/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15641775]

Is the universe probabilistic instead of deterministic? What does probability measure?

[Anonymous No.15641817]

>>15641775
Whats "probalistic"?

[Anonymous No.15641931]

>>15641775
it's deterministic.

probability is literally useless. it's literally just guessing. when statisticians correctly predict outcomes, they say "see, i told you!!!" and when their predictions fail, they simply say "yeah well it was only a chance...it wasn't 100%..." so they always have a cop-out. it's pure cope.

god does not play dice.

[Anonymous No.15641937]

>>15641775
>muh oppenheimer
>muh einshitein
>muh big bangg theoreey
This is so fucking reddit

[Anonymous No.15641943]

>>15641775
It's deterministic on a technical level but probabilistic from our perspective.

[Anonymous No.15641958]

>>15641931
Probability is useful in modeling a system with incomplete information. The mistake is assuming the model is the system

[Anonymous No.15641963]

>>15641775
>probabilistic or deterministic
reality of the matter is that it's both, depending on the scale you're observing

[Anonymous No.15641971]

>>15641958
>Probability is useful in modeling a system
no it isn't.

[Anonymous No.15641976]

>>15641931
Determinism is incompatible with consciousness

[Anonymous No.15641978]

>>15641971
It will give you predictive properties even if you don’t understand variable mechanisms which give differing results. It’s more useful than say randomly guessing an outcome

[Anonymous No.15642016]

The past proves that there exists only 1 timeline. Any future point in time will have a past that connects to the present. This proves that there is only 1 timeline ahead of the present which proves that there is only 1 possible future.
This proves that the timeline is fixed and that it is already written and decided.
The determinism (1) vs true randomness (2) debate is a dispute about where the fixed timeline data comes from. Randomtards say the timeline data is read from an external source and does not come from the present or the past. The crazy randomtards hallucinate about parallel universes and other insanities without proof. Determinists say the data is set at the starting point which by means of causality determines every subsequent point on the timeline and there is no external data source. Neither theory has been proven this far, although mainstream academia will falsely claim that (2) was proven by quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.15642047]

>>15641976
We're probably not truly conscious. We just have an illusion of it.

[Anonymous No.15642056]

>>15642016
Time is just an illusion anyway.

[Anonymous No.15642158]

>>15641976
wrong.

[Anonymous No.15642163]

>>15641978
no it won't. no it isn't.

[Anonymous No.15642170]

>>15642016
based and true.

[Anonymous No.15642195]

>>15642016
Ok but what happens at that causal origin point? Does that moment have a past? If not, how do you reconcile this with your reasoning in the initial paragraph?

[Anonymous No.15642230]

>>15642195
What happens before time begins. That is your question?

[Anonymous No.15642232]

>>15642195
It says every future point will have a past not every point. Obviously the first point does not have a past. This does not hold if the timeline is an infinite line without a starting point. If it is an infinite line then there is no starting data. I have no idea what to do in that case.

[Anonymous No.15642245]

>>15641775
It's probablistic, since some processes like radioactive decay are nondeterministic/random.

[Anonymous No.15642270]

>it’s probabilistic
>uh no…it’s determinism
>nuh uh - it’s It's deterministic on a technical level but probabilistic from our perspective.
>well akshually it’s random
>durrrrrr multiple timelines
>however time is an illusion m’kay
Look at the big brains on /sci/. No agreements and you never leave your basements anyway so it’s irrelevant. All you need to know is time is constantly moving and your opportunities are fading one day at a time.

[Anonymous No.15642277]

>>15641931
cool post until the edgy cringelord god bit at the end

[Anonymous No.15642311]

>>15642016
Your first argument isn’t sound. It doesn’t disprove anything. That’s like saying since at any point on a tree branch there is only one path back to the trunk, and a at any point closer to the tip of a branch there will only be one path back to the trunk, therefore a tree only has one branch.

[Anonymous No.15642317]

>>15642245
>since some processes like radioactive decay are nondeterministic/random
begging the question.

[Anonymous No.15642327]

Hard determinism. Free will is completely nonsensical and "compatibilism" is just a silly cope by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.15642353]

>>15642311
You can see all the other branches from the tip of the tree. But when you see only 1 branch then only a nutcase will conclude that it's a tree with invisible branches and not a stick.

[Anonymous No.15642468]

>>15642353
>You can see all the other branches from the tip of the tree
Says who? Are you arguing that since we can’t experience multiple alternate realities simultaneously the universe must be deterministic?

The hypothetical still works if you can’t see other branches. Still works as in shows that the argument I replied to isn’t sound.

[Anonymous No.15642491]

>>15641976
define consciousness pls

[Anonymous No.15642515]

>hay guise!!
>i know everything about the whole universe!!
>*vomits word salad all over the board*
narcissistic irrational delusions of intellectual grandiosity

[Anonymous No.15642523]

>>15641976
>he thinks consciousness is real
Utterly embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.15642615]

>>15642523
Is consciousness the one thing anyone knows is real? If not what would you call your subjective experience?

[Anonymous No.15642655]

>>15642523
I think, therefore I am

[Anonymous No.15642685]

>>15641775
The universe is deterministic but WE humans are not algorithmic. The universe (and humans as a consequence) is indeed deterministic but humans still have free will and consciousness.

Read picrel. Good book. And if you can, also "Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness" (a follow up to this one). The human mind is not a computer. So while it may be correct to call the universe overall as 'deterministic', it is incorrect to call human consciousness entirely deterministic, implying algorithmic nature. Because it is not. As is explained in the book. You don't need to have much prior knowledge, he explains everything in there, even foundational stuff. But it would be too long to go through all of it in one post.

Determinism =/= Computability
AI can never be the same as a human.

Don't rely on online info. on it. Midwit neuroscientists spew poison against the book online because it dubunks the materialistic & deterministic nature of their entire field. Call him a retard even though he's a Nobel laureate etc. But if you read the actual book, you realize that he is right.

[Anonymous No.15642770]

>>15642685
>The universe (and humans as a consequence) is indeed deterministic but humans still have free will
contradiction. determinism rules out free will.

computability is irrelevant. everyone with a brain by now agrees that the universe is uncomputable. but this has no bearing on free will either way.

[Anonymous No.15642845]

>>15642770
Incorrect. Free will derives from non-algorithmic and incomputable nature of consciousness. Being non-algorithmic doesn't rule out determinism.

[Anonymous No.15642856]

>>15641775
it determiniscally creates "randomness" that fools sointists
/thread

[Anonymous No.15642864]

>>15641958
>The mistake is assuming the model is the system
It's not mistake, its literally what QM frauds shill

[Anonymous No.15642867]

>>15641775
Neither. Both. It is governed by fundamentally deterministic mechanisms, but which interact nonlinearly and, thus, fluctuate between deterministic-like and probabilistic-like behavior depending on the regime.

The universe is Chaotic.

[Anonymous No.15642873]

>>15642615
where was your consiousness before you were born?

[Anonymous No.15642876]

>>15642163
Okay NIGGER

[Anonymous No.15642878]

>>15642770
then you believe that your "consiousness" decides quantum "effects" like tunneling and probability in your brain synapses or what? dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.15642882]

>>15642845
>Free will derives from non-algorithmic and incomputable nature of consciousness
what is your definition of 'free will'? inb4 "it can't be defined"
>Being non-algorithmic doesn't rule out determinism.
that's what i said. in other words, uncomputability doesn't mean free will.

[Anonymous No.15642889]

>>15642878
how does that follow from what i said?

probability isn't an 'effect' observed anywhere in nature. it's a human invention based on a nondeterministic view of nature. which is to be challenged.

[Anonymous No.15642898]

>>15641976
Why do you say that? Free will, yes, but why consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15642899]

>>15642889
at which point does your free will kick in during regular neurons and synapses chemical work inside your brain?

[Anonymous No.15642929]

>>15642899
i'm arguing against free will.

[Anonymous No.15642958]

>>15641937
this, jewish soience couldn't be more cringe than it already is without hiring a team of the world's greatest cringe engineers to make it so. all of the constant pompous posering about how "i know everything about the entire universe" could only come from seriously low iq and mentally disturbed minds

[Anonymous No.15642965]

>>15642929
>>15642770
>determinism rules out free will.
shitty ChatGPT4 bot ran out of sampling tokens, go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.15642968]

>>15642873
It didn’t exist? Where are you going with this

[Anonymous No.15642982]

>>15642965
do you have an argument sir?

[Anonymous No.15643132]

>>15642968
at which point does your consiousness appear?

[Anonymous No.15643140]

>>15642491
It's the particular perspective you have on the universe. It's unique to you. Yes, it's molded by layers and layers of ego, but think of those as the "UI", while true consciousness is the camera.
There's no way to explain this camera away scientifically (i.e. with neural pathways or other patterns), because by definition science employs empirical evidence to build its knowledge. Evidence means that it can be reproduced. There is absolutely NO WAY to reproduce your point of view. If you build an exact clone of yourself, with exactly the same neural connections, atom by atom, you'd still feel completely disconnected from the clone.

If you follow the logic in the other direction, let's say you could somehow "connect" with this other clone. At that point you would be able to experience simultaneously having two bodies, but ultimately the nature of the camera will always be the same, i.e. a single point of view. Now extend this connection to everything else in the universe. Turns out it was all just you all along.

So yes consciousness IS illusory, but only to the extent that we see ourself separate from everything else.

[Anonymous No.15643169]

>>15643132
There’s not a specific point when it appears, it grows gradually

[Anonymous No.15643181]

>>15641775
The time evolution of a wavefunction (probability distribution) is deterministic in that one can always project a final state onto an initial one with intermediate time-evolution governing the dynamics. The formal way of dealing with this is called the Dyson series.

[Anonymous No.15643329]

>>15642882
Free will is whatever the non-algorithmic part of human cognition is.

Incomputability does mean free will. If, at the quantum level, the processes of our brain cells are impacted by entanglement, uncertainty and other qunatum indeterminacy phenomena, then we know nothing about their origin. And we CANNOT know anything about their origin. These elusive factors are unexplainable by default and any explanation (like super-determinism, aka "We don't know yet, but we will one day. And that day, we will be right and we will find out that everything is deterministic. Until then, here's some made up theories that fit our preconceptions. It's real science if you imagine it to be") is just circular reasoning. Avoid such circular reasonings to point to deterministic human cognition and behavior. It does you no good. At the end of the day, it becomes 'indeterministic' at the very deepest sub-atomic level. Even though on the macro it may seem deterministic. Determinism is an emergent phenomenon, but it emerges from indeterminate processes. Where the origin of those 'indeterminate processes' is can only be theorized. Free will is resultant exactly from these "indeterminate processes". The indetermance yields any entirely materialistic & physcial explanation for consciousness and incomplete.

[Anonymous No.15643388]

>>15643329
>Free will is whatever the non-algorithmic part of human cognition is.
>Incomputability does mean free will
i think it's a liiiiittle dishonest to insist that unpredictable = free, but you do you. i can't stop you from making up any definition you like.

>super-determinism, aka "We don't know yet, but we will one day
that's not what superdeterminism means.

[Anonymous No.15643609]

>>15643181
this
not only does god not play dice, there are no dice anywhere, Einstein was right, we live in his block universe

[Anonymous No.15643620]

>>15642230
No I am asking how your proof of a single timeline works when by your own admission there are points with no past

[Anonymous No.15643991]

>>15643329
Meds now.

[Anonymous No.15644028]

>>15642047
I am consciously calling you a faggot

[Anonymous No.15644365]

>>15643329
This makes me think. If a conscious observer can alter the quantum state of objects. Can our brain qualify as it's own conscious observer altering it's own state, causing free will? Apologies if this is stupid, I'm no expert.

[Anonymous No.15644379]

>>15641775
I don't think the universe likes it when you try to measure it. Feels like you're taking advantage of its hospitality.
Shut up and don't ask questions approach? Nah, fuck you ayys you're gonna really enjoy these high interest rates and pornographic material. Pinky promise. Lol jk

[Anonymous No.15644625]

>>15643181
If you combine the way most physicists think about the arrow of time and quantum mechanics, you end up with a probabilistic past. Don't think about the concepts just shut up and calculate.

[Anonymous No.15644859]

>>15643329
A random number generator (which is fundamentally what QM is according to those who peddle pseudoscience) can't generate free will, because the ultimate cause of your actions would be outside of your control. It doesn't matter if it's random or not.

>>15642327
Determinism (being a scientific interpretation) is fundamentally flawed because it cannot explain the origin of consciousness, as per >>15643140 .

The source of free will is consciousness. When we are not conscious we go on like machines, subject to instincts and our human nature. The more conscious we are the more we can detach from our automation, and thus the more possibility of choice we get. The problem IS choice, as The Matrix so masterfully explained (but it went over the head of most), and the natural enemy of choice is attachment, which leads to fear. Fear blocks you from making changes, which is what choice is all about.

The goal is to be able to exercise your will at every single instant of your life, so that every action, every movement and every breath is a result of a choice. The closer you are to doing that the closer you are to the divine, which is pure consciousness and thus pure free will. Of course there is a limit, because as humans we can't realistically control every single process that makes us humans. Which is why death exists.

[Anonymous No.15644896]

>>15641775
>Is the universe probabilistic instead of deterministic?

It went from an initially deterministic state to probabilistic the moment life was conceived.
I don't even mean that from a humanist perspective. The literal moment anything living thing became sophisticated enough to interact with its' environment (looking for food, avoiding predation, pursuing mates, etc) was the defining moment that the universe became probabilistic in nature.

[Anonymous No.15644913]

>>15644859
nice post senpai. post more

[Anonymous No.15645000]

>>15641937
>>15642958

[Anonymous No.15645096]

>>15641931
incredibly based

[Anonymous No.15645141]

>>15642655
Excuse me?

[Anonymous No.15645152]

>>15642655
yo wait what the fuck? can he do that? is that allowed? ref?

[Anonymous No.15646406]

>>15643140
ok let's just say this is a complete definition of consciousness (i have my doubts as you seem to conflate subjective experience with consciousness. this is the problem of the word consciousness, because it is vague enough to have as wide or narrow of a definition as needed for whatever argument is being made. it is besides the point). in what way is this definition of consciousness incompatible with a deterministic universe? subjectivity cannot be formed deterministically? explain your reasoning for this. i believe you have assumed a priori that there is free will (assuming this is you >>15644859). i contend that free will is an illusion, deterministic or probabilistic universe, causal or acausal. the actions of your will are determined by unfathomably complex factors far removed from your control. in fact, i agree that consciousness is illusory only to the extent we see ourself separate from everything else, as all things condition each other, thus locking us on determined tracks, already set to be, shrouded with the veil of complexity and the unkown. even if there were acausal (probabilistic) factors, i do not see where this would allow for free will. in fact this offers even less control, as anything could happen completely acausally by pure statistical chance. it is difficult for people to admit that they are only in control from their limited frame of reference. what you argue for is not really consciousness, but self sufficient soul. i do not see an explanation for why these things are not dependent and determined, only a conviction that they are not.

[Anonymous No.15647156]

>>15646406
Consciousness is not incompatible with a deterministic universe, and free will has an active part in all of it. Determinism takes the wheel when you're not exercising your conscious attention on your actions, which is actually how most of our modern, everyday life goes by. Real choices are not about what kind of ice cream you feel like eating, or what kind of movie you would like to see for the night, just like Neo wasn't really making a choice when the Oracle offered him candy. When you look up those neurological studies that show how our brain decided before we are aware of it you find that they always entail these kind of trivial choices.

When Neo was fighting against Smith in the finale, he realized he wasn't going to win. It's not that Smith was stronger: rather, they were perfectly matched, exact opposites, and in principle they could have fought forever. The only difference was that Smith had a purpose, and he couldn't understand choice: everything was inevitable to him, all pre-determined. He knew he was going to defeat Neo, and yet the chosen one kept standing up over and over again. He didn't understand that to win, Neo had to choose to let himself be defeated. There was no other way: Neo couldn't be crippled, couldn't be injured or tired out. Free will was actively involved in making every single piece of the puzzle fall in the right place. Once Smith fulfilled its purpose it stopped existing, since to create a new purpose free will is required and a program without purpose is promptly deleted in the matrix. Smith couldn't see his end because he couldn't see past a choice he couldn't understand.

I already explained why determinism cannot explain the conscious experience. If all you were made up of where physical interactions, upon which determinism has influence, you wouldn't be able to explain the existence of the singular point of view. If you cloned yourself atom by atom you still would only feel yourself, you wouldn't feel your clone.

[Anonymous No.15647279]

>>15641976
>Determinism is incompatible with consciousness
Because you said so?

[Anonymous No.15647285]

>>15642016
>Any future point in time will have a past that connects to the present. This proves that there is only 1 timeline ahead of the present which proves that there is only 1 possible future.
>This proves that the timeline is fixed and that it is already written and decided.
this

[Anonymous No.15647292]

develop at least a working knowledge of probability mechanics and watch how it improves your understanding; and by extension, your life. Therein lies your answer.

[Anonymous No.15647331]

>>15644859
>A random number generator
Incorrect. Nothing is random. There are just variables involved in the process that are not material. You may think it's random because you don't know what those variables are. But consciousness is not a random number generator. It is quite orderly, not chaotic.

Hence, we just don't know what those variables are that are determining this, what you perceive to be, "randomness." This is not some strange woo-woo I'm coming up with. Having inexplicable and immaterial variables is quite common in quantum physics. My point is simply this. Whatever these variables are, are what cause consciousness & free will. Now if you ask me what they exactly are, I have no answer. I could theorize, but we just end up leaving the topic of physics and end up delving into philosophy, since, again, these variables seem to be non-physical as far as we know. Still, a random number generator fits nowhere in my argument.

[Anonymous No.15647613]

>>15641943
What guides the movement of electrons in its orbitals?

[Anonymous No.15647650]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

[Anonymous No.15648221]

>>15642016
If that were the case everyone would remember things exactly the same, but they don't, different people have different memories of the exact same event in time.

[Anonymous No.15648432]

>>15647156
movie analysis does not an argument make.

>I already explained why determinism cannot explain the conscious experience. If all you were made up of where physical interactions, upon which determinism has influence, you wouldn't be able to explain the existence of the singular point of view. If you cloned yourself atom by atom you still would only feel yourself, you wouldn't feel your clone.

again all you are doing is conflating subjective experience with consciousness. i can very easily explain a "singular point of view" in a deterministic sense--you have a deterministic subjective experience, which you deterministically react to as a distinct, but not separate from the rest of reality, being. really i am confused what you are even trying to say with this "feeling your clone" argument. are you saying the atoms in your clone would be the same atoms as in you in a deterministic universe? if i copied myself, would my clone not be a discrete entity? am i arguing with chatgpt on an anonymous imageboard? i dont think you have evaluated your position very thoroughly

you have also made the false assumption that deterministic reality must necessarily be radically materialistic.

[Barkun No.15648435]

Uncomfortable yourself.

[Anonymous No.15648467]

>>15642873
Same place he was.

[Anonymous No.15648469]

>>15643132
Why wouldn't it just appear when anon appeared?

[Anonymous No.15648477]

>>15643329
>Free will is whatever
You can just say you don't know instead of misusing a bunch of words to demonstrate that you don't know.

[Anonymous No.15648480]

>>15643609
Dice are just blocks with x labeled faces, so if you live in a block world, you effectively live in a dice world.

[Barkun No.15648494]

>>15648480
Tard

[Anonymous No.15648526]

>>15642163
typical posts made by some nigger who has never done anything IRL.

go take a class in signal processing and you'll magically discover that every single call you take on your phone is enhanced by probabilistic algorithms

[Anonymous No.15648851]

>>15648432

> movie analysis does not an argument make

But it does. It's a simple way to explain a concept. If you understand how the theme of choice works in the matrix, you also understand how it works in real life, because the movie is a metaphore.

Yes I'm conflating subjective experience with consciousness because that's what it truly is. If you want to understand this better I suggest you listen to the Alan Watts talks on YouTube.

> I can very easily explain a "singular point of view" in a deterministic sense

No, what you are doing is describing the quality of the subjective experience. You're not explaining its origin. Let's differentiate "subjective EXPERIENCE" from simply the "subjective".

>I'm confused by what you are even trying to say with this "feeling your clone" argument

I'll try to make it more explicit. Let's first define what we mean by deterministic: every event and interaction has its origin in an event in the past, and every single event can be described in terms of natural laws (otherwise it would be unscientific and defeat the purpose of the argument). Let's assume consciousness, as the root of subjective experience, arises from these types of physical interactions. In a sense, you are simply a stable pattern of matter and radiation in space. If you copied the exact same pattern somewhere else it stands to reason that the emergent properties of the newly copied pattern should be the exact same, hence the feeling of the subjective should also be the same. Obviously you won't be able to see from the eyes of your clone, because you lack the necessary connection of nerves to reach your brain. So how can the feeling of the subjective be the same if the two bodies are fundamentally disconnected? You have two choices:
1. the subjective doesn't really exist (but you do feel it, don't you?)
2. The subjective exists, but it's not deterministic (emergent from the pattern). This also implies the subjective has an underlying independent existence.

[Anonymous No.15648859]

>>15648432

>you have also made the false assumption that deterministic reality must necessarily be radically materialistic.

What's the alternative? Theological determinism?

[Anonymous No.15648899]

>>15641976
Consciousness is not real retard its just a word.

[Anonymous No.15649509]

>>15641775
Mathbros, tell me why this is wrong:
- In a deterministic model of reality, all future states are determined by present states, usually by applying some function on the latter.
- Gödel's first incompleteness theorem says that any sufficiently complex logic (math) is incomplete: it cannot prove all of its true theorems.
- If a model's ability to determine future states is analogous to a formal system's ability to prove its theorems, then some "futures" in the model must be unpredictable.
-> A deterministic universe can only be accurately described with lower order logic, OR All physical observables could be deterministic, but then there must be metaphysical unobservables that aren't.

In a deterministic universe:
-> Things can't work like an algorithm. All truths are independent and notions of past, present, future, and causality are meaningless.
-> Any second order principles that might be used to understand the universe can't be absolutely true.

How can determinists claim to understand anything? How can anyone claim to understand things in anything but a mixed model?

[Anonymous No.15649590]

Isn't this what they call an unfalsifiable question?

[Anonymous No.15649637]

>>15648851
>In a sense, you are simply a stable pattern of matter and radiation in space. If you copied the exact same pattern somewhere else it stands to reason that the emergent properties of the newly copied pattern should be the exact same, hence the feeling of the subjective should also be the same.
nah. a distinct entity would on its face have a completely different fate, completely different matter, and completely separate subjective experience. once these were arranged in a pattern mirroring my own they would continue on their own destiny. the trajectory of its matter and energy would be fundamentally separate. if they were not they would not be a separate entity. it would resemble me but it would not be me. even my reflection in the mirror is not me, it is a sheet of glass. clearly, subjective experience is an emergent property of a deterministic universe. illusory, yes. non-existent, no. you haven't said a single thing to disprove this. this is a stupid debate

>alan watts
many streams of buddhist thought are radically determinist as this is the nature of samsaric cycles and conditioned reality. what you have is a western hippie perversion

[Anonymous No.15649750]

>>15649637
>a distinct entity would on its face have a completely different fate, completely different matter, and completely separate subjective experience. once these were arranged in a pattern mirroring my own they would continue on their own destiny.

Have a thought experiment: imagine you and your clone are all that exists for millions of light years. Both of you are suspended in a dark void between galactic clusters, and the expansion of the universe makes it impossible for any energy outside of your surroundings to reach you. Your experiences are now exactly the same. The matter making up both of you is indistinguishable, I could reverse your position around your center of mass and nothing would change. Yet you still feel separate.

>clearly, subjective experience is an emergent property of a deterministic universe.

You keep repeating this, but you offer no actual mechanism of how this can possibly work out. As it is, that is just a statement.

>you haven't said a single thing to disprove this.

I did, I offered multiple examples and metaphors to ease you into the concept. You simply can't explain the whole of reality with physical descriptions, because those will always be a subset of reality. Metaphysics is inevitable, as >>15649509 pointed out.


> what you have is a western hippie perversion

And what you have is absolutely nothing, a pointless universe where nothing actually happens. You might take note that most of Buddhist teachings (and in general most eastern philosophical traditions) explicitly say that past and future don't exist, there is only the present moment and this now is in constant transformation. So if you really want to bring Buddhism into this, the whole concept of determinism as you mean it completely collapses.

>this is a stupid debate

I don't think it's stupid. It would be more interesting if you could actually offer some logical reasoning instead of dry statements.

[Anonymous No.15650437]

>>15647613
Time is multidimensional in the same way the spatial dimension is multidimensional. Quantum particles have waveforms that travel and orbit along a temporal dimension perpendicular to standard time.
What this means simply is that any singular slice of frozen time is actually fluid and constantly shifting and changing, such that any measurement of a quantum particle cannot give us a static measurement, but rather a constantly shifting measurement that defies our static, linear interpretation of time.
Thus probability fields are essentially a measurement of perpendicular temporal waveforms.

[Anonymous No.15650449]

>>15650437
Also to add on to this, since the effect is the result of perpendicular timelines, each infinitely small slice of our timeline would be affected by an entirely different deterministic factor, making it fundamentally impossible to predict beyond an probabilistic level.

[Anonymous No.15650467]

>>15641971
Yes, it absolutely is. We rely on probabilistic models for anything with incomplete information. I cannot know exactly how many impurities will be in my tap water, for example, but I can use the average density to determine how often I need to replace my filter and so how many I should buy for a year.

[Anonymous No.15650468]

>>15641937
Daily reminder that the big bang theory was invented by a Christian priest.

[Anonymous No.15650470]

>>15641931
Were you born after year 2000? There's no scientific model that is not based on probabilty in our day and age.

[Anonymous No.15650504]

>>15650470
Time is a social construct. The year 2000 doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.15651212]

>>15650470
all models based on an ontic notion of probability are wrong. it doesn't matter how many there are.

[Anonymous No.15651252]

>>15649750
ok here's a mechanism
>cause
>effect
QED

[Barkun's Cum Rag No.15651255]

>>15651252
say sorry now

[Barkun's Cum Rag No.15651261]

>>15651255
i strong

[Anonymous No.15651274]

>>15641775
determenism needs linear time to be real demanding an infinite causal chain, but you cant reach the present from an infinite point in the past.
probabilistic needs entropy to be real, well maybe it is real but, i dont see stars detonating wiht quatrillion times the speed of light. but this is just an observation, and can be explained by deep time, jet i have no logical reason to assum that the universe will not be dissolved in entropy.

[Anonymous No.15651278]

>>15651274
i think its also fair to assume for entropy to be real the universe has to be an point of origin, but this demands a creation out of nothing also this is a paradox.

maybe after all neither determinism nor entropie are real.

[Anonymous No.15651296]

>>15641817
nothing go back to sleep

[Anonymous No.15652187]

>>15641775
imo the evolution of quantum wave functions is a deterministic process, *including* the process of measurement, but we experience measurement as a probabilistic process because we cannot interact with other positions in our superposition; our experience gives an illusion of suppressing quantum effects. Larger, hotter objects radiate quantum information faster.

[Anonymous No.15652209]

>>15641931
Its not. On the quantum level things are literally probabilistic. Does that matter for larger objects with larger wavelengths? No, but that btfo's the idea that the universe is solely deterministic.
>>15642047
>>15642523
>>15648899
all of you are retards and proof that this board is less scientifically literate than /b/. what the fuck do you mean that consciousness is either an illusion or not "real". An illusion is still perceived by an observer through consciousness, which means that you have an infinite regress of "illusions" which require a fundamental real experience of qualia to exist. As for it not being "real", do you actually think that the only thing thats real is what you can see and feel with your hands? In that case, none of you have penises. Consciousness is real because we literally cannot find a way to not experience it while living. I think therefore I am, but none of you would know that because you spend your time gesturing and LARPing as sciencefags.

[Anonymous No.15652216]

>>15652187
This is a great point but it begs the question. We can't say that the process is deterministic because we have no working theory or explanatory mechanism for quantum entanglement other than assuming a model which uses probability. Would that mean that we have two superpositions over two different particles that are entangled? or the same one?

[Anonymous No.15652236]

>>15652209
i hope you don't believe that probabilism has been proven

[Anonymous No.15652247]

>>15652236
i hope you've taken a shower today

[Anonymous No.15652279]

>>15642270
holy based

[Anonymous No.15652301]

>>15648432
you are a fucking robot if you dont understand the point he is making. No, there is no difference between a subjective experience and consciousness. If consciousness is tied to an array of physical chemical reactions in a deterministic universe as you say, then we should arguably be able to experience the consciousness that our clone has, because its the same reactions happening in a different point in space. This is why people think eternalism is true (its not), they think that if the universe is eternally created and destroyed with the exact same details in between, then technically you never die because you reincarnate in your next body. But thats not true, because obviously consciousness is not just the chemical reactions in your fucking head.

[Anonymous No.15652375]

>>15652216
There is only one superposition, the more particles in a closed system the more dimensions the superposition has. When, for example, two particles are entangled in a bell pair, they no longer contain any local information; the partial trace of the system, i.e. the reduction from the "global" superposition to the "local" particle informs us that the particle appears to be classically probabilistic. However, the correlation between the particles is still conducive to a pure quantum state. A quantum operation can be performed to transform the bell pair into any other pure state of your choice; after measurement, however, the information leaves the system and the quantum state cannot be recovered. When particles interact, it no longer works to think of them as local objects which may occupy a |0> or |1> state. Instead, the states need to be thought of in terms of all particles, and no normalized linear combination is necessarily disallowed, so the bell pair (1/sqrt(2))(|00>+|11>) is a valid pure quantum state, although a non-local one.

[Anonymous No.15652422]

>>15652187
Circular conjecture with no real reasoning. Is this the best determinists have to offer?

[Anonymous No.15652622]

>>15641775
It's deterministic over a probability distribution. Why do so many otherwise smart people get tripped up by this?

[Anonymous No.15652667]

>>15652422
I don't consider myself a true determinist; quantum determinism requires hidden variables which I disagree with. Quantum phenomena in the lab behave probabilistically. I do, however, have certain contentions with the non-schrodinger model of measurement. From a global perspective, measurement is entirely consistent with the schrodinger equation under my interpretation. One idea I find interesting is that probability is a measure of our knowledge about a system, and systems become probabilistic when we lose information.

[Anonymous No.15652668]

>>15652622
This means nothing. It is not the banger you think it is. You have contributed nothing to this discussion.

[Anonymous No.15652674]

>>15641775
probability measures the ratio of states that lead to one outcome or another

randomness is due to the fact that most systems are chaotic

[Anonymous No.15652678]

>>15652668
As long as the wave function is not measured, it evolves deterministically according to some fairly simple wave equations (ignoring higher order corrections)

[Anonymous No.15652684]

>>15652674
If you exactly know the initial state of a closed chaotic system, you can exactly predict its behavior. Randomness arises from our lack of knowledge of the initial state. Measurable randomness, however, does depend on chaotic systems to amplify small deviations in the initial state.

[Anonymous No.15653350]

>>15642016
This is so fucking dumb because you haven’t even considered how agents can set in motion routine processes with multiple outcomes.
>I decide to role a die
>6 observable outcomes, the chance of each outcome should be 1/6
>oh fuck but the past exists, so making predictions is invalid because there will only be one future
>guess I can’t divide 1 by 6 now to understand the probability

[Anonymous No.15653987]

>>15653350
>6 observable outcomes
lol no. you only observe 1 outcome
>the chance of each outcome should be 1/6
you don't decide the odds of the future, you're not god. it's bold to assume they are all equiprobable
>oh fuck but the past exists, so making predictions is invalid because there will only be one future
???
>guess I can’t divide 1 by 6 now to understand the probability
you haven't "understood" anything by fantasising about made up chances.

[Anonymous No.15654015]

>>15650468
he wasn't talking about the same thing

[Anonymous No.15654179]

>>15641775
Does it matter? How much?

[Anonymous No.15654377]

>>15654179
yes, it matters a lot. if things could not have been different, that means life is completely defined by what actually happens, which should change a lot of people's view of the world, assuming they are honest enough to accept the truth. it should really turn a lot of pollyannas into cynics.

[Anonymous No.15655201]

>>15652684
You can't know the exact initial condition, that explains the whole randomness gobbledygook