[ 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: 21 KB, 555x250, Norton's Dome.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9393064 No.9393064 [Reply] [Original]

Stop believing in determinism.

>> No.9393089

the position of that ball in 1 second will be 100% determined by the forces acting on it.

>> No.9393091

macroscopic bodies are 100% deterministic

>> No.9393197

didn't know norton's dome was a thing and it's retarded
if the ball is sitting on the point and aligned perfectly without friction or any external forces, why the fuck would it move

>> No.9393208

>>9393197
Exactly. This state is called metastable and the ball won't move since x and y parts from forces from every direction cancel each other out leaving only z part which is blocked so the ball cannot move downwards.

>> No.9393213

The very fact that matter exists is proof of non-determinism
If there was perfect symmetry, after the "big bang" there would have been exactly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter
There are no known accumulations of anti-matter in the observable universe, so it's sound to conclude that charge parity was violated spontaneously

>> No.9393259

>>9393064
are there any good books on the subject? I'm interested more in the philosophical side, since I'm a math major with less of a quantum physics background.

>> No.9393384

>>9393213

This doesn't necessarily imply no determinism. What makes you believe the universe "started" in perfect equilibrium?

It's really just aesthetic arguments at this point, and the most aesthetic and symmetric state is for nothing to exist at all.

>> No.9393496

>>9393197
>>9393208
Let me guess: Neither of you even looked at the equations. The point is that these equations have multiple solutions (including non-stationary ones) which are consistent with the laws of mechanics.

>> No.9393504

>>9393208

but with the uncertainty principle spontaneous symmetry braking becomes a viable mechanism in quantum systems.

The "ball" is not confined to the vertex if it has zero momentum. If it has non-zero momentum, it will not stay on the vertex either. Thus it will fall.

>> No.9393602

>>9393213
everything in your post is completely irrelevant to determinism

>> No.9395227

>>9393496
Universe doesn't run on math.

>> No.9395625

>>9395227
I said consistent with *the laws of mechanics* (i.e. classical Newtonian mechanics). I didn't say those laws describe reality.

>> No.9397182

Is nondeterminism provable/ falsifiable ?

>> No.9397276

>>9397182
It's already been proven, determinism is an outdated concept.

>> No.9397892

Since the beginning of the universe it was predestined that you would be this fucking stupid
Or are you gonna say "my theory is that it is not inherit that I am stupid and instead I got this way because if my own (lack of) merit"

>> No.9397910
File: 37 KB, 800x450, (you).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9397910

>>9397892

>> No.9398305

>>9393213
There was no big bang chump. The universe is infinitely old.

>> No.9398447

>>9397276
This is just retarded nonsense. You must bei a physicist, maybe you should take part in discussion about Bohm mechanics e.g.

>> No.9398755

>>9398447
one cause, multiple possible effects. that's how the universe is tuned.

>> No.9398771

>>9393064
every time i open a gif, even a informational one from wikipedia, i fear a jumpscare ;;

>> No.9398783

>>9397182
If you build a spherical detector around a source of radiation, and you use the amount of radiation that falls on a given part of that sphere to generate numbers, and you then take those numbers and use them to determine how another physical system works or functions, then that system is imposdible to predict deterministically.

>> No.9398791

So if Wolfram is right than determinism isn't a tenable position because their literally can't be a godlike position where you can predict all results.

>> No.9398801

>>9398791
doesn't refute determinism

>> No.9398809

>>9398801
Yes, you literally can't formulate determinism. That is a refutation. Determinism can't be logically set up as a possibility.

>> No.9398844

The particle is in a state of unstable equilibrium at the top of the dome until some outside force acts upon on it in one direction or the other and it transitions to a new equilibrium.

The path of the particle can be exactly predicted based on the nature of the force exerted on it since the dome and particle or idealized.

If you're looking to disprove determinism, focus on chaos theory and make the starting conditions more complicated next time, pleb.

>> No.9398845

>>9398844
^dome and particle are idealized*

Need to work on my multitasking ability.

>> No.9398856

>>9398809
Everything that happens is determined by everything that has already happened.
Done. Whether you can predict everything perfectly is irrelevant.

>> No.9398860

>>9398856
>Everything that happens is determined by everything that has already happened.
>Done.
neck yourself

>> No.9398864

>>9398860
Sorry but my suicide isn't determined by the current universe configuration

>> No.9398865

>>9393197

>Norton shows that there are two classes of mathematical solutions to the system under Newtonian physics.
>In the first, the particle stays sitting at the apex of the dome forever.
>In the second, the particle sits at the apex of the dome for a while, and then after an arbitrary period of time starts to slide down the dome in an arbitrary direction. The apparent paradox in this second case is that this would seem to occur for no discernible reason, and without any radial force being exerted on it by any other entity, apparently contrary to both physical intuition and normal intuitive concepts of cause and effect, yet the motion is still entirely consistent with the mathematics of Newton's laws of motion.

>> No.9398869

>>9398860

not true because everything hasn't happened yet desu

>> No.9398873

>>9398865
Newton's laws aren't perfect

>> No.9398880

>>9393064
No becuase then I would have to take responsibility for my shortcomings.

>> No.9398885

>>9398880
no it's the opposite, if you don't believe in determinism "God wills it" and you can get away with anything

>> No.9398891
File: 69 KB, 645x729, e09.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9398891

>>9398885
>doesn't believe in determinism
>things are determined by gods will

why are atheists such massive brainlets

>> No.9398932

>>9398856
>>9398885
one cause, multiple effects, god has nothing to do with anything you tiny brain

>> No.9398944

schroodingers cat is an example of macroscopic nondeterminism

>> No.9399018

>>9398869
>>9398864
No, neither of you can think abstractly, which is annoying. You are equivocating because you get confused when two things have the same name. I'll say this once: Just because past events determine future events does not mean determinism is true. Determinism requires that specific events are bound to happen. In your statement, this is necessary. Just because X happened because of Y does not mean that X had to happen because of Y. So, yes, neck yourselves. You are probably CS guys.

>> No.9399029

>>9399018
>>9398869
>>9398864
This was rude. I am in a bad mood. Philosophical Determinism really should be called Predeterminism. It means that all future events are set and can't be changed. The past simply determining the future does not encompass this. The everyday word "determine" carries a less specific and charged meaning that the philosophical one.

>> No.9399113

>>9393213
>determinism = perfectly symmetric universe
kys brainlet

>> No.9400307

>>9393496
Thank you for this response. I think they would have been less confused with a 2d example. In 3D people think it's just a dome.

>> No.9400782
File: 955 B, 371x89, Laraudogoitia Supertask.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9400782

STOP believing in determinism

>> No.9401218
File: 48 KB, 737x453, 1514177493730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9401218

>this triggers the determinist

>> No.9401246

>>9401218
Statistics disprove determinism? Not in the real world, if you flip a coin the outcome can only be predicted by the laws of nature NOT by statistics. And the laws of nature are set in stone and that's why they are predetermined. In fact, it wouldn't even matter if there are multiple choices to the universe because those choices will always go the same way no matter whether we like it or not. You can never chance time, to assume that determinism is wrong is to assume that if you would go back in time things would change, when in reality you were always going to go back in the and it had the exact same effect on the timeline that you lived in before. Everything is predetermined, get over it.

>> No.9401247

>>9401246
>implying 19th century understanding of physics

>> No.9401251

>>9398791
Sort of true, but if you could see every variable in the universe you could indeed predict everything that will ever be. And the fact that we can't see it gives us the drive to improve technology and understanding because we strive for order, but when we run out of chaos humans will not be needed.

>> No.9401255

>>9401247
even quantum stuff is pretty deterministic
you never see quantum effects on macroscopic scales, it's pretty limited in it's not non-deterministic behavior, which is random anyway (not like a purposeful thing)

>> No.9401259

>>9401255
>purposeful thing
what the fuck are you even implying here? i suggest you go back to whatever brainlet board you crawled out of

>> No.9401269

>>9401247
Ugh I can guarantee to you that the "randomness" in todays physics will all be disproven, to deny determinism is simply wishful thinking, and that sort of thinking is not the kind you want to dictate your thinking. And as I've stated if the universe is random it will still only go one way, IT LITERALLY CAN ONLY GO ONE WAY. The multiverse theory is essentially based on wishful thinking. Once one thing happens, only one other thing can happen, and only one other thing can happen after that etc.

I would like if you could disprove what I've said because I would like that the wishful thinking was true because it gives us hope but I don't believe in it currently.

>> No.9401299

>>9401269
>wishful thinking
what wishful thinking? what would i gain from a bit of randomness here and there? it probably means that even if we became technological god we wouldn't be able to exactly predict everything that'll come (and possibly that was). if anything determinism is a much more cozy and comforting idea, it seems that some people are particularly reassured at a personal level by the idea that "IT LITERALLY CAN ONLY GO ONE WAY"
>multiverse theory
what does the multiverse have to do with this exactly? unless you're mixing it up with the many worlds interpretation (which by the way is a deterministic interpretation of quantum physics)
>Once one thing happens, only one other thing can happen, and only one other thing can happen after that etc.
sounds like wishful thinking

>I would like that the wishful thinking was true
again i don't see where the wishful thinking is, unless you're the same brainlet that earlier implied randomness=free will in that case you should get your terms and definition in order

>> No.9401396

>>9393496
>>9393064
why don't you try this experiment yourself brainlet

>> No.9401903

>>9401299
Determinism isn't comfortable, it means that if youhave a horrible life you will always have had it. Meanwhile if the universe had many different pathways(choices) your suffering might not exist somewhere else which is comforting.

>> No.9402042

randomness means determinism is false, sure

but who cares? the point of determinism is just the practical value of analyzing phenomena within the cause-effect framework.

>do you believe in free will or determinism? science says quantum mechanics violate determinism
oh so we should assume that quantum mechanics follow the fancy of human choices then? thats where the free will intervenes on the mechanical?

while we're on this topic though, anybody want to explain to me some of whats going on with Bell's Theorems?

>> No.9402054

>>9401903
Your English is uncomfortable, why you keep mentioning choices and many worlds? are you retarded?

>> No.9402059

>>9402042
>free will or determinism
the counterpart to determinism isn't free will, and randomness doesn't imply free will. what a board of illiterate brainlets

>> No.9402068

>>9393064
>posting philosophical questions on /sci/

Get out. Even if there are global hidden variables and determinism holds to be true hidden variable theories and classical quantum theories have the same predictive power. Which means you're discussing philosophy reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>> No.9402095

>>9401269
>Once one thing happens, only one other thing can happen, and only one other thing can happen after that etc.
This is literally what the OP post is about; that one event can have MULTIPLE possible actions and it is not predetermined and it's not possible to predict.
Just because all causes have an effect does not mean all causes have one specific effect.

>> No.9402096

>>9402068
is philosophy not science? you DO know what Ph.D stands for, right anon?

>> No.9402098

>>9402096
Philosophy is not science, science is a philosophy

>> No.9402103

>>9402096
>Ph.D

Anglos get out. Something you can't base on or decide with empirical data or a theoretical model doesn't belong in science.

>> No.9403048

>>9402095
Just because it's impossible to predict, doesn't mean it's not going to happen anon

>> No.9403061

>>9393091
So where is the border between macro and micro?

>> No.9403167

>>9403048
What?

>> No.9403179

>>9398791
Unless you are the God choosing the outcome. Its like when someone needs a random number and asks you to pick between 1 and 10 for them. Thats only random to them, not to you.

>> No.9404382

>>9393091

>moving the goalposts with an abritrary macro/micro demarcation

As deluded as a creationist trying to handwave observed evolution as "micro" evolution, which is somehow different from macro-evolution despite being exactly the same.

>> No.9404385

>>9402042

>free will

Think again brainlet:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/

>> No.9404567

>>9403048
No the point isn't that it's impossible to predict due to lack of precision in prediction ability, but that's it's impossible to predict because it's simply not determined beforehand.

>> No.9404585

>>9393091

>what newtards actually believe

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/22/12342.full

>> No.9404613

>>9401218
Lol.
That's why our financial system crashed in 2007, because niggers like you believed they could minimize risk assuming that some events are independent.

Neck yourself

>> No.9404617

>>9401903
Determinism doesn't negate free will, that's why I can call you a nigger when you say stupid shit you could've avoided

>> No.9404689
File: 126 KB, 960x804, 59P5c6X.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9404689

>>9398873
/thread

>> No.9404698

>>9393064
But why would it move?

>> No.9404700

>>9393496
Why does it matter that there is a non-stationary solution, if it won't ever happen?

>> No.9404708

>>9404700
this is a good point
in projectile motion equations there's always a solution in negative time, which is impossible

>> No.9405796

>>9402095
One event has multiple possible outcomes that can possibly occur. However only one will occur. Therefore, there was only one possible outcome.

>> No.9405799

>>9393064
Stop determining what I believe in.

Having said that, I choose not to believe in determinism. Get it!? OHO!

No but really, I don't believe in determinism.

>> No.9405805

>>9404617
How does free will exist? Whether the universe is deterministic, probabilistic, or random, there is still no free will as is commonly understood/ believed.

>> No.9405811

>>9405796
You need to learn how to logic.

>> No.9405816

>>9405811
There is only one future. Just because it is impossible to predict before the fact with our current understanding of physics does not change that fact.

>> No.9405819

>>9405805
Thank you for enlightening us, robot.

>> No.9405823

>>9405819
It was merely my destiny

>> No.9405828

>>9405796
No, that does not mean that "there was only one outcome" it means that out of the few it was randomly selected for one. There is no predetermined one out of the few, it's completely random. God doesn't step in and choose the one.

>> No.9405839

>>9405828
There are multiple possible ones that we cannot predict which one will happen. But only one does and forever that is the one that did. We can't go back in time and run it again. Therefore, whichever one happened was the only one that could. The inability to predict before the fact changes nothing.

>> No.9405844

>>9405816
You're misunderstanding the issue.

>> No.9405848

>>9405844
I'm hit overstanding the issue! I'm batting 100.

>> No.9405853

>>9405844
Pretty sure you are. There is only one possible deterministic future. Does not really matter what some idealized physics math problem says when we have anything but a complete understanding of physics. Prediction does not matter, there is only one, immutable future.

>> No.9405854

>>9405839
>that we cannot predict which one will happen.
No that's not it, it's about us being incapable of predicting the outcome, don't assume people are that retarded.
>But only one does and forever that is the one that did.
As you can tell by the tense you used, you're talking about the past.
> We can't go back in time and run it again.Therefore, whichever one happened was the only one that could.
You're failing at logic hard, it's even worse than cogito ergo sum therefore god exists
>The inability to predict before the fact changes nothing.
You're inability to understand or be informed about the topic doesn't change reality

>> No.9405855

>>9405853
Probably.

Oho, oho. Ho hoho. HO! Get it? PROBably? Probabalistically? As in probability? WooT!

>> No.9405856

>>9405853
>there is only one, immutable future.
Prove it

>> No.9405859

>>9405856
I just did.

>> No.9405864

>>9405859
This fag isn't me
>>9405856
You can trace back every single thing that has happened to different causes. Those causes themselves were created by precedent causes. There is only one possible outcome from each cause, what ever the outcome that occurs. If any others were possible, they would have happened instead. If you flip a coin, either heads or tails are possible. However, it cannot be both, and only one will occur. Because only one can occur, only one will occur. But if you could recreate every incomprehensible variable that determined whether the coin landed on heads or tails, it would occur again.

>> No.9405868

>>9405864
>This fag isn't me

It's true, it's true.

>> No.9405874

>>9405868
KYS. /sci/ IDs when

>> No.9405897

>>9405864
>There is only one possible outcome from each cause, what ever the outcome that occurs.
Prove this
>If any others were possible, they would have happened instead.
And this
>But if you could recreate every incomprehensible variable that determined whether the coin landed on heads or tails, it would occur again.
This is a big one

>> No.9406350

our math just isn't good enough to figure it out. everything is deterministic.

>> No.9406372
File: 1.29 MB, 332x440, 1514590249680.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9406372

>>9406350
>people still not understanding how hidden variables work
>in the year 2018 Common Era

>> No.9406390

>>9398865
> starts to slide down the dome without any radial force
>the motion is still entirely consistent with the mathematics of Newton's laws of motion.
what the fuck, no it isn't. The ball is not going to move. If it moves it's because it isn't fully centred and the gravity/reaction force has a small radial component. Who came up with this shit lmao.

>> No.9406416
File: 361 KB, 594x286, reversed_complete.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9406416

>In this last case, we have ended up with the mass momentarily at rest at the one force free point on the dome, the one point where, if it is at rest, the mass can (but need not) remain at rest. So let us imagine that it does remain at rest once it arrives. We now have a trajectory in which the mass rises up to the apex, halts there and remains there at rest for any arbitrary time period we care to nominate.

>> No.9406615

>>9406372
bell is a hack hidden variables explains it all we're just thinking about it the wrong way. Eventually someone will come along like isaac newton and completely BTFO all of us and prove us wrong.

>> No.9406635

>>9398305
This. It's a fractal structure that is infinite in time and space.

>> No.9406703

>>9405864

You are talking about causality, but that is only a piece of the journey. Causality brings up a contradiction and until you have resolved it, in some manner, then you really have no basis for determinism or not. Causality implies first causes, or non-caused effects, prime-movers, monads, or the like.

With any of those kind of solutions, at a fundamental level, causality is a contingent condition - merely selected, albeit unconditionally and wholly so by all appearances.

Some other resolutions:
Causality is present only as a framework of our minds.
God's Will.
"Divine Law" - As opposed to god's will. If there was such a creator god this law would so bind it as well. Outside of being wildly accommodating to theology, this one can meld with scientific view. We merely have sufficient energy conforming to some set of laws. Instead of a prime-mover, it is more of a prime-limiter, but it is not as if that is really a distinction.

>> No.9406850

>>9406615
Is this bait?

>> No.9408475
File: 5 KB, 542x176, i_dont_even_study_physics.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9408475

>>9393064

>> No.9408650

>>9393064
>believing in "probabilistic" quantum hodge-podge caused by numerical errors

>> No.9408962

>>9403061
Your disck's size

>> No.9409168

Yes, once you ruled out every possibility of intervvention..

Are you dumb?

First thing is to reliaze how important infinite, and how important not enought to compute with sets are.

>> No.9410187

>>9408475
This.

>> No.9410218

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. - Einstein

>> No.9410225

>>9410218
Einstein was wrong - Me

>> No.9410237
File: 21 KB, 349x421, einstime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9410237

>>9410225
Say that to my face motherfucker and not online

>> No.9411047

What the fuck is going on in this thread? I swear 90% of people reply to threads after just reading the OP and posting the first thing that pops into their head.

Does anyone have any legitimate reason why Norton's dome is wrong? None of the reasons posted here make any sense.

>> No.9411490

>>9410237
I don't speak with brains in jars

>> No.9411502
File: 8 KB, 252x276, 1469321035947.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9411502

>>9399018
>Just because X logically implies Y doesn't mean that X always logically implies Y
Do these meaningless word games make you feel smart, big guy?

>> No.9411513

>>9411502
>strawman
>anime

>> No.9411519
File: 29 KB, 260x257, void.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9411519

>>9411513
>not liking anime
chibi-brain detected

>> No.9411752

>>9401299
Nondeterminism is also comforting because in such a universe, morality matters and justice can be upheld. If we have no free will, as in a determined universe, then morality has no meaning and there is nothing we can do to stop suffering.

>> No.9412220

>>9411752
Your post is pure retardation

>> No.9412291

>>9411047
None of them do, they're just scared of the possibility of non-determinism.