Maths describes the universe. Math is extremely deterministic. Therefore the universe is extremely deterministic

Maths describes the universe. Math is extremely deterministic. Therefore the universe is extremely deterministic.

Probabilities is math too

Math describes the universe well only in the parts where it's deterministic.

Of course it is, the universe is a simulation,

Math describes the universe because we chose to do that with math and look what has happened with the people who ran with this idea just a bit too much. They established theories and confirmed them with really narrow examples they call experiments and then when the scope of their theory expanded they realized that their math was not correct but they had gone so far that instead of going back to the beginning accepted defeat they invented some sort of dark energy that simply explains why gravity is not worked like they predicted. That is absolutely bullshit.

Math has failed to explain the universe and the shitty mathematicians we call physicists have really, really fucked it up. They are already so desperate they are using probabilistic models because fixing their previous deterministic models would mean starting from scratch and going back 300 years ago in terms of the science they can accept.

Is the universe deterministic? We will never know because physicists are shit at math.

someone didn't read gödel

>fixing their previous deterministic models would mean starting from scratch and going back 300 years ago in terms of the science they can accept.

What do you mean by this? Mechanics has been reworked from scratch multiple times within the last 200 years. Hamiltonian mechanics and general relativity are two examples of this.

>What do you mean by this?
That it is all bullshit. According to general relativity the expansion of the universe should be deccelerating but it is accelerating.

Therefore the """must""" be some kind of dark energy that we need to account for in our equations.

That is bullshit, physicists simply gave up in remaking their models. As you say, this is probably because they've had to do it many times now and they are just tired of throwing hundreds of years out of window.

Physics will never be able to answer the fundamental question of the universe being deterministic because at this point physics can only describe a really shitty portrait of the universe, and not the universe itself.

In a couple of years some experimental guy will find new results that can't even explained with dark energy and then theoretical physicists will come up with light dark energy, a force that reduces the force of dark energy in certain circumstances.

Then new experimental results will come and to adjust we will need to add a new variable, dark light dark energy.

And so on.

We've lost, physics was a mistake.

>they realized their math was not correct
math is used in the models. The math was correct, the models weren't.
>fixing their previous deterministic models
There's nothing to fix. Quantum theory is a scientific fact.

>Quantum theory is a scientific fact.

It is a scientific fact that quantum theory is the best they can do.

That is all. Physics was ill considered.

>That it is all bullshit. According to general relativity the expansion of the universe should be deccelerating but it is accelerating.
>Therefore the """must""" be some kind of dark energy that we need to account for in our equations.
Your mum's pussy was supposed to be tight, but it's actually expanding.
Therefore there """must""" be some kind of dark think making it grow wider.

Shit analogy but I am going to run with it. Yeah, there could be a dark thing making it grow wider but why didn't your model for calculating pussy tightness not predict that?

Also, can you assume this? How don't you know that actually it is a inherent property of pussies that as the woman gets older the pussy expands.

Why didn't your model predict that? Are you sure that fixing that prediction is as easy as just including a black cock in your equation? I don't fucking think so.

Quantum theory doesn't predict every single fenomenon, true. But if a new, better theory that is more general than, for example, QFT is to come, then it will say the same this theory says and more.

The facts can't be changed. When GR came along for example, it also explained the motion of planets predicted by Newton.

Not that determinism isn't impossible. We just have to get some math that I'm not sure is likely to be developed. After all, computers can generate pseudo random numbers in an algorithmical fashion (it would most likely be done totally different stuff, just an analogy to give some intuition)

math is a tool used to try and describe the universe*

The problem was when models started being merely adjusted instead of just thrown out.

1 = 2 is not true just because you can add a dark 1 and make it look true.

>How don't you know that actually it is a inherent property of pussies that as the woman gets older the pussy expands.

We we do know it. The expanding of pussy is accelerating, as anyone who has seen it, can confirm it.

>Are you sure that fixing that prediction is as easy as just including a black cock in your equation?

If the only think that will fit at this point is a black cock, then I'm pretty sure there is no other way.

>The expanding of pussy is accelerating, as anyone who has seen it, can confirm it.

Yeah but that is an inherent property of pussy. If your model predicted the contrary (decceleration) then your model is shit.

Adding black cock to the equation means nothing because black cock is not even the cause. It is just an inherent property of the universe that your shitty model did not predict.

Agreed, but those models aren't set in stone (there is some disagreement, particularly in untestable space stuff like black holes)

However I think the scientists have a lot of data to backup their claims (data which doesn't completely solve the problem, sure). The problem is these new theories are hard to test.

In one of your previous comments you just seemed to insinuate physics was wrong or something. But usually things are thought out well before being considered fact

>Adding black cock to the equation means nothing because black cock is not even the cause. It is just an inherent property of the universe that your shitty model did not predict.

Now you're getting it. There is an inherent property of the universe that makes it accelerate. We've dubbed that inherent property black cock. We are still not sure what it is. We just know it's there.

>We've dubbed that inherent property black cock. We are still not sure what it is. We just know it's there.

No, as with dark energy you are assuming that black cock are literal black cocks. The theory of dark energy says that it is a force.

How do you know that it is not to do with the topology of the universe, for example.

>The theory of dark energy says that it is a force.
"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe."
>unknown

Like I said, we have no idea what the fuck it is.

>unknown form of energy

Yeah, and the topology of the universe is not an energy, simply to do with its shape.

Say you have a sphere and a cube and you put a dimensionless point at the center top point of the sphere and cube.

Also say you have a force pushing your point towards the center of the object it is in (sphere or cube).

In the cube the point will just stay there but in the sphere the point will tend to roll down and given that the force is pushing it to the center of the sphere, you will actually see it orbit the sphere.

Here we have the same force acting in different spaces. It is not that the sphere has magical spherical energy, it is just that the sphere has geometric properties that change the effect of the force we already know (gravity) relative to the point.

Maybe our universe has a really fucked up shape.

people like you are fucking retarded
you have no idea what you're talking about
just because your autismal brain can't understand anything past newtonian mechanics doesn't mean it's not real

>In the cube the point will just stay there but in the sphere the point will tend to roll down and given that the force is pushing it to the center of the sphere, you will actually see it orbit the sphere.

Call me an idiot, but I really can't make heads or tail of your analogy.

The point will roll around the sphere but there is no way it would roll around a solid cube.

If you have a ball and a cube at your house simply put a round object on top of the ball and it will fall down. Put a round object on top of your cube and if you balance it right the ball will just stay there, maybe move side to side a bit.

My point is that this effect is not because spheres have a magical dark energy that make the point move around. It is simply that the sphere has geometric properties that allow this motion to manifest, when in a cube it would actually take an input of energy to move it around.

You do not make wheels out of cubes because cubes lack magical dark energy that rolls. Cubes simply do not roll.

In the case of our universe the sphere or the cube is expanding. The point is moving away from the 'center'. What is expanding the circle/cube?

I do not mean that the universe is a sphere, or a cube for that matter.

I am just saying that this decceleration does not have to be because of a new energy, but because of geometric properties of the universe that manifest in decceleration when the geometry of the universe interacts with gravity.

Maybe what we are dealing with here is some really fucked up 5 dimensional curvature but physicists would not tell you that. They just assume a new vector exists.

Also, this geometry theory is probably not the cause, but is a good example for why you can not just assume that there is a new dark vector causing this.

>math describes the universe
and not even the tiniest microbe

can math describe living beings?

Right premisses wrong conclussions m8

What conclusions would you draw?

Mathematical models can indeed describe living beings, however, the claim that "math explains the universe" is blatanly false. Math does not explain anything but math, however, a scientist in any field may use a mathematical model to help him explain and predict a phenomenon. Social sciences, biology, chemestry, physics, all can use models, the fact that some of these science abuse or do not use models is irrelevant.

oh my, an autist!
a real one!