[ 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: 202 KB, 750x552, 8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4780921 No.4780921 [Reply] [Original]

Since time is only an illusion created by awareness, randomness is an illusion. Everything has already happened, and is currently happening. Every possible outcome is happening, has happened, and will happen.

>> No.4780944

Time is not an illusion -- it is distance.
Go back to school you nare-do-well.

>> No.4780954

>>4780944
seconded

>> No.4780953

throw some balls down a hallway
their destination is already chosen
there is no free will
the universe is expanding

>> No.4780962

The conclusions you draw from your original assumption only go to show you that you assumed wrong. Unfortunately, you're clearly far too "edgy" and retarded to realise this. Take your weed addled half arsed nonsense ideas, and fuck off.

>> No.4780966

Honestly though OP, what was the point of posting this garbage?

>> No.4780967

Stop smoking weed and take adderall you fuck for brains.

>> No.4780971

>>4780962
what about my post?
>>4780953

my weed thought up ideas are plausible, right? no free will?

>> No.4780986

>>4780971
Plausible? Probably. True? Nobody knows. Apart from you apparently. And that doesn't mean time doesn't exist. There is a distinct difference between now and later, that difference is time.

>> No.4780984

>>4780971
You have a combination of free will in some contexts and limited will in others.

That's the reality of it.

If you had total free will you would be excluding the experiences that are unique because of having limited free will in certain aspects.

Hows that?

>> No.4780991

>>4780984
>free will

>>>/x/

>> No.4780992

>>4780984
nice but
>You have a combination of free will in some contexts
you can't prove this
everything since the big bang is predetermined, everything.

>> No.4781012

>>4780992
You are fucking retarded. You can make any choice you want that your brain enables. Your body limits your choices while giving you choices.

IF you had no body and had unlimited free will, then you wouldn't have the option of having limited free will which produces a unique experience.

Holy shit. Go choose between ice cream and steak.
Go kill something. Or dont. Just stop being retarded.

>> No.4781014

People with no long term memory don't have any understanding of time.
Example) Hi what's your name? Hi what's your name? Hi what's your name?

>> No.4781016

>>4781012
>you actually think you're in control of your thoughts and that they aren't predetermined
and im retarded?

>> No.4781020

>>4781012
That would imply that there is more than just my body. There isn't. Dualism has been disproved by science. It's all in the brain and the brain activities are determined. A magical soul doesn't exist.

>> No.4781023

>>4781016
Yes because you are a complete tool and predictable.

>> No.4781027

>>4781023
the big bang, right?
everything, atoms, everything, is expanding from that point
throw some balls down a hallway, you can calculate where they will go, its the same thing.
God, im dumb but even I can grasp this idea.

>> No.4781029

>>4781020
No. You are wrong.
Although I wouldn't put it past you that you lack a soul.

>> No.4781032

>>4781029
You seem to lack anything other than "you're wrong".

>> No.4781036

>>4781029
Cool lack of argument, retard.

>> No.4781037

>>4781027
The big bang isn't a single point. It happens at all space at once then expands.

>> No.4781039

>>4781032
You don't have an argument either other than a fallacious appeal to authority.

>> No.4781042

>>4781037
Even if so, whats the difference?

>> No.4781044

>>4781039
It's scientific fact. There is no free will. You can't argue against logic. Now go cry on /x/.

>> No.4781049

>>4781042
That each point is different relativistically otherwise there would be no contrast in the universe.

>> No.4781056

>>4781049
Doesn't say anything for free will.

>> No.4781053

>>4781044
>Implying this religionistical you replied to isn't an incestborn bastard suffering from the virus VMAT22.

>> No.4781054

>>4781044
Yes, you CAN argue against logic, and yes you can argue against your stupid point that has alternate points of view inside the scientific community.

You are a troll or a retard. /ignore

>> No.4781061

I'm not 'religious'.

>> No.4781059

>>4781054
You are the retard if you believe in magic.

>> No.4781070

>>4781061
Your brain is.

>> No.4781073

>>4781059
It's impressive how much mindacrobatics religionisticals do just to preserve their eternal life fantasy.

>> No.4781079

>>4781059
Magic cannot exist because of its definition. Arguing against logic is not 'magical'. What is magical or not magical is completely arbitrary since you cannot exactly know the universe in its entirety.

Faith is a regular part of logic and life. This doesn't have to do with religion or stupidity.

>> No.4781081

>>4781061
you are new age/spiritual though?

>> No.4781074

>>4781061
Yes, you are. Only a religious person can be that stupid.

>> No.4781082

>>4781044
Quantum theory states otherwise

>> No.4781083

>>4781079
>Magic cannot exist because of its definition

There you did it. You disproved free will.

>> No.4781085

Most of you are far more religious than I am. I can see it in your pathetic attempts at trolling.

>> No.4781086

>>4781082
Quantum theory doesn't state any facts

>> No.4781090

>>4781083
Free will has nothing to do with the properties of being magical or not.

>> No.4781094

Why is /sci/ so full of /x/tards lately?
Seriously, what's with all the morons believing in free will, dualism, aliens, tulpas and other magic crap?
Can't they just fuck off to where they came from?

>> No.4781092

>>4781085
you'll probably get banned for a couple of days for trolling
just saying..

>> No.4781093

If everything is predertimed why are you even trying anything?

>>4781086
So you deny quantum theory as useless factless theory?

>> No.4781103

>>4781094
No, they are predetermined to be here. You should know that by now, science favors those people. Unless ofcourse, you dont believe in determinism

>> No.4781104

>>4781090
>mag·ic/ˈmajik/
>Noun:
>The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

See? Free will is magic and we all know that magic isn't real.

>> No.4781100

>>4781093
So far, yes.

>> No.4781099

>>4781086
A theory that actually is in favor of duality. lol

>> No.4781108

>>4781103
And you should know that I was predetermined to make that post.

>> No.4781111

>>4781104
Seems to me like anything that isn't free will is also magic. The forces that are working to keep the deterministic route seems very mysterious/supernatural to me

>> No.4781110

>>4781092
I'm not trolling. I am also generous in letting others troll me.

>> No.4781115

>>4781111
Physical forces are not supernatural, you fucking retard.

>> No.4781114

>>4781103
>Unless ofcourse, you dont believe in determinism
Believe? Whats there to believe?

>> No.4781120

>>4781093
Most of quantum physics fits the definition of 'magick' since there is no evidence and it is mathematically conjured from, well, for all intents and purposes, our ass; however, that does not automatically disqualify its usefulness since it is not abnormal for this 'magick' *cough* theoretical mathematical physics *cough* to create useful things far into the future.

>> No.4781123

I'm somewhat dissapointed since all you /sci/tards believe in fate bullshit.

>> No.4781134

>>4781115
Are physical forces not bound by determinism too? If they are not, then how can we say they are natural? Being part of the deterministic world is natural. If they are bound by deterministic world, then what drives the determinism?

>> No.4781132

>>4781115
The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

If you understand that 'supernatural' implies that we don't understand the nature of it, then magick is the frontier of mathematical physics.

It also fits the definition of 'occult' studies. Its too bad most of you are so indoctrinated.

>> No.4781143

AND NOW SOME MAGIC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU

You can divide any massive number in your head by 5 by multiplying by 2.

123,412,341,234 = 24,682,468,246.8

Move the decimal point up one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU

>> No.4781154

>>4781134
This is not correct. They are probabilistic.

>> No.4781158

>>4781154
Bullshit!

Gravity is not probabilistic. If you drop shit, if falls down with exactly 9.81 m/s. It's a fucking law. No matter whether you do it on earth or on the moon.

>> No.4781163

MORE MAGIC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kOQ2zvBfU
The derivative of e is (10^x(1+10^(-x))^(10^x)log(10) (-1+(1+10^x) log(1+10^(-x))))/(1+10^x)

>> No.4781170

>>4781158
What is gravity? It doesn't matter. What is matter?

>> No.4781172

>>4781158
There are no laws in a deterministic universe, all of them are predermined to fall, the law of gravity doesn't make any sense if the deterministic world is to be true. And equally, in a free will universe, there can be no laws because gravity can suddenly being a force. Neither of this presents a very accurate view of the universe

>> No.4781173

>>4781172
*stop being a force

>> No.4781193
File: 5 KB, 251x188, 1338038102146s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4781193

>>4781079

>Faith is a part of logic

O God, my sides. My sides...

>>4781086

>Thinks quantum theory implies free will

>>4781082

>Thinks quantum theory doesn't state facts.

mfw this thread

>> No.4781201
File: 99 KB, 400x400, jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4781201

>>4781193
Faith is analogous to an axiom.
No one said quantum mechanics implies free will.

You need to work on your reading.

>> No.4781217
File: 4 KB, 126x95, 1332292395869s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4781217

>>4781201

Someone did in fact imply that quantum theory has something to do with free will. l2 read.

Faith is in no way analogous with an axiom. Axiom's are reached by logic, faith is reached by ignorance.

Herp, just have faith.

Faith is the suspension of logic.

>> No.4781232

>>4781217
Axioms are assumptions. Assumptions are kept with faith.

>>4781217
You are right that faith is a suspension of logic in most cases. That's why you don't usually re-evaluate your axioms.

"An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

>> No.4781246

>>4781232

Axioms are assumptions based off of observable phenomena. There self evident.

Faith is the rejection of logic, based on non-observable phenomena, to help someone believe in something that is not self evident.

They are not the same.

>> No.4781244

>>4781217
Quantum mechanics correlates to probability, not free will.

>> No.4781269

>>4781246
What you see is a function of biological logic in your brain. You have faith in what you see when not all things you see are absolute.

Things that are 'self evident' are faith. That's why all them religious folk assume that GAWWWD is self evident, because of faith.

You could easily choose not to accept things that are self evident.

>> No.4781276
File: 3 KB, 126x96, 1283602592268.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4781276

>>4781217

>> No.4781284

I'm not sure why all of you reject faith so much in your life when it is everywhere.

It's the entirety of your economy! LAUGH OUT LOUD

>> No.4781294

>>4781269

God however is not self evident. While a mathematical axiom is. Claiming something to be self evident doesn't make it so.

>>4781284

And our economy is failing hardcore.

>> No.4781298

>>4781284
Its a very standard reaction when the word Faith is so tied with religion, that any mention of it sets off a defense mechanism, even if that doesnt make logical sense. Anyway the word non-religous use for faith is axiom as you said yourself. But non-religious will not want to hear that. We just gotta agree to disagree

>> No.4781306

>>4781269

It does not have to be absolute, whatever perception my brain creates of the world, along with the other billion humans, is all that matters.

Axioms are self evident, aside from any function of my biological brain. Another being with a completely different biological system and perception of the universe would agree on the self evidence of mathematical axioms if we could communicate them to said being.

God is not self evident, regardless of how much someone claims that he is, that doesn't make it so. Faith is not an axiom. It does not require faith to understand and accept the axioms of set theory.

>> No.4781310

>>4781294
Yes, to YOU it is not self evident, but to others it is. It depends on how you define what God is.

For instance, if you define 'everything' as God, then there is nothing to objectively contrast it to and it becomes a matter of faith.

That is why you hit the nail right on the head with this statement: Claiming something to be self evident doesn't make it so.

Your economy is 'failing' for artificial reasons not having to do with faith. In reality, most people have no idea how money actually works which is why whats going on in the economy is happening.

>> No.4781319

>>4781306
You have to have faith in your perceptions. If you didn't believe what your perception is telling you, then there is no reason to believe that the axioms are self-evident. Almost every modern philospher will tell you, perception is not everything, nor is it ever complete.

>> No.4781336

>>4781306
Faith is the acceptance of an axiom. You'll notice the 'logic' of hardheaded religious individuals conducting faith to have the same resolve as your bond to simple axioms in set theory.

The obviousness or associative quanta given to you by your senses have nothing to do with what I'm pointing out. The true or false value of faith lay in superposition which may be why you reject their similarity.

>> No.4781374

>>4780921
*shrug* whatever. What's your point? Life is life, live it or don't.

>> No.4781785

Self evidence is a form of circular reasoning, and therefore bad reasoning. at some point down the path of logic working backwards, a leap of faith must be taken. It's the job of scientists, logicians and philosophers to make that leap as small as possible.

There's no need for the non-religious, including myself, to be defensive about this. A religious leap of faith is massive, where as the leaps that exist in set theory etc are as small as we can possibly make them, and backed up by observation, and is therefore the obvious right choice.

>> No.4782001

>>4781785
Very nice.

>> No.4783690

bump

>> No.4783709

>>4783690
not this thread again...