[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 93 KB, 736x1029, 1162A809-27C2-4F28-8F0C-CD1CC284FFC8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15067029 No.15067029 [Reply] [Original]

When did you realize that the universe is deterministic and not probabilistic?

>> No.15067030

>>15067029
I’m not sure.

>> No.15067050

>>15067029
When did you realize that determinism is a meaningless and unfalsifiable fantasy? For me, it was when I acknowledged the fact that the universe is empirically indistinguishable from one that is nondeterministic.

>> No.15067086

>>15067029
free will is incompatible with both of them.

>> No.15067105

>>15067086
The nonhuman hordes are definitely keyword-based.

>> No.15067126

>>15067050
google chaos

>> No.15067132

>>15067126
Maybe you should google it, imbecile. It only supports my point.

>> No.15067137
File: 117 KB, 618x593, 1671568456059.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15067137

Free will (a function of consciousness) causes collapse of the wave function. The collapse is probabilistic. Its result then behaves deterministic.

>> No.15067157

>>15067137
>Free will
There is no such thing. I thought I should reply to you but all of the processes behind that were already determined by trillions of factors. And if I chose not to, then, they were determined otherwise...

>> No.15067461

>>15067029
>literally the same thing

>> No.15068009

>>15067132
Chaos is empirically indistinguishable from being nondeterministic, imbecile.

>> No.15068041

>>15067029
I think the faggots using this "profound revelation" as a way to justify their lack of morality or agency in their lives is exceptionally retarded and infuriating.

>> No.15068057

>>15067050
>it is unfalsifiable so it is false
That is dumb.

The fundamentals of math are not falsifiable. Empirical things should be falsifiable. But not everything needs to be falsifiable.

>>15067137
But there are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that are deterministic. If there turned out to be no wave function, would you change your mind?

>>15068041
Determinism doesn't mean people don't have moral agency. I believe in determinism and moral agency. Someone's actions are determined by whatever preconditions, _and_ they are morally accountable for their choices. Both can be true no problem.

>> No.15068058

Explain the uncertainty principle

>> No.15068175

>>15067029
>deterministic
mixture of deltas
lmao

>> No.15068201

when i got really high

>> No.15068203

>>15068009
>Chaos is empirically indistinguishable from being nondeterministic
Exactly, you mouth breathing, inbred American mongrel. Thanks for reiterating my point.

>> No.15068205

>>15068057
>Empirical things should be falsifiable
So your determinitard dogma is non-empirical? Okay. Thanks for confirming my point that the world would look exactly the same if it were wrong.

>> No.15068208
File: 224 KB, 1088x612, FC5_KEYART_1495563526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15068208

>>15068203
>American mongrel
Reading is for faggots.

>> No.15068209

>>15068057
>If there turned out to be no wave function, would you change your mind?
Nope. If there is no wave function then there is no way to express free will. Hence I wouldn't be able to change my mind. My mind would then just follow its determinism.

>> No.15068233

>>15067137
Even the original author of this hypothesis (Wigner) never claimed it was a fact and eventually abandoned it; and for a good reason, too, so I fail to see why should we consider it a fact.

>> No.15068238

>>15067029
When did you realize that you know nothing about random phenomena?

>> No.15068288

>>15067050
>unfalsifiable
The falsification principle is unfalsifiable.
Karl Popper just made it up and said it was THE standard of evaluation of scientific theories.
Nonetheless, he offered no falsifiable argument to support such a bold claim.

>> No.15068336

>>15067050
only good take in this thread

>> No.15068347

>>15067029
when i determined your mother craves my cock

>> No.15068350

>>15067029
He's like an even more attractive Henry Cavill. Why didn't he get more roles?

>> No.15068352

>>15067050
>oooga booga if I can't see it it's not real!!
empiricism is a monkey tier cope.

>> No.15068723

>>15067157
>>Free will
>There is no such thing. I
so then Nature is incorrect with every issue it's published for the last century with entanglement on the cover?

>> No.15068728

I think it is kind of both because pi mod phi is not an integer.

>> No.15068730

>>15068288
>Karl Popper just made it up and said it was THE standard of evaluation of scientific theories.
It's not "THE" standard he "made up". It's a bare minimum requirement that was already de facto in place and he simply brought it into focus.

>> No.15068734

>>15068352
You can throw science under the bus to spare your determinitard metaphysics, for all I care... I'm not shilling empiricism. I'm just calling out blatant hypocristy.

>> No.15068995

>>15068730
Still unfalsifiable, chud.

>> No.15069019

Everytime I nut super hard (which is everytime since I cumstack)

>> No.15069053

>>15067029
How can a system that has increasing entropy be deterministic? That doesn't make sense.

>> No.15069063

>>15069053
I'm not a determinitard but your objection makes no sense. What's the problem with a fully deterministic system that evolves to have an ever-increasing number of possible states?

>> No.15069075

>>15069063
Not just any possible states. Random states. How can you be both random and deterministic?

>> No.15069091

>>15068350
No one likes watching a fag act

>> No.15069110

>>15069075
>Random states
Why do you think entropy implies actual random states?

>> No.15069117
File: 19 KB, 637x312, brojustbingit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15069117

>>15069110

>> No.15069122

>>15069117
>disorder or randomness
>or

>> No.15069124

>>15067029
Many Worlds Interpretation
Effectively everything that is possible will happen to (You).
Do your best to optimize the results of your actions.

>> No.15069125

>>15069124
You are obviously optimizing for gayness.

>> No.15069128

>>15069125
I'm not actively attempting to optimize anything.
That was just a well-meant advice.

>> No.15069129

>>15069122
Make a case. I am open to having my mind changed. Or implies one or the other which infers that the other exists which answers your question of why I think the things I think, no? How can a system exponentially increasing in randomness and disorder be deterministic?

>> No.15069137

>>15069129
>increasing in randomness and disorder
>randomness and disorder
>and
Your definition says "or", not "and". Why are you acting like a jew?

>> No.15069155

>>15069137
Because and encompasses both available options. I am opening up the range for you to make your case easier. I am sorry a Jewish cock is running through your mind in perpetuity. It must be difficult to think with such distractions.
Once again, I am open to having my mind changed. How can a system exponentially increasing in randomness or disorder be deterministic outside of the obvious answer that this universe only has disorder?

>> No.15069159

>>15069155
>How can a system exponentially increasing in randomness or disorder be deterministic
Why can a deterministic system not evolve in the direction of increased disorder? Disorder doesn't imply nondeterminism. It implies lack of structural constraints (note the difference from causal constraints).

>> No.15069188

>>15069159
It can and at a certain point structural conditions that were set at the beginning will result in random outcomes as in if we run two simulations side by side with the same rules we'll have two different outcomes because randomness will be inserted at a certain point given that the environment has less order as time moves forward, no? The problem for us is we can't tell the difference between what's random and what's epistemic uncertainty since we can't afford to calculate everything.

Bottom line is this. How do you keep randomness out of a disordered system if you can't verify it?

>> No.15069194

>>15069188
Do you agree that a deterministic system can evolve towards more disorder in principle?

>> No.15069196

>>15069194
Yes, we're having the keep your peanut butter out of my chocolate disagreement. Without a way to verify what's random we're larping on the internet.

>> No.15069203

>>15069196
>Yes
So you withdraw this statement?
>>15069053
>How can a system that has increasing entropy be deterministic? That doesn't make sense.
After all, the definition of 'entropy' you gave acknowledges the sense of measuring the degree of disorder.

>> No.15069205

>>15069203
No, you have no evidence outside of postulation that an event has a non-zero probability of occurring. I can also imagine a Jewish unicorn ramming his cock in your ass doesn't mean we live in that world.
>After all, the definition of 'entropy' you gave acknowledges the sense of measuring the degree of disorder.
Look who has forgotten about the or all of a sudden.

>> No.15069206

>>15069205
Every day I come here to remind myself why the IQ range of 100-130 is not truly human and why it's moral to exterminate your kind.

>> No.15069211

>>15069206
What a cucked way to live, my friend. Day in and day out coming in here to fume about the midwits while knowing you don't have the HUTZPAH to act out your "morals". Deep down inside you must realize, you've been the midwit all along.

>> No.15069214

>>15069211
Didn't read. The funniest part of all this is that you've been regurgitating (poorly) points that you originally heard from me, in a desperate attempt to impress people with your hot take.

>> No.15069222

>>15069053
*simulates your increase in enthropy*

>> No.15069226

>>15069214
>Didn't read
I don't believe you.
>The funniest part of all this is that you've been regurgitating (poorly) points that you originally heard from me
Who are you? Also, these are the points I came up with while considering your post. Midwit minds think alike.
>in a desperate attempt to impress people with your hot take.
Is this why you post, anon? If everyone is impressed with your mind are you then going to be happy?

>> No.15069229

>>15069226
>these are the points I came up with
We both know you didn't.

>> No.15069236

>>15069229
Strongly disagree.

>> No.15069240

>>15069236
I don't care. You've already shown your absolutely subhuman level of intelligence with this post >>15069205 and it's only natural that you regurgitate dumbed down versions of my own points at me thinking you're enlightening me. Someone like you will never form a coherent thought on his own.

>> No.15069258

>>15069240
You clearly do given that you're actively engaged in responding.
>You've already shown your absolutely subhuman level of intelligence with this post
Disagreeing with your position because you have no evidence and realizing that at best your argument boils down to "It's possible therefore it's what's happening" is submhuman? That's a shame. Also, did you also do a Jewish unicorn cock bit? I feel pretty original with that one.
> it's only natural that you regurgitate dumbed down versions of my own points at me thinking you're enlightening me
I thought we were having a conversation. Also, why are you assuming I know who you are? Who are you?
>Someone like you will never form a coherent thought on his own
Jokes on you, I do it all the time. Check it Big Bang Theory is the best show ever made because of smart the jokes are.

>> No.15069268

>>15069258
Didn't read. You got caught. Next time you regurgitate, at least try to understand what you're regurgitating, so you don't end up vomiting it completely out of context and exposing yourself. You really lost any plausible deniability.

>> No.15069270

>>15069268
Strongly disagree and I still don't believe you.

>> No.15069272

>>15067029
>When did you realize that the universe is deterministic and not probabilistic?
do you have any proof for this? how do can you know that the universe is deteministic without turning back time and seeing if someone can take a new decision?

>> No.15069275

>>15069270
You got caught. You can keep trying to save face in front of your imaginary reddit audience but you know I know.

>> No.15069326

>>15069275
Strongly disagree. Also, I find it humorous that the imagined audience you're trying to impress is on reddit. That's very funny to me.

>> No.15069332

>>15069326
im in the audience and I'm very embarrassed by you being called out like this.

>> No.15069333

>>15069326
You got caught.

>> No.15069349

>>15069332
Cool. Thanks for sharing. If you had to bottle a perfume of the scent of your embarrassment what would you call it?
>>15069333
Strongly disagree. If only you had something to show besides your hurt feelings.

>> No.15069352

>>15069349
>If you had to bottle a perfume of the scent of your embarrassment what would you call it?
(You) fragrance by 4Chanel.

>> No.15069355

>>15069349
>bottle a perfume of the scent of your embarrassment
Your mother would have much more experience in naming that product. Oh wait no she already picked a good name when she shat you out

>> No.15069357

>>15069349
>If only you had something to show
Show to whom? You and I both know. In any case, you pretty much conceded that your original objection was retarded before your hilarious attempt to move the goalpost.

>> No.15069364

>>15069352
based, I'll take a crate for when I want to smell someone caring enough about me to be embarrassed on my behalf. I am so excited.
>>15069355
That's adorable. What flavor of crayon were you enjoying when you wrote that one?
>>15069357
No, I didn't. I still strongly disagree and without evidence, all your huffing and puffing amounts to me laughing at your efforts and all the insecurities you reveal in the process.

>> No.15069372

>>15069364
>uh you eat duh crayons
ah this is that reddit wit I've been hearing about huh

>> No.15069374

>>15069364
>I didn't
You did: >>15069196. Why are you lying, kike?

>without evidence
Evidence of what? You claimed it doesn't make sense for a deterministic system to evolve in a way that increases entropy. Then you acknowledged that "entropy" also refers to a measure of disorder, and acknowledged that a deterministic system can evolve in a way that increases disorder. lol

>> No.15069381

>>15069372
9gag, actually. Try to keep up, grandpa.
>>15069374
All that was demonstrated is that it's possible not that it's what's happening. Your inability to distinguish between those two ideas is alarming especially given your forward projection of being someone who rises above the 100-130 iq moral massacre you're planning.

>> No.15069384

>>15069381
>All that was demonstrated is that it's possible
You claimed that it's impossible.
>inb4 you try to lie again
>>15069053
>How can a system that has increasing entropy be deterministic? That doesn't make sense.

>> No.15069386

>>15069384
Asking an enquiring question is the opposite of thinking something is impossible. If it's impossible why ask the question?

>> No.15069391
File: 1 KB, 113x120, 4125.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15069391

>>15069386
>I was just asking a heckin' question!!
While insistently exclaiming that it doesn't make sense. Then I answered your question, which you didn't even acknowledge, but simply went on to regurgitate some talking point at me as if you're proving me wrong about something. Either way, never mind. I suspect that human waste like you genuinely can'y see how lowly and dishonest it is.

>> No.15069394

>>15069391
Yes, a universe with increasing entropy where the definition of the term includes randomness doesn't make sense. Yes, a universe with only disorder could exist. No, you can't provide evidence that the universe we're in is only disorder and contains no randomness because we don't have the computational power to calculate everything therefore we're unable to separate randomness from the equation when evaluating systems that broke down into disorder. Your inability to engage on this level is a very red red flag in terms of your claim to being big IQ man. Not good.
> I suspect that human waste like you genuinely can'y see how lowly and dishonest it is.
That's cute. Is there a world you can see where you're wrong? Can you own that a world like that exists where you're wrong and explain why it can't be this one in a manner similar to the one I've done in this post?

>> No.15069402

>>15069394
>b-b-b-but randomness doesn't make sense in a deterministic universe
Way to go figuring that one out on your own. Entropy as a measure of randomness doesn't make sense without randomness. Entropy as a measure of disorder does. Does this answer your "question", drooler?

>> No.15069403

>>15069402
You can't claim a lack of randomness. You have no evidence for this claim. Why are you not engaging here?

>> No.15069405

>>15069403
Okay, but did I answer your question? Does it now make sense to you why a deterministic system can have increasing entropy?

>> No.15069411

>>15069405
Yes, if we take out randomness out of the definition of the term a disordered system can exist.

>> No.15069412

>>15069411
>Yes
Good.