/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8402245]

What's your power level /sci/ ?

[Anonymous No.8402254]

>>8402245
~10
I don't have an opinion on most of these. They're possible.

The only one I went with was the universe being simulated. I'm pretty biased towards the notion that the appearance of all of this is being generated by some sort of external machinery, and that the means for the universe to be what it is and do what it does, is not self contained nor standalone.

[Anonymous No.8402260]

>>8402245
That should be free will doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.8402262]

>>8402254
Just considering the possibility of the ones will add to your points. Your score will probably be higher.

[Anonymous No.8402265]

>>8402262
That doesn't make sense. I don't think in binary terms.

[Anonymous No.8402268]

>>8402260
/sci/ plebs will never understand, don't bother.

[Anonymous No.8402272]

>>8402245
0

[Anonymous No.8402278]

>>8402245
Brainlet.

What is wrong with white holes or multiple universes exist for them to be on that list.

[Anonymous No.8402283]

>>8402265
considering the possibility is a binary concept. how much you consider it can vary but doesn't effect the points.

[Anonymous No.8402284]

>>8402245
The emdrive does work. Have you not been keeping up with the latest news? Publication is due in december. A moratorium was issued for the advanced propulsion workshop in estes park because the results are apparently "big".

[Anonymous No.8402291]

>>8402283
Then 130. No matter how improbable, nothing ever reaches outright certainty.

[Anonymous No.8402298]

>>8402245
>Quantum randomness is real
The theory can only predict probabilities and mean values for repeated experiments, how is it that quantum randomness is not real? I'd like to believe it isn't, but how does someone argue with that? Le hidden deterministic variables? Many other paradoxes and experiments shows that quantum mechanics theories cannot be local and real.

[Anonymous No.8402308]

free will exists and quantum randomness exists

>muh locality
FUCK off

[Anonymous No.8402312]

>>8402308
>FUCK off
I can't help but laugh at your psychological discomfort.
>muh free will
>muh capacity to make choices rather than simply experience series of mechanical steps involved in their making
hahahahahahaha

[Anonymous No.8402320]

>>8402312
>muh lack of understanding of what "muh" is.
>muh free will means uncaused cause.

[Anonymous No.8402326]

>>8402312
His opinion is consistent though. One thing is for sure: quantum randomness could not be falsified by now. In fact many other experiments shows that the theory can't be realistic, hence, cannot agree with your opinion.

[Anonymous No.8402330]

>>8402320
Free will in the context of neuroscience is too multifaceted to readily give a general opinion. Though I would say I don't at all buy the inane notion that consciousness is merely a watcher, and do think its overall I/O is spread across a wide spectrum even if its individual parts are decentralized and performing very simple operations constantly. Regardless, it clearly has director-like qualities, it is likely not merely an observer.

[Anonymous No.8402338]

>>8402326
Nah, I'm apt to think the universe is ultimately fed by something deterministic. Even if it itself isn't.

Though it's all fairly irrelevant anyway. Our universe might not even support the existence of a machine that could approximate the logic something "external" operates on, nor the means to come up with ideas.

[Anonymous No.8402344]

>>8402330
Free will is not a context of neurosciences.

>>8402312
This comment sure sounds like an opinion and an affirmation to me.

>Though I would say I don't at all buy the inane notion that consciousness is merely a watcher, and do think its overall I/O is spread across a wide spectrum even if its individual parts are decentralized and performing very simple operations constantly. Regardless, it clearly has director-like qualities, it is likely not merely an observer.

A lot of hot garbage for two sentences.

[Anonymous No.8402354]

>>8402344
>Free will is not a context of neurosciences.
Then refer to my original statement.

>A lot of hot garbage for two sentences.
"I see nothing, therefore, there is nothing to be seen."
Not always the best assumption. Even something of a very high SNR will look like gibberish without a suitable decoder. Perhaps that's my fault, but I'm inclined to think the deficit lies more with you.

[Anonymous No.8402360]

I don't get the dilema about free will. I mean, you make choices, right? Then what does it matter if you were going to make that choice all along or not?

It's like the discussion about consciousness, just making up something and arguing wether it exists or not

[Anonymous No.8402389]

>>8402354
I am being trolled. Is this a copy pasta that I am not aware of?

> I don't at all buy the inane notion that consciousness is merely a watcher
I mean it's stupid and vague statement, but I can't tell if is stupid enough that it would be trolling.

>and do think its overall I/O is spread across a wide spectrum
Is this suppose to be poetic? Are you equating the term I/O to consciousness?

>even if its individual parts are decentralized and performing very simple operations constantly.
This literally sounds like disorganized speech of schizophrenic.

> it clearly has director-like qualities, it is likely not merely an observer.
What has director like qualities?

[Anonymous No.8402431]

>>8402389
I think you just can't find your way out of a paper bag.

> it's stupid and vague statement
If that's the way it is for you, then this is the part where you ask questions, not attempt to give answers.

>Are you equating the term I/O to consciousness?
I've defined consciousness as an abstract macro construct. This allows its underlying structure to be easily re-arranged without compromising its function in the overall communication. If consciousness is treated as a thing (which implicitly I'm treating as mechanical), then it can be said to have I/O. It itself can be viewed simply as part of a greater I/O, but you can view it as a thing that "has" I/O. That's the great thing about reductionism, scale and objects are arbitrary. And it works. Over and over, it works.

>This literally sounds like disorganized speech of schizophrenic.
I think you're just dumb, tb, qh.

>What has director like qualities?
Consciousness.

[Anonymous No.8402442]

>>8402245

Quite a few of those are plausible

[Anonymous No.8402452]

Of course we have free will.

[Anonymous No.8402468]

I got 15 cause apparently something everybody believes in (free will) exists

[Anonymous No.8402480]

>>8402360
I agree 100%. Everyone who makes a big deal over free will doesn't understand it.

[Anonymous No.8402501]

FTL communication is the only one that is actually true thanks to quantum entanglement

[Anonymous No.8402505]

>>8402501
No it isnt

[Anonymous No.8402577]

>>8402442
Exactly, this seems to be more like a test on whether or not an individual is susceptible to peer pressure through negative association.

[Anonymous No.8402601]

>>8402360
>>8402480
Finally some other compatibilists on /sci/, funny that I never saw many in the free will threads.

[Anonymous No.8402656]

>>8402245
20. Heat death and free will.

[Anonymous No.8403108]

>>8402245
There is literally no way to tell if any of these are possible or not.

[Anonymous No.8403123]

if free will ain't real why i made this choice? kek y'all retarded

[Anonymous No.8403130]

>>8402245
dunno yet, dunno yet, dunno yet,
dunno yet, dunno yet, dunno yet,
dunno yet, dunno yet, dunno yet,
dunno yet, dunno yet, dunno yet,
I could be anywhere between 0 and 130.
for reference; OP is 290

[Anonymous No.8403197]

>>8402291
>No matter how improbable, nothing ever reaches outright certainty.
are you sure?

[Anonymous No.8403278]

>>8402505
>what is quantum encryption

[Anonymous No.8403296]

>>8402245
Heat death and quantum randomness. 15

[Anonymous No.8403302]

>>8402268
Why are you even here if you're not a /sci/co?

[Anonymous No.8403778]

>>8402260
The existence of nonexistence of free will is irrelevant. Specificly if free will does not exist, nothing is your or anyone's fault and you couldn't change it if you wanted.

[Anonymous No.8403782]

>>8403778
Yup. Can't complain when we put you in jail after you fuck up. It's not our fault we put you in jail we have no free will. So what's your point exactly

[Anonymous No.8403816]

>>8402245
None of these are manifest contradictions; id est "A married bachelor," so I would say all are possible however remote. Nothing there is "absolutely zero percentage chance of being impossible."
Also, OP = Fag.

[Anonymous No.8404297]

>>8402278
White holes don't make sense, their wild spread probably comes from normies thinking black holes are actually holes that suck matter into another dimesion

[Anonymous No.8404439]

>>8402254
I understand this perspective, but it has a major issue: it begs the question, where did our parent universe come from, and whence did it get its laws? Is it simulated too? If so, it simply begs the same question again. No questions are actually rightfully answered.

[Anonymous No.8404499]

>>8402245
What if I think free will doesn't exist in the big picture because of parallel dimensions, but in a practical sense it does exist. Am I 15, 30 or do I get some special autism combo bonus.

[Anonymous No.8404643]

>>8402245
(Exists assuming the rest aren't true)
>Heat Death

(probably exists)
>Simulated universe


(may or may not exist)
>Quantum Randomness
>Free Will

(Only As Thought Experiments)
>Quantum Parallel Dimensions
>Multiple Universes Exist
>Backwards Time Travel
>Worm Holes

(probably doesn't exist)
>Em Drive
>FTL Travel
>FTL Communication
>White holes