🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:50:18 UTC No. 16582867
Determinism is an ontological assumption rather than a proper scientific claim. There's no way to falsify it because any degree of empirically observable unpredictability can always be attributed to epistemological limitations, even though such limitations are themselves an inherent property of reality that stems from physical laws rather than just practical limitations. The predictability you think you observe is partly the product of external imposition and partly the product of selection bias. If reality was predictable, there wouldn't be a need to create artificial laboratory conditions and then still discard outliers from the data.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:22:17 UTC No. 16582926
>>16582867
>There's no way to falsify it
>If reality was predictable, there wouldn't be a need to create artificial laboratory conditions and then still discard outliers from the data.
Choose one. If the first statement is true then the second statement can't falsify determinism. Now let's disregard your contradiction and correct a misunderstanding: variability of results does not necessarily equal unpredictability. The problem is that we can't measure anything exactly but only by approximation so repeatedly weighing a bag of chips with a highly sensitive scale will produce a range of weights but that doesn't mean that the weight of the bag of chips is unpredictable. It just means that it's uncertain what EXACTLY the weight of a bag of chips is.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:26:00 UTC No. 16582933
>>16582926
>Now let's disregard your contradiction
There is no contradiction. They claim any empirical evidence of unpredictability is only evidence for epistemological unpredictability, which doesn't contradict determinism. Exactly as you go on to do. Which is precisely what you got called out for. Your IQ: 85.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:39:03 UTC No. 16582954
>>16582926
>any empirical evidence
I only criticized your particular example and you have no argument for why your particular example can still be evidence for unpredictability despite my criticism. You are trying to make the same circular argument as you accuse determinists of making:
>There can be unpredictability
>Any argument that refutes unpredictability is insufficient to entirely disprove that there can be unpredictability
>Therefore you can not rule out the possibility of that there is unpredictability
No shit you can't rule out the possibility of anything that's a classic pseud position to troll scientists. Have fun speculating about Last Thursdayism and Spaghetti Monsters dumbass.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:41:10 UTC No. 16582958
>>16582954
Did you try reading and comprehending the OP? I specifically kept it simple enough for people on your level (~85 IQ). With some effort you should be able to grasp the point.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 20:47:25 UTC No. 16582964
>>16582926
>The problem is that we can't measure anything exactly
what exactly would you need to measure to accurately predict when this atom will decay?
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:47:30 UTC No. 16583048
>>16582867
>it cant be proven wrong because its always right
we know lol
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:54:21 UTC No. 16583058
>>16583048
>literal 80 IQ reply
Let's see how much worse it gets. I like how these "people" can't even grasp the OP.
Anonymous at Tue, 11 Feb 2025 21:54:38 UTC No. 16583059
>>16582867
Determinism is unfalsifiable nonsense.
Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:31:41 UTC No. 16583280
>>16582867
Huh? The fuck you talking about Timmy?
Are we specifically talking about biology?
Determinism and free will arguments again?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 04:23:58 UTC No. 16583368
Talking about IQ in a discussion on determinism is retarded. If the world is truly deterministic then it's determined that someone with the IQ scores you mentioned wouldn't be able to comprehend your points anyways so you're pretty much screaming at a void. Naturally, you'd be too stupid as well to ever realize this, as you know, your own IQ "limits" that too. If there is free will (which is the case) then IQ doesn't mean anything to determine someone's replies or thoughts. It can't even be an indicative of anything more than itself. In both cases, you're retarded
>>16582867
And about the post itself, you pretty much just gave a stupid summary of Heisenberg uncertainty principle
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 07:37:43 UTC No. 16583441
What is Determinism?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:10:28 UTC No. 16583552
>>16583368
80 IQ reply. How come so many of you display overt mental retardation?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:13:40 UTC No. 16583555
>>16583441
>What is Determinism?
Essentially just the Clockwork Universe fantasy.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 12:47:08 UTC No. 16583582
>freewilltards can't understand each other posts and fight on philosophical concepts they agree on
Lmao
Stop guessing start learning at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:14:37 UTC No. 16583590
>>16582867
>about the post itself, you pretty much just gave a stupid summary of Heisenberg uncertainty principle
It's interesting because QM is a method of NON-DETERMINISTIC measurement.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:49:05 UTC No. 16583632
>>16583590
But I didn't invoke the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle nor did I make any QM-based arguments. I'm making a simpler and more general argument: no matter how you twist it, you can't empirically demonstrate this "determinism" first trying to enforce it and then dismissing all deviations when it fails.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:09:54 UTC No. 16583687
>>16582933
>>16582958
>>16583058
>>16583552
>>16582126
>IQ credentials faggotry in /sci/
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:44:23 UTC No. 16583707
>>16582867
Yes you have free will (mostly) no that doesn't make you unpredictable.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:18:39 UTC No. 16583747
>>16583707
I like how every single reply exposes /sci/ for being at best 70 IQ, at worst literal bots.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 16:49:46 UTC No. 16583775
Your existence is predetermined by God.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:16:33 UTC No. 16583891
>>16583632
>you can't empirically demonstrate this "determinism" first trying to enforce it
First you observe that things happen. I'm sure you agree that there are happenings even if nothing ever happens. We haven't made any assumptions about free will or determinism yet so for now we're still on the same page mister > 80 IQ.
Next we ask: did the happenings need to happen this way? Since no parallel universe or time reverse exists we can't prove that happenings could have happened any other way nor can we prove that happenings could've happened only in the way they happened.
Now here's the kicker: even if happenings could've happened otherwise the question remains whether there was choice involved in the way happenings happen. You can not demonstrate the existence of choice outside any causal chain like you can't demonstrate God, soul or even that you're conscious since all of those are not observable objects.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 21:40:02 UTC No. 16584007
>>16583891
>did the happenings need to happen this way?
I don't know. This may very well be a meaningless question. One way or another, it's another sub-80-IQ reply that doesn't address, let alone refute my observation.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 09:42:19 UTC No. 16584498
>>16583707
yes it does because you can't predict what random ideas will pop in someone's head. you can't predict Einstein will come up with relativity.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 09:49:06 UTC No. 16584508
>>16584498
>God of gaps
Now complain to your mom that I'm attributing unpredictability to epistemological limitations again.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:10:32 UTC No. 16584526
>>16584508
you can never predict reality and you'll never be able to have absolute power and control, the universe doesn't allow it. cope and dilate harder
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 10:11:34 UTC No. 16584527
>>16584526
>you can never predict reality
fully
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:13:22 UTC No. 16584571
>>16584527
>if i force a limited degree of predictability under special circumstances that means things are predictable
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:13:56 UTC No. 16584572
>>16584527
>>16584571
>also it doesn't count when something totally unpredictable happens and disrupts my attempt at prediction
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:24:23 UTC No. 16584590
The body isn't controlled directly, it's controlled indirectly through mind. This is where confusion arises. People think that they have no control because they believe they are directly acting; when motion of the hand, per se, is a preprogrammed event occuring from mind.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:32:42 UTC No. 16584602
>>16584590
>The body isn't controlled directly
>it's controlled indirectly through mind
what would directly mean tho?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:38:17 UTC No. 16584612
>>16584571
>Disregard science to live in a magical world!
Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:38:49 UTC No. 16584614
>>16584602
It would mean that things were determined because there's no space between acts and universe(i.e. mind).
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:41:28 UTC No. 16584621
>>16584614
You are a low iq moron
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:42:33 UTC No. 16584622
>>16584621
You believe you have no control. You're the low IQ drone.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:43:28 UTC No. 16584624
>>16584622
You're talking nonsense, are you perhaps insane?
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:44:49 UTC No. 16584627
>>16584624
Spastic detected.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:47:24 UTC No. 16584628
>>16584624
There's no difference between you and Biden and fake news media. You're just one of those weak minds playing the system. Luckily we die and are judged. We'll see how poor your performance was truly one day.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:50:57 UTC No. 16584637
>>16584628
You sound deeply broken.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:52:22 UTC No. 16584640
>>16584637
In short. I'm wiser and smarter than you beyond that.
KKHA
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:53:14 UTC No. 16584644
>>16584640
Sure you are buddy.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 11:54:42 UTC No. 16584645
>>16584614
Even if a mind existed outside a deterministic universe then still that mind has to interface with the rules of that universe. When you die in The Matrix you die for real and the outside of The Matrix is still ruled by AI.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:05:12 UTC No. 16584654
>>16584645
Thus, there is free will.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:09:39 UTC No. 16584659
>>16584654
Non sequitur.
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:13:04 UTC No. 16584661
>>16584659
Non hetero.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:14:29 UTC No. 16584665
>>16584659
ignore the broken bot, it's just a word randomizer
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:16:48 UTC No. 16584669
>>16584665
Mouf, now
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:18:58 UTC No. 16584673
ITT:
A. People who believe they have no control over their actions and that it is all determined.
B. People with an ounce of respect for life who believe there is an element of freedom to their lives and they are in control of their actions.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:20:37 UTC No. 16584674
>>16584673
>People with an ounce of respect for life
>you should die to make the world a better place
you have a deeply broken mind
Barkon !8v8vr3ErDk at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:21:28 UTC No. 16584677
>>16584674
Did you type that or was it the universal flow?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:06:26 UTC No. 16584711
>>16584612
You're the one living in the magical world of predictability and determinism. I'm living in the empirical world that exhibits neither.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:13:45 UTC No. 16584718
>>16582867
Wrong. Just because it's deterministic doesn't mean it should be easily predictable. They're not at all the same thing. You're just making a fallacy.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:39:37 UTC No. 16584738
>>16584718
Another 70 IQ post. Perfect pattern of imbecility. The thread will die without a single COHERENT reply, let alone a valid counter-argument.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:40:35 UTC No. 16584739
>>16584738
Notice how you made no argument and you still can't predict the next atom decay.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:42:33 UTC No. 16584740
>>16584738
The fact that you accuse my IQ of being 70 while failing to address my post meaningfully at all says a lot about your IQ. Your thread will die because you're mentally retarded and don't know how to make an argument.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:48:49 UTC No. 16584743
>>16584739
>>16584740
Call me back when you are able to grasp and actually refute some aspect of the OP, as opposed to shitting out a talking point that doesn't connect to the argument in any way.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:53:00 UTC No. 16584749
>>16584743
>I can't predict when the next atom will decay
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:53:07 UTC No. 16584750
>>16584743
You will die alone with bitter regret at a wasteful life.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:57:31 UTC No. 16584754
>>16584750
You will die seething over the fact that Determinism is an ontological position that is neither demonstrable by empirical means nor suggested by empirical observations when those are viewed objectively.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:00:12 UTC No. 16584759
>>16584754
Determinism has been empirically established since the time of Newton. I know with certainty that it's true.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:02:39 UTC No. 16584760
>>16584759
>Determinism has been empirically established
Kek. How do you "empirically establish" it?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:04:59 UTC No. 16584763
>>16584760
By finding out a mathematical equation which can describe the universe and testing its predictions.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:06:16 UTC No. 16584765
>>16584763
>shits out platitudes
No, give me a concrete Newtonian experiment for "establishing determinism".
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:08:19 UTC No. 16584767
>>16584765
F = ma. Every force in the universe is described by some F.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:09:05 UTC No. 16584768
>>16584767
>F = ma is an experiment
You sound like a broken bot. Giving you one last chance to describe a concrete experiment that "establishes determinism" before I accept your full and direct concession.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:10:59 UTC No. 16584769
>>16584768
You don't know how to test the most basic equation in physics? Maybe revisit your middle school books
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:12:39 UTC No. 16584771
>>16584769
Concession accepted. You can shit out botlike talking points but you can never explain how to actually test Determinist fantasies.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:43:49 UTC No. 16584793
You guys are truly retarded, if you think that determinsim and free will are somehow antonyms.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:17:55 UTC No. 16584817
>>16584793
>Edgy netti netti buddhist
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:26:03 UTC No. 16584863
>>16584793
The thread is not about free will. It's about how Determinism is neither supported nor suggested by empiricism. In order to have a useful discussion about free will you first need to have a coherent idea of reality that doesn't involve purely fictional constructs like Determinism.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:30:10 UTC No. 16584866
>>16582867
Determinism is an ontological position that states there is either 1 single cause (God/big bang/etc) or that there is no cause at all. Its a stupid ontology if you really think through it. Hence its an incomplete ontology
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 04:24:18 UTC No. 16586307
https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/
There are simple math constructs called cellular automatons that cannot be predetermined, theres no algorithm that can "run ahead" of them and compute what the outcome will be, even though they are deterministic. Even if the universe was mathematically deterministic, free will is preserved by the inability to absolutely compute and predict the outcome.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 04:26:40 UTC No. 16586309
>>16583775
Man created God. God did not create man. God does not know what youre going to do before you do it. Only a religious maniac thinks otherwise.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 07:27:11 UTC No. 16586425
>>16582964
The internal nucleic stress tensors
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 07:52:31 UTC No. 16586432
>>16586307
>even though they are deterministic
if you have some nondeterministic aspect in your deterministic "thing" it is not deterministic anymore.
>no but it's deterministic apart from that thing which isn't
yeah, it's not deterministic as a whole tho. the issue is not with having a compute resource issue, like it's deterministic but cannot be calculated because too complex and impossibly big computer is required for it.
the issue is that deterministic systems are affected by random events and result of deterministic system depends on how the random even turns out. it's not a compute problem, you just can't know how it's going to work out, until it does.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:16:00 UTC No. 16586495
>>16582867
Determinism is solidly destroyed by Bell's theorem. Turns out that there is no-free will or determined outcomes, but random probabilistic chances of things occurring.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:10:18 UTC No. 16586559
>>16586495
>Determinism is solidly destroyed by Bell's theorem. Turns out that there is no-free will
Another mentally ill 70 IQ reply. Nice.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:22:55 UTC No. 16586613
>>16586495
>Turns out that there is no-free will or determined outcomes
technically free will is defined as not being determined so it kinda stays when determinism gets btfo
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:57:46 UTC No. 16586644
>It's impossible to know if the universe is really deterministic
>It's impossible to know if it really isn't
>There we must argue for one or the other on a mongolian basket-weaving forum over and over even though we will never know the answer.
Don't let me discourage you, I LOVE INSANITY.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:01:05 UTC No. 16586648
>>16586644
>>It's impossible to know if the universe is really deterministic
they settled it is random. unless you have something to point to?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:20:43 UTC No. 16586747
>>16586644
Notice how your 60 IQ reply goes beyond simply idiocy and into the realm of psychotic delusions where you think I said something I clearly didn't.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:21:19 UTC No. 16586750
>>16586648
>they settled it is random
No, they didn't. Non-deterministic =/= random.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:34:50 UTC No. 16586770
>>16586750
that's even more weird, you do realize that don't you
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:47:05 UTC No. 16586790
>>16584590
The mind isn't real.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:29:46 UTC No. 16586891
>>16586770
>that's even more weird
No, it isn't. It's a completely trivial observation about these two concepts being distinct.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:43:24 UTC No. 16586906
>>16586891
well random can mean chaotic as in too hard to predict but not because the data doesn't exist, it's just too complicated to extract/compute.
while non-deterministic means that properties aren't fixed until measured, it's way more abstract. it's not that they are but we don't have the tools to extract them, they aren't fixed until they're measured. it's way more spoopy
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:53:54 UTC No. 16586920
>>16586906
>it's way more spoopy
It's only spoopy if you believe particles are real which they clearly aren't.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:04:36 UTC No. 16586923
>>16586920
aren't they real when you like measure them? what does real even mean
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:12:39 UTC No. 16586934
>>16586906
>non-deterministic means that properties aren't fixed until measured
That's a retarded definition because we consistently arrive at the same shared perception. Even if what we perceive is not determined until perceived still there must be a rule prior to our perception that determines that the yet to be perceived and thereby determined object must appear one particular way and not any other way.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:14:49 UTC No. 16586936
>>16586934
>mental_gymnastics.jpg
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:21:48 UTC No. 16586941
>>16586923
I think he means that you can't pinpoint anything exactly and multiple measurements will appear like bell curve distributions just like rainbows are fuzzy you can't exactly indicate where one color ends and another begins so particles are more of a conceptual arbitrary circle around where there's highest signal/noise ratio in a field or something like that. I don't like the rainbows are fuzzy argument by the way it's the kind of logic used by transgenders to argue against the existence of binary sexes.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:24:47 UTC No. 16586945
>>16586936
No u arguing for non-determinism in a world that appears consistent.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:25:06 UTC No. 16586946
>>16586923
This guy sorta gets it: >>16586941
But moreover, the idea that these measurements imply distinct and separate elements is also just a theoretical convenience.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:26:30 UTC No. 16586948
>>16586941
no I mean I could agree they're not real as long as they're not measured. I still don't properly understand it, or sounds weird. because as I read it the thing which is in superposition doesn't really exist, until measured. when you measure and you find that bitch, then it's real. but if you don't it's more like it's not there, like at all, you only have the probability cloud but that thing is not there somewhere in that cloud, that will will appear somewhere in that cloud when you measure it. this is what is incredibly weird. when you really think about it.
but my argument was that once you measure it then it's real.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:28:31 UTC No. 16586949
>>16586945
>No u arguing for non-determinism
it's not an argument, it's settled science with a Nobel being awarded for proving it.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:49:48 UTC No. 16586967
>>16586949
>it's settled
No its controversial how the results of the experiments should be interpreted.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:53:47 UTC No. 16586973
>>16586967
it's you who keeps trying inserting more than has been proven, with no clue it even exists, to justify some particular understanding, which in turn justifies some whole philosophy thing.
>I'm just gonna state there's more, with no proof, and act as if that statement is real.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:08:57 UTC No. 16586985
>>16586973
>inserting more
You can just sit there, do nothing and notice how your body is functioning without you doing anything, how the sun comes up and goes down without you doing anything, how everything around you stays in place and appears the same all the time and so on. No philosophy or science needed to notice how everything happens automatically. Are you going to cling to studies to brainwash yourself that the world works differently than your basic experience?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:10:46 UTC No. 16586987
>>16586985
>trust your eyes only but I'm telling you what they're seeing
no thanks
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:12:13 UTC No. 16586989
>>16586987
Then tell me: what in your experience is not like clockwork?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:16:26 UTC No. 16586995
>>16586989
we are not in Dark City calm your tits
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:30:59 UTC No. 16587015
>>16586995
A clockwork universe is more scary than Dark City because Dark City has architects and rulers but a clockwork universe happens automatically.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:31:54 UTC No. 16587017
>>16584863
>In order to have a useful discussion about free will you first need to have a coherent idea of reality that doesn't involve purely fictional constructs like Determinism.
The idea of reality behind determinism is linear cause and effect, the domino universe model: A causes B, B causes C, in an infinitely efficient translation of consequences. Therefore all consequences are perfectly predictable from time zero.
The alternative model is that of mutual influence, the systems view where the entities are interdependent co-contributors of the process. However mutual influence also affirms differential influence: not all influences on a particular entity or system are equal in all considerations. Linear cause and effect is an abstraction based on differential influence that applies imperfectly only to a small number of systems (such as the toppling of dominoes or the relatively predictable motions of orbiting planets.) An illustration of this is considering two stars orbiting each other: which one "causes" the orbit? Neither, because both do. Now imagine our solar system: as shorthand we say "the planets orbit the sun," the sun causes the orbital motion of the planets, but the sun also "wobbles" and orbits a mutual gravitational epicenter.
Making mutual influence the idea of reality is relational ontology. The concept of an ecosystem is based on mutual influence and is scientifically applied relational ontology. So is systems theory, the application of such results in an imperfect statistical prediction. The determinist will say "this is because of our limited knowledge of the system" but this is really just playing machine of the gaps.
The personal implications of relational ontology isn't merely "I am responsible for my actions" but that the universe is a massively co-participatory creative project that has the general trend of expanding its possibilities of interaction.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:40:25 UTC No. 16587042
>>16587015
>automatically
that just means "follows the laws of the universe".
and it's still better because it's at least larger.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 19:57:05 UTC No. 16587072
>>16587017
High IQ take. I agree with most of this. Didn't know it was called "relational ontology".
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:06:04 UTC No. 16587091
>>16587017
>relational ontology
that seem like interesting from what I'm reading online about it, like some hippie shit but I dig it.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:07:33 UTC No. 16587092
>>16587017
>The concept of an ecosystem is based on mutual influence
I see no difference between an ecosystem based on mutual influence and a deterministic system. Labelling a variety of chicken-and-egg problems as indeterminism overlooks the lack of choice either way. Is the hive queen the master or the slave of the workers? Regardless there's no evidence that they can play any other role. Is the female bird a passive receiver or an active enabler of the male singing? Regardless they must follow their biological clock. Do speedy foxes increase rabbit agility or do agile rabbits increase fox speed? Regardless they're a product of genes they didn't select themselves. So how is relational ontology not deterministic?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:10:16 UTC No. 16587094
>>16587092
>i see no difference between adopting the natural model implied by observable reality and trying to shoehorn reality into my crude and unfalsifiable Clockwork Universe fantasy
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:11:24 UTC No. 16587095
>>16587092
>psychotic screeching about power and control
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:15:54 UTC No. 16587103
>>16587092
you can see the relational ontology thing as recognizing the universe has an input into everything. via non-deterministic events. plus all that quantum foam fuckery going on basically everywhere, constantly.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:18:24 UTC No. 16587105
>>16587017
I recently wrote an essay that is related to the subject of this thread and also to your ontology:
https://pastebin.com/raw/CTufKGUP
Might interest you.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:26:41 UTC No. 16587115
>>16587103
>via non-deterministic events
Where? I don't object to seeing everything and everyone as a co-creator but I don't see how any co-creator can be spontaneous. All I'm seeing so far is a projection of the buddhist perspective that there's no I, no center, no start, no prime mover to point at because all things are pointing at everything else. Such eastern interdependent view of the world to me is just about the most deterministic perspective out there.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:29:12 UTC No. 16587121
>>16587115
This guy >>16587017 explained to you why there is not even a logical basis for you to formulate your "determinism" because there is no clear direction of causality and no way to say what "determines" what.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:35:53 UTC No. 16587134
>>16587115
>Where?
radioactive decay? large scale it's deterministic but single object it's pretty non-deterministic. plus the whole QM weirdness.
>no those aren't real they have a deterministic explanation I just don't know it yet
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:41:52 UTC No. 16587148
>>16587121
This guy is regurgitating Alan Watts who was regurgitating a variety of eastern religious views that suggest we're all part of the universe and all is one consciousness. So we're in a classic pot calling the cattle black situation: you're accusing me of having a religious view while pushing your own religion. You've baited with a debate about determinism and switched the debate into physicalism versus idealism.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:43:35 UTC No. 16587149
>>16587148
Notice how you're devolving into irrelevant incoherence meanwhile everything I said in my post stands undisputed.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:43:37 UTC No. 16587150
>>16587148
no but hippie shit aside he's right, it's hard to decouple anything from everything. that's just straight fax
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:48:51 UTC No. 16587163
>>16587134
We're not living at the quantum level. Just because at an invisibly small scale both your body and the wall are mostly empty space with no way to pinpoint exactly where the excitations that are called matter will be does not mean that there will ever be a chance in your lifetime to walk through the wall even though rules at the quantum scale don't forbid such an act. Nor is the guy who has become one with the universe going to demonstrate anything miraculous.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:49:37 UTC No. 16587166
>>16587163
>We're not living at the quantum level.
Doesn't change the fact that reality appears to be fundamentally nondeterministic.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:50:39 UTC No. 16587168
>>16587163
yeah you're a real tough guy until you get quantum cancer when the wrong proton tunnels from your DNA and you get on chemo yeah low level don't mean shit innit
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:55:03 UTC No. 16587175
>>16587150
Okay then I will put it into Alan Watts terms so you can understand: just because we're all waves and not separate from the ocean but part of the ocean that's waving and we are not being waved like a puppet because we are one with the ocean still that does not mean we have any choice in how we're waving exactly because there is nothing separate from the wave or the ocean. So waving is just a happening. Automatically.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:58:11 UTC No. 16587180
>>16587175
Very cool. Now explain how this relates to your deterministic Clockwork Universe fantasy.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:02:33 UTC No. 16587185
>>16587175
>does not mean we have any choice
that's false. sometimes the choices randomly pop in your head. non-deterministically.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:10:54 UTC No. 16587190
>>16587180
I guess in all your excitement you forgot to read the final word of my previous post:
>>16587175
>Automatically.
Even if your fantasy of defeating the evil demon La Place comes true still the foamy bubbly spontaneous goodness you desire so much is an automaton so battling determinism is not going to solve your lack of free will.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:11:21 UTC No. 16587192
>>16587190
Ok. Now explain how this relates to your deterministic Clockwork Universe fantasy. Notice how you will keep deflecting.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:12:58 UTC No. 16587193
>>16587185 me
>that's false. sometimes the choices randomly pop in your head. non-deterministically.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/155
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:13:05 UTC No. 16587194
>>16587185
That's exactly what I mean here >>16587190
Your idea of non-deterministically = automatically and so are "your" choices.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:15:49 UTC No. 16587198
>>16587194
can you please make up your mind? you invent a problem and have a meltdown about it.
>I should have choice, but I don't
like you even understand any of the concepts.
I'm so tired of monkey brained philosoturds. either get up to speed with science either >>>/x/
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:16:06 UTC No. 16587201
>>16587194
>automatically
This word doesn't mean anything in the context of organic systems until you can substantiate your Clockwork Universe fantasy.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:17:14 UTC No. 16587204
>>16587192
If you've paid attention I've pointed to a fork in the road where I discerned between living at a normal scale and living at a quantum scale. I even came down to your level of invisibly small being to sympathize with you. That's the relationship between our worldviews.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:18:14 UTC No. 16587207
>>16587204
Ok, still waiting for you to explain what this Clockwork Universe fantasy stems from, how you formulate it logically without linear causality, how to test it empirically, what evidence there is to support it etc.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:24:30 UTC No. 16587215
>>16587207
That's an invitation to walk in circles because then I would point to the validity, accuracy and reliability of correlations between ideas and observations and then you would point back to
>There's no way to falsify it because any degree of empirically observable unpredictability can always be attributed to epistemological limitations
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:52 UTC No. 16587218
>>16587215
So I take it you can't do any of the above.
>muh correlation
That's basically a concession of non-determinism.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:26:42 UTC No. 16587222
>>16587215
Anyway, I'm calling it a day. I thought your religion had some actual thought behind it, but now I see it's not a religion but a delusional mental illness with no coherent ideas.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:59:48 UTC No. 16587254
>>16587215
correlations imply a structure behind the observations, not determinism
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:11:23 UTC No. 16587262
>>16587222
Then I'll continue to address some problems with this article:
>>16587105
>https://pastebin.com/raw/CTufKGUP
>You could take issue with the way it directly invokes an imaginary metaphysical entity
>if you invoke an impossible premise
Let's reverse that train of thought: human knowledge is limited therefore La Place's demon is not worth considering. That would be an unacceptable argument of course so the jabs at the premise are completely redundant. The writing style reeks of bad faith smugness priming the reader for the climatic b-b-b-b-bad to the bone argument like Arnold Schwarznegger stealing leather clothes and sunglasses in a Terminator movie.
Now here it comes:
>A better analogy would be trying to determine the positions of the balls on the table by poking around with a cue stick in the dark and then attempting to pocket the balls.
The writer could've just written in the first few sentences of the article that observation interferes with the object of observation but no he needed to write a bunch of prose to masturbate his intellectual prowess. Anyway this is a familiar problem with the social sciences: people behave differently when they know that they're being watched. Still when observed in the same way the results of the observation are predictable.
>knowledge implies measurement, measurement implies interaction, interaction implies disturbance and uncertainty.
On a normal level of daily experience the results of interaction between observer and observed are very certain. Reality keeps appearing the same way all the time. Anyway since I'm repeating myself off to elsewhere I will go.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:14:10 UTC No. 16587264
>>16587254
What's the difference between structure and determinism? Where there's structure there are rules and limitations to maintain the structure as is.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:15:17 UTC No. 16587266
>>16587262
I like how you wrote all that shit and never got close to a rational criticism.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:17:11 UTC No. 16587268
>>16587264
>Where there's structure there are rules and limitations to maintain the structure as is.
ok but this doesn't imply determinism. are you retarded?
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:18:28 UTC No. 16587269
>>16587264
>What's the difference between structure and determinism?
structure is changed by non-deterministic events.
>rules and limitations to maintain the structure as is.
wrong, structures are affected by non-deterministic events.
you can write write it in caps and it still won't make your statement true.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:19:40 UTC No. 16587270
>>16587264
>What's the difference between structure and determinism?
structures have a causal chain but the causes aren't always deterministic in nature
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:20:44 UTC No. 16587273
>>16587270
>structures have a causal chain
they don't need to have "causal chains". they just need to have constraints of some kind. this implies neither causality nor determinism
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:24:12 UTC No. 16587277
>>16587266
When I interact with and disturb the object the same way all the time it's rational to expect the object to react the same to my interaction and disturbing interference all the time unless [...] and you will fill in that blank by dropping to a quantum level I suppose while I'm looking at my can of Coca Cola right now that just keeps staying in the same place and keeps its shape and color despite all the quantum magic going on with this can of coke the result of that quantum magic and me disturbing that local space-time fabric with my prying eyes and bouncing light particles vibrations of sounds agitating these can of coke particles it just keeps appearing so consistently the same so predictable.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:25:40 UTC No. 16587278
>>16587273
everything has a causal chain right up to big bang.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:28:00 UTC No. 16587282
>>16587277
Nothing in your mumbling addresses any of the arguments in the essay. A much more elaborate and intelligent formulation of what you're trying to say via this impotent mumbling is actually addressed in the essay you clearly didn't read.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:28:58 UTC No. 16587284
>>16587278
i don't really care about your fantasy head canon. i'm talking on a purely logical level
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:30:17 UTC No. 16587286
>>16587284
your brain is mush, it can't logic
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:31:13 UTC No. 16587289
>>16587286
not an argument. the fact still stands that structure doesn't imply any causality
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:33:11 UTC No. 16587290
>>16587289
no structure existed forever (infinite forever)
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:34:29 UTC No. 16587291
>>16587290
take your meds, you literally can't think abstractly or discuss anything outside the context of your schizophrenic theories about reality
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:36:32 UTC No. 16587294
>>16587270
A probabilistic cause-effect relationships can still be part of a deterministic system like the weather but I do share the concern with the author of the article about entangling epistemology and ontology.
>>16587282
>you clearly didn't read
I wasn't motivated by how badly written at is but since the author wrote something intelligent about entanglement of epistemology and ontology at the end I give the article a second chance to not annoy me.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:36:32 UTC No. 16587295
>>16587291
>you literally can't think abstractly
>theories about reality
that's the thing, your abstract shit is brainlet fantasy. I do not buy into your shit stories no matter how interesting you make them sound, they're brain rot. idiots deal with such things. rather poorly in your case, fucked you right up, can't tell reality anymore.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:38:04 UTC No. 16587298
>>16587294
It's quite well-written and you are seething.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:39:04 UTC No. 16587301
>>16587295
you sound extremely mentally ill but the point still stands that structure doesn't logically imply causality or determinism. there is no way around this fact
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:40:21 UTC No. 16587303
>>16587301
there is no structure without causality. in the real world not in your loony fantasy world
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:41:41 UTC No. 16587304
>>16587303
i don't care about your delusions about what "is", i'm just pointing out that X doesn't logically imply Y
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:43:04 UTC No. 16587306
>>16587304
listen, you are talking about fiction, I'm talking about reality. I'm not buying into your shit, get lost brainlet
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:44:20 UTC No. 16587307
>>16587306
you're talking about your opinions. i'm talking about what real people with thoughts can logically deduce. gonna close this thread now but i'm 100% sure you will shit out another post that no one will ever read
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:46:41 UTC No. 16587310
>>16587307
a baseball to your head is not an opinion, it's unavoidable consequence of reality. if you can't avoid the consequences of that it's real. it's pretty simple, and you'd quickly agree to it once there. you always do
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 22:57:30 UTC No. 16587319
>perception has an innate bias for order and patterns. Hence the formation of determinist intuitions starts long before philosophical and scientific thought enters the picture.
That's like arguing that snakes are biased to a thermal vision as if that's not a legit worldview.
>adequate framing of those observations
Let's see if you've provided any criteria for prioritizing frames as more or less valid.
>This means embracing a holistic concept of a universe that organically evolves, and so Determinism loses its mechanistic flavor
Have you heard of medicine? You know the study of an organism that changes during the course of its life? Indeed pediatric medicine is a specialization because a child's body doesn't follow the exact same mechanics as an adult's body. Then how come doctors still have a mechanical view of the body? Are they victims of bias or could it be that they acknowledge that the human body despite all of its changes during its lifetime and despite all past and future evolution of the human species is still recognizable as a limited, rule-bound system?
Still haven't read the entire article of course but you can see how difficult it is for me to read it if every sentence my eyes see is so annoying.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:03:25 UTC No. 16587325
>>16587319
Still nothing remotely approaching a rational criticism.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:16:42 UTC No. 16587342
>To summarize, in a certain sense, trying to make the present determinate (what is A, really?) makes the future indeterminate, while trying to make the future determinate makes the present indeterminate (A is just A).
More hidden Alan Watts analogies I suppose. He talked about playing the piano. Scales overlap so after playing only a few notes the next note can make all of the previous notes sound like major or minor. Sounds probabilistic but wait: have you heard of mathematics? The amazing thing is that no one needs to know what the symbols mean because the object is not in the meaning but in the relationships. F = m * a. What is m? A mass, what's that? A measurement? What are we even measuring? No one knows, who cares, F = m * a. A monkey eats a banana what does it mean for the future: less eating behavior because it was hungry? More eating behavior because stress and boredom? Can we put all knowledge about the monkey into an AI to see whether or not the AI can predict its behavior reliably? Who knows and who cares but the banana will still reliably be found in its digestive system the moment. It won't pop in and out of existence like a quantum particle.
y this point, you may be wondering why Quantum Mechanics is barely mentioned. The essay makes all kinds of allusions to it, including stupid puns, but it's never explicitly utilized to prove a point. This is a deliberate choice.
Oh never mind quantum bananas then. I'll return to the middle of the article where I left and continue.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:17:51 UTC No. 16587344
>>16587342
This poster is mentally ill. It's not actually reading or comprehending or criticizing anything. It's just getting triggered by random sentences and going on irrelevant tirades that have nothing to do with the point. This is a 100% consistent pattern in this predetermined NPC's behavior.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:18:06 UTC No. 16587345
always devolves into
>but science is based on faith
>means nothing is real
>you can't prove shit
>muh fantasies
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:32:51 UTC No. 16587356
Okay so I've read the entire article now and the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems does not refute La Place's demon. The gap in certainty between T0 and T1 is not ontological but epistemological. Waste of time.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:33:42 UTC No. 16587358
>>16587356
Notice how you shat out something like 10 posts about it by now without addressing a single argument made therein. That's a concession.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:39:10 UTC No. 16587365
>>16587356
Basically the entire article can be summed up as: the weather is unpredictable and determinism is close minded scientists failing to take all the variables into account. I don't know why so many words were needed to make that point which again is classic Alan Watts / Terrence McKenna spiritual guru hippie talk.
>NPC's behavior.
Of course because defending a deterministic worldview is now associated with following The Science and take another booster and men can be women and all the /pol/.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:41:02 UTC No. 16587368
deterministic worldviews are pure cope hiding mental insanity
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:41:33 UTC No. 16587370
>>16587365
Notice how this NPC has to resort to blatant lying now about what the text it hasn't read says.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:42:13 UTC No. 16587371
>>16587358
Notice how you wasted my time by letting me read your entire lack of argument against La Place's demon. This is my final post in this thread. You're not worthy of any more attention.
Anonymous at Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:44:42 UTC No. 16587374
>>16587371
Notice how this NPC has to resort to blatant lying now about what the text it hasn't read says.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 08:25:27 UTC No. 16587676
OP is correct, it could be that all phenomena are caused directly by some first cause, and any sense of causality between consecutive events, deterministic or probabilistic, are illusory. You can never falsify this.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:54:50 UTC No. 16587712
>>16587676
>You can never falsify this.
how about they take your pet and make a Schrödinger's thing with it, if the atom decays your pet dies, and you go into depression. is your depression illusory because your pet is actually alive?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:21:27 UTC No. 16587734
>>16587676
Yet it is perfectly predictable in practice so your point is irrelevant.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:22:21 UTC No. 16587735
>>16587676
and if you follow >>16587712 reasoning, you quickly realize all deterministic systems that are affected by non-deterministic events are mere extensions of said non-deterministic events.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:42:06 UTC No. 16587928
>>16587712
>is your depression illusory because your pet is actually alive?
The depression is real but it would not be caused by the death of my pet
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:51:02 UTC No. 16587938
Is qualia compatible with the copenhagen interpretation? Do we experience multiple conflicting qualia in superposition?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:11:45 UTC No. 16587959
>>16582867
>anatomy aligns with determinism.
>physiology aligns with freewill, in relation with dietary intake.
Animals -humans too for the religious zealots among us- can follow both.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:39:14 UTC No. 16588044
>177 posts
>not a single coherent reply to the OP
LOL
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:41:17 UTC No. 16588048
>>16588044
cope
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:01:26 UTC No. 16588065
determinism and non-determinism in the philosophical sense are not differentiable, the words elicit different sensations from human subjects who attempt to attach half-baked definitions to them, but these collapse back into each other simply by asking the following question: what is the difference between "arriving at a decision" as a result of a particular arrangement and iteration of physical states, and "making a choice" as a self-driving agent? it's making a distinction without a difference.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:02:53 UTC No. 16588066
>>16587938
qualia are a superstition
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:07:30 UTC No. 16588073
>>16588065
>determinism is the same as nondeterminism because uhhh something about arriving at decicions...
Your IQ: 82.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:11:17 UTC No. 16588079
>>16588066
hopefully
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:12:10 UTC No. 16588081
>>16588073
more generally, where and under what circumstances would you observe a difference between a rube goldberg universe and a stochastic one?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:15:35 UTC No. 16588083
>>16588081
You tell me, retard. How come the Clockwork Universe larps so convincingly as a stochastic one? I overestimated your IQ. You're a solid 70.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:17:47 UTC No. 16588085
>>16588083
i already told you, they wouldnt
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:19:45 UTC No. 16588087
>>16588073
And your IQ is -10. Not the anon you replied to.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:20:50 UTC No. 16588088
>>16588085
That's a concession that the universe is stochastic.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:22:28 UTC No. 16588091
>>16588088
sure, because they're the same
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:22:45 UTC No. 16588092
>>16588085
Maybe you do have 70 IQ if you keep on debating” with a person who’s IQ is 2000.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:24:02 UTC No. 16588094
>>16588091
> they're the same
And yet you can't explain how they are "the same" beyond some schizophrenic spergout about how stochastic processes are secretly deterministic processes based on unknown hidden variables invented out of thin air.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:25:38 UTC No. 16588097
there's a massive difference in what "choice" means as a concept, in both frameworks. deterministic and non-deterministic
in the deterministic sense it's somewhat irrelevant, all your choices and all of your options are preset and you're just following a script thus choice is just an illusion
in non-deterministic universe the "choice" concept is broader and includes the pool of options you have. ideally you'd talk about choice quality, how many choices you can choose from, of what quality based on your needs. you get more or less freedom of choice. it's not so much as how decoupled it is, causaly from the environment, as is what freedom of choice you get anytime you make a choice.
rambling about you having choice that's fully decoupled from the environment is just retarded.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:26:40 UTC No. 16588098
>>16588094
they're different in that you're sticking to one and revealing yourself to be a bitchy queen, but they're not different for a discerning philosopher such as myself
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:26:46 UTC No. 16588099
>>16588097
Schizophrenic pseudbabble.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:27:30 UTC No. 16588101
>>16588098
They're different in that for an actual deterministic process, you don't need to invent imaginary hidden variables to explain your inability to predict it.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:28:39 UTC No. 16588102
>>16588099
>free will is real
it's schizophrenic
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:30:29 UTC No. 16588103
>>16588102
Pretty funny how 80% of the mentally ill determinitard responses to this thread are attacking free will, despite it never being mentioned, which goes to show that the sole basis and motivation for Determinist delusions is literally just being an NPC in a perpetual state of jealous rage against real people. Nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:32:24 UTC No. 16588105
>>16588103
I'm not a determinist, the way you define "free will" concept is schizophrenic that's all. you cannot have choice that is causally decoupled from everything. but you can have ideas that pop up. that's different. brainlet
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:33:27 UTC No. 16588106
>>16588105
>, the way you define "free will" concept is schizophrenic
Notice how your profound psychosis causes you to repeatedly hallucinate some definition of free will that was never provided or implied. You're in a perpetual state of rage against real people.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:36:03 UTC No. 16588110
>>16588106
plenty free will havers define it as not being determined by anything. that's pure schizo, logically speaking
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:36:39 UTC No. 16588111
>>16588110
Notice how your psychosis against real people keeps you babbling about some imaginary characters and subjects that I never mentioned.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:37:35 UTC No. 16588113
>>16588111
how do you define it?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:38:24 UTC No. 16588114
>>16588113
Define what? I never argued anything about free will. The only reason I reply to you is to demonstrate how your programming will force you to sperg out against real people over and over for no reason.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:40:17 UTC No. 16588119
>>16588114
>Define what? I never argued anything about free will.
you seemed butthurt about attacking the free will concept, more precisely here:
>>16588103
>Pretty funny how 80% of the mentally ill determinitard responses to this thread are attacking free will
do you believe in free will anon?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:42:20 UTC No. 16588124
>>16588119
Pretty funny how 80% of the mentally ill determinitard responses to this thread are attacking free will, despite it never being mentioned, which goes to show that the sole basis and motivation for Determinist delusions is literally just being an NPC in a perpetual state of jealous rage against real people. Nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:43:19 UTC No. 16588125
>>16588124
>broken bot repeats itself
what do you understand by choice in the context of determinism vs non-determinism.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:44:34 UTC No. 16588129
>>16588125
>broken bot loops on its obsessive jealousy against real people with agency
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:45:50 UTC No. 16588131
>>16588129
notice how you're afraid to get anywhere near a definition for it, for fear of sounding like a schizo.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:46:22 UTC No. 16588132
>>16588131
Definition for what? Demonstrate your psychosis again for me.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:47:09 UTC No. 16588134
>>16588132
for choice in both determinism and non-determinism. what is it?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:49:54 UTC No. 16588137
>>16588134
Choice has nothing to do with determinism vs. nondeterminism as far as I'm concerned.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:52:47 UTC No. 16588142
>>16588137
in determinism it means it's determined, there is no agency to speak of. you cannot avoid or do differently.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:53:26 UTC No. 16588143
>>16588142
>in determinism it means it's determined
This is a meaningless statement and also not one I care to entertain unless you can show this "determinism" of yours is real.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:55:35 UTC No. 16588144
>>16588143
I do not believe the universe is deterministic. I am curious what people understand by choice/agency/free will. since you don't believe in determinism at least you should have some view on the idea of choice.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:56:51 UTC No. 16588148
>>16588144
I told you choice has nothing to do with determinism or non-determinism as far as I'm concerned. You immediately reverted to some meaningless drooling and mouth noises about choice being "predetermined", which is a zero-information-content nonstatement.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 17:59:38 UTC No. 16588150
>>16582867
You can't discuss counterfactuals if determinism isn't true so it makes sense for determinism to be true.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:01:45 UTC No. 16588153
>>16588150
determinism is a subset of non-determinism.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:03:24 UTC No. 16588154
>>16588150
>You can't discuss counterfactuals if determinism isn't true
Why not?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:09:56 UTC No. 16588164
>>16588153
>>16588154
If A happens that causes B, but if C happened instead then that would cause D.
However, if determinism isn't true then you have no basis for saying C would cause D in the first place as D is not determined by C (nor is B determined by A).
Thus without determinism you can't even begin to discuss counterfactuals or hypotheticals. The entire thing becomes just a series of random events and there's no basis to discuss a different sequence of events because it's all random anyway.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:11:00 UTC No. 16588166
>>16588144
>>16588144
"Choice" is when multiple courses of action are considered and one course of action is converged upon through conscious deliberation. "Agency" is the notion that one's choices are ultimately due to one's own internal dynamics, of which conscious reflection is a key driver.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:13:23 UTC No. 16588169
>>16588164
>you have no basis for saying C would cause D in the first place as D is not determined by C (nor is B determined by A)
Ok.
>Thus without determinism you can't even begin to discuss counterfactuals or hypotheticals
This doesn't follow.
>. The entire thing becomes just a series of random events
Also completely wrong. Try again.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:17:05 UTC No. 16588174
>>16588169
>This doesn't follow.
Yes it does. You saying otherwise doesn't mean anything
You have no basis to say that if c happened then d would happen as d is not determined by c in the first place.
You're not intelligent
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:17:18 UTC No. 16588175
>>16588164
>of which conscious reflection is a key driver.
>>16588153
a non-deterministic universe does not mean literally every event is non-deterministic. it means it's deterministic with non-deterministic events sprinkled on top. a non-deterministic universe is partly deterministic.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:17:51 UTC No. 16588177
>>16588174
>Yes it does
It absolutely doesn't, you complete imbecile. You can very much analyze a situation in terms of extreme simplifications, even knowing full well that they are not strictly true.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:18:54 UTC No. 16588180
>>16588164
see >>16588153
a non-deterministic universe does not mean literally every event is non-deterministic. it means it's deterministic with non-deterministic events sprinkled on top. a non-deterministic universe is partly deterministic.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:20:04 UTC No. 16588181
>>16588177
Yes,it absolutely does follow you blabbering shit for brains.
You have no basis to begin to discuss a separate series of events and what they would entail if deterministic entailment doesn't exist in the first place.
You can not analyze a situation in terms of any simplification or sequence of entailments.
You're an idiot
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:21:04 UTC No. 16588182
>>16588181
You're a clinical subhuman at last 5 stdevs below me in terms of IQ. I will not dignify trash in a human form like you with any kind of consideration. :^)
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:21:58 UTC No. 16588185
Notice how no determinism believer is fully human. Every single one displays extreme symptoms of mental degeneration.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:22:48 UTC No. 16588190
>>16588182
Nope. I'm at least 3 STD greater than you in intelligence, which is also why you have no argument against what I said.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:23:43 UTC No. 16588192
>>16588190
>you have no argument against what I said.
What you said is conclusively refuted here: >>16588177
This negates your entire world view in a sentence and you can't recover by any logical means, hence you will get no more replies.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:24:44 UTC No. 16588195
>>16588185
>Every single one displays extreme symptoms of mental degeneration.
yep, harrowing stuff
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:25:37 UTC No. 16588197
>>16588192
Nothing in that post refutes anything, shit for brains.
If there is no entailment, then you can't discuss what would happen otherwise as there's no entailment in the first place.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:26:50 UTC No. 16588198
>80 IQs can't tell the difference between entailment and determinism
No surprises there.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:26:52 UTC No. 16588199
>>16588185
>>16588195
Notice how you retards have no arguments and just impotently seethe
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:28:09 UTC No. 16588201
>>16588198
Determinism is a form of entailment. And I use the terms interchangeably here because it makes no difference
I'm far more intelligent than you
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:29:37 UTC No. 16588206
>>16588177
>You can very much analyze a situation in terms of extreme simplifications, even knowing full well that they are not strictly true.
This. Non-deterministic processes can be structured. You can form expectations about them based on their structure without pretending to know what will actually happen.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:29:38 UTC No. 16588207
Jesus Christ stop getting baited
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:30:39 UTC No. 16588208
>>16588201
logical entailment has nothing to do with determinism
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:32:58 UTC No. 16588209
>>16588208
Yes it does. Determinism at its core mean the universe is following logical entailments. If A happens then B happens etc.
If determinism isn't true, you would never be able to discuss what might happen if a different event happened instead, as that requires the evens to determine each other. You require determinism to discuss these things
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:35:11 UTC No. 16588211
>80 IQ literally thinks logical entailment is determinism
Fucking kek. And there I was thinking maybe I'm strawmanning this poor moron. But no, he actually believe it.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:37:36 UTC No. 16588213
>>16588211
My IQ is far greater than yours
And yes, determinism is a form of entailment
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:40:57 UTC No. 16588217
>determinism is """a form of entailment"""
>therefore entailment is determinism
More like a 70 IQ. Closing this thread but the dumb animal will write another post that no one will ever read. kek
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:43:38 UTC No. 16588220
>>16588213
a non deterministic universe entails a deterministic one. at least the type of nondeterministic universe we are talking about. precision of language is fucked as always. non-deterministic universe doesn't (colloquially) mean a FULLY non-deterministic universe, where nothing is deterministic. it's meant to suggest it's not only deterministic, there's non-deterministic aspects to it, besides the deterministic ones.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:43:41 UTC No. 16588221
>>16588217
I never said entailment is determinism. Because determinism is a form of entailment, I can use the term entailment when discussing it. Which I have
You're actually extremely unintelligent it's actually very sad. Keep projecting your shit for brains, but I remain far more intelligent than you and you still have no argument at all.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:44:57 UTC No. 16588225
>>16588220
show me any "deterministic" aspect of the universe. is it in the room with us?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:45:49 UTC No. 16588227
>>16588225
if you get hit in the balls you'll cry like a bitch, that's one example
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:46:15 UTC No. 16588228
>>16588220
The universe may or may not be deterministic but we would only be able to discuss counterfactuals in the deterministic cases
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:49:01 UTC No. 16588230
>>16588227
>if you get hit in the balls you'll cry like a bitch
and if it doesn't happen, does this disprove your retarded theory?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:50:27 UTC No. 16588233
>>16588228
holy shit, imagine being so retarded as to think you can't make counter-factual statements about non-deterministic systems. this isn't even philosophy or physics or anything, it's just basic stats. that anon was right about you, you really are retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:51:56 UTC No. 16588236
>>16588230
you must be retarded if that's your argument lol
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:53:06 UTC No. 16588237
>>16588236
so are you going to show me an example of a "deterministic aspect" of the universe or not? i take it you're not so confident about your last attempt
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:53:25 UTC No. 16588238
>>16588233
When you make a claim about a counterfactual in stats, you're still assuming determinism you idiot.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:54:35 UTC No. 16588241
>>16588238
>if you make a counterfactual claim about a nondeterministic system it becomes deterministic
lol ok retard, go bug someone else now
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:54:54 UTC No. 16588242
>>16588237
phase change, superconductivity whatever. this message. think my post just accidentally found its way to your display?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:55:30 UTC No. 16588244
>>16588242
>think my post just accidentally found its way to your display?
so if your post hadn't found its way to my display, you'd concede that it's not an example of determinism?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:56:21 UTC No. 16588245
>>16588244
I hate talking to faggots such as yourself
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:57:17 UTC No. 16588247
>>16588245
why are you blowing up with rage? "it may or may not arrive, i really don't know" doesn't sound very deterministic to me. any other examples?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:57:35 UTC No. 16588248
>>16588241
You can't make a claim about a nondeterministic system. Have you ever even done statistics? What you do is you change a variable to study how that change affects the system. This is entirely deterministic
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:57:48 UTC No. 16588249
>>16588247
you're a faggot for going for the faggot bait lol
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:58:54 UTC No. 16588253
>>16588248
>You can't make a claim about a nondeterministic system. Have you ever even done statistics?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:59:38 UTC No. 16588255
>>16588253
Not an argument. I accept your concession
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:59:58 UTC No. 16588257
>>16588249
notice how you can't show me any example of these "deterministic aspects" you talk of but only explode with rage. i'd say your botlike and predictable behavior may be an example of determinism, but for all i know, you may die from a stroke and stop your automatonistic reply loop
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:04:11 UTC No. 16588264
>>16588258
You literally can not claim what will happen next in a non deterministic system as by definition what will happen next is not determined. What about this is difficult for you to understand
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:05:42 UTC No. 16588266
>>16588257
so what any deterministic system I give as example you break some part of it and say "see it doesn't work anymore, your if/then is broken" and that's an argument against any deterministic systems being possible? holy shit kys
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:06:47 UTC No. 16588268
>>16588266
>yes, this is totally an example of a deterministic system
>no, it's impossible to know what outcome it will actually produce except in probabilistic terms
>but it's deterministic, just trust me, bro
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:07:57 UTC No. 16588271
>>16588268
superconductivity always happens when conditions are met, you summon that bitch like the perfect obedient slave. as long as you always have the required conditions. let's see how creative you get
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:07:59 UTC No. 16588272
>>16588265
Not an argument. I accept your concession
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:09:12 UTC No. 16588275
>>16588271
>superconductivity always happens when conditions are met
this is not a prediction about a real-life system
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:10:37 UTC No. 16588277
>>16588265
>i am silly strawman!
>wojak
Why you are like this and why do you need to be such retarded faggot?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:10:53 UTC No. 16588278
>>16588275
>screeching
seethe harder faggot
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:11:50 UTC No. 16588281
>>16588278
i simply pointed out this is not a prediction about a real-life system, it's just a statement about some model
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:14:49 UTC No. 16588286
>>16588277
They're Christians angry about the fact that their religion isn't true
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:15:43 UTC No. 16588290
>>16588286
>obvious samefag losing it with rage
yum yum, at least pretend you're a different poster
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:15:49 UTC No. 16588291
>>16588281
a bag with 1kg of 241Pu will have 500g of 241Pu after exactly 14.329 years.
and this one is funny because at individual level decay is non-deterministic lel
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:15:50 UTC No. 16588292
>>16588281
Except it is a prediction about a real life system
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:16:51 UTC No. 16588293
>>16588290
I'm not samefagging retard
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:17:02 UTC No. 16588294
>>16588292
>You can't make a claim about a nondeterministic system
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:18:07 UTC No. 16588295
>>16588291
>a bag with 1kg of 241Pu will have 500g of 241Pu after exactly 14.329 years.
this once again is not a prediction about a real-life system but about some abstract model in your head. a bag of anything in real life could end up in any state in 14 years
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:18:10 UTC No. 16588296
>>16588294
You can't make a claim about what will happen next in a non deterministic system as by definition its not deterministic.
This is a trivial fact.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:19:28 UTC No. 16588299
>>16588296
>system
that's different you fucking idiot, than a non-deterministic event.
all "non-deterministic systems" have a non-deterministic cause in a deterministic system.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:21:04 UTC No. 16588301
>>16588299
please refrain from replying to the 70 iq with anything other than a reminder of what it said
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:22:08 UTC No. 16588302
>>16588299
You can't make claims about what will happen next without determinism, as that's what determinism is. Whether it's a system or an event or any causal interaction.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:23:11 UTC No. 16588305
>>16588301
My IQ is subatantially greater than yours.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:25:21 UTC No. 16588309
>>16588306
Statistics doesn't assume non determinism. It's a model of our ignorance. You've never studied statistics
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:26:16 UTC No. 16588310
>>16588306
well, he can't make one because he never studied it kek
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:26:51 UTC No. 16588311
>>16588310
I have a masters in stats
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:27:47 UTC No. 16588312
>>16588302
since the universe is a deterministic one with non-deterministic events on top of it then you can safely make claims about what will happen next.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:28:54 UTC No. 16588314
>>16588312
Provide an example
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:29:39 UTC No. 16588317
>>16588314
the cat will die or live.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:31:25 UTC No. 16588320
>>16588317
The Schrodinger equation is deterministic.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:32:39 UTC No. 16588321
>>16588312
>the universe is a deterministic one
then why can't you show any instance of determinisim inside it and always have to revert to claims about imaginary abstract scenarios in your head?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:33:31 UTC No. 16588323
>>16588320
no matter what mental gymnastics you're performing you are responsible for your actions.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:34:32 UTC No. 16588325
>>16588321
>if I can't break it I won't accept it as argument
faggot
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:35:56 UTC No. 16588328
>>16588323
I never said anything about responsibility or anything like that. Were just talking about determinism and the ability to discuss counterfactuals and how it's impossible without determinism.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:37:28 UTC No. 16588330
>>16588324
I accept your concession
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:38:06 UTC No. 16588331
>>16588325
look, i want you to understand that there was never any argument or debate here. i was trying to help you grasp the difference between reality and abstractions but you're simply not intelligent enough so we can call it a day and you can continue being trivially wrong
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:39:49 UTC No. 16588332
>>16588324
>>You can't make a claim about a nondeterministic system
I bet that's what LaQuensha taught him in the social justice+statistics course.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:40:11 UTC No. 16588333
>>16588331
You've not made any argument.
Denial isn't an argument btw
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:26 UTC No. 16588335
>>16588332
You can not make a claim about what will happen in a non deterministic system by definition. Sorry this upsets you
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:41:56 UTC No. 16588336
>>16588332
Yep. A lot of American education happening in this thread.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:43:08 UTC No. 16588339
>>16588336
You can not make a claim about a counterfactual without determinism. Sorry this upsets you
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:43:13 UTC No. 16588340
>>16588331
listen you start seething once you can't break my examples and simply state they're fictional if you're not able to break them. you lost both the argument and the plot, completely. meds
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:44:38 UTC No. 16588342
>>16588340
>you can't break my examples and simply state they're fictional
oh, sorry. i misunderstood you. i thought you were talking about a fictional bag in its own isolated thought-experiment universe. you were talking about a real bag? ok, so what happens if i go check on the bag and your prediction is wrong? will you concede that your theory is wrong?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:44:54 UTC No. 16588343
>>16588335
>non deterministic system
see you keep using words wrong, you don't even understand the concept. you cannot define a non-deterministic "system". you don't even understand the world you live in, you confuse things and don't understand words
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:46:39 UTC No. 16588347
>>16588343
>you cannot define a non-deterministic "system"
why not? you're both americans, aren't you? kek
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:48:11 UTC No. 16588348
>>16588347
what do you understand by a a non-deterministic "system"?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:48:48 UTC No. 16588349
>>16587017
You are taking an Incredibly limited and retarded view of determinism. Determinism is not defeated because you can't determine which entity in a relationship is the actor vs acted upon. Determinism is about the idea that each future world state is entirely determined by the previous world state. It is not that object A acts on object B but that the past acts on the present which acts on the future. Unless you want to say that there is no arrow of time, your post here does nothing to actually respond to determinism. The only potential counter to determinism would be randomness at the quantum level, but complete determinism rules out free will and determinism plus randomness also rules out free will. There is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness affects quantum probabilities, and use of the term "observer" in these contexts is almost always a misnomer.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:49:01 UTC No. 16588351
>>16588343
You can not make claims about counterfactuals if determinism isn't true, as you can not make claims about what will happen next in the first place.
Statistics models our ignorance it does not "prove non determinism".
There has been no argument against this. Nitpicking semantics, when I'm not even using the words incorrectly, isn't an argument.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:50:55 UTC No. 16588353
>>16588348
"system: a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole"
if one or more of those things are nondeterministic, it's a nondeterministic system
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:51:39 UTC No. 16588355
>>16588349
>Determinism is about the idea that each future world state is entirely determined by the previous world state.
Determined how?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:53:37 UTC No. 16588356
>>16588355
By the previous state
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:55:19 UTC No. 16588360
>>16588356
>By the previous state
That's not a coherent answer, even on a purely linguistic level. Determined how?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:58:14 UTC No. 16588365
>>16588360
Determined by the previous state. The state N determines the state N+1
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:59:50 UTC No. 16588369
>>16588365
>Determined by the previous state
Another incoherent reply. How does the previous state determine future states?
>sate N
>state N+1
Imagine saying this shit and thinking you have a coherent worldview. kek
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:03:04 UTC No. 16588374
>>16588369
The next state is determined by the previous state usually via some forces of nature.
>Imagine saying this shit and thinking you have a coherent worldview. kek
Jesus didn't rise from the dead
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:04:41 UTC No. 16588376
>>16588374
>The next state is determined by the previous state usually via some forces of nature.
This doesn't explain anything. Try again and explain how the "next state" is determined by "the previous state" (I'll allow for this total schizophrenia of there being some "next state" out of charity).
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:06:32 UTC No. 16588379
>>16588376
I already did. The next state is determined by the previous state and some laws of nature. This is entirely coherent and being committing a fallacy of incredulity isn't an argument
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:09:00 UTC No. 16588381
>>16588379
I accept your full psychosis. I don't know what these magical, unspecifiable "laws of nature" are, that somehow some N+1 state from N state, in your delusions, but that's simply not how physics works. Moving on.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:10:52 UTC No. 16588383
>>16588355
Determined by the laws of logic and physics. If we had a complete set of laws of physics (which we currently do not) and all of the information about any particular system. We would be able to plug the information into the laws of physics and know the exact state of that system at some point in the future. This is a logical extension of the fact that as we discover more accurate physical laws and gain more accurate measurements of systems, our predictions of the future states of those systems also grow more accurate. The assumption is that this relationship will continue until perfect knowledge and understanding lead to perfectly accurate predictions. If quantum randomness turns out to be core to the way the universe works, then the universe would not be fully deterministic, and perfect predictions would be impossible, but the way those probabilities evolve is deterministic so there's no major philosophical difference between the two cases.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:11:24 UTC No. 16588385
>>16588381
So you don't study science at all? And you think an argument from incredulity is valid ("I don't heckin' know what you're talking about!"). It is indeed how physics works
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:15:44 UTC No. 16588392
>>16588383
>If we had a complete set of laws of physics (which we currently do not) and all of the information about any particular system. We would be able to plug the information into the laws of physics and know the exact state of that system at some point in the future
But this has never been a scientific proposition and is now known to be false. What's your next cope?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:16:41 UTC No. 16588394
>>16588392
>But this has never been a scientific proposition and is now known to be false.
What are you talking about? How is this known to be false?
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:19:10 UTC No. 16588395
>>16588394
>What are you talking about?
Your perfect knowledge fantasy specifically violates any physical model that can be conceived and it was devised as a metaphysical idea to begin with.
>How is this known to be false?
Modern physics contradicts your metaphysical fantasy directly.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:23:02 UTC No. 16588399
>>16588395
>Your perfect knowledge fantasy specifically violates any physical model that can be conceived
How?
>Modern physics contradicts your metaphysical fantasy directly.
No it doesnt
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:23:34 UTC No. 16588400
>>16588399
>No it doesnt
/sci/ - no education & science denial
cringe board
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:27:46 UTC No. 16588406
>>16588400
Modern physics is built on general relativity and the schrodinger equation, both of which are deterministic.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:28:51 UTC No. 16588407
>ITT Christians seethe against determinism and make no arguments
Everytime
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:30:33 UTC No. 16588409
>>16588408
Are you genuinely retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:36:04 UTC No. 16588416
>>16588353
>if one or more of those things are nondeterministic, it's a nondeterministic system
that's bullshit. where does it end? who decides what the whole system is? why isn't it a full deterministic system without the non-deterministic bit?
see how you make the jump and state something purely retarded because it helps your argument?
>interconnecting
what does that mean you idiot? what does "connecting" imply? isn't it a deterministic thing? something is somehow determined by other?
>no it's sometimes connecting sometimes not connecting
holy shit
everything is deterministic and non-deterministic events can affect the deterministic systems. that doesn't make them a non-deterministic system, it makes them a deterministic system affected by non-deterministic causes.
you're on a full brain rot any% speedrun
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:38:41 UTC No. 16588420
>>16588416
you're mentally ill
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:39:13 UTC No. 16588421
>>16588395
The fact that we cannot gain perfect knowledge of a system does not mean that the system is non-deterministic. If I see a ball falling in a vacuum, I might not have any instruments on me to measure its exact velocity or distance from the ground or the strength of gravity, and therefore would be incapable of predicting when exactly it will hit the ground. However, I still know that the time the ball hits the ground is deterministic because if I did have those instruments, I would have been able to determine when it would have hit the ground before it happened.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:41:44 UTC No. 16588423
>>16588420
that's projection. also meds, asap
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:44:46 UTC No. 16588426
>>16588421
>The fact that we cannot gain perfect knowledge of a system does not mean that the system is non-deterministic
It does mean that your "determinism" fantasy will forever remain in the realm of metaphysics, though.
Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 20:59:19 UTC No. 16588437
>>16588426
I mean, no modern proponent of determinism has ever claimed that perfect predictions would actually be possible. Determinism is just a logical consequence of causality. If you believe that causality is not real and that the future is unrelated to the past then good luck buddy.
For one, why are you so confident that quantum randomness is real? It is absolutely possible that the appearance of randomness in quantum systems will turn out to be some failure on our part to understand the causes involved. Secondly, even if quantum randomness is real, what difference does it make? Sure, the universe is not deterministic, but the probability distributions of quantum systems evolve deterministically, so the past still determines the future, just only up until the point at which the wave function collapses.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:51:40 UTC No. 16591294
Insane that this is being debated some 8 decades after quantum theory.
Determinism is simply wrong.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:54:32 UTC No. 16591297
>>16588409
Modern physics is built on QM, which is fundamentally indeterministic.
>>16588383
>If we had a complete set of laws of physics (which we currently do not) and all of the information about any particular system. We would be able to plug the information into the laws of physics and know the exact state of that system at some point in the future.
This has been disproven.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:56:43 UTC No. 16591298
>>16588421
You fundamentally cannot have both velocity and position information. This is how the universe works.
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:00:56 UTC No. 16591300
>>16588416
If I played a board game with you, and we used a fundamentally random dice roller (for example, RNG seed driven by electron spin measurements), would you say that the course of the game is deterministic?
Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:28:12 UTC No. 16591370
>>16591300
>would you say that the course of the game is deterministic?
no, I agree it is not. I did not say the universe is deterministic, I said the universe is non-deterministic in the sense that deterministic systems are effected by nondeterministic events.
the dice roll is non-deterministic but its outcome determines how you move the pieces on the board. if we wouldn't have determinism in a non-deterministic world nothing would make any sense, there'd be no structures.
it's a language issue, where non-determinism somehow implies nothing is deterministic, for retarded brainlets.