/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14798646
>3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
According to QFT, no.

>4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
Define free will.

1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Laws of physics are compact statement that empirically aid humans in making predictions. So for any strong notion of "real", I'd say no they are not real. As in, it's not like there's a hard correspondence between the principles the humans write down and something "out there"
2a. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
We can make some predictions about brain behavior if that's what you're asking
2b. If yes, where's your proof? What part of the brain is special?
We clearly can make some good predictions about what a brain will do. E.g. if we brain scan someone watching porn, there's empirically some good statements we can make
3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
The laws of physics are essentially comprehensible sentences, they don't obay any such notion. Like is a play of Shakespear deterministic? What does that even mean
4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
I don't think the "free will" discussion has many implications, why worry about that
>So why do you believe in free will?
I don't, really. I don't believe the opposite either. Has anybody ever benefited from that conversation?

>>14798658
Qft just means either or, but something was always going to happen, ie still deterministic. Not op btw

>>14798665
>last
Simplest deduction would be assessing life outcome of personal potential for those who believe in free will, don’t believe, or are ignorant, or apathetic (you still lean one way unfortunately). That way we can make a rough chart of which ideology leads to worse outcome.

>>14798667
Deterministic means only one outcome can occur from the set of initial conditions. Non-deterministic means multiple outcomes can occur with some probability for each from the set of initial outcomes. QFT is non-deterministic.

>>14798646
> Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Depends on what you mean "real." is gravity "real?" If so, which kind of gravity? And if so why does it fall apart at small scales. Laws of physics are a tool that when used properly will give us a probabilistically better chance of being right than by pure chance alone.
Are the laws of physics deterministic?
That depends. At small scales they are probabilistic, at large scales they are deterministic. And that says nothing to the fact that physics assumes that the laws of physics have never changed, will never change and aren't specific to varying regions of spacetime
>why do you believe in free will?
I believe it is possible because something called "unknown unknowns" exist

>>14798697
Yes but it’s the exact same for the human. That’s why qft doesn’t really matter when talking about determinism, because it’s not about the semantic definition but the ideological that people question.

>>14798646 (OP)
> Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Depends on what you mean "real." is gravity "real?" If so, which kind of gravity? And if so why does it fall apart at small scales. Laws of physics are a tool that when used properly will give us a probabilistically better chance of being right than by pure chance alone.
>Are the laws of physics deterministic?
That depends. At small scales they are probabilistic, at large scales they are deterministic. And that says nothing to the fact that physics assumes that the laws of physics have never changed, will never change and aren't specific to varying regions of spacetime
>why do you believe in free will?
I believe it is possible because something called "unknown unknowns" exist

>>14798702
>Yes but it’s the exact same for the human
That's not what the question was.

>>14798646
Yes, no, yes, yes.

>So why do you believe in free will?
Because free will does not mean a nondeterministic brain.

>>14798646
What makes subhumans like you start these threads over and over? Why are you so obsessed with your lack of agency and why do you feel suck a strong urge to project it onto others?

>>14798646
>1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
The laws of physics are real. Our mathematical description of them is only a partially inaccurate approximation thoughever.
>2a. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
No.
>3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
No, see for example quantum mechanics. The collapse of the wave function is not deterministic.
>4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
Free will transcends the material world. It cannot be assigned a location.
>So why do you believe in free will?
Because I'm experiencing it every day.

>>14798707
He’s asking about determinism from a philosophical context, qft is irrelevant here.

>>14798713
Tell me you don't know shit about quantum mechanics without actually telling me you don't know shit about quantum mechanics.

>>14798716
Sorry but qft will never be relevant to the question about determinism because the end result will always be defined as determined. It’s not applicable and I won’t argue with you anymore about it.

>>14798646
>1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Yea but we dont fully have them so we can't really use our current understanding as an argument in favor of some philosophical position or something
>2a. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
It's not
>3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
They're not
>4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
No, it wouldn't. It is possible that all particles, or maybe certain kinds of particles, have free will, and that we as a composition also have free will. I.e. free will would be baked into physics (or more accurately there would be a will that can interject into physics for many different systems) and we are one such system.
>So why do you believe in free will?
I don't know

>>14798646
>So why do you believe in free will?
Physics has no bearing on it. If you think physics disproves "free will", you have a retarded definition of "free will".

>>14798720
>hurr durr I'm deterministically determined to ignore factual evidence and logic
Okay, NPC

>>14798725
Qft is determined, it’s impossible to convince you why it’s a silly argument so I will stop responding now.

You people are so adamant you don't want to admit that the brain is just a complex (completely predictable, ideally) electcrochemical system and "you" are just an abstraction/representation of it.

>>14798720
>I won't argue with you anymore
>>14798731
>I will stop responding now

Two more weeks until you stop replying? It's not your choice. You have no free will.

>do physical brain injuries drastically alter one's personality
Yes, can sometimes completely reform it.

>Do people with a damaged amygdala behave more dangerously
Yes, they make more careless "decisions" using their "free will"

>If you electrocute somebody's brain such that it simulates normal muscle movements, will that person claim they moved their muscle out of their own free will?
Yes

>>14798735
There is no system that is completely predictable, the brain or otherwise. The universe can't be predicted even in theory.

>>14798744
>spouts irrelevant pop-soi
>thinks it proves something

>>14798745
There comes a point where the unpredictability is negligible.

Like if I predict a number to be 103 and it is actually 102.

Physical changes to the brain correspond in huge changes to somebody's behavior, decisions, and every other aspect of "free will" indicating that "free will" is just made up nonsense.

If you have free will it is very small and to the point that it is negligible.

Why do you "desire" things? Try to think about it. All of your desires are things that primates evolved to enjoy because of evolutionary reasons.

Humans have artificial intelligence because of evolution too. They can weigh their options because it proves useful for survival in their circumstances at the time of evolution. And just in general it is useful which is why life as a whole on Earth has become artificially intelligent to some extent by now.

But your free will goes away when you are experiencing massive pain which overrides your decision making process

Your descions are the sum of all your influences being weighed by an artificial intelligence system.

>>14798750
That's not irrelevant pop sci those are real experiments that demonstrate the predictable nature of mankind.

If you take damage to your amygdala you will behave more recklessly moving forward. It is a fact. Your free will becomes invalid in this argument I know for a fact it will change your decision making process because that's just how it works.

Jose Delgado and many other neuroscientists have already proven experimentally that people cannot tell the difference between their own agency and electric shocks to the brain that simulate their own agency. Just research it yourself.

>>14798697
> Deterministic means only one outcome can occur from the set of initial conditions
No it doesn't. It means the final outcome depends on the current conditions, or in the language of QM the final state is time evolved from the current state. So QFT is deterministic, it is time reversible, *but* it is also probabilistic because you do not know what will be observed when you measure the state. These two facts are not incompatible.

>>14798757
It is irrelevant pop-soi and you're arguing based on your feelings. There isn't any coherent line of reasoning taking you from your premises to your deeply desired conclusion.

>>14798646
The issue is with the use of the term 'free', it is vague and often causes more questions than can be truly defined.
I posit, we push forward with the term 'degree' of will, which differentiates the capacities of willpower between individuals, beings and organisms as a whole.
Understanding this concept, we expand on this idea and introduce the aspect of time, which allows us to view the progression of these 'degrees' of will as the 'evolution' of will.

If you understand that at the beginning of the universe, will, defined as an object, entity or agent's ability to carry out tasks, the will of the universe is simply expressed as the progression of the universe since the inception of the big bang. This is to understand that the laws of physics impelled different states of the universe as time passed, until incidentally, the inception of life, abiogenesis.
The universe manifests will as unconscious life existing and evolving, through the laws of physics and time until consciousness and will was conceptualised? and acted upon.
Life evolved and will evolved with it, in regards to humans, the development of a more powerful brain and hands has propelled the quality of lives immensely through this expanded will.
The collective will of humanity has grown as humanity has progressed with learning and technology.

If you assume that humanity continues to exist AND will continues to grow with the capacity of humans, the limit is now where we define 'free' will. Free, as defined as exceeding all constraints. discarding compatibalist defintions of 'free', we reach the ineffable concept of Godhood.

I end my essay here because to explain or even attempt to understand the greatest reaches of human efforts in the far future are too daunting to even begin. I make the argument that 'degrees' of will allows for the implication of 'free' will insofar as describing humanity's ascent to God.

>>14798862
Boring pseud.

>>14798865
probably didnt understand it

>>14798869
>i bet you didn't understand these trivial kindergarten shower thoughts

>>14798872
that's what i just suggested

>>14798872
Just sum it up for me.

>>14798646
1. the nature of the universe is probably real, the models we created are not.
2a. no
3 if by laws of physics you mean the nature of the universe, probably, if by laws of physics you mean the set of mathematical rules we created to model the nature of the universe, then it depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. without interpretation, quantum mechanics by itself says nothing about "determinism," which is a non-mathematical human concept that may not even exist.
4. yes, freedom is a subjective feeling and nothing more. if you feel free, you are free, because there is no freedom or lack of freedom outside of your brain. without the feeling of freedom there would be no concept of freedom and therefore none of non-freedom.

>>14798889
I did: kindergarten shower thoughts.

>>14798713
>He’s asking about determinism from a philosophical context
>Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
Just stop posting.

>>14798646
>1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Meaningless question, but yes.
>2a. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
No
>2b. If yes, where's your proof? What part of the brain is special?
No
>3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
Yes-ish
>4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
Retarded question
>So why do you believe in free will?
Distinction between determinism and free will is arbitrary and semantics. Shit thread

>>14798646
Here's how it works OP. It's all time stamped. Put it on 1.5 speed because TC talks a little slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PMhmXjS2yk&t=936s

>>14798646
>Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Yes, there is a ruleset, just as in any virtual reality. But they can change, as with the speed of light. The players can develop tech with more precise measuring capabilities and so processing demand increases. This is why you have varying speed of light. Here is a vid that explains the speed of light. It is time stamped. Put it on 1.5. You will never have a question about the speed of light again and it will make sense now. You will understand the no signalling theorem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc&t=229s

>>14798646
>1. Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Yes.
>2a. Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
No.
>3. Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
Yes and no. If you look at physics from a nonlinear dynamics perspective, the behavior resulting from physical laws goes through regimes of behavior that can be described deterministically or probabilistically as the scale and complexity of the interactions changes: Ex. The motion of a single gas molecule approximates linear behavior, but quickly becomes nonlinear and chaotic as you add more molecules for it to collide with, and at a certain point the system can only be described statistically, but then at an even larger scale these statistical expectation values converge to linear, deterministic dynamics (thermodynamic relationships), and so on. Likewise, while the laws of quantum mechanics suggest that at a small enough scale nature is just inherently probabilistic, it could just as easily be deterministic-but-extremely-nonlinear.
>4. If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
A reasonable hypothesis, yes. But here's where we come back to the nonlinear dynamics. I would argue that at a certain level of nonlinearity, the distinction between determinism and nondeterminism become indistinguishable from each other.

Whether free will is truly free will or not is a moot point because the system is so absurdly hyper-nonlinear that it's effectively impossible to distinguish between "Free Will" and "I Can't Believe It's Not Free Will"

>>14798646
By the way, the refresh rate and no-signaling principle are constraints on spacetime info, so within the virtual reality. Bell type correlations, which are outside of the spacetime, can be faster than light, but there can be no signalling. This is the first clue that reality is virtual. Space-like separated collapse of entangled pairs can defy the speed of light because causality is happening outside of spacetime, ie outside of the universe/simulation. This is causality by calculations/computation, and all points are equadistant to the processor. So there is no distance. The distance in the physical world is VIRTUAL distance which emerges from OUTSIDE the spacetime of the simulation. So of course, this is because the computer must be outside of that which it computes. AND THIS IS WHERE OUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS AS WELL. And this is why our consciousness is not in the virtual brain. And this is why the brain CAN'T cause consciousness. Nothing in spacetime causes anything. The causation comes from OUTSIDE the virtual space from computation.

But there is this CORRELATION between the virtual brain and the consciousness. The reason why is explained in this vid and see
>>14799593
picrel as well.

yes
no
yes
partly; consciousness, whatever it is, exists
because the brain can't be controlled and can make unpredictable decisions; consciousness has similar abilities

You should define free will so that you may see how retarded your definition and be cured from your madness, OP.

>>14798646
So with regards to this
>>14799744
In our virtual reality, which is probabilistic and statistical, if you get hit on the head with a pipe, your data stream of consciousness will be rendered to you in a way which is constrained in a way that would be probable to be the case according to the damage to the virtual brain. Each delta t of planck time, a random draw from a probability distribution is taken and the frame is calculated and updated. The subjective data streams of ALL of the players is updated by the way. So the rendered physical world is the totality of the collective subjective data streams of the individuated units of consciousness. This is all that the rendering engine has to render of the entire universe at any given time. It's render as needed and only to the detail of the specs of the players. So no atoms or brains or anything else gets rendered unless a player makes a measurement on one. So if you get hit on the head with a pipe, the probable outcome would be brain damage. This will put a constraint on your data stream of consciousness and effect your game play. If a measurement is made on your brain, a random draw from a probability of possible outcomes will be drawn, and the probable outcome will be that the brain will reflect the damage. But the effect on your consciousness will not be caused by the damage to the virtual brain. The virtual brain never even has to be rendered unless some one makes a measurement on the brain. The relationship will be CORRELATIVE. And also, after the lifetime of interface with this particular avatar is done (death) the constraints on the consciousness correlated to the virtual avatar in this iteration will be lifted. The substance of the consciousness can not be created or destroyed. It can only be constrained while interfacing with the particular virtual reality it is in at any given time.

>>14798646
Also, since the physical world is which is probabilistic and statistical, there will be some none zero probability that something like the metal pipe you get hit will miraculously not do any damage at all. So imagine an idealized situation of a big hat. 1,000,000 pieces of paper with 'yes brain damage' are thrown in to the hat and 10 'no brain damage' pieces of paper are thrown into the hat. A random draw from a probability distribution is taken. The probability will be that you will get brain damage, but that doesn't HAVE to be the case. See vid related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bGjcHWhmFI

This guy got shot in the face at POINT BLANK RANGE WITH A SHOT GUN. And he lived and was just fine. They put him in the medical literature as a miracle. Why did this happen. Because the physical would is a probabilistic and statistical virtual reality, and there was some non zero probability that he could get shot in the face and not be brain dead. And the draw is random.

>>14798646
>Is the brain (partially or in whole) exempt from the laws physics yes or no?
The brain is virtual. There is a ruleset in this virtual simulation. Just as there is a ruleset in you dream virtual reality data streams. The ruleset might be different in the dream reality, you might be able to fly or walk through walls, but there is still a ruleset. There are dynamics and mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine

No, the brain is not exempt from the ruleset of the informational (virtual) world called the physical universe. If you get shot in the head and you brain splatters against the wall, then you will no longer be interfacing with this world via that avatar because the probable outcome of that situation is death, and this virtual reality is a probabilistic one. There is SOME SMALL non-zero chance that the bullet could blow through your head and displace huge amounts of brain matter and you still live, but the probability is low. But look up gun suicide stats. Many survive, even with shot gun wounds.

Just as when you get killed in a video game, the game play is over. The consciousness that was controlling the player (the one shot in the head) is fine though. He just will not be using that avatar anymore. Upon the death of the avatar, any constraints that effected the game play data stream of the individuated unit of consciousness are lifted. If you had a stroke and were blind in one eye in the reality, upon death this constraint is lifted. Your memory constraint of previous iterations in different worlds is also lifted of constraint.

>>14798646
continuation of
>>14799593
>>14799671
>>14799744
>>14799862
>>14799913
>>14799963
>If yes, where's your proof? What part of the brain is special?
The brain is not special. It follows the same ruleset of the virtual reality. Maybe you mean the consciousness? Why is the consciousness special? Are you asking if the virtual brain is physical, or the consciousness? The virtual brain is not special. It follows the same rule set as the physical world. It's physical (virtual) The consciousness is not physical (consciousness is fundamental and not derived from anything, including virtual brains). This is why, as david chalmers has pointed out, that consciousness is resistant to quantum superposition. This is why there can be no dead and alive cats. Von neuman and wigner and schrodinger and heisenberg and all of the founding fathers of QM knew this. It's been an attempted cover up since. Everett, the guy that came up with the many world interpretation, contrived his whole scheme to avoid the implications with regard to consciousness and the von neuman chain See pic related and the pic related of the next post

>>14798646
Continuation of these posts
>>14800018
When everett says

"If not, we are forced to admit that systems which contain observers
are not subject to the same kind of quantum-mechanical description as we
admit for all other physical systems."

He is talking about the von neuman chain, which is the infinite regress of measurement devices, which brings about the situation where nothing ever happens in the world. There's nothing to change the isolated system of possible outcomes to the actual outcomes. It takes something outside of the physical world to do that. The detector should be made of quantum particles as with the recording device on up to the eyes to the brain etc. This should all just be governed by the unitary evolution. But that's not what we measure. This happens
>The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation and measurement

A short definition of the von neuman chain
>This problem - known as the von Neumann chain – is a regression of measuring devices, whose stopping point is presumed to be the conscious mind (i.e. not a purely physical measurement device, but a conscious entity who actually reads said measurement, effectively stopping the chain).

Here is a vid on the measurement problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

>>14798646
I don’t
I did not choose to be here
There is no free will

>>14798646
cont of these
>>14800018
>>14800053
And so they have tried various ways to paper over the wave function collapse, which is really just the rendering engine making a calculation and defining a value from the possibilities. They have tried the many worlds and decoherence for example. But decoherence does not solve the measurement problem, as many have pointed out and as even the wiki article mentions. See pic rel.

And so you still have the 'global wave function. The many world's cope just tries to deny the collapse and they have to postulate infinite worlds which can never be empirically verified in this world.

>>14798646
>Are the laws of physics deterministic yes or no?
There is effective determinism where uncertainty is low. So something like the orbit of the planets, which are highly monitored and measured frequently, you are going to have effective determinism. But it's still probabilistic and statistical. There is still some non zero chance that the sun could just tunnel to the other side of the universe from one frame to the next. The wave function evolves deterministically, but this is not evolution of trajectories like in the classical model.
>The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys the Schrödinger equation (or a relativistic equivalent, i.e. the Dirac equation).
There can be no such thing in quantum states because of the heisenberg uncertainty relations.

Pic related is the conclusion that schrodinger came to with regard to consciousness. And he was one of the most resistant to some of the implications of QM.

>>14798646
So the universe is probabilistic and statistical. and also it is with regard to predictability. The are certain isolated situations where there is effective determinateness but never to arbitrary precision. They can overlay deterministic EQUATIONS to model certain situations which accurately map onto the physical world over certain periods of time, but still this will never completely map on to the entire physical world at all levels at all times to arbitrary precision. This is a fantasy. They will make appeals to 'in principle' and 'if we knew certain initial conditions', but this is faith based.

> If free will would exist, it would have to be in the brain, yes or no?
No. Free will would be an inherent and irreducible feature of consciousness, not the brain. At the most primitive level, this would just be the ability to decern between two states or options or choices and decide from a set of options.
>this is to hot, this is not, I will move towards the direction which is not to hot.
ect. This is dark, this is light, this is up, this is down, this is pleasing, this is not. This makes my weiner feel good, this does not.

And so any sort of decision space means some sort of free will. Me and you have a wider decision space than a profoundly retarded person. They will be more constrained to a more impulsive behavior. A drug addict will have a very constrained decision space because he has used free will to choose a drug habit and this will mean that he has the addition al variable which says that he will be sick or depressed or frantic while making decisions, and this will weight his decision towards doing drugs, which is irrational, being that the harm caused by the drugs WILL reflect upon his physical avatars function. And this damage to the avatar will be felt in his data stream in terms of pains and such. And it will reflect in correlative changes in brain function and form as well if measurement is taken. This is probable anyways.

>>14798646
continuation of these
>>14800018
>>14800053
>>14800081
>>14800132
>>14800217
>So why do you believe in free will?
For the reasons I stated. The universe is literally set up for it. Why else would there be multiple possible future outcomes at the ready (wave function)? Probabilistic virtual realities with multiple possible future outcomes are exactly conducive to free will. Our physical universe is set up for agent causation and determinateness.

So the world is effectively deterministic in many ways. probabilisticness with regard to the physical world does not mean things are all just random. The planets and things like with low uncertainty will work in a relatively clock work type of way. The probability is that the sun will in fact rise tomorrow, etc. But at different levels, where there is plausible deniability especially, with regard to keeping consistant game play, just about anything can happen, including miracles, or what to the uninformed would seem like super natural effects. There is no 'one objective universe' fully formed somewhere. The unobserved universe is as data on a hard drive. The physical universe that gets rendered is the collection of the totality of all of the subjective data streams which are rendered in the minds of observers. There is no fully formed objective observer independent material universe sitting around some where that we are all acting upon.

So we have a physical causation which is not materialistic event causal determinism based on the goings on of configurations of matter and energy and configurations in a causal chain going back to the initial conditions of the universe.

>>14798646
One last thing. This vid might help you get a handle on agent causation and how it works. This guy's model is not exactly the one that I would put forward, but it will get you started in the right direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE
Also, I should mention, that this model of the physical world being a data stream rendered in minds, which would mean physical objects are mental objects, also solves the mind body problem and the interaction problem. The relationship between the mind and brain is that both are mental objects. Since obviously brains can only ever be verified to exist in minds, just as is the case with all matter. It solves the hard problem of consciousness by declaring that there is no problem because brain matter is not the cause or source of consciousness. It solves the interaction problem, since mind effecting matter is just mind acting on mind, since matter is only even rendered as mental objects in mind.

Here is a good vid of the idea that spacetime is not fundamental and since that is the case, any theory of consciousness that starts from causation in spacetime (brains) is doomed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMp30Q8OGOE

>>14799689
based and nld-pilled

>>14798646
Free will is compatible with determinism.

Bump

>>14800081
>But decoherence does not solve the measurement problem
It does, copeniggers just don't want to understand it.
>The many world's cope just tries to deny the collapse and they have to postulate infinite worlds which can never be empirically verified in this world.
They are verified: superposition is a consequence of the Schrodinger equation, and the Schrodinger equation is verified with great precision. Imagine reading Everett's article and not getting a single word.

>>14800132
Schrödinger openly called copenigger crackpots.

>>14798907
So you didn’t understand it

>>14801468
>They are verified: superposition is a consequence of the Schrodinger equation, and the Schrodinger equation is verified with great precision. Imagine reading Everett's article and not getting a single word.
If you give a physicist one miracle for free, he can explain the universe.