[ 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: 45 KB, 359x550, agent_smith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512037 No.1512037 [Reply] [Original]

Agent Smith: Why, Mr. Anderson? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep fighting? Do you believe you're fighting for something? For more than your survival? Can you tell me what it is? Do you even know? Is it freedom? Or truth? Perhaps peace? Yes? No? Could it be for love? Illusions, Mr. Anderson. Vagaries of perception. The temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose. And all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself, although only a human mind could invent something as insipid as love. You must be able to see it, Mr. Anderson. You must know it by now. You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why? Why do you persist?
Neo: Because I choose to.

Did anyone else rage hard over this pathetic excuse of a response?

I mean, how can you possibly answer these very valid claims with a simple freedom of choice argument?

>> No.1512041

No, because when it comes down to it, choice is the only thing we have. Cept organs and bile and shit.

>> No.1512044

Dumb fuck, the whole trilogy was about choice

>> No.1512045
File: 20 KB, 421x512, refuteitthus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512045

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

>> No.1512050

>>1512041
this

though we also have the most electronegative shit in or teeth

>> No.1512052

Choice was the one thing Smith didn't understand, therefore Neo answered all his questions with one single sentence.

>> No.1512054

>>1512052

Yeah cos he was a computer and shit.

>> No.1512058

>>1512054
exactly -.-

>> No.1512059
File: 19 KB, 337x276, 1266242005135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512059

>>1512041
>Implying that free will for humans exists anymore than it does for algorithms.

>> No.1512064

>>1512059

Depends on your definition of free will. I have the choice to either reply to this troll post, or not. Just because my brain went through a series or processes to post this dumbfuck reply, doesn't mean I didn't choose to do it.

Don't take physics so literally.

>> No.1512066

>>1512037
>how can you possibly answer these very valid claims with a simple freedom of choice argument?

Because The Matrix never aspired to be anything more than a CGI film with a pseudo-philosophical outlook of life.

>> No.1512067

>>1512037
I think the point would have been better illustrated with this line instead

"Because I CAN and THAT, is the beauty of it"

OP's just a fucking retard who can't think romantically or poetically.

>> No.1512071
File: 12 KB, 250x378, Godel_alone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512071

Bitches don't know bout my non-computability.

Enjoy being wrong about the mind.

>> No.1512072

>>1512059
Ahem ... the Architect implies it

>> No.1512073

>>1512045
i'm going to need a source and context on this bro. I want to know.

> lol captcha: "static what"

>> No.1512075
File: 2 KB, 95x126, 1266191377569s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512075

>>1512064
No, you did what you did because of the sum of all factors that lead you to do it, whom also lead you to believe that it was your doing.
It's a highly functioning illusion.

>> No.1512079
File: 33 KB, 1180x955, 1262409320821.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512079

>>1512067
I can, I just expected more for that very climactic speech.

>> No.1512082

>>1512075

You still fail to see the point.

Our illusion of reality becomes reality. Whatever you think to be true is true to you.

You seriously have issues if you take Physics and ram it inside a term like "reality". That's for Philosophy to decode, not Physics.

>> No.1512084

you know, I've looked at religious people and groups, and I've looked at the atheist groups, and looked at the free will dudes and the determinists in both camps

and holy fuck man, jesus christ.

I'm a determinist, however free will seems to be a necessary part of our species/race's culture/society/whatever

logically the only answer I can come up with is that we evolved in a deterministic universe to believe in free will for whatever advantages it conveys on us, because generally speaking, those who believe in free will, generally do fairly well, even those who do deterministic science while believing in free will (for people)

isn't that called dualism or some shit?

well I kind of made up my own one that reasoned it out and said it's not a paradox it just seems like it~

from what I can see, and no I've not done a rigorous study, just anecdotes and general experience, the notion of free will is a very useful belief to have, especially when dealing with other active agents

>> No.1512087

>>1512079
Words mean nothing, context and emphasis means everything.

>> No.1512089

>>1512054
no, because he was a construct that, even when malfunctioning, still followed his core imperative to the end.

Mr. Smith wasn't an antagonist. He was a tragic character, struggling in vain, not even seeing that he was never free.

>> No.1512092

>>1512082
This does not refute my claim, at all.

>> No.1512093

science is philosophy, but philosophy isn't science, and the same goes with religion

I would trollface, but I cannot, it is simple fact

>> No.1512094

>>1512082
ignore him, he's an angsty 14 year old who has only recently become familiar with the concept of a mechanical universe and neurobiology, and he is determined to not 'get' anything except the concept that we are all biological robots and computers and THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO ANYTHING SHUT UP

>> No.1512095

The first matrix was cool. The rest were shit.

>> No.1512096

>>1512092

>> Implying every post on /sci/ MUST refute another post.

But then, what did the first post refute?!

>> No.1512100

>>1512082

Our illusion of reality becomes reality. Whatever you think to be true is true to you.

right, well the bullet I don't believe is coming towards my head thinks otherwise

WUT NOW?

50 billion people think that a bullet won't hit me in the head

the person who shoots the gun at point blank, does

well what now~

come on, TELL ME

>> No.1512105

>>1512100

This is a fallacy.

The point is every person lives in their own universe, inside their own head.

Your inability to accept MY notions of the universe is absolute proof of this. Checkmate. Yahtzee. Good day sir.

>> No.1512106

>>1512100
i'm certain you missed his point and are deliberately trying not to understand it.

If you don't get it yet, you are too stupid to. The movie (and the person you are responding to) are talking about things and issues that are too deep for you.

>> No.1512109

free will seems to be summed up perfectly by "use the force, luke"

determinism is akin to "okay, wrecking ball, my face, 100 miles an hour, shit's gonna get messy"

also if determinism doesn't exist at all, then fucking magnets, how do they work?

and if it doesn't apply to humans/things with brains...

where the fuck is our special non deterministic following part of the brain?

>> No.1512115

>>1512106

bullshit, you just don't have a valid point and can't do anything but say "it's too deep maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan"

seriously?

get the fuck off /sci/ hippy bullshit and conspiracy theories belong in /x/

>> No.1512116

>>1512109

Determinism requires absolute knowledge of the universe. We do not have this, so it does not work.

>> No.1512123

>>1512096
Not implying, just saying that for a post that states that I missed the point, must at least do that.

>> No.1512127

>>1512116
>Determinism requires absolute knowledge of the universe.

HERP DERP DURRFFF HURRRR HUAAAAAAAAAAARASDFKJQW;RELKJSAGOU5-603QIREYW(GADSFKSQER(T'QPRWOJQ( TOQMCPCX
K

>> No.1512130

>>1512127

Good point.

>> No.1512131

>>1512116

WHAT THE FUCK, DID THAT COME FROM?

oh shit please give me a link to something that shows how you came to that conclusion, or what sort of thought process you had for that one

PLEASE.

>> No.1512132

>>1512105
You can't really validate solipsism over a single retard. Not even over billions of retards.

>> No.1512135

>>1512105

WELL ACCORDING TO THE UNIVERSE IN MY HEAD THE UNIVERSE IN YOUR HEAD IS COMPLETELY WRONG AND I AM THE SOLE ARBITOR OF WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE UNIVERSES IN EVERYONE'S HEAD

I AM MOTHERFUCKING GOD.

yea.

logic's a bitch.

oh and I thought of it first and said it first and you can't disprove it in fact.

>> No.1512137

12:43
Restate Assumptions:
1. cogito ergo sum
2. there is a reality with which I interact
3. understanding and perception of that reality may be flawed
4. best observations of that reality and its patterns and rules are the work of science
5. I am part of that reality
6. I am governed by the rules of that reality
7. Freewill does not exist in that supernatural sense
8. Choice exists but only as the name given to conscious beings output.

>> No.1512140

>>1512131

Basically I was thinking determinism assumes that the universe is a set system where A leads to B leads to C.

In reality, things don't work like that. Due to our notion of Physics at the moment, the universe is a constantly changing idea, where the reality of reality is that A can lead to D can lead to batman symbol, OR A to B to C, OR A to C to B.

Basically since we can never truely know what is going on in the universe due to quantum mechanics and the general "fuzziness" of the universe below a certain point, determinism cannot be true.

>> No.1512141

technically speaking, you COULD disagree with me, but then again you'd just be some cunt who doesn't actually exist because in the universe in my head, you're really just an algorithm that says stupid shit

oh, but wait there's more

YOU don't feel that way, do you, and it's quite obvious you won't like that I said this shit

now tell me

if everyone's universe is valid

how the FUCK do we find common ground or communicate with others on any sort of regular and useful basis?

how the FUCK does your "theory" have any useful connotations in it

>> No.1512148

>>1512132

Yeah I know. I'm not saying I have the true answer, it's a shame though isn't it lawl.

>> No.1512149

>>1512140
>Basically since we can never truely know what is going on in the universe due to quantum mechanics and the general "fuzziness" of the universe below a certain point, determinism cannot be proven.
ftfy

>> No.1512154

>>1512140
you were thinking wrong, the only way the fuzziness of the universe would disprove macroscopic determinism is if free will was exerted by subatomic particles.

>> No.1512155

>>1512140

you do know that science has basically ran around disproving free will from the getgo, and that quantum fuzziness is most likely a product of our inability to measure that shit at an accurate level, right?

I mean shit they just started reading atoms correctly as opposed to working out the theories

randomness?

ugh.

quantum mechanics is difficult I say because the stuff we're trying to use to measure the shit, also impacts the shit, that's not inherent fuzziness in nature

that's like a blindman trying to find the exact dimensions of a ball by poking it repeatedly while it rolls around

fucking christ.

>> No.1512160

>>1512154
>>1512155

Poster of 140 here. I'm glad im providing so much discussion.

You speak with a lot of knowledge about an area of science that is not very well understood though. Quantum mechanics shows that the nature of the universe is Chaotic at best.

>> No.1512163

The whole Film was about the struggle between the concept of a deterministic universe (computerprograms) and the concept of a chaotic universe (humans; free will).

By fusing those things, Neo and Smith became extremely irrational Elements in the Matrix.

At the end one of the two had to destroy the other one.

But Neo chose another path, the path of peace.

It was all about choice, but it was all about choosing a third option.

>> No.1512168

>>1512160
You could say that, or you could say our ability to measure it is rudimentary at best.

>> No.1512181

>>1512168

At any rate, I see no problems with a universe with an element of randomness in it. Quantum mechanics is an accurate model, and it assumes this is how things work.

If you can, please explain to me why a universe in which things are random at some points is impossible?

>> No.1512188

>>1512181

I never said that was impossible. I was merely stating that your assumption about quantum mechanics being right might be wrong. I'm not even the person you were quoting. in >>1512160

>> No.1512190

>>1512168
Bell's Theorem proves that if there are local hidden variables that "know" what a particle is going to do in a test (like checking spin up/down), then a Bell Inequality will hold.

The Bell Inequality is violated in experiment.

Therefore, there are no local hidden variables. You can either have nonlocal hidden variables (violating relativity - stuff in the Andromeda galaxy can instantly affect you), or the universe simply isn't deterministic. Everything has a cause, but you can't even in principle predict the effect.

>> No.1512206

>>1512168

that's kind of what I was saying

quantum physics right now is a "best guess" scenario, the tests don't actually show enough to invalidate all the theories, but only the theories "as is"

measurement itself does not appear to be the primary goal of physicists in this case at the moment, although I could be wrong

perhaps it's a failure of engineering (/trollface) to catch up with theoretical science as of yet

keyword, theoretical, there's so little testing

reminds me entirely of plato, "circles are the best the best the best the best the best so planets revolve in circles, simplest explanation!111"

>> No.1512216

>>1512160
Chaotic does not = nondeterministic
Chaotic = inability to determine

-Now, lets say that god exists (purely as a thought experiment). Now god being all knowing, already has a complete understanding of physics, he also complete knowledge of every single bit of matter and energy in the universe. So, if god has the processing power, lets assume he does, then by having a complete understanding of the system at its inital conditions (lets say a fraction of a second post-big bang), he can extrapolate any state along the axis of time from there. This means that time can be thought of simply as a neat way to organize the determinable and static states of the universe. Now, to anyone who is inside of the universe this can seem counter intuitive, they have difficulty grasping the sublte falsehoods of time as, simply the act of thinking, requires that their mind advance through those predetermined states along the axis and of course, as their mind is apart of the universe, the entire system must be advanced.

-In this way, time is simply the best way to organize and think about the universe, but is not a fundamental property. Every single moment the universe is different, moment to moment, everything can change but those moments are forever.

-Thus, determinism is correct but unprovable due to our position as part of the universe. It is a philosophy of science and a foundation for scientific thinking but it is not science in and of its self.

Sincerly, >>1512137

>> No.1512220

>>1512190

>sorry but the bell test isn't perfect and has some serious flaws in it

"Though the series of increasingly sophisticated Bell test experiments has convinced the physics community in general that local realism is untenable, there are still critics who point out that the outcome of every single experiment done so far that violates a Bell inequality can, at least theoretically, be explained by faults in the experimental setup, experimental procedure or that the equipment used does not behave as well as it is supposed to. These possibilities are known as "loopholes". The most serious loophole is the detection loophole, which means that particles are not always detected in both wings of the experiment. It is possible to "engineer" quantum correlations (the experimental result) by letting detection be dependent on a combination of local hidden variables and detector setting. Experimenters have repeatedly stated that loophole-free tests can be expected in the near future (García-Patrón, 2004). On the other hand, some researchers point out that it is a logical possibility that quantum physics itself prevents a loophole-free test from ever being implemented (Gill, 2003; Santos, 2006)."

>> No.1512224

>>1512216

>> You make one huge assumption in this. You assume that every event has only one possible outcome. You aren't taking into account the fact that in situations, there is a chance that event A will cause event B, and a chance it will cause event C.

Schrodinger's cat comes to mind.

>> No.1512226

as such, since the bell test is in fact not conclusive, I will reserve judgement on this new dynamic, quantum physics, and keep the old model, of a deterministic universe as my preferred model, until a new testable theory comes out with experiments done that do not have glaring errors in them, proves that chaos is in fact inherent in the universe

god, I have to resist the urge to /trollface, it's delicious making free willy squirm

>> No.1512228

>>1512216

What about the multiple universes theory? Surely God would just know every outcome of every event. All these exist parrallel in an arbitarily large number of universes. We are just travelling down one path.

>> No.1512229

>>1512224

so, here's a question

how do you test it?

>> No.1512232

>>1512229

Put a cat in a box etc etc.

The point is this is just a thought experiment and isn't testable. The mathematics behind it however, has been tested and is accurate.

>> No.1512239

Massive fail ITT.

1. Quantum indeterminacy is need not be ontological (see de Broglie-Bohm)

2. Free will needs to be logically distinct from randomness yet still be indeterminate.

3. Determinism vs Indeterminism is empirically underdetermined. Thus, scientific results have little if any, relevance.

>> No.1512242

"To further illustrate the putative incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger applied quantum mechanics to a living entity that may or may not be conscious. In Schrödinger’s original thought experiment, he describes how one could, in principle, transpose the superposition of an atom to large-scale systems of a live and dead cat by coupling cat and atom with the help of a "diabolical mechanism". He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death was dependent on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.

Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."

LOL.

okay it's based on great math that's proven

and it sounds fucking ridiculous

holy jesus fuck, quantum mechanics is based on circular logic

>> No.1512247

>>1512242
>holy jesus fuck, quantum mechanics is based on circular logic

not sure if troll..

>> No.1512253

>>1512242

The point is that you will never know which one has happened. Hence determinism no worky.

>> No.1512256

>okay it's based on great math that's proven

Wtf are you stupid? All math better "is proven". Whether a piece of mathematical quack models reality accurately, however, needs to be determined empirically.

And guess what, QM is better confirmed than just about everything else.

>> No.1512259

let's take the universe

the entire fucking universe, may or may not exist, unless it is observed by me

oh well shit okay, now I get it.
everyone is their own god.

sweet.
Another variant on the experiment is Wigner's friend, in which there are two external observers, the first of whom opens and inspects the box and then communicates his observations to a second observer. The issue here is, does the wave function collapse when the first observer opens the box, or only when the second observer is informed of the first observer's observations? Another extension is a scenario wherein the inside of the box is videotaped and played to an audience at a later time, or played back to the cat while in the box.[citation needed] If dead, there would be no observer to cause disentanglement; if alive, disentanglement would occur.

>> No.1512261

He didn't have any choice but to choose to do so.

Free Will is the prisoner rattling the bars of his cage and feeling that he has control over his environment.

Free Will is an illusion. Just as when reading a novel for the first time the characters can seem to make decisions and choices, everything was already decided long before you picked it up. Just as in your life you may seem to make decisions and choices, but everything was all decided at T=0.

[This post brought to you by the noun 'pavement' and the adverb 'immediately'.]

>> No.1512263

lolz

>> No.1512264

>>1512259
This is the point of why everyone is their own God. If YOU weren't here observing everything, the universe wouldn't exist for you.

All frames of reference are equally valid, even in one where there is no universe.

>> No.1512267

>>1512261
But if everything is designed to give us the illusion of free will, we might as well think we have it, since it makes no difference.

>> No.1512269

>>1512256

schrodinger's cat was alive, it just jumped out of the fucking box itself and wandered around my house because it got released after a certain amount of time

so it went from being dead to alive

fucking win. I'm motherfucking jesus.

hell yes.

honestly?

QM proven?

feed me more bullshit, I'm hungry

>> No.1512270

>>1512061
What if you only feel like you have the choice? By what mechanism to you magically alter reactions in your brain at your whim? You thoughts are a product of physics and chemistry, not vice versa. You responded to the post just like a plant grows toward light. You never had a choice.

>> No.1512276

>>1512270

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own." Fits qquite nicely.

>> No.1512279

Nice Hint: "Observers" are not humans, or any living thing
They are just about anything that interacts with the object
an hydrogen atom can be an observer, if a photon interacts with its electron shell

>> No.1512280

I remember something about conan and shit for some reason, if reality is an illusion, then I am also an illusion, and thus the illusion is real

G fucking G, nothing new in quantum mechanics

as for everyone is their own god

I'm now everyone's god

and I say the universe is deterministic because my entire universe is according to me, god, everyone's universe including the ones that are actually just other people's, but this doesn't matter because I'm motherfucking god

oops, the logic backfired.

>> No.1512282

>>1512267
>>1512270

Exactly.

This has all happened before. As it was in the Beginning, so it is Now, and ever shall Be, World without End.

[This post brought to you by the preposition 'about' and the... verb 'confutes'.]

>> No.1512285

>>1512279

O.O

my face went back, and the widest fucking grin ever went onto my face

as long as something exists, there is determinism in the universe

I like.

>> No.1512291

>>1512285

Hint: No.

The observer doesn't determine the outcome of the experiment. It's still random.

>> No.1512296

>>1512279
[citation needed]

>> No.1512297

ah but I already answered all this shit about illusions of free will and so on here

>>1512084

well that was fucking easy, after all the concept of free will really isn't that fucking special, it's pretty profane

if one believes in evolution, then one could easily say, there's probably a selection pressure towards free will for survival, although there are definitely benefits to using determinism in certain cases pertaining to actual physical reality as opposed to guessing what active agents/rational actors or whatever, are going to do, based on my own experience of what I would do...

aka, let go of object, object falls

determinism

>> No.1512301

>>1512291

well shit I'd be okay with that

because the universe is one hell of a long fucking outcome for the experiment of existence

>> No.1512304

which means the results have all come in and shit's just happening now with all the observers going around affecting themselves or some shit

honetsly?

this is pathetic, free will arguments have resorted to "nothing we do does anything" and "we don't know anything for sure"

but "we know we have free will, deterministic science based on mathematical equations, which are in fact, by their very nature, deterministic, say so"

>> No.1512309
File: 38 KB, 320x320, C2CAA889-979E-BACC-B8467A9CA1C4FA51_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512309

I think free will is a meaningless concept.
So if it turns out that all our decisions can be predicted if we were able to know the exact relationship of all the atoms and such inside our brains, then people view this as "no free will" we are just machines that are preprogrammed.

So if that isnt free will then that would require that free will have a random element, which is quite possible considering the current interpretation of modern physics, well this would not be free will either. It would be a roll of the dice, a random choice, that is not free will.

So in the end, free will does not exists, it is impossible for it to exist, either everything is predetermined, or everything is determined by the pure random interactions, either case, free will isnt real ,both theoretically and physically.

>> No.1512316

>>1512309


mmm, I like the way you put that

>> No.1512323

>>1512224
Actually the main point of that post is that QM will look non-deterministic for any observer inside of the universe/governed by time and deterministic for a hypothetical observer out-side of the universe/time. >>1512228 makes the point that different interpretations handle this differently but like I said, its not science just a philosophy of science as we are not able to step out side of the universe/multiverse/infinite goof, we cannot prove it.

>> No.1512327

>>1512316
but then the table was dog spoon flowerpot microwave and i clean down from wet marker?

>> No.1512336

>>1512309

It's all down to your definition of free will then. At any rate, the brain exists, and it makes choices. Simple as.

>> No.1512340

>>1512336

Yup, I agree, but then the question arises where would you draw the definition? How complex does something have to be inorder to have free will?

>> No.1512345

>>1512336

no it doesn't, it's just electrons and shit running through it, it's just a fucking observer

>> No.1512349

>>1512340
Particles have free will.

>> No.1512353

>>1512309
Ah! there we go! one eloquent post to sum it up.
-note: this has no bearing on legal or social systems as people can still be held responsible for their choices. Choice is an emergent phenomenon but freewill is not.
sincerely, >>1512137

Side note: My captcha is Operation Warblers.

>> No.1512356

>>1512349

Muons are fucking assholes.

[This post brought to you by the proper noun 'Stanton' and the verb 'is'.]

>> No.1512357

>>1512349
>Particles have free will.
As do fans, but they usually only oscillate

>> No.1512361

>>1512345

I disagree. The brain has far more shit oging on than you could POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

>> No.1512365

>>1512357

Hahahaha. I love those comics.

>> No.1512367

>>1512361

You're not him! How do you know what he could or could not possibly imagine?!

[This post brought to you by the string 'baas' and the float '26.2']

>> No.1512369

>>1512361

hence, "other shit"

>> No.1512370

>>1512345
>>1512340
>>1512336

see: >>1512353
Difference between freewill and choice

>> No.1512371

I view the ultimate goal of humanity as apotheosis, only then can we know the purpose of why we fought to get there.

>> No.1512375

>>1512349
Particles obey laws of physics.

>> No.1512377

>>1512375

some laws say they can do whatever they want as long as noone's looking

>> No.1512379

brain in a vat anyone?

>> No.1512382

>>1512375
False:
nigger particles rarely follow any laws.

>> No.1512383

>>1512059
>Implying that humans always make the RIGHT decision, even when they KNOW the decision they've made is wrong -- and choose it anyway

>> No.1512385

>>1512383
>Implying that algorithms always make the right choices

>> No.1512390

>>1512385

al gore's rhythms are the bomb yo

>> No.1512402

>>1512385
If there is no free will then there can be no true randomness in anything, anywhere in the Universe (or, rather, the same stated in reverse); it's all systems of varying magnitudes, pseudorandom, and what we try to attribute to "randomness" are just artifacts of systems so large that we cannot detect their patterns of pseudorandomness.

>> No.1512406

>>1512402

So youre defining free will as something that happens with "true randomness". So therefore, an electron has freewill because its exists in the realm of the uncertainty principle?

>> No.1512407
File: 24 KB, 320x422, incredulous baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512407

>>1512402

>> No.1512408

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

>> No.1512412

This thread had legitimate potential as a philosophy thread and then you guys start being uncivil and start name-calling. Fuck you, /sci/, and your shit.

>> No.1512413

>>1512402

I can rest in peace, someone has said the right thing

this is how I feel about quantum mechanics and it's failures so far

as far as I'm concerned it'll be like that old model of the solar system that was fucking weird as shit but worked, barely

>> No.1512420

>>1512412

quit your bitchin'

who the hell are you calling /sci/ ?

I'm not a /sci/ you fucker

>> No.1512421

>>1512413

>> Implying QM barely works

>> No.1512426

>>1512412
>hoping for prolonged civil discourse anywhere on 4chan

>> No.1512427

>>1512421

got a problem with that?

the shit hasn't been tested properly or thorougly, but gets pushed through more and more because it agrees with itself

I know of a few pieces of shit that do that, and to be honest it's more akin to schizophrenia and paranoid delusions mistaking correlation with causation, than science as far as I'm concerned

as happy as they make you, and as close as they seem to match

>> No.1512430

>as far as I'm concerned it'll be like that old model of the solar system that was fucking weird as shit but worked, barely

Back in the day, everyone that that "weird one" was the one that made sense and the correct one was the weird shit. New knowledge is always fuckin weird, because were used to what weve already learned and built up in our mind as right.

>> No.1512438

>>1512406
No, that's the opposite of what I said.

If the Universe is just a gigantic system of pseudorandom systems of various sizes and no true randomness exists, and this applies, naturally, to living beings as well, then I propose that, like a pseudorandom number generator, the larger the system is the larger the pseudorandom pattern it generates is. If the system is sufficiently large enough then it's pattern of pseudorandomness is so large that humans may perceive it as true randomness. Now consider how high in complexity the human brain and body is; it's degree of pseudorandomness is high enough to potentially explain the phenomenon we refer to as "free will".

Or not. It's just an idea.

>> No.1512444

>>1512427
[citations needed]

>> No.1512448

>>1512402

Are you implying that the nature of phenomena in the universe can be determined just because our brains evolved a certain way? Stochastic processes and QM predict randomness, so I am an indeterminist, but that doesn't mean we have will. There may be unpredictable phenomena in the universe, but I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I have magic powers and can alter my neurochemicles as I see fit to make choices. Such an ability would have to be independent of the brain itsself

>> No.1512451

>>1512402
Wrong. In fact, most proponents of free will in the free will debate (philosophy) argue that randomness does not equate to free will.

While all things random and all things free will are both subsets of all things indeterminate, they are not co-extensive.

Why? Because randomness doesn't get you free will. Free will implies a degree of control, which is incompatible with randomness.

This is why the challenge of the libertarian (in the free will debate) is to illuminate what free will is even supposed to be.

Notice how free will seems to require, if one believes human actions is subject to causality like everything else, that causes are created ex nihilo, out of thin air. Kinda weird, huh?

As for QM.... just stop it. QM has little bearing on the free will debate as of now. Realize that the part of QM that is well confirmed empirically is the mathematics. The mathematics and some basic interpretation is sufficient to make predictions, hence for QM to be confirmed. What the apparent truth of this mathematical structure implies about the structure of reality...
this is where interpretations come in.

>> No.1512454
File: 208 KB, 1024x768, zombie scientist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1512454

I hearby proclaim this thread dead. A decent conversation was had among the anons and good points were made but now it is descending into the realm of total brain munching rot. anyone you see in this thread is a zombie and should be crowbarred. thank you for your time.

>> No.1512455

>>1512448
read this:
>>1512438

>> No.1512457

>>1512448

I am kind of interested in the the differences between the illusion of free will and free will. I mean if we truely believe that the choice we made is our own will, it is right?

>> No.1512462

>>1512438

Well, human ability should have nothing to do with whether something is random or not. Well It does in most terms, but not in this philosophical sense were talking about. Anyways, im confused by what you wrote. Imma go back to this.

>If there is no free will then there can be no true randomness in anything

So if something is truely random, then you can have free will, but youre defining "truely random" as a system so large we will never be able to follow it as humans, where im defining "truely random" as a physical property of the universe, effectivly im saying that causality isnt real for all things, which is the current interpretation of modern physics.

>> No.1512471

>>1512457
No. Seems like you do not understand free will. On a causalistic picture, free will is usually the claim that one's actions are at least partially brought about by YOU. This doesn't necessarily contradict causality, but it specifies that at least one necessary cause for an action originates within/through you. This cause is itself NOT caused by other, prior events.

What you believe is irrelevant.

>> No.1512472

>>1512451
Actually I hate the idea that everything we do our entire lives is predictable and/or predetermined, and would hate to live in a world where people were so completely "figured out" that their entire lives from cradle to grave were in essence pre-determined. However the thought has occurred to me more than once that what we perceive as "true randomness" in the Universe could just be the result of pseudrandom systems too large and complex for us to perceive the patterns in.

>> No.1512480

>>1512471

>> What you believe is irrelevant.

>> Invalidates your entire post.

>> No.1512482

>>1512471

Yeah, but ya gotta go deeper than that, because ultimatly everything you are, was pretermined by events that werent caused by you. Youre just using the generic dictionary definition of free will, thats fucking boreing, get more philisophicaly stoned talky

>> No.1512489

>>1512462
Perhaps the problem is perspective; you're looking at things from the bottom up, and I'm looking at them from the top down.

>> No.1512503

>>1512455
What does pseudo random even mean. Either something is random or determined. Even if something is selected to appear random, as this is what I suspect you mean by pseudo random, it is still one or the other. Randomness is predicted by mathmatics independent of human observation

>> No.1512517

pseudo means fake, faux, not actually real

random means, well.. random

pseudo random just means "something that looks random, but isn't"

like, computer "random rolls"

as for you...

>>1512489

Perhaps the problem is perspective; you're looking at things from the bottom up, and I'm looking at them from the top down.

that's all I have to say to YOU!

>> No.1512518

>>1512489

Indeed it is. Perspective can warp the universe into anything you want it to be.

>> No.1512536

free will violates causality

>> No.1512549

>>1512536

>> Implying causality is a law of physics

>> No.1512563

>>1512549

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29

................................................................

>> No.1512572

>>1512563

>> Hurrr there am a wikipedee page called causality physics so that must mean its a law of physics durrrr

>> No.1512579

>>1512572

you're right, I don't need one

are you trying to refute that quantum mechanics is based on a deterministic set of principles, aka mathefuckingmatics?

or the rest of physics, that does the same thing?

"oops, you dun made yourself revealed to be the fucking retard you are"

>> No.1512580

>>1512050
human beings are the most adaptive.

You can give them anything and they'll make it work.

Also, endurance beyond any other animal.

>> No.1512587

>>1512579

Yes I am trying to refute that QM is deterministic, mainly because that's bullshit. For the moment anyway.

>> No.1512593

>>1512587

I agree partly, QM does have some bullshit in it, I'm not sure where, but the artifacts will show themselves as we are finally able to test the stuff instead of say "god did it, here's the mathematics"

like I said, and my favourite example of this, is that solar system model that worked, but was completely fucked out of it's mind, simply because measurement wasn't up to par or something

>> No.1512599

>>1512593

Yeah but the difference between this and that is that QM has stood up to experimental gunfire from all directions for years.

>> No.1512623

>>1512599

flawed experiments and perfect logic

not my cup of tea, however useful it might be now, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a theory that's going to be around "forever" the way gravity is

>> No.1512654

determinism can not exist because every event in the universe has a unlimited amount of other universes in which said event happened differently. Thus gives rise to the many worlds theory and parallel universes.

Matter moves through the 4th dimension, twists and turns and branches out into 4 dimensional objects of a branching time line.

>> No.1512666

ITT: HSfag pretends to know Quantum...

Quantum has stood up to the tests and has made very accurate predictions. Quantum has explained and expanded upon previously unexplained phenomenon that other theories couldn't touch. Quantum is more sound than classical mechanics or nearly every other branch of physics

>> No.1512667

People misunderstand Schrödinger shit entirely. When you open the box, the cat becomes dead or alive TO YOU. Nothing collapsed, the wave of the cat got entangled with yours...
Image another cat experiment. There's the cat the box and you, but you are all inside of a bigger box. You opened the box and saw if the cat was dead. If it was dead you are sad, but if it wasn't you are relieved. The thing is that you are not sad nor relieved until someone open the box and check on you. Only when your wave entangles with the observer's wave he can tell. Nothing ever "collapses", only gets entangled.

>> No.1512671

>>1512623

[citations needed]

>> No.1512681

>>1512654

blew my mind. So more like a fractal pattern in 4d/5d space?

>> No.1512686

>>1512654

>Determinism can't be real because my favorite poorly written 1940's science fiction novel says so.

[Citation needed]

gtfo /x/

>> No.1512688

>>1512671

it's pretty fucking obvious, quit your bitching with "citations needed" whenever you disagree with something like that as if it's not all over the fucking place

>> No.1512695

>>1512671

[citation needed]

because I already fucking gave the info earlier in this thread and was just repeating information because a dumbfuck like you has the attention span of a goldfish :3

>> No.1512699

>>1512667

so who checks on me

the dead cat?

great, it's fucking pet semetary ALL OVER AGAIN

>> No.1512731

>>1512688

>>quit your bitching with "citations needed" whenever you disagree with something

You must be new here.

>> No.1512812

>>1512688

>Make bold and unfounded claims
>Cry when someone asks for source

/x/ is that way, highschoolfag -->

>> No.1512836

oh fuck it's a samefag double post

you must be new here yourself

you missed the part you over pretentious wannabe scientific prick, where I already mentioned the shit you were asking for the citation

and then you don't bother listening and bitch and moan that I told you to scroll up instead of being a complete retard who has the memory of a goldfish

hurrdurrrr

it's people like you that just fucking disprove your own theories by your own retardation

>> No.1512843

>>1512836

0/10

It was different people. I know because I was one of the two.

>> No.1512874

>>1512836

Not samefag. Who is pretentious and retarded now?

You obviously have never taken a QM course. There are no highly regarding peer reviewed journals that call QM bullshit. Period.

>> No.1512887

stop samefagging, and I never said there were journals that disagreed with QM, I said it had flawed tests, this is old news

just look it the fuck up, and stop bitching about it

honestly

>> No.1512900

>>1512887

Hahahhaa. You have provided much entertainment for me by saying there are no journals that disagree with QM but hundreds of experiments.

Threads over guys. Decayed into bullshit from obvious trolls.

>> No.1512910

Still not samefag, nigger.

Also,
>Implying every science doesn't have flawed test.

Shit, I can't even verify Newton's laws precisely. A flawed test does not disprove a theory.

>> No.1512914

>>1512900

saying flawed tests agree with QM isn't the same as saying experiments disprove it

it's just not proven yet, so I'm not willing to accept it completely, it's useful, but it's not entirely accurate

if you've got a problem with me doubting your pet theory, in which you have so much invested into that you are willing to misrepresent what I say, samefag, and spam "citation needed" whenever you disagree with me

then the thread is truly over as you say, your troll is revealed, and you've just resorted to attempting to win by losing

happy times, except you were just trolling and you did it successfully, I raged that someone would be so retarded as to believe the things you purported to believe in

I raged, hard...
10/10

>> No.1512921

>>1512910

a flawed test does not a theory PROVE

since when the fuck did people start saying "DISPROVE IT OR IT'S REAL" in science?

fuck, get out of /sci/ bitch

>> No.1512925

>>1512914
>>but it's not entirely accurate

[citations needed]

>> No.1512930

>>1512925

see

>>1512914

>> No.1512940

>>1512930

See:

>>1512925

>> No.1512941

>>1512940
see
>>1512930

>> No.1512942

>>1512940

see

>>1512925

>> No.1512944

>>1512941

See
>>1512940

>> No.1512950

>>1512942
see
>>1512944
seeing
>>1512941

>> No.1512951

and thus we summarize 4chan

>> No.1512963

I didn't say disprove it or it's real.

Conversation was:

Niggerfaggot: Lol I'm in highschool. Quantum Mechanics is bullshit. Derp.

Me: Quantum actually consitantly makes accurate predictions and is supported by a wealth of expiremental evidence.

Niggerfaggot: Herpderp someone fucked up a test derpa sherpa

Me: A flawed test does not disprove a theory.

Also, Quantum Mechanics is a whole field. It would be like saying "Ha, thier paladium catalyzed reaction had unpredicted by products! Organic Chemistry is bullshit and 100 years no one will still practice it."

>> No.1512964

>>1512950

see
>>1512944
telling

>>1512941
to see
>>1512940
telling
>>1512930
to see
>>1512925

>> No.1512968

>>1512925
>>1512930
>>1512940
>>1512941
>>1512942
>>1512944
>>1512950
the sightsseeing tour of /sci/

>> No.1513001

>>1512963

that's not anything like what the conversations were like....

you fail at thinking clearly or posting anything remotely true

>> No.1513026

>>1513001

Says the guy who says QM experiments can't be trusted and doesn't provide any sauce.

>> No.1513032

oh it's around in this thread, go look for it you lazy cunt :P

>> No.1513301

wat