/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3156090]

Okay, I'm a biologyfag, so my understanding of quantum mechanics is rudimentary at best.
What I want to ask /sci/ about is determinism. Not that free will/libertarianism bullshit, merely if the course of the universe was decided with its first beat.
From what I understand, while it is entirely possible that there is a logic behind the behaviour of quanta, we still have no reason to assume their behaviour isn't random
The whole free will argument is moot as far as I'm concerned since we don't even understand exactly how consciousness arises and works.
Trying to define it now would be like asking a man blind from birth to comment on a painting.
Mind you, I cannot think of a single mechanism that would allow free will to exist.
...but there are tons of things I have trouble imaginig and understanding, so it doesn't really mean much.


tl;dr
Is the universe deterministic?
I don't care about the free will debate.
Keep it simple.

[Anonymous No.3156101]

How could one know?

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156106]

I still don't get why people don't realise that free will can still exist despite determinism. They are not opposites.

The universe is deterministic because all present events are decided by what happened in the past.

[Anonymous No.3156112]

>>3156106
Nice trolling.
Now go, I hear your mom calling.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156116]

>>3156112
I'm not trolling. You can still choose what your actions are, and it is still a free choice. It is just that what you will choose is also determined by the situation that you are in, as well as your nature, which is itself determined by your brain structure, which is determined by your DNA, which was determined at conception.

[Anonymous No.3156118]

>>3156106
causality=/=determinism

[Anonymous No.3156123]

>>3156116
Take at least the effort to read what comes after the tl;dr.
It's not that much to ask.
Seriously, no offense but the fact you were serious is more annoying than you being a troll.

[Anonymous No.3156124]

>>3156116
Go deeper than that. The behaviour of individual atoms are seemingly random, or probabilistic, which could propagate to the behaviour of large things meaning everything is non-deterministic.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156126]

>>3156123
fine. the universe is deterministic.

[Anonymous No.3156128]

>>3156116
>>3156106
OP wants to know if the universe is deterministic or probabilistic (stochastic). He is not doubting causality nor asking about free will.

[Anonymous No.3156130]

>>3156126
I would actually be ok with that answer, but you've shown you don't actually know what deterministic means.
Something which, I might add, is explained in my post.

[Anonymous No.3156136]

I think there is veracity to biological determinism, certainly, and the whole perception of free will seems merely like an illusive construct of intuition to me. Correct me if I am wrong.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156141]

>>3156130
Well either the universe is deterministic or god must exist. Determinism is far more likely.

[Anonymous No.3156143]

Behaviour of atoms is probabilistic.
A single atom can influence the behaviour of a molecule.
A single fucked up amminoacid can give you falciform anemia (don't know its english name).

So yeah, nondeterministic.

[Anonymous No.3156147]

>>3156141
Now I know you are trolling.
The debate here is not determinism VS free will.
It's determinist VS probabilist universe.

God has nothing to do with it.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156148]

>>3156147
But a probaballistic universe cant exist without god.

[Anonymous No.3156153]

>>3156136
troll troll troll your boat...

[Anonymous No.3156156]

>>3156148
You got butthurt and now you are trolling.
Please, tell me it's like that.

[Anonymous No.3156157]

>>3156143
I agree that the universe is ultimately probabilistic, though I find your argument rather inelegant in its presentation.
A more elegant argument would be the exemplification of the stochastic nature of sub atomic particles(Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Please correct me, if I am wrong.

[Anonymous No.3156158]

>>3156148
I don't mean to offend namefag, but seriously how old are you?

[Anonymous No.3156160]

>>3156153
How is that trolling exactly? I was being sincere in my inquiry. Furthermore, I would relish in a correction.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156161]

>>3156156
I'm not butthurt. and it wouldnt necessarily be a christian god or anything like that, but you would need a divine being to start it all off for it to be probabalistic. so a deist god at least.

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156163]

>>3156158
63

[Anonymous No.3156164]

>>3156157
Nono, I agree.
I was just trying to point out how a single atom can influence the world.
I haven't studied the brain yet so I cannot really say much on free will (although I agree with OP - it's like the three blind man and the elephant story.).

[Harriet No.3156165]

>>3156143
I think this is right.

[Anonymous No.3156167]

>>3156161
I think a deterministic universe would more appropriately implicate a Deity, rather than a probabilistic model.

[Anonymous No.3156172]

>>3156163
Oh LOLOLOL.
No seriously, how old are you?

[SCAR !ARI3LXsbdg No.3156173]

>>3156172
the last 2 digits of your post.

[Anonymous No.3156175]

>Is the universe deterministic?
Short answer yes, long answer kinda.

Quantum mechanics cause non deterministic properties but the effect of those is small and only changes things in long scale.

Also
>free will
laughinggirls.jpg

[Anonymous No.3156176]

>>3156172
Probably 19 or 20, and a habitual cannabis smoker.

[Anonymous No.3156186]

>>3156175
Yes, that is to say that the universe is non-inclusive to humanity, in such a sense that the primary focus of the argument, or to the very least what it was construed to be, was concerning the nature of particles. Though if the argument was, in fact, inclusive towards humanity, there would scrutiny of the probabilistic model, in favour for a more deterministic model, given factors including physiology, social edifices, and so forth. Concisely, that humanity interpolates a factor of determinism. Very much so is this controversy a matter of semantics, rather than general concepts.

[Anonymous No.3156190]

>>3156176
no, thats just EK

[Anonymous No.3156191]

>>3156186
Please excuse any syntactical or grammatical errors therein the paragraph.

[Anonymous No.3156201]

>Is the universe deterministic?
Short answer yes, long answer kinda.

Something is either deterministic or nondeterministic. I know the universe is causal, but that's not the point.

>>3156175
>> only changes things in long scale.

Not sure actually. Shroedinger cat aside there are other things that let me doubtful.
It's not a single atom that behaves randomly, it's every single one. Unlikely shit can happen when you sum up small probabilities.

[Anonymous No.3156204]

>>3156160

>>3156090
>>I don't care about the free will debate.
>>I don't care about the free will debate.
>>I don't care about the free will debate.

[Anonymous No.3156208]

>>3156186
Uh?
Sorry, didn't understand.

[Anonymous No.3156221]

>>3156201
As stated previous, I believe that humanity simply interpolates factors of determinism, both biological and circumstantial. Moreover, that if biological and circumstantial, the latter term used to encompass the entirety of non-biological explanations that of which has consonance with the conjectured biological determinism, were veracious, one could, though perhaps erroneously, make the deduction that the sub atomic particle's stochasticity is merely specious, and that its deterministic properties can not be quantified.

[Anonymous No.3156225]

Yes.

[Anonymous No.3156231]

>>3156201
In short time scale the result is pretty much the same with the QM that it's without. Only in longer periods the small changes start to pile up and the predictability starts to dissapears

As in if we had the perfect computer that can predict the future, it could guess the first thousand dice rolls but after that mistakes start to happen. These numbers i juts pulled out from my ass juts for this example. In reality they could be anything.

But it's really hard to estimate the effect. Some weird shit migh happen.

[Anonymous No.3156232]

>>3156208
Basically, that life(humanity) is dichotomous to sub atomic particles.

[Anonymous No.3156237]

>>3156221
Or more appropriately that aforementioned sub atomic particles have properties of predictability not yet measurable, due to lack of sophistication. These are just thoughts.

[Anonymous No.3156241]

>>3156231
Yes, this has been discussed and has a name.
>Leplace's Demon.
>Maxwell's Demon.
Though, a forewarning, Maxwell's Demon is misleading, or better yet, invalid, as it would not defy the second law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

[Anonymous No.3156240]

>>3156090
>is the universe deterministic?

Locally NO

anything else?

\thread

[Anonymous No.3156244]

>>3156237
Nope

Where are you getting such shitty ideas from?

[Anonymous No.3156245]

>>3156241
Laplace*

[Anonymous No.3156250]

>>3156244
Care to explain?
Also, I did specify the constraints to the somewhat feasible or to the very least speculative ideas here: "though perhaps erroneously"

[Anonymous No.3156252]

>>3156237
The probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with our measurement techniques (or lack of).

[Anonymous No.3156258]

>>3156252
Though, it does have something to do with the sophistication of the techniques used. Again, I was not making any assertions.

[Anonymous No.3156259]

>>3156250
Everything you said is just wrong bro, it's like you literally just made up bullshit.

The uncertainity and probablistic nature of QM has to do with the non-communative behavior of the operators, it has nothing to fucking do with our observation techniques.

[Anonymous No.3156260]

>>3156258
>Though, it does have something to do with the sophistication of the techniques used

Nope.

[Anonymous No.3156262]

>>3156258

[Anonymous No.3156269]

>>3156259
Well, I do apologise any difficulty this has caused you. Again, I was making no assertions. Furthermore, who said I was discussing observation techniques?

[Anonymous No.3156277]

>>3156258
No. You don't even factor that stuff into Quantum Mehcnics until the very very very very end (or not at all). Often you assume you have a perfect measurement system.

The fucked up nature of QM exists regardless of how "prefect (or shitty) our measurment scheme is". It is obvious you just don't understand QM.

The nature of Quantum Mechanics is not a fucking measurement problem bro, no amount of perfect measurement will get rid of the uncertainity or the probablitic shit. That stuff is inherit in the universe.

[Anonymous No.3156278]

>>3156262
I apologise for my perceived misapprehension of QM, perhaps with more investigation into the subject I'll be able to construct more thorough syllogisms. Sorry for any difficulty or frustration I've caused you, and at least you gathered amusement out of my nescience.

[Anonymous No.3156282]

>>3156269
>due to lack of sophistication

You are either refering to measurment schemes/techniques, In which case you are fucking wrong.

Or you are refering to the structure of QM in general (it being incomplete), In which case you are still fucking wrong (see the work by Bell).

[Anonymous No.3156360]

Okay, OP here.
Here is the thing I don't understand:
Are quanta really random or do we "scramble" them by observing them?