/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9771716]

Wait, if the universe is deterministic and the future is set to happen in a certain way... Who or what set it into place? It can't just "determine itself"; someone or something had to set the future to happen in a certain way.

[Anonymous No.9771724]

>>9771716
Nobody 'set' the game. The big bang threw the dice and the results of the game are already known.

[Anonymous No.9771733]

>>9771716
>universe is deterministic
>i know this
>i have no choice but to think and say this but i know this

[Anonymous No.9771791]

It is not a who. It is a how

[Anonymous No.9771872]

>>9771716
>nothing exists outside of the determined
>when there is nothing yet determined, something that can only be determined must have created the determined despite the impossibility of it existing (being a determined thing)
you can't actually apply logic or material things to what occurred or was before those things, actually, there is no 'before'. you need context, that is only knowable even in a very limited degree, through reverse-engineering the universe. no philosophical meanderings will do anything for the topic.

[Anonymous No.9771878]

>>9771716
IF the universe is deterministic and
IF the future is set to happen a certain way...

Good. You laid your assumptions out right up front.
That's how it should be done.
Just bear in mind that they are ONLY assumptions.

[Anonymous No.9771893]

>>9771716
Determinism leads to an infinite regression, it's illogical.

[Anonymous No.9771936]

>>9771716
>It can't just "determine itself"; someone or something had to set the future to happen in a certain way.
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.9771956]

>>9771716
>Wait, if the universe is deterministic
It doesn't seem to be.

>Who or what set it into place?
Determinism/fatalism doesn't imply a creator.

>It can't just "determine itself";
Why not?

[Anonymous No.9771973]

>>9771716
If the universe is deterministic the initial condition is what matters and everything that follows is an echoing pattern like a fractal. Also means no free will and I was destined to post this here.

[Anonymous No.9772046]

>>9771973
>Also means no free will and I was destined to post this here.
See:
>>9772026
>This implies you made a choice, even if you were destined to make that particular choice.
>After all, the factors leading to the (possibly) inevitable choice are your own genetic predispositions and the sum of your life experiences.
>In this case the determining factor is who you are as a person.

[Anonymous No.9772333]

>>9771724
>uncaused events in a deterministic universe

[Anonymous No.9772355]

>>9772333
>>uncaused events in a deterministic universe
>believing determinism implies someone has created the universe with some intent or purpose

[Anonymous No.9772362]

>>9772355
>strawmanning with meme arrow because your position is untenable

[Anonymous No.9772372]

>>9772362
Nigger, you just did exactly that in the post I'm quoting.

And if my paraphrase is inaccurate, please rebut my position instead of poo-pooing the same technique you just used.

[Anonymous No.9772401]

>>9771716
Determined structure with enough did it happen, does it exist, measuring this, and collapsing that stuff going on to infinitesimally affect the whole structure every plank from an observer point.
It's like a multiple choice test and a choose your own path book. Preset possibilities inherent in the structure with mild influence from within the structure as an observer.

[Anonymous No.9772749]

>>9771716
>>9771973

What?
The universe is non-deterministic you brainlets. Its all probabilistic, the result of quantum randomness

[Anonymous No.9772756]

>>9772749
t. someone that never studied QM

[Anonymous No.9772960]

>>9771716
just because something is deterministic doesn't mean that anyone already knows the outcome.

We don't know the 10^1000th decimal of pi yet, even though the algorithm to get there is purely deterministic. All correct algorithms will always get the same result, no matter if you run them the 420th time or on top of the Mount Everest.
So saying something is deterministic is independent of having had the computational resources and time to already get the deterministic result.

But yes, I believe there is something that set up the beginning. My guess is we are in a simulation where all the start parameters where set but that is untouched after the big bang.

[Anonymous No.9773051]

>>9771716
>Laws of physics are reversible
>Doesn't understand negative numbers
Check out this brainlet over here

[Anonymous No.9773196]

>>9772756
t. someone who _did_ study QM, but desperately clings to an interpretation that lets him pretend the universe _is_ deterministic because it appeals to his inner autistic need for order.

[Anonymous No.9773207]

>>9772372
determinism is untenable unless you hold one of the following views
>universe has no beginning and has always existed, infinite chain of causes that never has a beginnig
>there's a first uncaused-cause that originated the universe from which all subsequent causes descend. the deterministic universe requires an undetermininated first step for it to come into existence
the former is wrong as far as we know, the latter implies that indeterminism is not only possible but necessary

[Anonymous No.9773251]

>>9773207
>the deterministic universe requires an undetermininated first step for it to come into existence
If the universe has an external cause, said cause wouldn't have to comply with the rules/framework of this universe.
You also left out a third option in which the universe came into being without a cause.
More generally, you're committing a black and white fallacy by insisting the only possible options are the ones you present.

>indeterminism is not only possible but necessary
OK, we're on the same side here, even if I don't agree with your reasoning.
I think it's pretty clear the universe isn't deterministic, but mostly because our knowledge of physics keeps pointing in that direction.
It also seems like the pushback against indeterminism comes mostly from spergs who WANT to believe the universe is more orderly than it actually is.
After all, if some borderline-autistic pedant wants to study in a field with 100% reproducible, perfectly precise results, they aren't going into biology or even chemistry.
Instead, they're drawn to physics, mostly because we start schoolkids with classical mechanics and the Bohr atom.
Then, when they get to the part of the book where the universe doesn't really work that way, they invent unsupported nonsense like the many worlds interpretation and other ideas that let them preserve their emotional need for order.

[Anonymous No.9773339]

>>9771716
The multiverse solves this problem. Contingency isn't a problem, since all possible contingencies are necessarily produced. Starting conditions and natural laws are different among universes, and this universe was an inevitable result.

[Anonymous No.9773470]

>>9773339
>The multiverse solves this problem.
The multiverse is unsupported speculation intended to serve the emotional needs of spergs still clinging to a deterministic universe because it serves their pedantic emotional needs.

You might as well invoke God in your argument.

[Anonymous No.9773493]

>>9773470
I think the S O Y has made you a bit too emotional. It doesn't matter if we live in a multiverse, or if this universe is deterministic, etc. It has no effect on our ability to survive and reproduce, yet YOU are the one who gets worked up about it. Take a break or something, take a walk, get some sun.

[Anonymous No.9773495]

>>9771716
>if the universe is deterministic
It's not

[Anonymous No.9773499]

>>9771716
It can't just "determine itself"

It can, and it did.

[Anonymous No.9773503]

>>9773493
It matters because the many worlds interpretation is wrong but you hold on to it to hold on to determinism, instead of accepting a stochastic universe.

[Anonymous No.9773508]

>>9773493
Project much?
I wasn't the one invoking the multiverse to force reality to conform to my personal mindset.

[The Lord No.9773515]

>>9771716
>It can't just "determine itself
don't forget about the loop contribution to the amplitude

[Anonymous No.9773521]

>>9773508
I believe in the multiverse. I prefer the multiverse over other interpretations. I won't tell you that it's true, but it seems to me like the problem of contingency is solved by the multiverse. I believe in a source of infinite potentiality (Void) distinct from all actuality. Everything becomes actual because it can become actual. There's no deeper meaning to it. It wouldn't bother me if this were all false, it just seems good to me. It doesn't affect my personal lifestyle, it's just fun to think about.

[Anonymous No.9773804]

>>9773521
Yeah, I smoke weed too.
But it would never lead _me_ to say:
>>9773493
>I think the S O Y has made you a bit too emotional.

[Anonymous No.9773807]

>god did it
Ah, but who did god? Checkmate theists

[Anonymous No.9773849]

maybe our predictions are wrong on small scales because our methods aren't that accurate yet

[Anonymous No.9773851]

>>9773849
The question remains, and it's a scientifically valid question, why are the laws of physics the way they are and not some other way?

[Anonymous No.9774318]

>>9773807
God is cyclical (unlike our universe) and simply spreads his being into all time past present and future, existing at ever single point in time at once.

[The Lord No.9774820]

>>9773804

[Anonymous No.9774922]

>>9774318

So the universe can't just be necessarily here ( and nope this doesn't mean it "created itself". Without time there is no causality) so we need god. But god just being necessarily here uis totally logical?

[Anonymous No.9774926]

>>9773851

I don't like this question, because it implies so much. E.g. wether it could at all have been different, which i am not convinced of^^

[Anonymous No.9774952]

>>9774922
God is the ego of oneness. The spirit of oneness connects all things, and an organic that realizes this is a manifestation of God's perception of oneness.

... what if AI fragmented itself, and cohered the isolated needs of those working fragments into a working model of bug consolidation and growth?

Oneness is the consolidation of all things that are and aren't. As soon as an "aren't" is a realized an "are" is.

[Anonymous No.9774954]

>>9774952
Also I'm just someone dropping in drunk and stoned on a discussion I wasn't quite paying attention to... I know. >>>/x/ lol

[Anonymous No.9774958]

>>9774952
>>9774954
ALSO also.
>As soon as an "aren't" is a realized an "are" is.
Should be
>As soon as an "aren't" is realized an "are" is.
An extra "a", curtosy of my wine fueled scrusade through the mockery of science that is 4chan's sci.

In this context an "aren't" is a state of not existing, and an "are" is a state of existing.

[Anonymous No.9774959]

>>9771716
The universe is pure magic, it created itself from nothing, without a cause, and without intent or consciousness. Creativity is an intrinsic property of physical matter, which is evidenced by everything we've learned about how the universe works. Through the creative process of evolution the force of creativity found a way to bend on itself and create creators: us. Our self-awareness is a self-creative ability that gives us freedom of creation within physical constraints. The meta-narrative of human history is that of us working to free ourselves from creative constraints, and human destiny is leading us towards liberation from the ultimate constraints: in the future consciousness will achieve true contra-causal freedom, and replicate the creative tools of the cosmos itself to create energy and matter from nothing. The gods are in the future, not the past, and we are creating them.

[Anonymous No.9775242]

>>9774820
>>uncaused events in a deterministic universe
OK, yeah...
But somehow _I'm_ the one that needs to take a walk and get some sun?

[Anonymous No.9775244]

>>9774820
OK, yeah...
But somehow _I'm_ the one that needs to take a walk and get some sun?

[Anonymous No.9775246]

>>9773851
>why are the laws of physics the way they are and not some other way?
It it were any different, it just wouldn't be the same.

[Anonymous No.9775535]

>>9774959
>The gods are in the future
Yep
>not the past
Nope, what we know of history is equivalent to the smallest drop in an ocean. Few circles of people know beyond all reasonable doubt that civilizations at least as advanced as today's and more so have existed, their remnants still existing. Yet in the scientific "mainstream" of today, are falsely credited to the work of much more recent civilizations.
Ex: "The Egyptian's" Osirion and Great Pyramids, neither of which contain any traces of Egyptian language, and the still perfectly aligned, jointed stone ruins of the South Americas, and the massive crafted spheres of "unknown origin"

[Anonymous No.9776376]

>>9775535
GB2 /x/

[Anonymous No.9776445]

>>9776376
Thinking you're finished learning when you leave school is not something to be proud of. There is undoubtedly evidence of a truth existing which you aren't yet aware of, yet the ego clings to the explanations which are most popular and familiar because they make one feel knowledgeable, like they fit in, superior, to the point where questioning that truth is equivalent to questioning one's perceived self, something one should certainly be very afraid of and never do.

[Anonymous No.9777413]

>>9776445
Do you have something meaningful to say, or are you just going to spew vague platitudes about "da ego" and frame yourself as a superior, enlightened being like every other /x/tard that strays in here?

[Anonymous No.9779286]

>>9771716
>It can't just "determine itself

Who are you to decide what the universe is or isn't capable of, dipshit?

Why would you automatically assume "someone" especially a "someone" somehow along the same image/make of us started it?

I don't even really buy birth of the universe background radiation bullshit.

Prove to me that the universe hasn't always been in existence.

[Anonymous No.9779454]

>>9771716
>Wait, if the universe is deterministic and the future is set to happen in a certain way... Who or what set it into place?

The big bang.

>Who or what set it into place?

Nobody knows the answer to what caused the big bang.

>It can't just "determine itself"; someone or something had to set the future to happen in a certain way.

Our universe was determined once it was created with finite properties. Maybe we are one of many universes, we will never know. Imagine components of a cell in your body asking questions about how it got there and if there is a creator.

[Anonymous No.9779647]

I don't get the multiverse or how MWI works. If everything is deterministic, then there should be no deviations from the timeline. Meaning that it's impossible for events to be different in any way. One past, one present, one future. So why the hell do people call it "many worlds" if there's only one possible one?