/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14502582]

is true randomness real?
if you had enough information, could you predict everything?

[Anonymous No.14502601]

>>14502582
You can't even predict a double pendulum. LOL. Determinism is a theoretical fantasy no matter how you slice things.

[Anonymous No.14502688]

>>14502582
That question gets into the whole interpretation of quantum mechanics quagmire.

[Anonymous No.14502701]

Even if randomness wasn't real, there's still an unpredictable free will. You cannot construct a Turing machine that accurately predicts what I will eat for dinner today or which porn I will fap to today.

[Anonymous No.14502709]

Randomness is real.

I think what helped me understand randomness, is studying a lot of philosophy of math, and seeing that randomness is really just the property of not being able to predict the outcome. The outcome of a die is random because we dont know which way it will end up.

The fact that the outcome is deterministic does not preclude it from being random. While its deterministic, we still dont know. Its our mental state of not knowing that makes it random, not any property of the die itself.

So in some sense everything in random, since we cant predict any outcome with 100% certainty, but the things that the word "random" best describes are the kinds of things like dice rolls and coin flips, where every outcome has an equal probability of occurring. In those situations we not only do not know, but we couldnt even make a best-guess on its outcome.

Of course this is just a common sense idea of randomness. Some domains have different definitions. Like I have heard computer scientists say data is random if it cannot be compressed,

[Anonymous No.14502711]

>>14502701
>unpredictable free will.
What is unpredictable about free will?

People exercise their free will when eating, but I can predict that people will eat regularly, probably at the same times, and probably in accordance with a consistent diet.

All very predictable and under the discretion of free will.

[Anonymous No.14502715]

>>14502701
>You cannot construct a Turing machine that accurately predicts what I will eat for dinner today
Can you prove that formally anon?

[Anonymous No.14502717]

>>14502701
>You cannot construct a Turing machine that accurately predicts what I will eat for dinner today
Wow you're so quirky and random anon

[Anonymous No.14502729]

>>14502711
>shifting le goalposts
Bet you feel smart for predicting that I will eat something. But you can't predict what it will be. Because it is not determined yet. Determinism fails when spontaneous self-determinacy enters the game.

[Anonymous No.14502735]

>>14502582
>is true randomness real?
There is no way to prove it.
No matter how random something seems, you cannot rule out the possibility there's actually a deterministic order behind it.
No matter how deterministic something looks, you can't rule out the possibility it's all result of chance, or that there's actually some slight randomness to it.

>if you had enough information, could you predict everything?
Yes. That's why it's impossible to predict everything.

[Anonymous No.14502739]

>>14502582
probability can be understood in terms as incomplete information. this is a foundational idea in information theory as conceived by Shannon. just read his seminal paper

[Anonymous No.14502745]

>>14502701
>you cannot predict what I will eat/what i porn I fap to
Every porn site has recommendations that work to a degree
Uber eats has food discovery.

Nevermind these two, Google/facebook knows what your food tastes are, what porn you like, where you go, etc.

[Anonymous No.14502756]

>>14502745
Those only work for NPCs who have no free will. I actively search for porn because the recommendations are trash. I never ordered at Uber Eats. Don't use social media. What now?

[Anonymous No.14502759]

>>14502709
>randomness is really just the property of not being able to predict the outcome.
But this is patently false. See >>14502601

[Anonymous No.14502765]

>>14502688
Not really

[Anonymous No.14502766]

>>14502745
>letting big corporations make all the decisions in your life
Do Americans really?

[Anonymous No.14502768]

>>14502701
>>14502729
>>14502756
So how do you know your brain activity itself isn't subject to some deterministic laws of physics? Saying that you have some hidden magical source of "free will" that separates you from the determinism of the universe (if it is deterministic that is) is pretty fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.14502769]

>>14502745
Not that anon, but all of those are statistical hit-or-miss guesses, so what were you trying to argue? They don't operate on deterministic principles in the first place, so how could they prove your determinist delusions? lol

[Anonymous No.14502770]

>>14502765
I guess you guys aren't smart enough to realize it

[Anonymous No.14502774]

>>14502768
>So how do you know your brain activity itself isn't subject to some deterministic laws of physics?
Daily reminder: "deterministic laws of physics" are imaginary abstractions in your head. Determinism is an untestable metaphysical concept, not emirically verifiable.

[Anonymous No.14502778]

>>14502774
free will is an imaginary abstraction in your head, and unlike determinism you can't even define it coherently

[Anonymous No.14502781]

>>14502778
I don't know what your mentally ill spergout is about, but my point still stands, and doesn't even mention any "free will".

[Anonymous No.14502784]

>>14502768
>I am just a biological machine living without higher purpose
Okay dude.

[Anonymous No.14502789]

>>14502778
Free will is spontaneous self-determinacy. Easy definition.

[Anonymous No.14502791]

>>14502789
That isn't saying anything concrete. How is that any different from being random or being determined

[Anonymous No.14502792]

>>14502774
So is free will. I'm asking you to prove your supposition that you are not subject to determinism.

[bodhi No.14502793]

>>14502582
no, randomness is not real, only psueds say otherwise

[Anonymous No.14502794]

>>14502792
I don't know what your mentally ill spergout is about, but my point still stands, and doesn't even mention any "free will".

[Anonymous No.14502795]

>>14502582
>if
Yes but it is impossible to have enough information.

[Anonymous No.14502799]

>>14502582
Yes with enough information your could reasonably predict the future. Check out Laplace's demon, very clockwork universe popular in like the 18th century.
Quantum uncertainty does throw in some true randomness, but it's statistical randomness. For all sufficiently macro objects you can pretty much ignore quantum effects because they average out.

[Anonymous No.14502800]

>>14502784
I'm not saying it's true or false because I don't know. Nobody knows. But being offended at the possibility of living a deterministic existence and rejecting it because of your feelings is silly. You can believe your life has a higher predetermined purpose (which would make you have even less free will ironically) if that makes you feel better. I'm here for you anon.

[Anonymous No.14502811]

>>14502791
>How is that any different from being random
By it's reflective nature of imposing restraints upon itself. It can be quite complex and lengthy. Randomness on the other hand instantaneously transitions into determinism.
>or being determined
The spontaneous nature of free will makes it impossible to attribute it to prior deterministic causality. While having causal effects, it is (at least partially) uncaused itself.

You do accept that the universe (the big bang) was uncaused, right? The universe imposed the laws of nature onto itself. The universe on a large scale has to be consistent with its own contents on a small scale. Therefore there is a potential for the same mechanism of self-reflective acausal determinacy to happen in e.g. a human being. This amounts to exertion of free will.

[Anonymous No.14502812]

>>14502701
depending on how you define free will, i'd argue there is no such thing. your choices are impacted by your previous experiences. every choice and action you make is influenced in some way by your environment and the people in it.

no decision is made totally in isolation of any outside influence.

[Anonymous No.14502814]

>>14502811
>The spontaneous nature of free will makes it impossible to attribute it to prior deterministic causality.
Can you prove that this mythical free will even exists?

[Anonymous No.14502820]

>>14502800
>because of your feelings
No, because of an a priori deduction. Without free will the universe itself couldn't exist.

>higher predetermined purpose
You added the word "predetermined" and it's wrong. The purpose is at least partially self-imposed.

[Anonymous No.14502821]

>>14502814
Not to a NPC.

[Anonymous No.14502822]

>>14502811
>Therefore there is a potential for the same mechanism of self-reflective acausal determinacy to happen in e.g. a human being. This amounts to exertion of free will.
Oh I see. So humans have free will to the same extent that the universe has free will. So it really is a vacuous concept that you can apply to anything after all.

You should try your hand at writing self help books for gullible housewives

[Anonymous No.14502826]

>>14502799
>Quantum uncertainty
i take issue with this. saying that it is random is sort of precluding the possibility that we could figure out a mechanism to accurately predict how quantum particles would behave.

now, sure, you express the position of an electron as a probability function, but we could just as easily not know the mechanism for what makes the electron be in a place at a given time.

[Anonymous No.14502829]

>>14502821
Based and correct response. You win the argument.

[Anonymous No.14502833]

>>14502821
So the answer is "because it would make me feel bad if that isn't the case". I can accept that as an answer but I suspect your pride won't let you yield like that.

[Anonymous No.14502837]

>So the answer is "because it would make me feel bad if that isn't the case". I can accept that as an answer but I suspect your pride won't let you yield like that.
Sounds like someone can't accept getting BTFO.

[Anonymous No.14502846]

>>14502582
yes theoretically with perfect information we can predict things but this all boils down to our inability to model every little chemical and physical interaction going on at the microscopic level. We can only simulate some n level of approximation, we simply don’t have the technology to observe (and therefore simulate) all the small details of the world like the exact electrical voltage of the correct bundle of neurons in your brain in a specific interval that determines how many nanograms of adrenaline you wake up with that decides how fast you’re going to try to piss into whichever side of the toilet bowl, not even accounting for how tight your urethra is, plus modern fluid dynamics is only so accurate, what like what about that stray drop of piss that -!assumed to be an outlier smoothed out in the approximation processes - that splashes back onto your eye or knee triggering some kind jerking reflex ? And then you banged your head against the tub accidentally? Now you are dead asshole

[Anonymous No.14502847]

>>14502837
I mean, you are literally saying no because of feelings. Normally you'd be the one who's an NPC here.

[Anonymous No.14502859]

>the universe is heckin' deterministic, okay?
>so what if it's impossible to predict the behavior of some simple systems even in theory?
>these symbols on this piece of paper here describe a "deterministic" system, see?
>no, i can't use it to make accurate predictions about its real-life counterpart
>no, not even under a theoretical, perfectly controlled setting
>no, not even if i could perfectly measure the initial conditions
>why am i calling a fundamentally unpredictable system "determinstic"?
>well, because if we could duplicate the initial conditions perfectly, it would behave exactly the same way every time
>no, i can't replicate the initial conditions and empirically test this claim in practice
>no, it's not possible even in theory
>yes, i am making imaginary statements about a theoretical universe that doesn't work like this one
>but determinism is true because it's real in my head, okay??

[Anonymous No.14502863]

>>14502847
The only thing I'm saying is that you are impotent and seething, and it pleases me. The other anon is based and you're a loser you even in the fantasy alternate reality he's wrong and you're right.

[Anonymous No.14502882]

>>14502863
I mean, the argument against determinism and for free will here is still just "because I say so". Which is fine but don't pretend that makes you smart.

[Anonymous No.14502887]

>>14502601
The double pendulum is a perfectly deterministic system, 'tardo.

[Anonymous No.14502888]

>>14502882
See >>14502859 and hang yourself. Don't bother to reply, since any objection will be objectively incorrect.

[Anonymous No.14502891]

>>14502887
>The double pendulum is a perfectly deterministic system
I'm sure the imaginary abstraction in your head conforms to your vacuous notion of an imaginary universe where it behaves that way by definition.

[Anonymous No.14502893]

>>14502601
>>14502891
Double pendulum is a chaotic system. Not random.

[Anonymous No.14502895]

>>14502893
No one said it was random. See >>14502859 and then hang yourself.

[Anonymous No.14502949]

>>14502895
It's still a deterministic system.

[Anonymous No.14502956]

>>14502949
>reposts his religious chant
Everything in that post stands completely unchallenged.

[Anonymous No.14502962]

>>14502956
A numerical solution to a double pendulum motion converges as your approximation becomes better despite it being a chaotic system. It's 100% deterministic.

[Anonymous No.14502963]

>>14502962
>he just keeps repeating his religious chants
Every single point made in >>14502859 stands completely unaddressed and unchallenged.

[Anonymous No.14502968]

>>14502963
Why should I be addressing an unhinged rant? Why would you not address my argument?

[Anonymous No.14502974]

>>14502968
Show a single thing in that post that is wrong. You can't. Let's watch you deflect or reiterate your dogma gain. :^)

[Anonymous No.14502991]

>>14502962
>A numerical solution to a double pendulum motion converges as your approximation becomes better
The predicted trajectory will diverge for any non-infinitesimal step size. No matter how small you make it, you will never match anything but an infinitely small fraction of the trajectory.

[Anonymous No.14502996]

>>14502888
>>14502895
>>14502963
>See >>14502859
I saw, and I found nothing but strawmen.

[Anonymous No.14503001]

>>14502996
Notice how not a single one of you low IQ retards can show anything wrong in that post? :^)

[Anonymous No.14503052]

>because we can't know it now, that means we will never be able to know it

[Anonymous No.14503056]

>i'm quoting imaginary characters in my head

[Anonymous No.14503061]

>>14502582
If two possible outcomes were exactly equal in chance of occurence, what would cause one outcome to happen instead of the other?
Seems impossible by definition for two possible different outcomes to have exactly equal chances of happening because no mechanism would exist to make the "decision" on which of the two happens. And if there were a mechanism to let one happen and not the other then that mechanism would be the determining factor and it wouldn't be a case of exactly equal chances after all.

[Anonymous No.14503064]

>>14503061
>disproves nondeterminism by assuming determinism and then showing that determinism follows from his assumption

[Anonymous No.14503087]

>>14502582
>is true randomness real?
According to QM, it is.

>if you had enough information, could you predict everything?
No. Even in a completely deterministic universe, you can't predict certain things that are effected by the prediction. For example, if I read the output of any prediction of what I'm going to say directly after the prediction and say the opposite, it's impossible to predict what I'm going to say, because any prediction will be the opposite of what I say.

[Anonymous No.14503088]

>>14503064
Not assuming it. Looking at the idea of true randomness either way it doesn't really add up.
Maybe it would help to ask this: Are you flat out denying the existence of cause and effect relationships?
If you aren't, then wouldn't there need to be some mechanism for why one outcome happens over an alternative?
And if you are, then describe how that works in the absence of any mechanism for one outcome happening over another.

[Anonymous No.14503096]

>>14503087
That would make it impossible to predict from within the system. but if you had someone making a prediction, you reacting to that prediction and a third person outside of this system also making a prediction in secret, that third person could predict the outcome.

[Anonymous No.14503099]

>>14503061
>If two possible outcomes were exactly equal in chance of occurence, what would cause one outcome to happen instead of the other?
It depends what you mean by chance of occurence. Does it mean your subjective credence based on the information available to you? Then there's no contradiction, since you're simply unaware of the mechanism that determines the outcome. If you mean that done phenomenon is truly random, then there is no deterministic mechanism, the "mechanism" is randomness itself, some quantum phenomenon for example.

[Anonymous No.14503100]

>>14503088
>Not assuming it.
>>14503061
> what would cause one outcome to happen instead of the other?
> no mechanism would exist to make the "decision"

[Anonymous No.14503104]

>>14503096
>That would make it impossible to predict from within the system.
So make the system the entire universe. You have to predict what I'll say after I receive your prediction. No predictor in the entire universe can do this. So not everything is predictable in a deterministic universe.

[Anonymous No.14503112]

>>14503100
That's not an assumption of determinism.
It's a statement that non-determinism wouldn't have a mechanism for deciding one way or the other in a case of two possible alternative outcomes with allegedly equal chance of happening.
Same as if I said a bicycle wouldn't have a third wheel unless it weren't really a bicycle. Not assuming we are talking about a real bicycle, just outlining a quality entailed by what a bicycle constitutes.

[Anonymous No.14503115]

>>14503112
>That's not an assumption of determinism.
It's a line of thought rooted in determinism.

[Anonymous No.14503121]

>>14502582
If it is, information would have to be entering our universe.

[Anonymous No.14503127]

>>14503104
What you're describing (not being able to do something a certain way because the consequence of what you do will change which way the outcome will go) is basically just Gödel's first incompleteness theorem. And the limit to what that covers is that you can't do it from within the same system but can do it outside of the system, that's all I was pointing out. You could call our "universe" that system but the same idea applies where there can just be some vantage point outside that "universe." It gets to be less meaningful and more of a nitpicking about language argument at that point where some will insist "universe" must mean everything and can't allow any additional external systems beyond it.

[Anonymous No.14503130]

>>14503115
You'e welcome to describe your take on how exactly it would work.

[Anonymous No.14503137]

>>14503130
Nice deflection. It still stands that your reasoning is circular: if the universe is not deterministic, why does there need to be a "mechanism" to "decide" a random outcome?

[Anonymous No.14503146]

>>14502582
No one knows. the question of whether Laplace's demon that doesn't abide by physical limitations can predict everything is an unanswered (and arguably undecidable) question.

[Anonymous No.14503147]

>>14502859
Determinism is independent of the human ability to recreate an experiment, humans are irrelevant to the laws of physics and math.
Having said that, you are correct, the universe isn't deterministic, because Quantum Mechanics.
>but im so smart and i think this isn't correct because muh guy (((Einstein))) hated the non determinism
You're dumb. Cope.

[Anonymous No.14503148]

>>14503137
It's not deflection. I'd rather you talk about how you think it would work instead of repeatedly posting
>You're assumimg determinism
Since the former allows for a discussion that can go somewhere.
>if the universe is not deterministic, why does there need to be a "mechanism" to "decide" a random outcome?
I didn't say there needs to be a mechanism. I said there wouldn't be a mechanism by definition and that I don't see how that would allow for one possibility to happen over another. How would that work exactly?

[Anonymous No.14503150]

>>14503148
>I didn't say there needs to be a mechanism
Then what's the point of your objection? There wouldn't be one, and it isn't needed.

[Anonymous No.14503151]

>>14503150
My point is I'm trying to imagine how this would be coherent or actually work.

[Anonymous No.14503160]

>>14503151
>My point is I'm trying to imagine
Who cares if you can imagine it or not?

[Anonymous No.14503164]

>>14503160
If you don't care I don't see why you keep on replying. Nobody asked you to care. You can fuck off if you prefer.

[Anonymous No.14503167]

>>14503164
You made a moronic argument that hinges on your inability to imagine something. I'm just reminding you that your inability to imagine something doesn't prove anything, and the idea that there needs to be a "reason" for a particular outcome itself amounts to an assumption of determinism from the get go.

[Anonymous No.14503171]

>>14503167
It's not even really an argument at this point. I'm simply trying to understand how you think this would work and it doesn't seem to actually work. Sorry of that's upsetting for you.

[Anonymous No.14503173]

>>14503171
>I'm simply trying to understand how you think this would work
You're asking a completely nonsensical question. How it would work in terms of what?

[Anonymous No.14503175]

>>14503173
Asking how it would work is nonsensical?
That's maybe the least nonsensical thing anyone can ask.
>in terms of what
You tell me since apparently any possibilities I suggest are assuming determinism.

[Anonymous No.14503179]

Quantum mechanics assumes that true randomness exists, however there is no way of proving that true randomness doesn’t exist (you cannot definitely prove the future, you can only extrapolate the past), and you can’t prove that true randomness does exist (you can’t peove that there isn’t some sequence all “random” variables are predestined to follow).
Quantum mechanics are the best theory we have right now, though we might find a deterministic theory sooner or later. That’s another thing we can’t determine right now.

[Anonymous No.14503182]

>>14503175
>Asking how it would work is nonsensical?
Absolutely. Notice how you keep desperately deflecting because you can't actually show that it is a valid question in the first place. In terms of what am I suppose to answer it?

[Anonymous No.14503183]

>>14502756
>i didn't let machines make predictions for me therefore it can't be done

[Anonymous No.14503188]

>>14503127
>And the limit to what that covers is that you can't do it from within the same system but can do it outside of the system, that's all I was pointing out.
Yeah, but that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. We're taking about physics, which takes place in a single system called the universe. So if something is not predictable in a system then their are non-predictable things in a deterministic universe.

[Anonymous No.14503190]

>>14503179
>though we might find a deterministic theory sooner or later
wtf I thought the science was settled

[Anonymous No.14503192]

>>14503182
I already did give you terms and you didn't like any of them.
That's kind if the problem. Everything either doesn't count in your mind because it's "assuming determinism" or else it's not being mentioned at all for inexplicable reasons that you don't want to discuss.

[Anonymous No.14503198]

>>14503188
Is it really not deterministic just because the prediction needs to be done externally? Or for that matter you could just have any other people not part of the two man predict and respond setup make their own prediction still so it doesn't really even make sense to say the sytem is now the universe unless no other people in the universe exist.

[Anonymous No.14503200]

>>14503192
Let me break it down to you like you're a retarded child (since you appear to be one): when you ask "how does X work", the implication is that X can be broken down into simple elements and principles, and shown to causally arise from them. Your question is nonsensical in this context for two reasons:
1. We're talking about primitive principles that can't be broken down further
2. They are non-causal by definition

[Anonymous No.14503202]

>>14503190
What science did you think was settled?

[Anonymous No.14503204]

>>14503200
>We're talking about primitive principles that can't be broken down further
OK, so your concept for how it would work is "it just manifests into being without any explanation."

[Anonymous No.14503210]

>>14503202
physics and immunology

[Anonymous No.14503213]

>>14503204
I've literally just shown to you that the question is invalid. It would be invalid under any context for the simple reason that it can't be applied to primitive elements and principles, but it is doubly invalid when you're asking to explain the causality of noncausal outcomes.

[Anonymous No.14503215]

>>14503198
>Is it really not deterministic just because the prediction needs to be done externally?
??? My entire point is that a deterministic universe is not predictable. Determinism doesn't imply predictability.

>Or for that matter you could just have any other people not part of the two man predict and respond setup make their own prediction
That's not the same prediction since it's not recursive. The recursive prediction, which references the predictor, is what can't be done.

>so it doesn't really even make sense to say the sytem is now the universe unless no other people in the universe exist.
It's to include all possible predictors that can send a prediction to me. You didn't get it.

[Anonymous No.14503219]

>>14503210
No one claims either are entirely solved, let alone settled, you must be confused.

[Anonymous No.14503220]

consider our universe to be deterministic. Only we lack the necessary knowledge and the means to be able to calculate this determinism in reality.

[Anonymous No.14503222]

>>14503204
So you're saying the laws of physics just manifested into being with no explanation? What causes fundamental physics?

[Anonymous No.14503225]

>>14502729
Do you have only beans on your pantry?
Do you fucking adore beans?

With enough information I could predict a likely outcome, only reason I can't say for certain is because I don't know if a meteor will fall on you or something.

With enough certain, infallible information even a human could predict the future.

The question quantum physics poses is wether anything can be known for certain or is just a 99.999...% probability.

[Anonymous No.14503227]

>>14503220
Even if you had perfect information about a perfectly deterministic system, there would still remain outcomes you can't predict, if the prediction effects the outcome.

[Anonymous No.14503228]

>>14503225
>With enough certain, infallible information even a human could predict the future.
Wrong. See >>14503227

[Anonymous No.14503229]

>>14503215
>That's not the same prediction since it's not recursive.
Predictor A can't predict what Respondent X will say in response to Predictor A, but Predictor B can predict what X will say to A. So no predictor can predict Xs response to their own prediction but it would all be deterministic still since any other additional predictor will know the outcome.

[Anonymous No.14503233]

>>14503222
>So you're saying the laws of physics just manifested into being with no explanation?
I don't think anyone said that.
>What causes fundamental physics?
I have no idea, but it sounds like a good question.

[Anonymous No.14503239]

>>14503229
>Predictor A can't predict what Respondent X will say in response to Predictor A, but Predictor B can predict what X will say to A
The prediction was not defined in terms of a specific predictor A, it was defined recursively. No one can predict what I'm going to say after I receive their prediction. Thus not every outcome is predictable. What I'm going to say after receiving someone else's prediction is a different event by definition.

>but it would all be deterministic still
Can you not read? I never said it was not deterministic. In fact I discotheques started several times it was completely deterministic. Deterministic =/= predictable.

[Anonymous No.14503245]

>>14503233
>I don't think anyone said that.
Then please explain the cause behind the laws of physics.

>I have no idea, but it sounds like a good question.
It's a categorically error. Causality is a law of physics, it doesn't apply to the laws themselves and negate other laws that are non-causal.

[Anonymous No.14503246]

>>14502709
>the outcome of a die is random
?

if you calculate the initial trajectory, all the physical properties of the die, the surface it lands on and the atmospheric conditions you could predict with 100% accuracy how the die ends up

i also don't understand the appeals to free will like it's some magical thing that exists outside the structure of your brain.. we can already predict someones choice based on a pretty elementary capturing of the brain, let alone a complete mapping right down to the microtubules

[Anonymous No.14503248]

>>14503233
>diving into an infinite regression sounds valid to me
LOL. What a retard. The funniest part is that this infinite regression in and itself undermines your belief that causality is the basic principle behind the universe, since you will either end up making an arbitrary exception to your rule that everything needs to be explained in terms of something else, or submit to the absurd idea of infinite causes undeterminable causes that exist just because say so.

[Anonymous No.14503250]

>>14503239
>What I'm going to say after receiving someone else's prediction is a different event by definition.
Let's be extra clear:
B knowing what X will say to A isn't B knowing what X will say to B.
What X will say to B certainly is a separate event from what X will say to A.
But what X will say to A is what X will say to A. So B knowing what X will say to A isn't a second event. it's the same event known to a second person.

[Anonymous No.14503255]

>>14503248
Do you think the only two options are:
1. Infinitie regress
2. Manifestation without reason
?

[Anonymous No.14503261]

>>14503255
There is no third option and that should be immediately apparent. Whatever is at the bottom of your hierarchy of explanations either stands to be explained (locking you in an infinite regression), or it simply is to be taken at face value.

[Anonymous No.14503263]

>>14503261
>immediately apparent
Seems a bit silly to make any immediate assumptions about something as deep as the fundamental nature of causality.

[Anonymous No.14503264]

>>14503219
>backpedalling
https://desuarchive.org/qa/search/text/science%20settled/

[Anonymous No.14503266]

>>14503263
Holy shit. This board is infested with actual, clinical, mouth-breathing fucking mongoloids. You are legitimately dumber than the average 12 years old. You're incapable of basic logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14503267]

>>14502582
>is true randomness real?
No, the only real thing is the wavefunction of the universe
>if you had enough information could you predict everything?
No, since it's mathematically impossible to have to complete information about complementary quantities according to quantum mechanics

You can safely disregard all other posts ITT as trash.

[Anonymous No.14503270]

>>14503266
Believe it or not, anon, smarter people than you have thought about this and resisted the urge to immediately conclude the answer is a two sentence shitpost.

[Anonymous No.14503279]

>>14503270
Believe it or not, you're a fucking mouth breather, and pretty much everyone agrees that there is no third option there unless you introduce some exotic non-bivalent logic for, which is many times weirder than the perfectly natural notion of something simply being the way it is.

[Anonymous No.14503282]

>>14503179
i think that's fair.
if the math works by assuming that randomness exists, and there aren't any problems by assuming randomness exists, then does it really matter (right now) if randomness does or does not ACTUALLY exist?

if, currently, we are not limited by treating protons and neutrons as being made up of a three-quark system, but in actual fact it turns out the composition of protons is actually different, does it REALLY matter either way?

if, by assuming quantum effects are actually random, doesn't actually limit our ability to answer any questions currently, then i'd argue whether or not the randomness COULD be deterministic doesn't matter-- since we lack the capacity to prove it either way.

[Anonymous No.14503285]

>>14503227
>>14503228
In a perfectly deterministic universe you mentioned, me knowing the future would already be part of that future. In a deterministic universe by definition the decisions I'd make would already be set in stone/accounted for.

[Anonymous No.14503287]

>>14503215
>The recursive prediction, which references the predictor, is what can't be done.
it can if the predictor knows what rule you're operating under (ie: i will say the opposite of whatever he predicts)
and then chooses to lie to you about his prediction.

[Anonymous No.14503290]

>>14503267
Ye ye ye, but if you did?
If you did have all the info?

[Anonymous No.14503291]

>>14503285
He said there would be outcomes you can't predict, not that there would be outcomes that are not deterministic, you actual dunce. The fact that you have trouble acknowledging that this is not a contradiction only goes to illustrate that a logically consistent conecpt of determinism is pretty vacuous, and the one you're clinging to is just a kind of NPC dogma.

[Anonymous No.14503298]

>>14503290
>Ye ye ye, but if you did?
Don't 'ye' me, retard. You learnt something new so you should be thanking me instead of returning to your caveman thinking
>If you did have all the info?
It is mathematically impossible as I have already stated.

[Anonymous No.14503536]

>>14503250
No, it's a different event by defintion of the event. The every is not defined according to a surviving predictor. I'll make it even easier for you:

All predictors in the universe are tasked with predicting the binary sequence X I will construct after receiving their predictions. After receiving their predictions p1, p2, p3... I construct X by letting the nth member of X = the opposite of the nth member of pn. Therefore X differs from all predictions at the nth never. No predictor can correctly predict X, even if they know all information including the exact procedure I just outlined. Therefore a deterministic universe is not predictable.

[Anonymous No.14503540]

>>14503264
None of those are examples of what you claimed. You're equivocating between certain things being settled and all of physics being settled.

[Anonymous No.14503557]

>>14503285
>In a perfectly deterministic universe you mentioned, me knowing the future would already be part of that future.
Gibberish. You knowing the future at what point in time?

>In a deterministic universe by definition the decisions I'd make would already be set in stone/accounted for.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you can predict them.

[Anonymous No.14503562]

>>14503287
>it can if the predictor knows what rule you're operating under (ie: i will say the opposite of whatever he predicts)
No, it literally doesn't matter if he knows everything, including the process.

>and then chooses to lie to you about his prediction.
If the predictor doesn't send me his actual prediction then it's not the event he had to predict, it's something else.

[Anonymous No.14503583]

>>14503536
>All predictors in the universe are tasked with predicting the binary sequence X I will construct after receiving their predictions. After receiving their predictions p1, p2, p3... I construct X by letting the nth member of X = the opposite of the nth member of pn. Therefore X differs from all predictions at the nth never. No predictor can correctly predict X, even if they know all information including the exact procedure I just outlined. Therefore a deterministic universe is not predictable.
That's just a consequence of you using a meaningless notion of predictability. Of course predictions won't be accurate if you're allowed to cheat

[Anonymous No.14503630]

>>14502582
What you may perceive as causality are really emergent patterns from chaos

[Anonymous No.14503740]

>>14503583
>That's just a consequence of you using a meaningless notion of predictability
How is it meaningless? You should be able to predict any future event if you have all available information in a predictable universe, so why can't you predict a simple binary sequence that is completely determined by events you already know of, by a method you already know of?

>Of course predictions won't be accurate if you're allowed to cheat
What cheating? Everything is deterministic and you have all the information. So predict the sequence.

[Anonymous No.14503759]

>>14502582
You not knowing what causes X, doesn't imply there is no cause for X.
It's not possible to prove anything is truly random.

[Anonymous No.14504199]

>>14502759
Even if it is not practically feasible to determine an outcome, that does not mean the outcome is not determined by its initial conditions. That is what determinism means. That the outcome is a unique consequence of the conditions. It does not mean that we know the outcome.

>>14503246
>if you calculate the initial trajectory, all the physical properties of the die, the surface it lands on and the atmospheric conditions you could predict with 100% accuracy how the die ends up

Yes, but if we do not do such a calculation (and we dont) then we dont know how the die ends up.

I am not saying that the outcome of a die roll is not determined. It is determined for the reasons you said. It is random because dice-rollers do not know the outcome.

[Anonymous No.14504378]

>>14502701
That's why OP stipulated "with enough information".
In other words, given a current state of the universe S1, and an event E, is the transition relation T injective or not?
Does the resultant state after E, S2, follow deterministically?
What are the arguments for and against?

"I believe I have a free will so it must be non-deterministic" is a poor argument.

> which porn I will fap to today
We all know from this comment that you fap to furry porn.

[Anonymous No.14504381]

>>14504378
Also, an observation that I have not heard AT ALL on this thread, yet:

How should that amount of information, i.e. "enough information" be encoded?
If you, for example, needed, for a complete prediction, to have so much information that you needed to encode a substantial, or even all of the universe, then your "knowledge of the universe" would need to be encoded within the universe.

Does that lead one down to infinite recursion / regression?
In order to have that information and act on it, would it produce contradictions?
Or would it need an observer outside of the universe?
And if the observer is outside of the universe, can we make such assumptions that would enable one to make such an observation or does that, too, lead to a contradiction?

[Anonymous No.14504382]

>>14504381
In order to reason about the universe in such a manner, could we end up in a situation similar as what Gödel pointed out?

[Anonymous No.14504385]

>>14504382
After all, would the existence of such a decision PROCESS (even if the left out the amount of information needed) contradict such things as the Entscheidungsproblem?

[Anonymous No.14504387]

>>14502582
Randomness is just a lack of information.

Does it truly exist or not? Maybe. It's not hard to conceive of a system where there is a limit to the information you can have about it and its outcomes. This is the basics of most board games.

Most people don't pretend to philosophize about true randomness. It's typically defined in terms of lack of information or as description of an aspect of multiple similar systems (i.e. the distribution of bolts made by a factory) which is a much better way of understanding imo.

[Anonymous No.14504391]

>>14504199
>That the outcome is a unique consequence of the conditions. It does not mean that we know the outcome.
One of the few sober posts on here.
Does that also describe other processes where we apparently cannot make predictions but that are deterministic?

> Bell's theorem assumes that the measurements performed at each detector can be chosen independently of each other and of the hidden variables that determine the measurement outcome. This relation is often referred to as measurement independence or statistical independence. In a superdeterministic theory this relation is not fulfilled; the hidden variables are necessarily correlated with the measurement setting. Since the choice of measurements and the hidden variable are predetermined, the results at one detector can depend on which measurement is done at the other without any need for information to travel faster than the speed of light. The assumption of statistical independence is sometimes referred to as the free choice or free will assumption, since its negation implies that human experimentalists are not free to choose which measurement to perform.

[Anonymous No.14504393]

>>14502582

God does play dice

[Anonymous No.14504396]

>>14504391
> There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

[Anonymous No.14504399]

>>14504396

[Anonymous No.14504410]

>>14503282
I'd take it a step further. Even if it IS deterministic, we'd still just use probability and randomness to describe the system in any useful way because these concepts are so much easier to execute computationally.

Sure you could make a precise computationally exact single and expensive model that covers all actual parameters of the system, but that doesn't matter if you won't actually know all parameters in application. With the lack of information you have to start relying on probability models and intervals of confidence/prediction.

This already happens a lot with certain problems, specifically in fluid dynamics. Like sure you could go through a build a model of a system and start running different parameter inputs to determine likely outcomes, but again this is expensive as fuck so a lot of people will just experiment on mock versions or exact versions of the system and build densities based off outcomes from those experiments.

There are a lot of models in STEM that are empirically defined which is just another word for statistically modelled.

[Anonymous No.14504411]

Actually, I wonder if this analogy from computer science is in some way equivalent and insightful:

Could you ever run a VM (virtual machine) "child" in another VM "parent" that predicts the next state of its parent VM?

Can you write such a program and run it on the "child VM"?

[Anonymous No.14504415]

>>14504411
Or, can you ever write a program on your computer that predicts the execution state of your computer after it is done running?

[Anonymous No.14504422]

>>14504415
I'm not certain, either, but making arbitrary predictions about a system, even if it is deterministic like a computer, WITHIN the system sounds an awful lot like running up against the Entscheidungsproblem.

[Anonymous No.14504435]

>>14504422
Also, how MUCH of the universe are you proposing to predict? All of it? Just a part of it?

What if that part you are trying to predict DEPENDS on another part?
How far do you go?
Is there something like an "even horizon" where you can stop?

Is the FACT of the decision project OCCURRING within the universe part of the pre-conditions we need to consider, thus seemingly ending us up in superdeterminism or infinite regression once again?

Then the universe you're trying to predict MUST ALREADY ENCODE the fact that you will make the ATTEMPT to make those predictions.

[Anonymous No.14504482]

>>14504391
>One of the few sober posts on here.
Wow thanks. Im the person you replied to.

> Does that also describe other processes where we apparently cannot make predictions but that are deterministic?
I think so.

So I know some quantum mechanics people have suggested that the universe is fundamentally random. Like on the lowest levels there truly is no deterministic factor and there is simply random occurrences. My takes on that are..

- We have multiple theories that explain the experimental observations of QM, and not all of them rely on randomness. The pilot wave theory, for example, is deterministic. There is no obligation right now to throw out determinism. Its not a settled question.

- It could be that physicists are just confused. If they are saying something bizarre (like that the universe is random) it might be more likely that they are just confused than it is for their bizarre claims to be true. Generations of scientists have been confused in the past.

- It is a little weird that anything we could observe empirically could undermine determinism. Observing that dice rolls are random doesnt undermine determinism, why should the observations of quantum mechanics undermine determinism? Maybe you can say we understand the important physical factors in a dice roll, but we dont understand electrons and quantum mechanics, but that is hardly a reason to say determinism is wrong just because electrons are mysterious right now. Determinism is a philosophical position about reality, but it also says something about the way people think, which is that we make hard inferences from present conditions about the future. So its both confusing and unnecessary to say that an observation about electrons means that causal inference is itself somehow deeply invalid.

[Anonymous No.14504512]

>>14503298
Inability to consider hypothetical scenarios is a symptom of autism

[Anonymous No.14504580]

>>14502582
People should understand by now that the universe and reality is a mix of both randomness and determinism. There is no absolute determinism and there is no absolute randomness either.

[Anonymous No.14504653]

>>14502991
for a double pendulum system:
f(x, t) = (theta1, theta2),
f(x, t) is C^infinity.
Sure, the partial derivative f_x may approach infinity as t approaches infinity, but that doesn't stop it from being a deterministic system.

[Anonymous No.14504773]

>>14503147
Quantum Mechanics can't be proven while maths and physics is intrinsically deterministic every way you look at it. Everything is either random or deterministic, and seeing even the smallest deterministic aspect of physics can only mean that everything else must follow.

[Anonymous No.14504823]

>>14503740
>How is it meaningless?
Because you're cheating by changing your prediction based on the answer given by the predictor. Imagine playing against a chess grandmaster but you're allowed to change your moves however you want after the grandmaster plays. Winning in this game proves very little about your chess abilities.

Prediction has a very well defined meaning: you're given an initial state of the system and the description of the dynamics of the system which will let you calculate the probabilities of its future states. The initial state and the dynamics have to be well-defined if the output should be calculable, but in your example they clearly aren't well-defined since the dynamics depend on the output.

[Anonymous No.14505321]

>>14504773
Uncertainty principle and Born's rule are intrisically nondeterministic and random though, why don't you accept Copenhagen as true

[Anonymous No.14505330]

>>14505321
>why don't you accept Copenhagen as true
nta but because many worlds is superior

[Anonymous No.14505332]

>>14505330
>During March and April 1959, at Wheeler's request, Everett visited Copenhagen, on vacation with his wife and baby daughter, in order to meet with Niels Bohr, the "father of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics". The visit was a complete disaster; Everett was unable to communicate the main idea that the universe is describable, in theory, by an objectively existing universal wave function (which does not "collapse"); this was simply heresy to Bohr and the others at Copenhagen. The conceptual gulf between their positions was too wide to allow any meeting of minds; Léon Rosenfeld, one of Bohr's devotees, talking about Everett's visit, described Everett as being "undescribably [sic] stupid and could not understand the simplest things in quantum mechanics". Everett later described this experience as "hell...doomed from the beginning".[16]
The creator of MW was a literal loser though

[Anonymous No.14505334]

>>14505332
fortunately, science doesn't work based on your incel criteria, so your argument is invalid and many worlds is still superior

[Anonymous No.14505343]

>>14505334
>Everett's obesity, frequent chain-smoking and alcohol drinking[9] almost certainly contributed to this, although he seemed healthy at the time. A committed atheist,[6] he had asked that his remains be disposed of in the trash after his death. His wife kept his ashes in an urn for a few years, before complying with his wishes.[6]
>Everett's daughter, Elizabeth, died by suicide in 1996 (saying in her suicide note that she wished her ashes to be thrown out with the garbage so that she might "end up in the correct parallel universe to meet up w[ith] Daddy"),[22]
The only incels was the MW creator and his family, literally fucked in the head lmao

[Anonymous No.14505344]

>>14505343
>had a loving family
>incel
Nice projection incel but your arguments are still invalid and many worlds is still superior.

[Anonymous No.14505346]

>>14504653
>that doesn't stop it from being my vacuous unga bung
Who cares? Even in your abstract theoretical schizo fantasy world, the error measure between your predicted trajectory and the actual trajectory is unbounded unless you add another layer of removal from reality, and contemplate the hyperschizo fantasy world where you actually use an infinitesimal time step. How many levels of removal from reality does it take before you admit that your schizomodel has nothing to do with objective reality?

[Anonymous No.14505348]

>>14505344
His loving family is in the trash along with his many worlds, Copenhagen was right, you guys are undescribably stupid and don't understand QM

[Anonymous No.14505349]

>>14504199
>Even if it is not practically feasible to determine an outcome, that does not mean the outcome is not determined by its initial conditions
It has nothign to do with what's practically feasible. It's theoretically impossible in all but the most schizophrenic imaginary universes.

[Anonymous No.14505352]

>>14505348
>believing in the cope n' hang interpretation
Join the 40%, tranny.

[Anonymous No.14505354]

>>14502949
It isn't. Chaotic systems are not deterministic. I fucking hate this board.
Came here first time and see this retarded anon.
Never coming back again.

[Anonymous No.14505355]

>>14505348
Many worlds is the only consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, so your claim is obviously false. On the other hand, "copenhagen" is a meaningless term used by people who are themselves confused about quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.14505362]

>>14505354
>Never coming back again.
Good riddance retard

[Anonymous No.14505367]

>>14505354
The determinism of a chaotic system is a falsifiable hypothesis in the fantasy schizo universe where initial conditions can be replicated at least in theory. In that universe, chaotic systems are still inherently unpredictable for any non-zero step size, but they're deterministic in the sense that if you replicate the same conditions, the system will go through the same states. A chaotic system is even predictable in the fantasy hyperschizo universe where infinitely small timesteps exist. Of course, we don't live in schizo fantasy land, so determinism is unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma.

[Anonymous No.14505397]

>>14505348
Copenhagen isn't an explanation, its literally just cope.

[Anonymous No.14505412]

>>14505367
>but they're deterministic in the sense that if you replicate the same conditions, the system will go through the same states
So they're deterministic in the only sense of the word. Thank you for your concession, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14505421]

>>14505412
Yes, your models are deterministic in your abstract fantasy world that contradicts actual reality, and even there determinism is philosophically moot since it's still inherently impossible to predict anything complex.

[Anonymous No.14505423]

>>14505421
Cope and seethe. You have already admitted your defeat.

[Anonymous No.14505425]

>>14505423
You sound schizophrenic. I never argued that your philosophically moot position isn't correct in your unrealistic fantasy universe.

[Anonymous No.14505430]

>>14505425
It's not my problem if determinism doesn't make sense in your schizo fantasy universe (to use your retarded language) where time is discrete or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14505431]

>>14505430
Are you mentally ill? We've already established that it's unfalsifiable metaphysical dogma that has nothing to do with objective reality. It's nice that your theories make sense in your alternate fantasy reality but what does it have to do with science?

[Anonymous No.14505437]

>>14505431
Come back when you've proved that time is discrete

[Anonymous No.14505441]

>>14505437
No one said anything about time being discrete. You're having a full-blown psychotic episode.

[Anonymous No.14505442]

>>14505441
Here you go schizo
> chaotic system is even predictable in the fantasy hyperschizo universe where infinitely small timesteps exist.
>Of course, we don't live in schizo fantasy land

[Anonymous No.14505451]

>>14505442
First of all, even if I concede your idiotic point, it makes no difference to the fact that your metaphysical dogma is unfalsifiable. The particular point you're quoting was about the implications of determinism in the alternative reality where it's scientifically valid, and when I say "infinitely small timesteps" I'm talking about trying to evaluate the model, not about a property of the universe: the universe doesn't compute anthing with finite or infinite timesteps, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14505457]

>>14505451
>more seethe and cope
>"even if i concede that im retarded, you're wrong!"
Topkek

[Anonymous No.14505462]

>>14505457
Have you tried reading the posts you respond to, instead of repeatedly churning out psychotic and incongruent replies?

[Anonymous No.14505464]

>>14505462
I'll read them when you don't keep sharting out meaningless phrases like "metaphysical dogma" or "universe doesn't compute" or other such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14505469]

>>14505464
>admits to his inability and unwillingness to read the posts he responds to
Classic nonhuman NPC behavior.

[Anonymous No.14505474]

>>14505469
>unable to not spout nonsense
>resorts to calling others NPCs
Classic schizo behavior. Back to >>>/x/ with you.

[Anonymous No.14505475]

>>14505474
My point still stands completely unchallenged. Dilate.

[Anonymous No.14505480]

>My point still stands completely unchallenged. Dilate.

[Anonymous No.14505484]

Still waiting for determinism cultists to explain how their religious "hypothesis" could be conceivably tested. :^)

[Anonymous No.14505487]

>Still waiting for determinism cultists to explain how their religious "hypothesis" could be conceivably tested. :^)

[Anonymous No.14505496]

>>14505484
No takers?

[Anonymous No.14505500]

nice schizo thread

[chickenranchersupreme No.14505563]

>>14502582
No, but true randomness isn't required for us to have no predictive power over the outcome. A RNG as a black box spitting out random numbers essentially has an event horizon beyond which "you" can't see past. The outcome is technically deterministic, but knowing what's occurring beyond the even horizon would make you God essentially.
This arc also applies to free will. You can be funnelled into solved games, but there will always be people who can keep their neurological cards close to their chest and be unplottable.

[Anonymous No.14505644]

>>14502582
It is possible to build an unpredictable deterministic automata.
What looks like pure randomness from our perspecitve could as well be the result of multiple layers working together.

[Anonymous No.14505652]

>>14505354
>Chaotic systems are not deterministic
Incorrect, chaotic systems are deterministic systems in which the initial state determines the final state but the approximate initial state doesn't determine the approximate final state.

[Anonymous No.14505674]

>>14504823
>Because you're cheating by changing your prediction based on the answer given by the predictor.
??? What prediction am I changing? The outcome is determined by the prediction of the outcome. That is what I said from the beginning could not be predicted even in a deterministic universe.

>Imagine playing against a chess grandmaster but you're allowed to change your moves however you want after the grandmaster plays.
Now imagine you can base your future decisions on a prediction that has already occurred... oh wait you don't have to imagine that because it's true in reality. There are no "rules" that disallow it, so it's not cheating. Determinism is not predictable, get over it.

>The initial state and the dynamics have to be well-defined if the output should be calculable, but in your example they clearly aren't well-defined since the dynamics depend on the output.
No, the dynamics don't depend on the output, what are you talking about? The output is deterministically derived from the prediction in a trivial manner as the opposite of the prediction. The prediction is deterministically derived from whatever information and process the predictor uses. So you're saying the predictor is not well defined? OK then, I disagree but that makes prediction impossible.

Unfortunately, no possible predictor or predictors can successfully predict an outcome that depends on the prediction, even though this is a completely deterministic process and completely well defined. You're grasping at straws by trying to move the goalposts to an outcome that doesn't depend on the prediction, by claiming this not well defined, and by claiming it's "cheating."

[Anonymous No.14505697]

>>14502582
Yes, if I had the results of what was going to happen, I could predict what would happen

[Anonymous No.14505748]

Randomness is simply reality outside the human condition.

[Anonymous No.14505767]

>>14502759
Omnipotence would mean you can know all the factors effecting the pendulum, which means you'd be able to predict it.
But we're not omnipotent, so we call it "random"
The only way it's not "deterministic" is if there's some divine mover. (But then it's determined by that being)

[Anonymous No.14505846]

>>14505674
>There are no "rules" that disallow it, so it's not cheating
The rules here are just the definitions of things like prediction. You're not following those rules, so you cannot draw any valid conclusion or say any meaningful statement about predictions.
>Determinism is not predictable, get over it.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with determinism, right? The predictor could predict the probability distributions of a number of actions you take and if you're given that probability distribution, you can just act in a way according to a completely different probability distribution.
>No, the dynamics don't depend on the output, what are you talking about?
They clearly do as you'd know if you tried to formulate it rigorously. The system being predicted here is not a closed system, so to predict its behavior, you need not only the state of the system but also the data supplied to the system by its "environment", which will determine its dynamics. Both these things are necessary to predict its behavior but in your scenario, the environmental data which will be supplied as input to the system later is not well-defined. So the system is clearly predictable but you just haven't defined the input to be given to the predictor properly.

[Anonymous No.14506207]

>>14505484
I dont think it could be tested, but I dont think you could test "1 + 1 = 2" either, and I am not about to stop believing in basic arithmetic.

[Anonymous No.14506547]

>>14502582
You have two types of observers, external and internal. We are internal observers and this prohibits us from making accurate measurements because our very presence interacts with the measurement at small scales. Therefore any mathematical model will appear to have some degree of randomness to it but this is only due to the fact that we cannot accurately measures the initial conditions. However, an external observer could in theory predict everything. So randomness exists only for an internal observer.

[Anonymous No.14506555]

>>14506547
>>14502582
I would like to add that as far as free will goes, any idea can be deconstructed into chemical signals and those are subject physical laws. So in theory again, to an external observer free will does not exist, everything can be determined.

[Anonymous No.14506572]

>>14505846
>The rules here are just the definitions of things like prediction. You're not following those rules
How so? What definition of prediction have I contradicted?

>You do realize that this has nothing to do with determinism, right?
It disproves that a deterministic universe is predictable, a common misconception.

>The predictor could predict the probability distributions of a number of actions you take
Not the same as predicting your actions.

>Both these things are necessary to predict its behavior but in your scenario, the environmental data which will be supplied as input to the system later is not well-defined.
Totally wrong. You can have all the information in the universe and you'll still fail to predict the sequence. Because predictions are physical events in the same system.

[Anonymous No.14506585]

>>14502582
Yes but then you'd be god

[Anonymous No.14506699]

>>14503183
>i let machines make vague predictions that aren't right all the time therefore determinism is real

[Anonymous No.14506751]

Imagine unironically believing that any action by you controls an outcome. Retards. Everything has already happened. Everything is inevitable and you are just watching the dominos fall.

[Anonymous No.14508599]

>>14505484
Define "tested".

[Anonymous No.14508635]

>>14506751
Childish.

[Anonymous No.14508665]

>>14506207
>I dont think it could be tested
Then it's not science.

[Anonymous No.14508754]

>ctrl f "radioactive"
>0 results
what a terrible board!

[Anonymous No.14508761]

>>14505343
>A committed atheist,[6] he had asked that his remains be disposed of in the trash after his death.
Based and redpilled.
>literally fucked in the head lmao
His daughter loved her Daddy and this is what you think about her. You're true degenerate here.

[Anonymous No.14508767]

>>14508665
If you postulate that testing is impossible, why ask for a test? Any test would be invalid by definition irrespective of what it is.

[Anonymous No.14508776]

>>14505332
That only shows Copenhagen circlejerk was full of pseuds.

[Anonymous No.14508789]

>>14505321
Uncertainty principle is an ancient atavism from the era of antirealism, which was buried since then. Born's rule can be said to be bayesian, which is compatible with determinism. More importantly quantum systems have precise deterministic description, which disproves indeterminism.

[Anonymous No.14508797]

>>14502582
yes.
Laws of thermodynamics are flawed

[Anonymous No.14508808]

I want to think randomness isn't real. I like to sleep all day without guilt thinking everything was prewritten. Also, I can calm myself when I remember I am never going to have sexual intercourse with Scarlett Johansson as it was never in my control to change things.

[Anonymous No.14509121]

>>14508789
If you had a "precise deterministic description" of something you would be able to make complete accurate predictions in QM. But that's not the case, you will be subject to randomness from the uncertainty principle and you will never predict an actual trajectory of a particle/wave (both its position and momentum at the same time). Also to add to this, nuclear beta decay, no matter how much information you have about an atom on initial conditions you will never predict its decay. Thus QM is indeterministic

[Anonymous No.14509146]

>>14502601
you imbecile. with arbitrarily precise information, you can predict arbitrarily far ahead
if anything, the fact that a double pendulum is unpredictable, supports the idea that randomness is nothing but a lack of information/precision

[Anonymous No.14509149]

>>14502688
this is the only needed post in this entire thread, with the added disclaimer that "quantum physics objectively proved decades ago that some processes are completely random"

[Anonymous No.14509157]

>>14502768
>how do you know your brain activity itself isn't subject to some deterministic laws of physics
it isn't random because the entire system is always observed, it is always collapsed. this is the only known mechanism for randomness, as such, the process cannot be random.
Fuck, I think I just agreed with you. Uh... No matter, I slept with your mother!

[Anonymous No.14509172]

>>14508808
You've confused two things. Randomness and determinism aren't compatible. At all. They're utterly at odds with one another. In fact, if the outcome of all things was determined ahead of time, there could be absolutely no randomness, and quantum physicists would have proven their entire field wrong a long ass time ago. So, reality is either a mixture of randomness and determinism, or it is random, or there is a third option which has thus far escaped the mortal mind. You could call it "Randomness Plus+ Free Will (TM)" and sell t-shirts to undergrads.

[Anonymous No.14509221]

>>14502601
You can if you know the exact initial point and all exact initial conditions. The trick is w humans can only ever measure super close to that exact initial point. Because we are human and will never be perfect.

Predicting everything exactly would inevitably be boring. I hope we never achieve that. Hope no living creature ever does that shit would be weird.

[Anonymous No.14509434]

>>14502582
No one has ever reached a state of utopia.

Predicting everything is a state of utopia.

Should you be able to predict everything with enough information, then you're never going to get enough information. Ever.

[Anonymous No.14511109]

>>14509146
NIGGER READ THIS >>14502859

[Anonymous No.14511138]

>>14505332
LOL BTFO BY GIGACHAD COPENHAGEN SPIRIT LITERALLY TOLD HIM TO KYS AND HE DID LOL WHAT A LOSER

[Anonymous No.14511189]

>>14502582
>had enough information
Yes, sure, if you were in the future you could know what happened in your past, and “predict” for the now.

But seriously, no, there is information that you cannot access now - what’s beyond your cosmological horizon.

Big Bang didn’t happen, it’s still happening. That new bit of universe you’ll see in 5 minutes makes all the difference for “perfect prediction”; it will never happen.

[Anonymous No.14511264]

>>14502582
It can probably be shown that no matter how advanced a discovered pattern is that there are still more complex ones. A sort of inductive proof that no matter how random is cracked it implies a higher level of randomness. Similar to how there is always a next bigger number.
There is true randomness like there is infinity.

[Anonymous No.14512043]

>>14509146
>with arbitrarily precise information, you can predict arbitrarily far ahead
No, not if your prediction affects what you're predicting.

[Anonymous No.14512163]

>>14509149
A theory can't objectively prove something, retard.