randomness

[Anonymous No.5379306]

Think about this. Everything that happens in the universe is predetermined since the Big
Bang. Except for what life does. We have the ability to change the course of the universe. If anyone's interested in how I believe everything is determined, just ask.

[Anonymous No.5379315]

>>5379306
You are completely wrong.

Please leave /sci/ and take your hippie shit somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.5379320]

>If anyone's interested in how I
No one is. I won't even ask an ironically why you are such a turd to give you no chance to reply to any question.
p.s. fuck you

[Anonymous No.5379332]

>>5379306
>Except for what life does
why do you think life is random? its the same as any other process in the universe.

[Anonymous No.5379361]

>>5379332
^this
You are just a complex electro chemical reaction caused by the evolution of self replicating molecules.

[Anonymous No.5380808]

Also the universe isn't predetermined thanks to the magic of quantum theory.

[Anonymous No.5380820]

>>5379332
>life is random
implying it was intended

[Anonymous No.5380828]

>>5380808
unless we determine that the apparent probabilistic behavior of particles is actually due to an underlying deterministic behavior

[Anonymous No.5380837]

>>5380828
see
>>5380835

[Anonymous No.5380838]

>>5380828
which is impossible using current methods

[Anonymous No.5380841]

Life is unpredictable. Unpredictability does not necessitate randomness or indeterminism.

[Anonymous No.5380848]

>>5380837
Yah yah, coppohaggan reel, manly words reel, van newman reel, insymbel reel.

Actually no test of the Bell's theorem has been able to distinguish between interpretations of QM such that it can be said whether or not the universe is deterministic, or whether locality, counterfactual-definiteness, or both are unjustified assumptions.

[Anonymous No.5380862]

>>5380848
Bell isn't the only test, you know.

[Anonymous No.5380881]

>Everything that happens in the universe is predetermined since the Big
Bang.
>Except for what life does.

How fucking egotistical are you?

[Anonymous No.5381007]

Have you ever heard of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

[Anonymous No.5381047]

>>5381007
are you retarded? the randomness of quantum mechanics do not come from the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a result of the operators of the wave-function not commuting. the wave function is COMPLETELY DETERMINISTIC. the randomness comes from the collapse of the wave-function to one of its eienvectors when a measurement is made. that is the only non-deterministic part of the theory and has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle other than that when it collapses it puts a limit on the how much information can be kept after the collapse.

[Anonymous No.5381080]

>>5381047
Not him, but what? The refusal of the observables in quantum mechanics to commute with each other is the ultimate source of the differences (and, in this case, totally qualitative contradictions) between classical physics and quantum physics. The nonvanishing commutators of field operators are what makes the usage of uncertain properties, probabilities, and vacuum fluctuations inevitable. This is evident in any quantization scheme.

For example, if the Universe is known to be in the vacuum state, i.e. the eigenstate of the Hamiltonian with the minimum eigenvalue, it will be in the same vacuum state forever. With probability one: for sure. The vacuum state itself "includes" many quantum fluctuations (complicated trajectories contributing to the path integral; or non-trivial wave functionals with nonzero chances to have nonzero velocities), and all of these are a result of the commutator. Otherwise, classically, vacuum energy is zero. Also, the measurement is governed entirely by the Hamiltonian. Objective "collapse" theories have been tossed long ago.

[Anonymous No.5381083]

>>5379332
then what is me? why am I, whomever I am, experiencing my consciousness?

[Anonymous No.5381105]

>>5381083

>then what is me?

Thoughts about other thoughts.

>why am I, whomever I am, experiencing my consciousness?

Because you were born and survived until this moment? I don't understand the question.

[Anonymous No.5381107]

>>5381105
I think he's talking about a soul, or something equally ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.5381128]

>If anyone's interested in how I believe everything is determined, just ask.
This single sentence infuriates me so unimaginably much. The fact you are so fucking conceited you think anyone here would give two shits about what you have to think just appalls me.

[Anonymous No.5381147]

>>5380815
Quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation. Nothing is determined. Everything is a result by the outcome of a dice roll.

[Anonymous No.5381155]

If our thoughts are results of physical reactions, no matter how minute or complex, we're all screwed. No free will, just process. But /sci/ is full of autism so they already believe that. It helps them justify their dull lives of basements and porn. Me, I'm waiting for the proof. But even if we do ever gain that proof, you know, devil's advocate.

tl;dr fuck you

[Anonymous No.5381160]

>>5381155

There can never be "proof". You can always claim that the physical is being controlled by magical forces. Don't worry, no one is going to take your delusions away from you.

[Anonymous No.5381171]

>>5381155
Fuck you and fuck your panda

[Anonymous No.5381207]

>>5381155
"HURR DURR PEOPLE ARE STUPID FOR NOT BELIEVING MAGIC"
"EVEN IF THERE WERE PROOF MAGIC ISN'T REAL Y'KNOW I'D STILL BELIEVE."
cool.

[Anonymous No.5381291]

>>5381155
You're thoughts are just physical reactions.
Be they chemical or electrical.

Don't believe me? Why not put it to the test and put a stop to all those nasty chemicals and firing neurons.

There would be many ways to go about it but I recommend shooting yourself in the head. Fast easy and efficient.

[Anonymous No.5381307]

>I have no choice
>I will choose to kill myself because I have no choice

[Anonymous No.5381319]

Nothing is predetermined because everything is entirely random. It would mean that nothing can be truly determined, ever.

[Anonymous No.5381322]

>>5381291

This is not a valid statement, and obviously that is not a valid test.

There are many aspects of mind, thought, and consciousness that are not explained by the physical and chemical parts yet.
There is plenty of reason to think there is more to it all.

[Anonymous No.5381325]

How is life not also determined?

[Anonymous No.5381330]

>>5379306
>Except for what life does.
This is what life really belives.

[Anonymous No.5381332]

>>5381325

OP is saying that since life has something beyond mere chemical and physical reaction,
its activities can change the universe.

OP is not wrong, but most scientists do not assume there is something beyond all the material reactions.
Of course, most scientists don't have to consider that.

I hesitate to suggest just how little that effect could be.

[Anonymous No.5381334]

>>5381330
Sure we do.
It is comforting for many to think that our thoughts and actions are our own, and that they make a difference in our lives.

Since science can say little more than "we don't see how" we don't have much reason to argue.

[Anonymous No.5381343]

>>5381332
>life has something beyond mere chemical and physical reaction

wat

[Anonymous No.5381356]

>>5381155

how is not having free will mean we're screwed? Believing in free will is just for people that want to believe we're special snowflakes.

[Anonymous No.5381359]

>>5381307

The choices you make are determined.

[Anonymous No.5381380]

>>5381291
The fallacy is that you correlate your consciousness as deterministic with the physical processes of your brain, which you can only observe. How do you know a gun blast through your head would guarantee a stop to your consciousness and observance? How do you know you would not carry on somewhere else, correlating other physical processes with your continuous thoughts? Is that what life perhaps is?

[Anonymous No.5381396]

Fuck everyone in this thread. Fuck OP. Fuck religionfags. Fuck pseudointellectuals. Fuck trolls. Fuck. Fuck you.

Define determinism.
Define causality.
Show us your definition of time/space/matter.
Define consciousness and for bonus points make it have a neuroscientific background.
You can't? Oh wait you're going to quote popsci? Go away normal people.

[Anonymous No.5381403]

>>5381396
Most of us have pretty well-established definitions on all this stuff here. We just aren't retarded, so we don't need to say them blatantly. And we don't define things, stupid puremathfag. The universe is the well of definition. We only follow it.

[Anonymous No.5381404]

>>5381403
I'm open to anyone that speaks of their interpretations of time, space and all that is within. Just remember that what professors teach now is not necessarily correct at all.

[Anonymous No.5381410]

>>5381380

There are other fallacies:
people assume that since specific mental activities stimulate specific regions of the brain and give specific waveforms, those are where thoughts happen.
But the correlation is weak; people with damaged brains often demonstrate those same waveforms (and describe the same thoughts) from other regions.

Likewise, portions of the brain traditionally coordinating limb movements, or processing sensation.

Entirely internal events are even less specifically located.

[Anonymous No.5381411]

>>5381404
And that's why the only true source of knowledge is our own reasoning, not blindly following what someone says.

[Anonymous No.5381422]

>>5381404
What the hell are you talking about? Professors?
Is that you excuse for being ignorant of simple concepts like causality?

[Anonymous No.5381423]

>>5381411
Yes but like Connor Macleod there can be only one (correct interpretation).

[Anonymous No.5381426]

>>5381422
Yes, university professors and people of stature that propose a nice interesting idea and everyone eats it up but ultimately it is all horseshit. Incompetence breeds ignorance.

[Anonymous No.5381428]

>>5381423
Yes, that is a universally stated axiom for our logic. Stated another way, there are only right and wrong statements, and all correct statements encompass a correct interpretation.

[Anonymous No.5381446]

>>5381422
Causality is not determinism though. Just make the forces acting on something a random variable and voila...causality and no possibility of ever knowing what will happen next.

[Anonymous No.5381449]

>>5381426
You fucked up a perfectly good thread

Thanks!

[Anonymous No.5381450]

>>5381426
You are dumber than /pol/

[Anonymous No.5381454]

>>5379306
>Except for what life does

Nope.
It is perfectly credible to think the universe is predetermined.

What isn't credible is your bullshit "except life" nonsense. There is absolulty nothing to back up that kinda of faggotry. It is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5381458]

>>5381449
Good. This thread is reposted every day.
>>5381450
abloobloo I no understand what the nasty man say so I call him dumb!
>>5381446
We can't predict the future because measuring something interferes with the result but that doesn't mean that the future isn't already decided.

[Anonymous No.5381456]

>>5379306
do you anything about quantum mechanics? fag

[Anonymous No.5381461]

>>5381458
>We can't predict the future because measuring something interferes with the result but that doesn't mean that the future isn't already decided.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5381468]

>>5381458
>we can't predict the future
>we can't predict
>we can't
>we

Why the fuck do you equate universal determanism with "humans" ability to predict shit? Why kinda retarded bullshit is that?

Do you also think electricity is magic because "you" don't understand it? Do you have some sort of mental imparment?

Our ability to predict shit and universal determinsim are need not be positively correlated concepts. You are confusing concepts are drawing shitty conclusions kid. Read a book goddamit!

[Anonymous No.5381474]

>>5381468

What do you mean magic? Electricity is just a phenomenon of things moving based on non-contact forces.

[Anonymous No.5381482]

>>5381468
>Our ability to predict shit and universal determinsim are need not be positively correlated concepts
no you read a book. DETERMINISM BY CURRENT DEFINITION IS THE ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FUTURE. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CAUSALITY the idea that everything already exists. There is a very big difference in quantum mechanics because it is not by definition deterministic since you cannot predict the future. One branch of QM, the one most accepted today, says that everything is random. This is in my opinion incorrect. Everything already exists. Causality without determinism (although there may be ways to predict the future without interfering with the result that hasn't been looked at yet).

>>5381461
hohoho let me laugh with you chuckie

[Anonymous No.5381486]

>>5381474
>can't into basic analogy

How fucking old are you?

The point was: A system being predetermined, and our ability to actually understand and follow that predetermination, are two different concepts.

When physicists speak of predetermination, they aren't speaking of "human understading", they are speaking of the abstract predetermination, which may or may not exist, regardless of shitty human understanding.

[Anonymous No.5381488]

>>5381482
Causality is the fact that an event can only have consequences on other events inside it's cone of light, you uneducated little shit.

[Anonymous No.5381494]

>>5381488
INSIDE IT HAS CONE OF LIGHT?
IT HAS?
contractions motherfucker, do you use it?

Causality means cause and effect. Predeterminism. Determinism is different.

[Anonymous No.5381495]

>>5381482
>forgets the word "universal"

Locally QM systems may not be determanistic, and probably can never be, due to all the Bells inqualities and shit. No local infomation will change that.

However, it is well understood and known that globally it is determanistic. Globally, ie, univerally, shit is determanstic. With "global varibles", and taking into account every fucking thing, the universe does behave as one huge clock. Determanism!

Again, this goes to the heart of your faggotry. It is known that the universe (in its entirety) is determanistic, however it is impossible for humans to ever know the predetermination.

It is like basic mathmatics and logics, you can often prove the existance of "something", without actually knowing much about the "something". You know basic math and logics, right?

[Anonymous No.5381498]

>>5381488
Actually, causality is more easily understood through Newton's First Law, given a few adjustments. On object will not move unless something else gives a value of causation on it. This value we commonly call a force, and it is inherently random, and thus the universe is inherently indeterminate.

[Anonymous No.5381501]

>>5381495

I stopped reading after "determanistic"

[Anonymous No.5381506]

>>5381498
>using physics from the 1600's
>as if nothing has happened in the last 400 years

WTF? Do you know how fucking stupid you sound?

Please don't confuse your shitty highschool physics as some sort of "great physics knowledge". All you have is a babbies understanding. The physics notions you have are anedotal and whimsical at best, only used to demonstrate the most basic of childish concepts. They have no validity.

[Anonymous No.5381509]

>>5381506

Lol...I said with a few adjustments. Obviously Newton's laws have some inaddressed issues when it comes to full physics. But my argument isn't wrong.

[Anonymous No.5381513]

>>5381501
OHH NO!
GRAMMER NAZI!

[Anonymous No.5381515]

>>5381495
\thread

[Anonymous No.5381516]

>>5381513
>spelling mistake
>grammar (not grammer)

[Anonymous No.5381517]

>>5381495

Listen faggot and listen good. You are misinterpreting the information I have laid out before you. I am agreeing with you. You embody /sci/. Arguing over nothing.

[Anonymous No.5381539]

>>5381517
You don't know what causality is, you are using the word in a way no one else is.

[Anonymous No.5381546]

>>5381539
That's semantology for you.