[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1 KB, 109x98, 1292276353855.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4472729 No.4472729 [Reply] [Original]

Any scientific reason to believe in determinism.
Any logical reason to believe in materialism

>> No.4472753

The only reason you don't want to believe in them is that they run counter to your political beliefs.

>> No.4472758

>>4472753
I have nothing against them. I've just never seen the logic that goes into it.

>> No.4472779

other ideas are at least equally not legit

>> No.4472786

>>4472779
...

>> No.4472787

Occam'z Razor?

>> No.4472789

>Any scientific reason to believe in determinism
nature seems to be predictable.
>Any logical reason to believe in materialism
nature seems to be material.

>> No.4472796

>>4472789
bu-bu-but [insert postmodern nonsense here, maybe name drop Plato's Cave]

>> No.4472798

>>4472787
says what

>> No.4472802

>isms
>2012

>> No.4472803

>>4472789
being able to predict something doesnt mean its determined.
>nature seems to be material
where did you get this

>> No.4472814

What of your reality seems to not be material?

>> No.4472823

>>4472814
I assume my reality encompasses everything. So does gravity no exist. Does acceleration exist. Do magnets even work. What about the power of imagination.

>> No.4472826

>>4472814
What of your reality seems to be material

>> No.4472829

>Materialism
isn't that just an outdated version of Physicalism?

>> No.4472835

>>4472829
>hasnt heard of the force particle

>> No.4472840
File: 255 KB, 412x428, 1330746336754.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4472840

>/sci/
>solipsism
>I sure hope you all never do this

>> No.4472844

>>4472798

materialism and determinism explain shit as well as anything else and make less assumptions. It's not perfect usage, but it's the same general idea.

>> No.4472843

>>4472835
no that's what I mean
since particles and other type shit aren't necessarily "materials", materialISM should be sorta dismissed, but Physicalism kinda implies that too

>> No.4472847

>>4472823

I guess imagination might just be the ability to construct new scenarios on your mind based of elements you know a priori.

>>4472826

All of it, my body is all matter and when this matter stops functioning as a mechanism, I am no more.

>> No.4472849

>>4472840
i think there4 i am xDDDD

>> No.4472854

>>4472847
Your body is material. But is your IMAGINATION?

>> No.4472866

>>4472854

It is sustained by matter. Ultimately you could say that it is.

>> No.4472870

>>4472843
Using "magic is physical" as an excuse to push your materialistic agenda

>> No.4472872

Because it's smart and because Ayn Rand

>> No.4472873

how does /sci/ feel about Fallibilism?
I'm still unfamiliar with general philosophy

>> No.4472874

>>4472866
>sustained by matter
Unfalsifiable

>> No.4472882

>>4472870
>magic is physical
wat

>>4472872
>>>/lit/
you funny guy

>> No.4472886

>>4472874
Ever see a guy without a brain imagine?

Me neither.

>> No.4472892

>>4472729
Semantics aside, science is pretty much assumes determinism and materialism.

If it can be studied and learned about it is material. All phenomena are assumed to be deterministic because said assumption is and will always be more useful than assuming a phenomena is completely random.

>> No.4472898

>>4472886
I've never even seen a brain in someone. Have you?

>> No.4472904

>>4472886
Can you even prove he's imagining if he has a brain.
Youre making assumptions here.

>> No.4472923

>>4472892
>Semantics aside, science is pretty much assumes determinism and materialism
Science assumes things behave in a logical manner.
If what you said were true then no one would accept the uncertainty principle

>> No.4472938

>>4472923
If every other part of physics were figured out then everyone would start believing in "hidden variables". As it stands, however, there just aren't enough insights into those supposed hidden variables to make researching them feasible.

>> No.4472947

>>4472938
Science studies the observable universe. Hidden elements would be things simply inside the event horizon

>> No.4472964
File: 50 KB, 627x620, what-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4472964

>>4472947
>Hidden elements would be things simply inside the event horizon

>> No.4472969

>>4472964
Unobservable

>> No.4472977

>>4472969
I was hoping for a post that goes into greater detail than the last, not for a single ambiguous word.

>> No.4472994

>>4472977
Its the nature of the event horizon. It is impossible to gather information on events inside of the event horizon.

>> No.4473001

motivation is based on drives.

Primary drive - a physiological need. Creates an aroused state that motivates an organism to satisfy the need.

Secondary drive - involves learned desires such as success, power, etc.

possessions = materials, materials can lead to success/power, which motivate your life.

>> No.4473326

>believe
I believe im a toaster, prove me wrong.

>> No.4473855

>>4472994
I believe I heard that one CAN retrieve information from a black hole's event horizon though. Or, rather there are several theories on how it may be possible.

But I see what you are saying, but we still must assume that there is a method behind even the most seemingly random events because there is at least the slightest chance something of value can be gained under that assumption while there is no chance something of value can be gained if one assumes there are no hidden variables.

It's just practical to assume determinism.

>> No.4473937

>>4472938
Actually no. Einstein did that in General Relativity because he didn't like quantum mechanics. Through logic it was proved that there were no "hidden mechanics". Determinism was almost annihilated when the clock work universe was broken by the break in absolute time and the probabilistic universe of Quantum Mechanics. The philosophy of science is that you must be able to test it, and most of science is rigorous with the inclusion of math, which math is also based in logic.

>> No.4473960

>>4473855
Holographic universe theory. However determinism isn't the standard order. We have objective probability in science. We also have relativistic views on how the cosmos work. It isn't the same climate as Newton unless you're meaning a different idea of determinism. However, everytime I've seen it used, it is to describe the concept of being able to determine everything that will happen from the very start of the universe. It just isn't like that anymore.

>> No.4473965

>>4473937
Then why does a particle go through slit A and not slit B?

>> No.4473972

>>4473965
It is a chance. You will not be able to know which it goes through before hand. THAT is the definition of determinism. "God does not throw dice".

>> No.4473985

>belief in philosophical renditions

ISHYGDDT

>> No.4474002

>>4473972
>It is a chance.
We can't assume there is no reason it goes through one slit versus the other.

What if we discovered how to neatly tie up all the loose ends of the standard model? What if we just assumed that some things "just happen" for no reason at all? Scientific progress would stop. But what if there WAS something just beyond our gaze? It may be right under our nose or it may be a mile down the rabbit hole. The fact of the matter is that there might be something to gain from assuming "God does not throw dice" and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from assuming the opposite.

We must always strive for a deterministic model of the universe whether it exists or not.

>> No.4474010

>>4474002
I really would like to agree with you. I would. But at the moment I can't. I want to be of the same view, but until there is any evidence to the contrary, I can't say the universe is deterministic. Maybe things such as string theory will tie things up, although I highly doubt it. Until then, until Einstein's view is proven to have a basis, then I cannot be deterministic. Quantum physics has worked way too well, and been proven by experimentation so many times to throw it out because it doesn't fit neatly into the clockwork universe as we like it.

>> No.4474042

>>4474010
>I can't say the universe is deterministic
I'm not saying you should. In fact I wouldn't say that without some qualifiers. If average joe walked up to me and asked if the universe was deterministic then I would respond with the scientist's old friend, "maybe". I would then go on to explain why one might believe it is and why we must assume it isn't.

>Quantum physics has worked way too well
I don't assume quantum mechanics is wrong. I simply assume there are factors that we aren't seeing. The evidence of these hidden variables may be so subtle and there theoretical/mathematical representation so complex that no human could ever hope to scratch the surface, but we can't stop the search until we have a fully deterministic model. That is the only time we could ever claim to be finished.

>> No.4474046

>>4474042
Ok then I agree with you. However I remain doubtful of a deterministic universe every being discovered. That doesn't mean I don't believe the universe is illogical. I just believe that probability of nature will not be thrown out in the future.

>> No.4474048

what's the alternative to determinism exactly. randomness?

>> No.4474075

>>4474048
If there is any part of our standard model that doesn't make every possible known state utterly predictable then it is simply "non-deterministic". If there were a more apt word for it I would think I would have come across after four years of physics with an emphasis on chaos theory.

>>4474046
>However I remain doubtful of a deterministic universe every being discovered.
For the foreseeable future, me too. But I'm not calling it quits until the fat lady sings, and by fat lady I mean brown dwarf sized quantum computer intelligence powered by a Dyson sphere.

>> No.4474091

>>4474048
The word determinism doesn't have the exact same meaning in philosophy and science. In philosophy of mind "determinism" means that your brain is subject to only the laws of physics; nothing supernatural. This comes from all laws of physics being deterministic before the 20th century.

In science something is determinate if it is possible to mathematically predict how it will be in the future with 100% certainty. Doing this usually means you must collect data to put into your math equations with 100% accuracy. An indeterminate universe is one where not all predictions can be made without a margin of error greater than zero. This is called probabilistic.

>> No.4474132

In a non deterministic universe the law of causality is an illusion?