Stop believing in determinism

everything in your post is completely irrelevant to determinism

Universe doesn't run on math.

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

Is nondeterminism provable/ falsifiable ?

It's already been proven, determinism is an outdated concept.

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

doesn't refute determinism

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

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

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

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

^dome and particle are idealized*

Need to work on my multitasking ability.

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

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

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

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

not true because everything hasn't happened yet desu

Newton's laws aren't perfect

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

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

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

why are atheists such massive brainlets

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

schroodingers cat is an example of macroscopic nondeterminism

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

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

>determinism = perfectly symmetric universe
kys brainlet

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

STOP believing in determinism

>this triggers the determinist

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

>implying 19th century understanding of physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why don't you try this experiment yourself brainlet

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

randomness means determinism is false, sure

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

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

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

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

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

>posting philosophical questions on Veeky Forums

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

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

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

Philosophy is not science, science is a philosophy

>Ph.D

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

Just because it's impossible to predict, doesn't mean it's not going to happen user

So where is the border between macro and micro?

What?

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

>moving the goalposts with an abritrary macro/micro demarcation

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

>free will

Think again brainlet:

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

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

>what newtards actually believe

pnas.org/content/98/22/12342.full

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

Neck yourself

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

/thread

But why would it move?

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

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

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

Stop determining what I believe in.

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

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

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

You need to learn how to logic.

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

Thank you for enlightening us, robot.

It was merely my destiny

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

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

You're misunderstanding the issue.

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

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

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

Probably.

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

>there is only one, immutable future.
Prove it

I just did.

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

>This fag isn't me

It's true, it's true.

KYS. Veeky Forums IDs when

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

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

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

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

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

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