[ 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: 266 KB, 645x985, IMG_8188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15538907 No.15538907 [Reply] [Original]

Is the universe deterministic or probabilistic?

>> No.15538912

>>15538907
deterministic, of course. the current paradigm is false.

>> No.15538914

deterministic, but it also includes the influence of demons and other spirits that inhabit the astral realm and are often ignored by the mainstream

>> No.15538916

>>15538912

Can you explain to me why?

>> No.15538954

>>15538916
there is simply no reason to think that anything could have happened differently. it is an unjustified assumption.

>> No.15539041

probabilistic but without free will.

>> No.15539988
File: 19 KB, 306x306, 1688416939816.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15539988

>all these eleutherophobic midwit replies
There is nothing more important than free will. A purely deterministic and probabilistic universe is literally impossible.

>> No.15539996

>>15539988
>i think free will is important, therefore it's real
no sir.

>> No.15540007
File: 397 KB, 636x634, 1688343036291069.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15540007

>>15538907
Neither. The universe does not conform to any human conception of what it is or what it should be.

>> No.15540013

>>15538907
Probably deterministic. Probabilities measure uncertainty due to lack of information.

>> No.15540024

>>15538907
Yes

>> No.15540067

>>15538907
it's both you fat ugly slob (free will part of this statement)

>> No.15540072

>>15538907
Both. You can determine through probability, no?

>> No.15540101

>>15538907
probably deterministic

>> No.15540113

>>15538907
>Is the universe deterministic or probabilistic?
yes, it is probably deterministic or probabilistic :)
but idk how we'll determine which :^)

>> No.15540175

>>15538907
probabilistic
see: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/767912/is-there-any-confirmed-counterexample-to-causality-in-nature/

>> No.15540963

>>15538907

It's deterministic but that determinism is dependent upon the odds.

>> No.15540975

>>15538907
well if you would be now all powerful, and the most pleasure you can experience is getting knowledge, you cant reach a state to predict the universe.

>> No.15540978

>>15540975
but ova time their could emerge still an intelligence who thinks one step ahead, ofc after you are long long downgraded to an bug or germ cause you did this 1 fail.

>> No.15540980

>>15540975
>>15540978
the nature of the universe is that it over rolls it self or more easy to imagine, infinite liquid space.

>> No.15540981

>>15538907
I don't know, I don't dictate the rules of reality and neither do you

>> No.15540985

>>15540980
so the answerer is no it is not deterministic cause it rolls on for ever.

>> No.15540987

>>15540985
it would be deterministic, if you could reach a state the universe isn't jet, till it over rolls you.

>> No.15540995

>>15540987
its probably even possible to reach this state its just, it stops if the rest of the universe over rolls you.

>> No.15541001

>>15540995
in more easy words you only can predict the energy lvl denser as you in the past, but the past has more energy, sending out wave over rolling you soon or late. and the complexity increases each time so each new god needs longer to get into the "true future beacon"

>> No.15541133

>>15538907
>t. Determinists coping
Even purely newtonian universe is non-deterministic.

>> No.15541157

both

deterministic at the macro level with some small random jumps at the quantum scale.

>> No.15541175

>>15538907

It's deterministic is some ways and probabilistic in others, and it does this primarily to torment nerds.

Also free will exists, but only for about 20% of humans. Get fucked with your "perfect and fair to everyone" universe. You're deluding yourself to satiate your ego and autism. The human brain is a product of a contradictory universe. It is not the exception to it. Like a a series of games being played by a group of toddlers - the rules change to keep things from getting too stale.

>> No.15541179

>>15540101

>probably deterministic

Kek. The universe is deterministic but also pretty bad at math and so it rounds up or down when it's convenient.

>> No.15541295

>>15540175
>https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/767912/is-there-any-confirmed-counterexample-to-causality-in-nature/
has anyone actually read this? The universe is experimentally non-deterministic, like it's a fact. Side note this doesn't mean random

>> No.15541299

>>15541295
no you cannot experimentally test determinism, retard.

>> No.15541314
File: 138 KB, 1412x1592, propergation.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15541314

>>15541299
no but if you imagine the universe as ever expanding sphere you can imagine that the inward propagating waves as soon as the hit the core get accelerated faster as the front wave over Rollin the universe creating more and more complex patterns. it doesn't matter if it is deterministic for you cause you are that incredible smart cause just 2 seconds later it isn't.

>> No.15541317

>>15541299
You cannot experimentally confirm probabilism either since anything that "seems" random could just be something we haven't discovered/though of yet. (Same goes for the other way around)
However i'd argue that since Time only happens once, it would be possible to model the universe using a deterministic function, even if reality is not as elegant as our current models. (as in, saying something is 'random' is a meaningless concept because we will never get to see the 'other' outcome therefore we cannot know if it exists)

>> No.15541318

>>15541314
>no
good. rest of your post is garbage

>> No.15541321

>>15541314
High complexity =/= probabilism though. A thing could be really really complicated, beyond human comprehension, and still follow an underlying rule. Wouldn't the rippling of your model follow a form of fluid dynamics, even if as complicated as could be?

>> No.15541341

>>15541317
yes, testing determinism is the same as testing indeterminism. if you can't test one, then you can't test the other either.

>> No.15541815

>>15540007
Imagine thinking the universe and a human are separate entities. I am the universe able to ponder itself.

>> No.15541826

>>15538907
Second law of thermodynamics says deterministic

>> No.15541832

>>15538907
Neither

>> No.15541835

>>15538907
deterministic 50% of the time and probabilistic the other 50% of the time

>> No.15541841

>>15538907
deterministic because the alternative is literally impossible, nothing can manifest out of thin air without any prior cause

even involving quantum shizzle doesn't change that at the most base level

>> No.15542511

>>15538907
Neither, moron idiot retard.
>>15539988
/thread
>>15539996
Wrong. The Creator(s) would not create a Universe that lacks one of its most important aspects.

>> No.15542516

>>15541826
The second law of thermodynamics is wrong. It holds true in many confined settings but does not hold true on a univeral scale.

>> No.15542530

>>15539988
you are clearly wrong. you wish you had free will, but you will never have free will.

>> No.15542554
File: 342 KB, 512x431, 1688335945901492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15542554

>>15541815
You sure do sound like you enjoy sucking your own dick tho

>> No.15543246
File: 934 KB, 2548x1280, 596ee6f9795f066c003cddce7738330b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15543246

The universe is deterministic.

>> No.15543807

>>15538907
Is this about whether there exists a classical statistical mechanical explanation for quantum mechanics as Einstein thought?

>> No.15543817

>>15543807
no. 'classical' and 'mechanical' have nothing to do with it. determinism need not be classical.

>> No.15543821

>>15542511
>Free will is real
>My source? Skydaddy told me so.
Very scientific!

>> No.15543862

>>15538907
Idk
Is assumption that fundamental level of reallity (curently quantum dimension) determines the outcome of other levels of it (chemistry and biology) right? If yes then some parts of it are (the ones that are built on fundamental one.

>> No.15543899

>>15538907
>which made up word is objective truth?
fucking hell didn't we leave the Greeks behind a couple millennia ago
are you a mackerel smacker, OP

>> No.15543910

>>15542511
>The Creator(s) would not create a Universe that lacks one of its most important aspects.
You assume they have free will in their universe as well.