone explain to me the mental gymnastics behind some believing that we have free will and yet the universe is deterministic.
I honestly think its an oxymoron and only brainlets would defend it but I would love to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.11482396]

>>11482343
>1) No it isn't.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.11482448]

>>11482396
You're the one who made the claim. You provide the evidence.
But anyway I made an entire rebuttal against the possibility of scientific consensus being for free will. However you conveniently ignored this.

[Anonymous No.11482523]

>being le so random is "free will

[Anonymous No.11482863]

>>11482343
>Also can someone explain to me the mental gymnastics behind some believing that we have free will and yet the universe is deterministic.
Someone explain to me the mental gymnastics of our choices not being *causally determined* by our thoughts, desires and consideration of different alternatives having anything to do with freedom of the will.