/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16187522]

Determinist fags can’t stop winning

[Anonymous No.16187536]

>>16187522
we have no choice but winning.

[Anonymous No.16187537]

If determinism is real, then why is the axiom of choice allowed in set theory?

[Anonymous No.16187544]

I'm free will maxxing
reality is created in my mind actually

[Anonymous No.16187559]

>>16187522
>If determinism is real, then why is the axiom of choice allowed in set theory?
Because it and set theory in general have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.16187561]

>>16187559
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16187563]

>wrongquotefag

[Anonymous No.16187591]

>>16187561
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16187645]

the challenge for antideterminists is to prove that we could have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16187647]

>>16187645
The challenge for determinists is to price that we could not have done otherwise.

[Anonymous No.16187650]

If I push my eyebrows now, tomorrow, I will do otherwise, as to if I didn't.

There, I proved otherwise.

Pure determinism is stupid.

[Anonymous No.16187654]

>>16187650
Turtle duck turtle duck turtle..d...dhshcbejnd.dnfjdnf. I'm doing otherwise.

There I proved otherwise again

[Anonymous No.16187662]

Almighty tracker 'pure'-academic-determinists just want us to have slave minds and won't let the smallest freedom break out of this model. They're dumb - ignore them.

[Anonymous No.16187666]

>>16187662
If you had no free will, your body would run off from you like a criminal trying to take you for a ride, and you would seamlessly float up into space and into your personal emergency dimension. And that doesn't mean it's 'pure'-free will, there is an element of determinism and free will.

[Anonymous No.16187668]

if you take determinism as an axiom, what would maths and physics look like then?

[Anonymous No.16187672]

There's certain rules and regulation, you can affect the future indirectly and directly and junctions. You can't change the mode of your physique. This debate is just stupid. You are so lowly and dumb compared to me. I should lead.

[Anonymous No.16187676]

>>16187672
At* junctions

[Anonymous No.16188022]

>>16187645
>my wife cheated on me but it's okay because she couldn't have done otherwise

[Anonymous No.16188243]

>>16187666
>If you had no free will, your body would run off from you like a criminal trying to take you for a ride, and you would seamlessly float up into space and into your personal emergency dimension.
What the fuck does this mean?

[Anonymous No.16188245]

>>16188243
It means free will AND determinism come together.

[Anonymous No.16188256]

Determinism is a pure cope philosophy with no basis in reason or science. It's something people turn to when they don't want to be responsible for their life, their actions, the things they care about, but they're too proud to just say "God did it (so I don't have to do anything)" or "God already decided (so it doesn't matter what I do)" so they dress it up with this determinism nonsense.

so basically every determinist is a retard and a coward.

[Anonymous No.16188257]

>>16188256
Mouf.

[Anonymous No.16188302]

Honestly yeah, it all does look deterministic. Some quantum sheningans going on in the background doesn't seem to affect macro scales and its not impossible that hidden variables interpetation is the right one.

So its essentially a movie and its all recorded already but we are moving along unable to stop, pause or rewind. We can just hope next season doesn't suck.

[Anonymous No.16188305]

>>16187645
>An ability to have done otherwise presumes that a hypothetical world where one did do otherwise is a physically meaningful concept.
Only a determinist would think this way, because he can only imagine a universe on rails. If something could have been different, the only explanation is a whole other literal universe on a different set of rails going a slightly different direction. He can't conceptualize the fluid nature of reality because he has presupposed that reality is fixed. I don't have to believe in the physical existence of counterfactual worlds to believe in free will because my concept of reality doesn't necessitate such a thing.

[Anonymous No.16188334]

>>16187522
>makes Calvinism more plausible
heh, nothin personal

[Anonymous No.16188990]

>>16187522
it was pre determined

[Anonymous No.16188996]

>verbal cost

[Anonymous No.16189259]

>>16188305
it does, actually

[Anonymous No.16189269]

>>16187522
>>16187536
Free will could exist if consciousness collapses the wavefunction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

[Anonymous No.16189270]

>>16188996
Lump of labour. Release - co2

Objective priorities.

[Anonymous No.16189273]

>>16188996
>Verbal cost
Proceeding

[Anonymous No.16189318]

>>16188302
>Honestly yeah, it all does look deterministic. Some quantum sheningans going on in the background doesn't seem to affect macro scales
No
>The controversial idea that quantum effects in the brain can explain consciousness has passed a key test. Experiments show that anaesthetic drugs reduce how long tiny structures found in brain cells can sustain suspected quantum excitations. As anaesthetic switches consciousness on and off, the results may implicate these structures, called microtubules, as a nexus of our conscious experience.
>Physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff proposed Orch OR in the 1990s, but a lack of experimental evidence consigned it to the fringes of consciousness science. Some scientists regarded the theory as untestable, while others noted that the brain was too wet and warm to ever harbour these fragile quantum states.
>Now Jack Tuszynski at the University of Alberta in Canada and his colleagues have presented work at the Science of Consciousness conference in Tucson, Arizona, on 18 April, to challenge these convictions – showing that anaesthetic drugs shorten the time it takes for microtubules to re-emit trapped light. “It’s a major step in the right direction,” says Tuszynski.

[Anonymous No.16189322]

>>16189318
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.16189334]

>>16189322
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2316408-quantum-experiments-add-weight-to-a-fringe-theory-of-consciousness/

[Anonymous No.16189362]

>>16189334
>paywalled popscience
I'll pass

[Anonymous No.16189369]

>>16189362
Copy URL
Paste into the bar on archive.is
????
Profit!

[Anonymous No.16189375]

>>16189369
You

[Anonymous No.16189416]

>>16189259
No. I could have chosen to do something differently and my life would be different now, but that outcome doesn't physically exist anywhere because I didn't choose it.

[Anonymous No.16189519]

>>16189416
you are supposing that the different world is a physically meaningful concept. that is an assumption which can be questioned

[Anonymous No.16189525]

>>16189519
No, I'm supposing the different world doesn't exist in any way whatsoever because determinism is a crock of shit.

[Anonymous No.16189526]

>>16189519
The challenge for determinists is to prove that the different world is not a meaningful concept.
When we make a "choice", we are able to observe the outcome and consider the repercussions of our "choice". We are then able to imagine "what could have happened" if we had made a different decision. We can then decide to change our decisions in the future based on this self-reflection.
Therefore, the hypothetical different world is a physically meaningful concept, because by imagining an alternate outcome, we can alter our future behaviour.
For example, you forget to lock the front door to your house. Your house is robbed and the robbers kill your pet dog. You are able to imagine a different world where you locked the door and your house was not robbed and your dog was not killed. This different world never existed, but it is a meaningful concept because by thinking about it, you can change your behaviour in future and always make sure to lock your front door.

[Anonymous No.16189585]

>>16189334
That's just crackpot physics

[Anonymous No.16189640]

>>16189585
Doesn't mean it's not real.

[Anonymous No.16189649]

>>16187536
No it's 50:50. You either win or you don't.

[Anonymous No.16189656]

>>16189369
Just post that link to begin with, then. I'm not going to do a bunch of extra legwork or assume the full article has already been archived by someone and check a bunch of archives. Just link the full article from an archive if you know it's been archived and be done with it.

[Anonymous No.16189659]

>>16189269
But we already know anything collapses it, like the background radiation, why do you think quantum computers are hard?

[Anonymous No.16189662]

>>16189656
I tried to post the archive link to begin with but I got the "system thinks your post is spam" message you double faggot
I thought people on /sci/ were capable of googling a text excerpt to find out where it came from, and further capable of circumventing paywalls. Clearly I give you too much credit.

[Anonymous No.16189668]

>>16189662
I don't circumvent paywalls, I just ignore anything that's behind one.

[Anonymous No.16189674]

>>16188022
I think that's the wrong way to look at morality. "They couldn't have done otherwise, and therefore they should fully take responsibility for their actions, tough shit"

[Anonymous No.16189722]

>>16189640
No, that is what it means

[Anonymous No.16189725]

>>16189674
How can there be responsibility without choice? If I hold a gun to your head and force you to kill someone else you won't be guilty of murder. If you sign a contract under provable duress that contract is null and void. Removal of choice always results in the removal of responsibility.

[Anonymous No.16189729]

>>16189722
We're discussing the results of actual, physical, real world experiments, not theoretical models. Therefore it is real, even if (You) call it crackpot physics.

[Anonymous No.16189735]

>>16189729
No, we're discussing penrose's crackpot "quantum gravity collapses wavefunctions of microtubules which then causes consciousness" theory. These experiments are totally pointless and probably wrong too.

[Anonymous No.16189739]

>>16189735
The experiments have proven that the symmetry of microtubules is sufficient to have quantum effects at a relatively macro scale.
More importantly, general anasthetics cause changes in these quantum effects.
What is the alternate explanation for why anasthetics should change the observed effects?

[Anonymous No.16189742]

>>16189739
What do you mean what's the alternate explanation? Are you saying that these experiments somehow debunk quantum mechanics? If so, show me how they do that

[Anonymous No.16189748]

>>16189742
I mean what is the alternate explanation for why the microtubules that make up the structure of our neurons exhibit quantum effects, and why are these effects slowed/delayed in the presence of general anasthetics?

[Anonymous No.16189753]

>>16189525
you suppose it was at some point possible -> physically meaningful

[Anonymous No.16189758]

>>16189748
You didn't answer my question. What's the explanation you're referring to? Are you claiming that this experiment somehow supports penrose's theory and thus debunks quantum mechanics?

[Anonymous No.16189763]

>>16189758
>Are you claiming that this experiment somehow supports penrose's theory
The experiments prove that microtubules can exhibit quantum effects.
> and thus debunks quantum mechanics?
I don't think anyone made that claim.

[Anonymous No.16189767]

>>16189526
we are concerned with physical meaningfulness, not meaningfulness. The counterfactual world with the door locked may not be physically meaningful, which is to say that it may not be real, or have ever been possible. how or whether past events influence out future behaviour isn't relevant to this issue.

[Anonymous No.16189772]

>>16189763
>The experiments prove that microtubules can exhibit quantum effects.
Everything exhibits quantum effects. This doesn't really say anything useful
>I don't think anyone made that claim.
Penrose's theory necessarily contradicts quantum mechanics, so if you say this experiment supports his theory then yes, you're making that claim

[Anonymous No.16189776]

>>16189753
I guess if that's what you mean by it, then sure. But I don't believe in the physical existence of counterfactual worlds, alternate realities, infinite quantum universes, and other things of that nature. The quote I was originally responding to talked about how you have to incorporate literally existing alternate realities into physics in order for determinism to be untrue, which I fundamentally disagree with. Only determinists think the only way for something to be different is for a literal alternate/parallel reality to exist.

[Anonymous No.16189778]

>>16189772
Instead of bragging about how you ignore anything behind paywalls, why don't you use the method I shared to bypass it and read the article for yourself
>Penrose's theory necessarily contradicts quantum mechanics
No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.16189804]

>>16189778
>No, it doesn't.
Ok, you don't even know what you're talking about then

[Anonymous No.16189822]

>>16187522
I guess if you're wrong but you claim you are causally determined to be wrong your ego is spared as long as you freely choose not to think about it too hard.

[Anonymous No.16190754]

>>16187536
fpbp

[Anonymous No.16190757]

>>16188256
That pathetic attempt to handwave away objections to free will as mere avoidance of responsibility is a feeble ad hominem that fails to actually confront the powerful reasons - grounded in science, philosophy and reason itself - that have led many to conclude free will is incoherent bunk.

[Anonymous No.16190768]

>>16190757
do you have any evidence for your claims? oh you don't, do you! How interesting.

[Anonymous No.16190771]

>>16190768
All the evidence favours determinism. Free Will is simply a belief created by Jews.

[Anonymous No.16191199]

>>16190757
You don't even know what consciousness is, but you think you can define its nature and function?

[Anonymous No.16191279]

>>16190757
>philosophy and reason itself
both favor free will lol

[Anonymous No.16191305]

>>16188022
That's kind of true, if she's a whore she's a whore, it is their nature.

[Anonymous No.16191386]

>>16190757
You're not talking about the incoherent "Physics means determinism" nonsense right? Physics doesn't even have any meaningful way to substantiate material causal determinism, let alone in the far more physically nebulous notion of consciousness/decision.

We can't even get strict determinism (meaning arbitrarily small error in both process and measurement) to work in simple physical experiments. The "determinism" that is present in theoretical physics is a modeling convention for mathematical convenience, not a statement about reality.

[Anonymous No.16192250]

>>16189269
Redpill me on the lawful good

[Anonymous No.16192365]

The Western religious notion of free will is pure narcissistic delusion - a grandiose fantasy that places human choice on a preposterous metaphysical pedestal above the natural laws and deterministic forces governing the entire cosmos. This contra-causal fairytale imagines our minds as immaterial, formless, magical sources of utterly uncaused, ex nihilo causal powers, exempt from the physiological constraints and causal chains that rationally explain all other phenomena. It arrogantly recasts human decision-making as some miraculous, self-created form of willful creationism rather than recognizing it as shaped by the same rational patterns and processes describing the rest of the known universe. In essence, it inscribes blatant anthropocentric narcissism as pseudo-profundity, shamelessly elevating human ego over empirical explanations of how embodied minds actually operate via scientific naturalism.

[Anonymous No.16192405]

>>16192365
well said

[Anonymous No.16192414]

>>16192250
Everything is purely deterministic but there are so many variables to every single thing that it's practically infinite and impossible to predict.

[Anonymous No.16192429]

>>16191386
>Physics doesn't even have any meaningful way to substantiate material causal determinism
Wrong. In quantum mechanics, it's called unitary evolution and is totally well-defined
>We can't even get strict determinism (meaning arbitrarily small error in both process and measurement) to work in simple physical experiments
Irrelevant. Determinism is a metaphysical claim, not a claim about lab experiments.

[Anonymous No.16193655]

>>16192414
Sounds about right

[Anonymous No.16194080]

>>16193655
Except it doesn't explain how I can think and make decisions independent of anything else.

[Anonymous No.16194110]

>>16194080
They are partially independent, they are made on the same words same grammar and same context

[Anonymous No.16194132]

>>16192429
> Determinism is a metaphysical claim, not a claim about lab experiments.

Determinism in dynamical systems theory (which is what the theory of causal determinism in mechanics is based on) requires that a relaxed system excited by the same input follows the same path through the configuration space at all times after excitation. That is absolutely something that is experimental verifiable.

I'm going to ignore the remark about unitary evolution because it's pretty clear you don't know what that means.

[Anonymous No.16194146]

>>16189269
MWI is the dumbest shit.

[Anonymous No.16194571]

>>16194132
that would not test determinism, because 2 separate excitation events are not comparable. in order to test determinism, one would have to test the exact same excitation event twice, which would require travelling back in time to revisit it. and that is impossible.

"In this matter of causality it is a great inconvenience that the real world is given to us once only. We cannot know what would have happened if something had been different. We cannot repeat an experiment changing just *one" variable; the hands of the clock will have moved, *and* the moons of Jupiter."

-quote from john bell, who opposed determinism, but still recognised this problem of untestability.

[Anonymous No.16195415]

>>16194132
>Determinism in dynamical systems theory
That's just a possible way of realizing determinism within a mathematical theory. The idea of determinism is more broad and metaphysical. You clearly don't know what you're talking about
>I'm going to ignore the remark about unitary evolution
I'm not surprised

[Anonymous No.16195423]

>>16194080
>I
>he still doesn't know

[Anonymous No.16196597]

Free will bros, what's our response?

[Anonymous No.16196682]

>>16195423
Referring to me as "he" really undermines your point by revealing you believe me to be an individual different from yourself.

[Anonymous No.16196961]

>>16187561
>If only there were some way to search for text strings in internet pages!

[Anonymous No.16196966]

>>16187522
>Quantum Mechanics is deterministic!
Kill yourself, you clueless, uneducated, Social-"Science" retard.

[Anonymous No.16196971]

>>16194571
Your understanding of determinism is the philosophical one which assumes the system being tested can never be exactly reset "you can't cross the same river twice."

This notion is true for immensely complex systems, however this is not something really meaningful for a simple kinematic verification of at least macro-scale determinism. You absolutely can have a "stable" system such that its configuration is back to a "relaxed" state within degree of precision and excite it with an input that is known to a degree of precision. If determinism were a meaningful concept physically, this degree of precision could be made arbitrarily small until you hit quantum uncertainties.

Unfortunately you can't even get determinism with simple kinematic systems, let alone down to quantum uncertainties.

>>16195415
> You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

I know that mathematical determinism doesn't work. Mathematical determinism and dynamical systems theory are what determinists are generally referring to when they cite "the physics," not metaphysical questions of "causality."

I'm ignoring your remark about the quantum physics because it's clear you're spouting out of your ass with no actual background in either the mathematics or physics behind these topics. It would be similar to myself bringing up random quotes from Kierkegaard knowing full well that I am only superficially familiar with his writing.

[Anonymous No.16196996]

>>16196971
Once again, you reveal yourself as clueless. Determinism is a metaphysical statement which cannot be disproved by referring to experiments where you fail to predict something. Generally, people talking about determinism don't confuse it with predictability like you.
>I'm ignoring your remark about the quantum physics
I'm not surprised.

[Anonymous No.16197003]

Nobody has come up with a good scientific explanation for consciousness and what we perceive as free will, and I think it's a gigantic assumption that the universe necessarily has to subscribe to "determinism vs free will" as mutually exclusive terms. It could certainly be the case that there are deterministic systems that can be acted upon by non-deterministic systems, aka conscious agents.

Until it's (and if it ever will be) proven that what we perceive as consciousness is an emergent property of deterministic systems, it's all a purely philosophical discussion. I am of course biased, but I think free will is real based purely on the notion that we can ask these questions. Can a system really be deterministic if it results in an outcome where it starts to query its own determinism?

To play devils advocate against my own point, the concept of free will also leaves room for the potential that some deterministic systems can result in non-deterministic ones (if you don't invoke theology). Of course, there could be naturally non-deterministic systems that result in this as well like quantum mechanics.

All that said - modern science can't even resolve relatively simple deterministic issues like the N body problem due to chaos theory. Outside of pure philosophy, we are a LONG way off being able to make any claims about determinism vs free will when nobody understands either of them. The best we can do with determinism is create very specific, artificial situations that are predictable. The best we can do with free will is say that you are reading this post due to a conscious choice that you know you made, and not because of a chain reaction of events that started 13.7 billion years ago that DIRECTLY lead to this point.

[B No.16197005]

>>16197003
No

[Anonymous No.16197011]

>>16197005
I say yes (by my own free will)

[Anonymous No.16197015]

>>16196996
You seem quite determined to repeat yourself while having no clue what people are actually talking about.

Causal determinism is, again, generally referring to the materialist sense, which does in fact have the potential for empirical verification.

If determinism were to be true on a material level, regardless of metaphysical questions of causality or "whether it could have happened differently" one would be able to recreate a material determinism empirically.

This wouldn't answer the question of whether the fundamental state evolution is deterministic in a certain sense as it pushes the can down the road of what causes a realization of a stochastic process, but it can verify whether a deterministic model is sufficient to describe the behavior of the material system.

[Anonymous No.16197020]

>>16197015
>Causal determinism is, again, generally referring to the materialist sense, which does in fact have the potential for empirical verification.
>If determinism were to be true on a material level, regardless of metaphysical questions of causality or "whether it could have happened differently" one would be able to recreate a material determinism empirically.
Just wrong. Again, determinism has nothing to do with predictability. Get this through your skull.

[Anonymous No.16197028]

>>16197020
I haven't said the word "predict" once you braindead triple-nigger.

Empirical verification of determinism doesn't come with "prediction" of the path of the material object given a known starting state and a known input. Empirical verification comes down to whether the path is repeated given the same initial conditions and exposure to a known input.

It has literally nothing to do with whether you can predict it. It's about whether it's replicable (meaning that the input and the dynamics of the system uniquely determine the output).

[Anonymous No.16197033]

>>16197028
You're talking about predictability and you're so retarded that you don't even know it.

[Anonymous No.16197038]

>>16197033
No, it's not predictability, it's a different concept. I understand that you are so afraid of basic mathematics education that you've retreated into "philosophy" (which I'm sure you are half-assing as well) but whether or not a predictable/computable output is available has nothing to do with whether a system is deterministic.

The only thing that matters for a system to be deterministic is that the path the state follows is uniquely determined by the initial conditions, the dynamics of the system, and the excited input.

Those dynamics of that system could be so complex the state evolution are uncomputable ahead of time, meaning they can't be predicted. If you start at the same state, excite the system with the same input, and get the same output, your system is deterministic from a mathematical/physics perspective.

If this isn't the case, then your input and system dynamics do not uniquely determine the output, meaning the system isn't deterministic. This has nothing to do with predictability, it has to do with the causal relationship between the initiali conditions, dynamics and input and the output state evolution.

[Anonymous No.16197039]

>>16197038
There is no "excited input" you retard. You only keep referring to nonsense like "excited input" because you're talking about predictability.

[Anonymous No.16197040]

>>16197039
Have you ever once read anything at all relating to dynamical systems theory (where the modern physics model of determinism comes from)?

If not, you should exit this conversation until you've actually spent at least a few minutes trying to understand what people who actually have engaged with the subject have produced. Otherwise you will continue to say 25 IQ shit like this.

If you don't know what it means to "excite" a dynamical systems, then you haven't done an ODE's course and can safely be ignored because you don't even know the fucking alphabet for this conversation.

[Anonymous No.16197047]

>>16197040
You're too stupid to realize that whatever garbage you learnt in your ODE class was talking about "excited inputs" or some other nonsensical term because they were talking about predictability.

[Anonymous No.16197049]

>>16187522
If you didnt have free will, meaning you had no choice in the matter at hand, you would not be able to conceive of it as being a choice or as being anything other than what it is. The possibility of recognizing that something could be one way or another rests upon the recognition of a potential nothingness. If one lacked free will then the possibility of something not being the case would be impossible. Instead, everything would always be the case since no alternative could be recognized. It would become impossible to discern between what was and what has become. All things would blend into a single totality, and it would be impossible to even speak of things in and of themselves for there wouldn't exist a negative backdrop against which the thing is even recognized as such. If you can see a choice in the matter, that's because there is a choice in the matter.

[Anonymous No.16197050]

>>16197047
They aren't talking about predictability you fucking retard. They are talking about whether the path the system follows is uniquely determined by the dynamics of the system, the state of the system, and whatever is "causing" that change.

How are you getting so confused by this notion? Do you know how to tie your own shoes? Are you literally a drooling retard?

[Anonymous No.16197053]

>>16197050
>the dynamics of the system, the state of the system, and whatever is "causing" that change.
You're literally braindead, holy shit. There is only the state of the system and its dynamics. By referring to external things which "cause change to the system", you've already given up on talking about determinism and are referring to predictability instead. I can't even imagine how someone must be so stupid as to not realize this.

[Anonymous No.16197054]

>>16197047
I'm going to make a prediction, you're going to once again reiterate with no real reasoning that this somehow is actually just "prediction" in disguise. Conveniently you won't elaborate or explain how this is the the case (hint: you don't know and couldn't possibly explain why you think this way).

Unfortunately for you, you are right that you don't have free will. You just don't have it because you have the brainpower of a lobotomized lizard.

[Anonymous No.16197056]

>>16197053
Elaborate how the inclusion of an external vector of change somehow makes this a prediction problem. What other mechanism would a system at rest begin to be not at rest if not for an external vector of change?

[Anonymous No.16197059]

>>16197054
Dumbfuck

>>16197056
When talking about determinism, the system is the universe, so there is no "external system" which causes changes you moron. When you care about predictability and because in realistic situations you have systems which are not completely isolated (unlike the entire universe), you make a separation between the system and its external environment in order to make better predictions of the system.

[Anonymous No.16197062]

>>16197059
> When talking about determinism, the system is the universe, so there is no "external system" which causes changes you moron.

No, you are talking about "the universe" as a system. Nobody worth taking seriously actually considers this to be the case because it is both definitionally intractable, and pointless.

If you cannot make determinism tractable on small controllable systems, then there is absolutely no change it could ever be possible for "the universe" (whatever you mean by this notion).

> When you care about predictability and because in realistic situations you have systems which are not completely isolated (unlike the entire universe), you make a separation between the system and its external environment in order to make better predictions of the system.

Systems which are not completely isolated? That's the best you've got? So your plan to explain the complete inability to produce determinism on even the simplest of kinematic systems is to just throw your hands in the air and pretend that it's actually just "other parts of the universe" are interfering?

How did I not see it before? We can't isolate this simple mass spring damper system from the heat of stars 100 billion light years away! That's why we can't produce determinism! It's not at all because it's a completely nonsense paradigm that is a modeling convention and not something actually reflective of physical reality.

Fuck off moron. Go get a basic education before you run your mouth.

[Anonymous No.16197072]

>>16197062
You're so dumb, it's hilarious.
>obody worth taking seriously actually considers this to be the case
Except anyone who cares about whether determinism is true or not, you blithering retard.
>whatever you mean by this notion
I'm not surprised you don't know what the universe is.
>Systems which are not completely isolated? That's the best you've got?
It's not the best "I've got" you retard, what I explained is the reason your "ode for dumbfucks" course talked about garbage like "excited inputs". Your reaction on hearing this reason (which should have been obvious if your were not retarded) is really unhinged, as the rest of your post shows. Are you sure your "ode for retards" class was not held in a mental asylum?

[Anonymous No.16197073]

>>16197072
What is the mechanism by which the heat from a star 100 billion light years away impacts the dynamics of a mass-spring-damper in my lab such that they should be considered part of the same system?

[Anonymous No.16197077]

>>16197073
Isn't it time your handlers stopped you from using the internet?

[Anonymous No.16197079]

>>16197077
Brother, you have no clue. You are pretending that you're engaging with determinism for "the universe" while having absolutely no clue what that even entails (which isn't entirely your fault, it's still a pretty nebulous concept in terms of proper definition in physics) while assertion of undefined connections between real systems such that they can conveniently explain away the complete inability to produce arbitrary precision replicability of real systems.

Your whole ideology is literally a coping mechanism with a mystical veneer of "universalism" pretending to be a science/metaphysic.

[Anonymous No.16197080]

>>16197079
While asserting undefined connections* oops. I must have been determined to make that mistake.

[Anonymous No.16197081]

>>16197079
I accept your concession that you're talking about predictability and not determinism. Anyway, where are your handlers?

[Anonymous No.16197082]

>>16197081
Replicability isn't predictability.

[Anonymous No.16197089]

>>16197082

[Anonymous No.16197094]

>>16197089
This is a waste of time.

Predictability = "Can we know ahead of time what the state will be?"

Reproducibility = "Does the system always evolve in the same way when the conditions are the same?"

They are separate concepts that are somewhat related, but predictability isn't necessary for determinism. It's sufficient for determinism, but it isn't necessary.

By contrast reproducibility is necessary for determinism. If you don't have reproducibility, you don't have determinism.

[Anonymous No.16197490]

>>16197094
no it isn't. every event could be unique. necessity is necessary for determinism, not reproducibility.

[Anonymous No.16197515]

>>16197490
If every event that ever happens is unique and unpredictable, of what use is your determinist philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16197521]

>>16197038
>Those dynamics of that system could be so complex the state evolution are uncomputable ahead of time, meaning they can't be predicted.
OK, I can imagine a system like this.
> If you start at the same state, excite the system with the same input, and get the same output
How can you ever possibly falsify this? If the system dynamics are so unknowably complex that the state evolution is incomputable, how could you possibly hope to recreate the "same state" and excite it in exactly the same way as the first run?

[Anonymous No.16197534]

>>16197515
i don't understand your question. we're talking about ontology. there can be no practical "use" of determinism, or indeterminism for that matter. we're pondering the nature of reality.

[Anonymous No.16197733]

>>16197521
> How can you ever possibly falsify this? If the system dynamics are so unknowably complex that the state evolution is incomputable, how could you possibly hope to recreate the "same state" and excite it in exactly the same way as the first run?

To answer the first part, there are systems called distributed systems in which the state has infinitely many state variables. Two classic examples are the unit time-delay system and an electric transmission line.

In general, these variables are all observable in the sense that if you were to choose any particular subset of them (e.g., in a sliding window) you can observe the state. In some particular cases (e.g., when the system is "relaxed") you can observe all of them at once in that their state is homogenous.

In those cases you can recreate initial conditions to an arbitrary degree of precision while not being able to compute an exact forward state evolution.

This is somewhat of a distraction though. The point I was trying to make is that prediction and replication/reproduction of the state evolution are not the same thing. Even on more trivial systems where there are a finite number of states one needs to track, determinism can be empirically tested via resetting the system to a "relaxed" (or in general any known state) and applying a known (to some arbitrary degree of precision) input to said system. If it responds in a way that is reproducible to the same degree of precision the system can be said to be deterministic. If not, the system has stochastic uncertainties and cannot be said to be deterministic.

In reality, all physical systems are stochastic. There is no such thing as a deterministic physical system except in some vague "average" sense.