/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15849599]

Why does a scientist have to write a big book to argue that there is no free will? Of course we have no free will we are just biological robots. Why make it such a big deal?

[Anonymous No.15849608]

Maybe you are but not me.

[Anonymous No.15849610]

>>15849608
how?

[Anonymous No.15849628]

Sam Harris did it first, why is this faggot getting all famous and creditworthy, heck schopenhauer also did this 200 yrs ago. Do you retarded zoomers have to remind us how ignorant you are every time you post?

[Anonymous No.15849635]

>>15849610
Cause I said so

[Anonymous No.15849637]

>>15849628
wow you are right again anon

[Anonymous No.15849638]

>>15849599
And yet his argument is still meaningless
You can't solve a semantic philosophical problem with neuroscience ramblings. It's just completely irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15849642]

>>15849638
wrong

[Anonymous No.15849648]

>>15849628
>zoomers
>knowing how to read
lmao it's millennials that eat this shit up

[Anonymous No.15849675]

>>15849648
There are tonnes of college zoomers in this board asking the most retarded questions, i don't know how this is in contention.

[Anonymous No.15849717]

>>15849599
>Of course we have no free will we are just biological robots

[Anonymous No.15849719]

>>15849599
Nice self-report NPC.

[Anonymous No.15849798]

>>15849599
Mechanisms for how free will might be scientifically possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

[Anonymous No.15849800]

>>15849717
prove that you could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15849828]

Exactly. You don't need to be a neuroscientist or a biologist. You don't even need to know basic physics or Einstein's block universe. The very idea is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.15849833]

>>15849798
No one here could possible define freewill in a rigorous manner, you're just saying it's NOT something else which is predestination. That due to the forces of nature it is nature that influences us thoroughly, including our decisions.
The assumption is that because we are made from physics were are thus determined from physics from our start to our end.
Here's a thought, if a man existed nowhere, would he still bother to think in that place?
Even if he was uninspired would he not learn originality as it had been once?
The universe offers us solutions, why should it care what we choose?

[Anonymous No.15850899]

>>15849800
This is like asking me to "prove" my subjective experience of pain or the color red. It can't be externally communicated beyond assertion, that I feel it. And much like NPCs who deny consciousness have some flavor of Cotard's syndrome, NPCs who deny free will have delusions of motor passivity.

[Anonymous No.15850945]

>>15849599
> we are just biological robots
Filthy kafir.

[Anonymous No.15850950]

>>15850945
you don't even know what you're mad about. you just think you do

[Anonymous No.15850951]

>>15849828
who you are talking to? to your concience? ha fag.

[Anonymous No.15850961]

>>15849599
>no free will
>decide to write book
potry

[Anonymous No.15851668]

>>15850961
bump

[Anonymous No.15851673]

>>15849635
Why is schopjak used in these retarded memes when he himself regarded logic and science as forms of materialism that cannot reveal anything about the thing-in-itself?

[Anonymous No.15851719]

>>15849599
>bro, everything is deterministical, even your "free will" is just illusion of biological computer aka your brain!
does this mean you can predict the future?
>ofc, everything from the start of time to the end of universe was given from the start, all i need is to precisely measure all particles and from that compute the rest
how does your determinism cope with quantum mechanics where nothing is certain, only probability allows us to guess where the particles are and what their charge is
>we just need better measuring tools bro
and how does determinism cope with fact that when you measure particle you effectively change it's state?

determinisn theory is useless when you cannot determine shit in practice.

[Anonymous No.15851726]

>>15850899
>I feel it
no you don't. you think it, meanwhile i think the opposite. so it's one brain vs another.

[Anonymous No.15851763]

>>15849800
Why don't you?

[Anonymous No.15851787]

>>15851763
because it's impossible.

[Anonymous No.15851824]

>>15849599
It's a psyop to condition the public to accept having to share cities with the allegedly extinct homo erectus.
>he didn't really know what he was doing with all that violent murder
>it was determined by uh, not his genes, but socio economic "factors"
>thus it's immoral to keep him in jail

[Anonymous No.15851834]

>>15851719
>quantum mechanics where nothing is certain
quantum mechanics isn't mysticalism and isn't an objective description of reality. /we/ have no way to determine where a particle is therefore we use statistics to make predictions because it's the best we have, that doesn't mean any of it is actually "random" and you are clearly a midwit for thinking this.

[Anonymous No.15851880]

>>15849635
don't give a shit it's still my property

[Anonymous No.15851965]

>>15849599

[Anonymous No.15852011]

>>15849637
>Refers to a man who half assed his PhD research and never taught or conducted scientific research ever again as a “scientist”
Already problems

[Anonymous No.15852030]

>>15851834
>you're a midwit if you don't make unproven leaps.
love how qm rapes chimp brains

[Anonymous No.15852032]

>>15851834
Your understanding of determinism and where stochastic variation comes from is really stupid.

Firstly, there is nothing to indicate that super determinism "is true" in any meaningful sense. Even determinism on a macro-scale is at best a theoretical framework rather than a truly casual explanation of experimental physics. The idea that with "perfect state information" and "perfect execution" we could replicate the physical processes of macro-physics in an ideally determinsitic fashion is philosophy, not science.

Secondly, almost everything that is built from deterministic physics models has inbuilt assumptions of stochastic variation due to the fact that you are always working with incomplete information. Whether there is some deterministic set of equations "at the bottom of everything" (at which point you are essentially looking for something indistinguishable from a God that transcends material reality) or whether there is always some stochastic variation no matter how deep you go, changes essentially nothing.

[Anonymous No.15852061]

>>15852032
well said.

[Anonymous No.15852365]

it's an anti-semitic dog whistle

[Anonymous No.15852397]

>>15849599
>Of course we have no free will
Tranny thread. Sage

[Anonymous No.15852797]

>>15852032
Stochastic variation is just a way of saying we are too dumb to find out or that our resolution of reality is not fine tuned enough. It doesn't change anything about determinism as a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15852876]

>>15851880
>my propert-ACK
Yours?

[Anonymous No.15852879]

>>15851726
Speak for yourself. Thinking is unnecessary for me to experience the color of a red LED, pain from a cut, or free will over my hands and not some car driving on the road outside.

[Anonymous No.15852885]

>>15851880
100% DELUDED

[Anonymous No.15852896]

>>15849599
He freely decided to, of course.

[Anonymous No.15852974]

>>15849599
Why? Because science is all about explaining reality, including the reality that free will is an impossibility

[Anonymous No.15853293]

>>15852797
You are right that it doesn't change anything about causal determinism as a metaphysical philosophy. That's what causal determinism is, a metaphysical philosophy.

It isn't science, it is metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15853304]

>>15852879
i can speak for everyone else too. no one has a special sense proving to them that they could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15853307]

>>15853293
>It isn't science, it is metaphysics
if so then the same goes for indeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15853308]

>>15853307
Yes, indeterminism is also a metaphysical philosophy.

Empirical science doesn't tell you much of anything about whether the universe is causally deterministic or causally stochastic/indeterminant.

Btw, the universe being indeterminant and stochastic are not the same thing. A fully indeterministic universe would not necessitate having probabilistic/statistical consistency between many observations in the way that a stochastic system does.

[Anonymous No.15853387]

>>15853293
As opposed to it being what epistemological philosophy? There's no way to prove that it isn't epistemological since it makes predictions about what we can do with science and knowledge as opposed to metaphysics which is beyond rational knowledge.

[Anonymous No.15853397]

>>15853304
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007125000192116/type/journal_article
>The patient experiences his actions as being completely under the control of an external influence. The movements are initiated and directed throughout by the controlling influence, and the patient feels he is an automaton, the passive observer of his own actions.

On the off-chance you're not trolling and instead genuinely psychotic, please seek professional help. That shit can progress to catatonia and destroy your life.

[Anonymous No.15853418]

>>15853387
Causal determinism (the physical side of the determinism vs. free will philosophical discussion) is a metaphysical philosophical debate.

Free will vs. determinism from an epistemology perspective is an epistemological and ethical philosophy discussion. The determinsim side of the epistemology debate tends to lean heavily on the metaphysical philosophy of causal determinism to justify their premises though, despite them being in some sense separate concepts.

They are not necessarily linked, though many people who are staunch determinists do link them because they feel it strengthens their argument. The problem is that when they claim that causal determinism is scientifically sound, they are speaking out of their rear.

[Anonymous No.15853434]

>>15849599
>Why make it such a big deal?
Because practically everybody believes in free will. Even within STEM fields. Hell, even among Neuroscience people themself, the majority believe in some sort of free will (myself included). An unpopular idea needs championing, that's not hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.15853492]

>>15853418
>The problem is that when they claim that causal determinism is scientifically sound
there's nothing unsound about it. it's unproven, yes, but not unsound.

[Anonymous No.15853543]

>>15853492
It is not scientifically sound to claim that empirical science has verified something which it fundamentally is not capable of doing.

The entire premise of causal determinism is something which is by definition unfalsifiable with empirical verification. When your hypothesis can not ever be affirmed or denied by scientific experimentation, it is more than fair to call it scientifically unsound.

[Anonymous No.15853692]

>>15853543
We can demonstrate determinism locally in space and time using science. We can predict human behaviour, weather, motion of rigid masses, etc. And we can take that and assume it applies globally via induction. That's at least unassailable epistemologically and nowhere have we mentioned metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15853706]

>>15853692
>We can demonstrate determinism locally in space and time using science
no, we can't. and i'm a strong believer in determinism btw.
>We can predict human behaviour, weather, motion of rigid masses, etc.
not consistently, no. chaos interferes with predictions.

[Anonymous No.15853723]

>>15853706
What do you mean we can't? We can predict that the sun wil rise tomorrow through induction. I can predict that I will be hungry tomorrow. I can list down the states of mind that are expected in a human being upon some conditions.

[Anonymous No.15853729]

>>15853706
Chaos interferes globally, I said we can do it locally.

[Anonymous No.15853731]

>>15853723
>We can predict that the sun wil rise tomorrow through induction
that isn't proof that it will, nor is it proof of determinism. to demonstrate determinism you would need to somehow prove that no event could have unfolded any differently, which isn't possible to do.

determinism and indeterminism are both unprovable (one must be true, but you can't prove which).

[Anonymous No.15853733]

>>15849599
you can't will something that wouldn't effect someone else.

[Anonymous No.15853734]

>>15853729
what does that even mean?

[Anonymous No.15853736]

>>15853731
You said that we can't predict. Saying that it isn't proof that it will is not saying that we can't predict it. It is possible because the entire agricultural system of earth makes that assumption and is continually proven right at least since human beings began worshipping the sun as a deity tens of thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.15853742]

>>15853734
It means that we can predict what we have already observed as opposed to things like aliens or other planets or blackholes and other theoretical predictions that are consistent with scientific theories but not with experimental data.

[Anonymous No.15853743]

>>15853736
when we 'predict', we are just guessing. this is because our 'predictions' are fallible, sometimes they fail.

some systems are (seemingly) highly stable, so our guesses are often correct. so what? it's not like you have divine knowledge that they are going to remain stable for you. you are still only guessing.

[Anonymous No.15853747]

>>15853743
That's what I mean by locally in space and time. The sun is locally fixed to earth in space and in our short history of time on earth. We can predict what it does fairly well, that's at least proof that determinism works locally. We can extend that argument through induction and build scientific theories that make global predictions, fine tune those theories using incoming experimental data to make more accurate global predictions,etc.

[Anonymous No.15853751]

>>15853747
predictability is not a test for determinism anyway. a deterministic system can easily be totally unpredictable.

[Anonymous No.15853760]

>>15853751
You should be able to predict why it's unpredictable lmao.

[Anonymous No.15853868]

>>15853760
i don't actually know why.

[Anonymous No.15853978]

>>15853868
I don't agree that a deterministic system can be totally unpredictable. This like i argued before is a problem with resolution. Non-linear systems become chaotic, are they deterministic, you can either answer, not locally or just say that chaos is a problem of resolution, the model is non-linear because you don't have enough data to model it to an equivalent linear system which never goes chaotic.

[Anonymous No.15854001]

>>15853978
computer scientist simant dube has shown that fractal geometries can be noncomputable: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Undecidable-Problems-in-Fractal-Geometry-Dube/77d7ec18667e6c8dd614c8d1942d4a8d1ca09dd6

these fractal geometries may be regarded as deterministic systems.

stephen wolfram's work has also shown that entirely deterministic cellular automata can be noncomputable.

>locally
i still have no idea what you mean by that.

[Anonymous No.15854037]

>>15853692
No we can't.

Let's take a super simple system like a single mass-spring-damper.

This should unfold according to a very simple harmonic ODE, and if you are measuring in a very coarse way, it does. No matter how precise you measure the "state" of the system, there will always be some degree of uncertainty in your ability to predict its motion.

This uncertainty can be in the spring constant (which is in itself an abstraction we use to represent an intractably complex set of force and heat propagation interactions). There is uncertainty in the degree of precision to which you can measure the "state" of the mass. There is uncertainty in the regularity of the time clock used to synchronize your measurements of displacement (jitter).

No matter what, there will always be some amount of stochastic variation and some degree of precision beyond which you simply can not make reliable measurements.

To demonstrate determinism locally would be to demonstrate that this degree of uncertainty can be made arbitrarily small (tending towards zero in the limiting case) and we just can't do that.

[Anonymous No.15854121]

>>15854037
That's just your arbitrary precision/accuracy that we have to agree on. For practical purposes, we do it all the time. You can even go as far as argue that machines work because determinism is demonstrated locally. Heck, the fact that we can even speak with one another and agree on what sentences mean is proof that determinism works locally.

[Anonymous No.15854138]

>>15854121
No, a system being determinsitic to some discretization is not a proof of a system being fully determinsitic in the continuous/analog reality we exist within.

You should spend some time learning about how uncertainty and decision systems actually function before you make stupid statements about the system itself being determinsitic. Our communication technology works precisely because we have developed digital communication technologies that allow us to overcome the nearly intractable uncertainties that exist within physical reality.

[Anonymous No.15854171]

>>15854138
You cannot prove we exist in an analog world and like i said, what constitutes locally can be scaled on a spectrum, we just have to agree on what that is. Yea the communication technology works because its built on a deterministic system chud, so don't go around making stupid statements too when you don't understand what the debate is all about.

[Anonymous No.15854339]

>>15854171
You don't know anything about communications systems.

Error correcting codes exist because there is irreconcilable uncertainty involved in passing codewords over communication channels.

[Anonymous No.15854362]

>>15854339
That doesn't mean that they don't operate behind the principle retard. You can do all the error correction you want it still won't change the fact that science is used to model these systems and that means that we can make predictions about these systems, we can correct the errors, because the theory is predictive and deterministic, if it wasn't it would be a chaotic mess with no hope for communication. Tell me o wise one how we would be communicating using white noise, i can send you a white noise signal and you can send me another white noise signal and let us see what relevant information we have gleaned off each other. You are talking about a fucking corollary in a theory hundred of steps down the road of science while i am talking about fundamental philosophical axioms of nature thousands of feet in the air. What the fuck do you know about that?

[Anonymous No.15854401]

>>15854362
Your "fundamental axiom of nature" is a religious belief, and no, information theory does not need to assume that all uncertainty is epistemic uncertainty to function.

In fact, it's main purpose mathematically is figuring out information bounds for systems with irreconcilable uncertainty.

[Anonymous No.15854410]

>>15849599
Books are a way to share thoughts,
he had some thoughts.

Not like he had a choice in the matter anyway

[Anonymous No.15854427]

>>15854401
Communication systems work because of science. Information theory is not involved in how we transmit information. It certainly formalizes the math, but science is what makes electronic communication possible. Its like arguing that since math is non-epistemic, machines modeled using math are not deterministic. You are committing an obvious non-sequitur here.

[Anonymous No.15854452]

>>15854362
As far as your question about how we are communicating in white noise, it doesn't need to be the case that either the universe is fully determinsitic or that there is absolutely no meaningful statistical tendencies connecting physical interactions.

That's a really stupid way to approach your thought process surrounding uncertainty. It can be the case (and most certainly is the case) that there are distributions for realizations of state transitions which make some sets of realizations more likely than others.

Just like a Gaussian distribution has a central moment around which almost all of the realizations will be, it can be the case that physical interactions have predictable realizations without necessarily having a purely deterministic mechanism "at the bottom of everything."

You should learn some fundamentals of probability theory and what uncertainty actually is before you discount its presence.

[Anonymous No.15854455]

>>15849599
He is afraid of being held accountable for his own free misbehavior.

[Anonymous No.15854460]

>>15854452
You should read the thread again. I said we can assume determinism locally, we don't to prove it globally.

[Anonymous No.15854461]

>>15854427
You should do a bit of research into what information theory is before you blabber anymore nonsense. It literally is the fundamental theory upon which all real implementations of digital communications are built.

The first work in information theory was literally called "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" and was literally written by Bell Labs engineers working on how to resolve the questions of how to reliably transmit digital information.

[Anonymous No.15854472]

>>15854460
What do you mean by "assume determinism locally." You were asked earlier but never actually clarified what you mean.

[Anonymous No.15854473]

>>15854461
And you should learn to read and understand retard. Information theory is to communication what calculus is to engineering, i don't understand how this is difficult for someone who sounds so 'educated'. You can model all the communication systems you want, the physical theory that deals with electromagnetism is what makes communication possible not the math behind it, the math is just a way to model the physical theory. The math can be non-epistemic or whatever you want to call it, the science can't.

[Anonymous No.15854478]

>>15854472
Like i said, i won't spoon feed you, all the info is in this thread, you seem to have trouble following through the discussion,

[Anonymous No.15854486]

>>15854473
The math doesn't just provide the theory, it literally provides the structure for how you detect transmitted signals at the receiver end of the communication chain and how you decode the messages received.

I'll give you a hint, they all work assuming that your message will be corrupted by the process of transmission. That corruption will introduce uncertainties that are unavoidable. As a result, you have to design your receiver so that you can still reliably pass information regardless of how the uncertainty gets introduced into the process.

[Anonymous No.15854487]

>>15854478
Thank you for conceding.

[Anonymous No.15854489]

>>15854478
I'm asking not because I want you to spoon feed me. I'm asking because I know you don't have an answer.

The closest you got to giving an answer is to say that we can assume that determinism is "approximately correct." Which is the same thing as saying that there are always uncertainties.

[Anonymous No.15854858]

>>15849599
bump

[Anonymous No.15854884]

>>15854858
>muh vanity thread

[Anonymous No.15855123]

>>15854487
Conceding what. Its not my fault you can't read, I will not spoonfeed you. I will wait for someone who understands the debate. You are not the first person in this thread to have no arguments because you only rely on self induced confusion of what local means.

[Anonymous No.15855125]

>>15854489
Always uncertainties does not mean anything. It doesn't stop determinism from working locally.

[Anonymous No.15855130]

>>15854486
That is irrelevant. The physical theory is the backbone of the system. Math can be used to model all day, at the end of the day, it has to make assumptions about how the physics work. I don't understand how this is such a difficult concept to understand. Not only don't you understand what determinism is you don't even understand the relationship btn math and science.

[Anonymous No.15855520]

>>15855130
In the case of communications and information theory, it literally isn't. The backbone of the communications technology is primarily probability theory.

The actual communication media plays in real communication systems design than you are implying here.

What role the underlying physics does play, is in specific design features that need to be addressed (what center frequency to use, what bandwidth can we get away with, do we have a meaningful Doppler effect or multipath effects we have to look out for, etc.)

The fundamental physics (outside of very niche applications like underwater acoustic communications) are actually factored in far less than you'd expect because the statistical characterization of the channel is far more powerful, robust, and practical than actually doing explicit waveform path modeling.

[Anonymous No.15855522]

>>15855125
You still haven't explained what you mean by "determinism working locally," anywhere in the thread. "Knowing that the sun will rise" doesn't mean anything at all relative to whether the planetary motion is purely determinsitic or just a very consistent stochastic system with variation that is small enough that we don't directly observe it in this measure.

I'm starting to think you don't know what the word determinsitic means.

Determinism of a system behavior is defined by the following property:

If the system is excited by the same inputs while in exactly the same state, it will always give exactly the same output to an arbitrary degree of precision.

With respect to this definition (which is the standard one from dynamical systems theory) what does it mean for a system to be "locally deterministic?"

[Anonymous No.15855524]

>>15855520
The media plays less of a role in communication systems design than you are implying here* sorry, need more coffee for brain work.

[Anonymous No.15855536]

[Anonymous No.15855542]

>>15855520
I'm not talking about engineering you retard. I am talking about the underlying science of communication. The wave nature of sound and electromagnetic waves make communication possible not your gay probability that is only brought in to model uncertainty in case you need faster bandwidth or any other economic goal that makes faster communication possible.

>>15855522
I have explained severally that local means making prediction about what we already know and have observed. The fact that we can makes millions of machines that work in the same way at the same time is making an assumption that the same inputs will get the state to the same output with an arbitrary degree of precision. Two toyota cars work on the same principle because they are modelled using the same physical theories, so do two phones, or two buildings or two pills of the same drug or whatever other fairly successful predictive physical theory as opposed to us making predictions about something like blackholes which operate on a global scale and whose data is largely unavailable to us.

[Anonymous No.15855549]

>>15855542
You are both completely clueless and quite arrogant. Really impressive combination.

People like you give people like me job security though, so I guess I can't complain too much. Keep on believing that the "machines just work" and that there's nothing going on behind the curtain if it makes you feel any better.

[Anonymous No.15855553]

>>15855549
Lmao. The machines work because they are modelled on physical theories that assume determinism, nowhere did i say they just work you brainlet faggot, do you seriously have a problem with reading and understanding simple sentences?

[Anonymous No.15855559]

>>15855553
I understand your sentences, and what you are saying is incorrect. It's actually impressive how backwards you have the connection between physics and engineering.

The introduction of probability theory and stochastic systems modeling into engineering isn't because we want to account for niche black holes or anything like this. It's because we want to make the physics models work because they are simpler than the alternative (data-driven design alone). They are generally mathematically elegant, simple, and easy to understand. They aren't actually correct in most cases though, unfortunately.

We introduce probability models into the engineering process so that we can get something that looks like a determinsitic physics model to function in reality rather than solely on paper.

[Anonymous No.15855564]

>>15855559
You introduce probability so that you can make better machines that work better against competition. Stop trying to make it like its a divine process. 500 yrs ago people communicated and made machines without probability, the science and engineering worked well enough for their purposes. It still doesn't change anything about determinism.

[Anonymous No.15855568]

>>15855559
Heck, buildings were even built without current engineering practices because the precision and accuracy were relaxed enough to work for their purposes. Its only when you stretch that, that esoteric mathematical theories step in to close the gap, the underlying model is still a physical theory that relies on the assumption of determinism to work.

[Anonymous No.15855570]

>>15855564
It's not a divine process, it's actually a process of making compromises with reality. If anything it's the physicists who seem to be trying for the divine with their "determinsitic objective rules of reality" that only work on paper.

The reality is that determinism is an inferential modeling convention that many have turned into a religious philosophy (for some strange reason). It's a modeling convention that is almost by definition wrong whenever you try to apply it because you will always be working with incomplete information, imprecise measurements and actuation, and a whole lot of environmental and material unknowns that you can't just ignore.

[Anonymous No.15855578]

>>15855570
There's no reason to have 'complete' information. That's also a religious belief, determinism still works locally without 'complete' information, whatever that means. Farmers rely on the sun to just rise while solar power engineers need to see the rays for power to be generated. Two physical theories that rely on different precision assumptions about the same phenomenon and yet still work because the theory that models their systems is locally deterministic. Precision is arbitrary, it doesn't influence whether the physical theory will make predictions as long as there's consensus on what precision to use for what purpose.

[Anonymous No.15855580]

>>15849599
he didnt have a choice

[Anonymous No.15855593]

>>15855578
Okay, I guess I just have to accept that you don't know what the word "determinsitic" means and that it won't matter how many times I've explained it to you.

If it comforts you to believe that because the sun rises we can predict everything about the universe because it will always be consistent, go for it. People need to have faith in something I guess.

[Anonymous No.15855596]

>>15855593
You are a faggot who takes my words and intentionally misinterprets them. I accept your concession faggot and nowhere did i say that we can predict everything because the sun rises you illiterate misunderstanding brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15855599]

If reality is mathematical as many people think, then determinism follows, since mathematics is deterministic

[Anonymous No.15855617]

>>15855599
mathematics is not "deterministic" lol just because one makes an accurate description of something it doesn't mean it's determined. Also use the word determined instead of deterministic, deterministic is like saying "kind of determined" lmao midwit

[Anonymous No.15855619]

>>15855596
There's no concession. It's just a waste of time to keep arguing with someone who thinks that the concepts of accuracy and precision aren't relevant to the question of whether a system is deterministic. You can make any kinematic system deterministic by only needing to be accurate within a light-year. That's essentially what you are arguing determinism is.

[Barkun No.15855620]

>>15855619
>.
I am you.

[Anonymous No.15855622]

>>15855617
Are you stupid? I'm using the standard definition of determinism.

[Anonymous No.15855632]

>>15855619
You don't need to make kinematic systems deterministic faggot, they already are. And arguing that you can make them accurate within a light year is non-sensical since we don't have any use for such 'models of reality' and none exist so far. Remember, we are talking about practical physical models that work locally not make-believe, pie in the sky works for one argument models. Try again retard, this time put a little more effort in reading and understanding,

[Anonymous No.15855636]

>>15855622
>>15855632

>do it now