Is the Universe random or deterministic?

t brainlet

This.

Will this meme ever stop?

What makes the OS of your head computer special over everything else in the world?

the fact that it can question and analyze itself and the universe around it. yeah it is special you moron

I fail to see how that means it isn't subject to the same laws of the universe everything else is.

it's random nigga

hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

Again. Why is consciousness the only thing like this in the universe?

Why is the software of your brain not bound by the same rules everything else is.

>were the universes first day at its new job
>Its too nervous to do anything properly

Absolutely deterministic. Probably the whole universe is an energy cascade powering an alien turbine

Free Will

It is subject to the same laws. It's just that free will is one of them. See John Conway and Simon Kochen's free will theorem which proves that if humans have free will, then so do subatomic particles: ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

>Subatomic particle's have free will
What does that even mean? That's a nonsense statement that merely devalues the concept of free will.

>comparing your brain and mind to a computer

This is how I know you know nothing

The universe is effectively deterministic. The quantum world is our first indication that randomness is the fundamnetal nature of reality, however. This really explains how it was possible for the universe to come into being. Aquinas was onto something with his unmoved mover. He did not realize however that this is not an intelligence but randomness.

To be fair, it's actually saying that if we have free will, then the results of measuring particle spin states can't have been determined. They're using a broad definition of free will.

Plenty of influential people still make that argument.

The future already "exists". It's a block universe. No free will is possible and these arguments are all pointless.

I feel like "truly random" isn't the same as "having the ability to make decisions independent of causality"

Seems more like it just means some of those causes are just random.

You don't know that.

No they don't, this is literally 1970s understanding of neuroscience kek

Yes, they do. These are people who are saying that this "new" understanding is wrong.

i fail to see how quanta aren't subject to the same laws of the universe as everything else, they must be deterministic. oops they aren't

Einstein knew that

The only difference is intentionality. How do you know particles don't behave the way they do because they want to?

>Again. Why is consciousness the only thing like this in the universe?
but tat's wrong faggot

But then we must conclude that the randomness has grander rules which constitutes the determinism of the macroworld and thus that the randomness is only random within a safe area, where nothing random actually affects anything?

Did he prove it?

Yes, with relativity

Relativity still allows degrees of freedom. You just can't affect things outside of your light cone.

If everything is determined and there is nothing outside the determined world, how can the concept of randomness exist?
Don't say it's here to test our faith

>randomness has rules
What am i reading

What did the user mean by this?

There is something outside the determined world: randomness

The quantum world is our first glimpse of it

The universe is approximately deterministic.

You're reading my question of someone post where he said that microworld is random and macroworld is determined and I wondered how it can be possible, since it implies that randomness would stop being random at some point
Is this the self-emerging of order that Kauffman has written on?

Why is Veeky Forums so fucking bad at reading comment chains? Like, possibly worse than any other board.

See the start of the chain,

>le comment chains
to reddit w/ u

I think no one knows for sure how it happens that order spontaneously emerges from randomness, but this seems to be an accurate assessment. I suspect that randomness lends itself to infinite possibility, and one of those possibilities is the order of things that we observe.

Lawrence Krauss also wrote about this. I think it's the best theory about why there is something rather than nothing that we can hope for.

Why everyone is so sure about quantum randomness? The theory is incomplete and there could be yet unkown effects that can explain the supposed randomness.

it isn't the only thing like this in the universe, do i have to spell it out for you

But think about why you so demand laws to explain other laws. This is fundamentally meaningless.

Like I said above, randomness is the unmoved mover.

That's hardly freedom.
If you put it in that way then everything is meaningless.

Browsing that site seems less intuitive. Do their science boards have better users than this place?

And what if it is? Reality does not care that its nature makes you uncomfortable.

yes. please leave redditor

Are you a actually illiterate?

Let me illustrate what this convo is like.
user: All cats are orange
Me: not all cats are orange
You: SOME CATS ARE BLUE YOU RETARD

The only meaning that I can see is survival. Unless we can control the fate of the universe (not to mention outlive this planet, itself a monumental task) there is no point to anything we do. I prefer to think that given enough time, millennia perhaps, there is some understanding we could gain that could permit this. And that's what I think is meaningful.

>random or deterministic
Looks like conventional notions of randomness and determinism don't quite match the universe, but determinism is pretty close. Quantum processes are deterministic, but you can't make use of that determinism like you would in classic physics, so that behavior is usually interpreted as randomness.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. But what you say is that we shouldn't do science because it's meaningless anyway. That however is not true.
Also this

dude you're retarded. you're so far up your deterministic ass you can't even read.

>interpreted as randomness

That's seems about right.

Well there is the interpretation that leads to the multiverse which involves true randomness

I didn't mean for it to come off that way. There is a point to science. I'm just saying that our demand for there being deterministic laws to everything is wrongheaded. If you think about it long enough, you start to see the meaninglessness of that.

Okay, thanks, I'll give it a look! :)

>You're deterministic because you argued with someone that consciousness isn't beholden to its own unique physical properties separate from the rest of the universe

No, it's the other way around: many-worlds is deterministic, single-world is random.

I'm kind of worried that three or four people in this thread think this is a fundamentally metaphysical question, about how we can have randomness at some level and order at another. I can have a random electron because it's governed by a wave function which is relevant to its atom; if I have 10^30 atoms of gas, I'm not working at a scale where the wave functions will ever produce anything I didn't expect from classical physics. It's (almost) just like how I can use relativity some of the time, and not stress about whether or not I can add my frame's velocity to an object's velocity while I'm experiencing daily life.

Or maybe I'm just missing how this particular part of this problem is debatable.

I didn't mean many worlds (or alternative futures or whatever) I meant single multiverse.

Multiverse is not the same as many worlds

Randomness is a fuzzy term. When you can't get around some process, you call it random. In case of QM is a law of nature that you can't get around quantum determinism. So as long as you can't handle it the way you want, you call it random even if it works deterministically, usability is what matters here.

Never heard of such interpretation.

what did he mean by this? Or will anyone give me the short version of what makes a brain nondeterministic?

You've never heard of the multiverse theory? It's discussed here all the time

Random, fite me faggot
Deterministic if you're a Christcuck

I sure don't want to think randomly. Random brain is a meme for christcucks who can't get over their ancient fairy tales.

My problem with randomness is that saying that something is random equals with that we don't yet understand it. For the ancient men almost everything seemed random as he didn't have enough information to calculate certain results.

>inb4 the QM is so different

In my opinion it's impossible that the Universe is totally different on very small scales.

>What makes the OS of your head computer special over everything else in the world

God hacking in a soul.

They're saying that because there is something about the brain's functioning the eludes us. They don't actually know.

Roger Penrose has the quantum mind theory, where he argues the mind is governed by quantum processes. (Randomness does not allow for freedom by the way)

Yes, they latched onto it because it sounds like it would allow freedom. It doesn't

>sounds like
Well, yes, they are believers.

People want to think this because, like you said, that's been the story so far. But the buck has to stop somewhere, so to speak. It looks like this is it.

2.5/10

Nothing. If you observe the behaviour of an ant, for example, you will recognize it's patterns after some time and no one would argue that it's deterministic. The human brain works the same way but it's much more complex and has much more patterns. It is also able to hold massive amounts of memories therefore it's decision making will be very complex and very hard to calculate. However if you imagine an even more complex brain it would be easy to realize that for the 'super brain' our patterns would be easy to understand and calculate. To be honest I never understood why so many people believes in free will.

Because they want credit for the decisions they make. It makes people feel good about themselves. To suggest they can't claim credit makes them feel bad about themselves, and so they reject the notion.

There is also the issue of responsibility. Unless we start hacking brains, we will always need a justice system or some form of protection for the public, free will or not.

Ants have slave uprisings. Their social structure has so many parallels with ours that most people aren't even consciously aware of day to day. We're actually a lot more predictable than we'd like to believe.

That's right. Egoism is the perfect indicator of the unintelligent or ill mind.

>To be honest I never understood why so many people believes in free will.
My philosophy teacher defined free will like this: your decision is not free when you don't choose the results, and you don't choose them when you don't know them, i.e. when your choice is uninformed, and when the results hit you you realize this is not what you wanted, but it was decided by other factors; and when you know the consequences and knowingly choose them and the results match your expectations, it means the choice is rightfully yours.

If it's deterministic, but we can't actually determine anything ahead of time, what does it matter? Just fucking move on.

>Dualists BTFO every single time

IT never gets old desu.

>t. morons who don't actually understand whta the fuck determinism means
Wew lad. It used to be where you'd have to call out brainlets but now they just out themselves. Fuck off you popsci highschooler faggots. At least read the wikipedia page on this crap first

It's mechanistic with emergent properties
So detiriministicish

Right
That's a mechanism

So it's alive, biosemiosis doesn't mean minds are fundementaly different from computers. Just computers that are also programmers. Humans are just bad at making computers, take your anthropocentrism to the trash

FIGHT FATE by going to ANU's quantum random number generator at: qrng.anu.edu.au

Map a trivial choice like what you're going to have for dinner to an outcome of the RNG. Do it.

Congratulations. You just fucked up determinism.

It's random to a degree. Within a bowling ball, the smallest particles that make it up move more or less unpredictably.

But the ball always rolls in a deterministic manor.

According to Feynman's path integral formulation, determinism is an emergent phenomena of purely quantum mechanical randomness. But the laws of nature that specify this emergent phenomena are purely deterministic.

What makes the "determinism"-"randomness" dichotomy a worthwhile considerations is simply a Linguistic formality where two words lull you into a false Epistemological chasm of alleged Cosmic amorality and endless trudging through meaningless abstraction. The purpose of which is mockery of your pain and forbidding you from thinking that this world is Evil.

...

>calling others idiots while not actually understanding dunning-kruger
>posting memegraphs that dont actually make any sense.
>ARTANDTECHNOLOGY.COM
What did he mean by this?

>"no nothing"
>random Confidence variable that isnt rooted in any stats
>psychology
Wew lad you sure got em on this one. Congratz on googling dunning-kruger and clicking on the first image that pops up.

Balance of evidence suggests genuine randomness but reason finds this abhorrent and determinism is still technically possible