Prove determism wrong

By saying I'm wrong you're saying magic is real. Matter and or energy behaves according to a complex set of rules fat can be used to calculate absolute outcomes. Therefore determinism is true.

Learn some reading comprehension. He said that science can't answer or test that hypothesis, not that you were wrong.

Now let's be productive. How could we design an experiment to attempt to falsify your claim?

True. I'm a failure and determinist.
I'm not accountable for my failures it's just how it was meant to be.

surely determinism is one of the most pointless debates on here. what is the consequence for everyone on this thread if there is or isnt?

Well you can't. It's like asking how can make an experiment to falsify 2 + 2 is 4.

Perhaps.
I just made the thread because I heard based black science guy say determism is wrong.

computer pseudo randomness is also predetermined but you are still surprised by it. Since one cant simulate the entire universe from inside it, the outcome is even less knowable and more surprising. Since freewill is basically the ability to make an arbitrary or random choice, the chaos in the universe facilitates it rather than hinders it. In addition predetermination means that a future state has to be determinable but since the universe is impossible to keep track of inside of the universe(which contains everything meaning it is impossible to do at all) predetermination is impossible in actuality. The universe only has one path but that is really only one perspective to look at it with.

On a fundamental level cause and effect is just a matter of probability.

You're confusing your ability to determism future events vs whether or not those events are determined. Yes we can't practically predict the future, doesn't mean the future isn't set in stone. That hydrogen atom a billion years from a billion light years from here will be going x velocity and will be in a x y z position, it's determined already even though you will never be able to calculate the position and velocity.

free will isn't the ability to make arbitrary or random choices. surely a random choice is not free will at all. A choice is only "yours" if its contextualised by your desires. all of which is determined. if it wasn't determined, you wouldn't have any desires and you would have no you or reason to be. there would be no such thing as an individual because there would be no reason for variation.

an indeterminate or determinate universe has no impact on free will. free will is essentially a homunculus and only really works in the context of an omniscient mysterious god or spirituality.

I acknowledged that in the last sentence but determinism is equivalent to randomness in this universe. That seems good enough for the purposes of freewill

how are you using the word "homunculus" here?

no, because free will isn't just making random choices. and what you just said is like turning a blind eye and pretending somethings not there when it is.

I agree that generally choice is based on desires but people generally have the notion that in order to make a choice freely it has to not be influenced by reason or some cause and effect relationship. They want to be a completely independent actor. This is in actuality impossible, but chaos in the universe makes it possible to make an effectively reasonless decision.

no its still impossible. we cant make an independent decision because our own "will" is determined by our histories in this world. If we make a completely independent decision its like flipping a coin. its meaningless and then that version of free will would also lose all meaning because it turns us into vacuous empty meaningless creatures. free will is a paradox. it cannot work.

and give me an example of how chaos does this? i dont really understand.

order=language=/=reality
language=reference to reality
reference=/=proof
proof=/=order
determinism=/=order of reality

Natural sciences are basically languages and communication very well filtered to ease communication and differentiate it by relevance etc...

When you talk and think

i didn't say that the random choices would give us meaning, I said we can make arbitrary choices. The freewill I am imagining is a combination of a feedback loop of thought and desires in the brain and some external randomness. Even in a religious context freewill only allowed gave you the ability to make a choice but it was by a soul instead of natural processes.

Particle collisions are deterministic but effectively random which is what I meant by chaos. The usage was probably a bit off.

An interesting analogy. 2+2=4 is true because it is an entirely constructed set of ideas. We invented concepts of numbers, and we invented functions to put numbers in, and we created a deterministic system that Is useful for modeling and prediction.

Philosophically speaking, if the system we use to model reality is itself determinisitic, would it be possible to conclude that reality was anything else using that same system?

>exact position
I don't think so. Prove that its position is predetermined exactly.

>Natural sciences are basically languages

Why do people call everything a language.

Im basically a determinist, but the concept of free will isnt empty. Read the sources, there really havent been people arguing that there is this thing called "will" that is totally free of all causes. Usually people mean "independent well" or free within some context. Its valuable to talk about free and distinguishable wills in legal contexts, where responsibility is allocated.

but this would probably only be an insignificant part of our lives? whats the point in even arguing for free will by that. its meaningless. the whole point of free will is that it gives some kind of meaning. this doesn't. free will is a choice that is your choice and i mean you, you because you wanted it and have reasons relating to you. an arbitrary random choice is not free will. thats like saying someone with tourettes or a tic is exerting free will.

just because free will is about not being determined by forces like your environment doesn't mean it is about randomness or arbitrariness because that is not free will and i think most people wouldn't agree with that definition. it makes no sense.

when was the last time you made an arbitrary choice?

>just because free will is about not being determined by forces like your environment

Isnt that like the very definition of environment? What non-environmental forces are determining will?

Prove that physics exists. Prove that every interaction that ever occurred between one or more particles was NOT just a coincidence.

the wording of that sentence isn't really important. when i was writing it, i was just baring in mind that there seems to be this paradox that free will can't exist with deterministic influences but at the same time it can't exist without deterministic influences. so that just confused my wording abit.

If you just wanted an example then maybe genetic determinism?

what does coincidence mean to you?

if you're talking abou freet will like that then it has no relevance to this kind of discussion.

For example, if a mass acted randomly whenever you let go of it, but just so happened to fall towards the earth every time, so it looks like it's behaving under the physics of gravity, when it was only by chance.

I think it does, because its what people actually mean by free will. To do otherwise would be a straw man.

It's unproveable, but I believe the universe has a random coefficiency that operates on a 4th dimensional level making the universe randomized in an infinitely subtle way, but to a degree everything is mostly preordained. Also, this "randomness" can only tangibly effect reality once in infinity, so it likely has already happened, and won't happen again until the universe ends or restarts. So yes, everything is preordained except in the beginning of time.

yeah but its not relevant in an argument about determinism in the universe... if your notion of free will is contextualised in determinism then its not going to have any impact on this argument. i don't think the legal thing has relevance here.

Clearly the op doesnt share that view of free will if hes talking about your thoughts being determined from billions of years ago.

i assume you're talking about compatibilism. i think the compatibilistic view gets abit inconsistent anyway desu.

Ah okay, I see that the OP was purely about the universe.

My bad. Thanks pal.

Position and velocity of that hydrogen atom cannot be measured at the same time, so you either have hidden variables or non determinism. Experiments have never had any results that would support hidden variables, so the universe seams not deterministic. We can still make statistical staments about the future, but not absolute statements. It does not make sense but the universe isnt obliged to comply with dumb human brains.

Just because they can't be measured doesn't mean that they're not certain and determined.
Also isn't that because the act of obversing would change the outcome because you impart energy to the system from the obvervation itself? I haven't taken quantum physics yet but this is my understanding of it.
That just means your predetermined action of observation changes what is being observed.

>Heisenberg is wrong.
Heisenberg is right, Calvin is wrong.

Let's just say that if I were to go out and buy a lottery ticket I have a feeling that the numbers that come out aren't going to be mine...

The confusion from whether events are predetermined is due to the confusion between space and time caused by the theory of relativity.

With space, you think something has to be in front of you to see it, this is actually a property of time.

With time, you think you can predict future events based on past events, this is actually a property of space... (analytic functions, if you know what the value is on any open interval, that is enough to tell you what the value is everywhere)

>Everything can be determined to the Planck measurement, just need a lot of computing power and the starting parameters

That's just conjecture. Nobody knows that physics actually even works when applied to situations we can't compute with. Even slightly complicated situations often break shit when they finally figure out how to do the computations and require ad hoc fixes

If randomness isnt possible, explain rand().
Checkmate

be careful boi if you think you are comfortable with the concept of consciousness and it's relationship with the physical world you are a fag, no matter what your theory is

If I managed to prove determinism to be wrong, would that manage to prove it to be right?

Uncertainty principle means you can never have the starting conditions

Electron tunneling, the randomness of atomic decay, etc mean you cannot perfectly predict the future

Mister Harris your mom is calling you.

Lmao look at this fucking retard. I guess the entirety of science is unscientific since literally nothing can be 100% completely proven to be false.

God, this place is full of magic believing retards. Probably not even in the top 6 of the smartest boards on Veeky Forums, which is just sad.

Uncertainty principle means you can't know the position and velocity of a sub atomic particle at the same time, it doesn't mean that it's not in a z x y position going x meters per second(using measurements to Planck)

>Lmao look at this fucking retard. I guess the entirety of science is unscientific since literally nothing can be 100% completely proven to be false.
>God, this place is full of magic believing retards. Probably not even in the top 6 of the smartest boards on Veeky Forums, which is just sad.
t. someone who doesn't understand that the scientific method has limitations

> the entirety of science is unscientific
Science is unscientific at its core, you can't prove scientific method is correct by using science.

Brain is now exploded .and apparently, it was meant to be

This is interesting, I read somewhere that physics was merely one interpretation and arrangement of reality according to human needs, but what other interpretation would be able to predict nature so accurately? Is physics the only universally valuable interpretation of nature or is it only valuable to humans?

eh I went through this determinism and psychological egoism phase too
what OP is saying is true though, by nature of logical procession and it just being plain old unfalsifiable
go home retards

>science dictates thought and human action whuch have come to the conclusion that science is correct
literally a low iq brainlet and came up with this at the age of 14
anyone who uses physical law to prove determinism is stupider than anigger

Wow seriously we have to write out physics for you?
X=(x') + v't + (.5)at^2

' denotes initial values
With this equation you can calculate where any projectile will be given how long ago it was released, it's starting speed, and acceleration in thst velocity component

t. high school "physicist"

Never claimed to be anything.. You ok bud?

since there is no evidence supporting anything other than determinism it seems unreasonable to insist on an alternative interpretation.

>assuming constant resultant force for an object falling through the air

i'm pretty sure quantum particles have a nature of randomness to them that is actually unpredictable. if that's true then your entire argument falls apart

>Prove a method of thought wrong that can infinitely be justified AFTER THE FACT

No, fuck off.

I guess you've never heard of quantum mechanics. The sole fact that our reality exists goes against determinism as the best evidence to date suggests we have sprung forth out of chance and from essentially infinite nothingness.

Also, determinism basically suggests that we have no actual control over our lives and that our consciousness is merely "along for the ride". Sounds pretty dumb to me. With your determinism, attempt to determine how humans will evolve in 1000 years. Yea good luck with that.

Quantum mechanics

Literally just this OP.
>Face it, your life, your thoughts have already been determined billions of years ago and a not single thing will change that.
This may be true in a classical universe, but again, QM makes the future probabilistic.

How does qm mean this?
I haven't taken a quantum physics class yet so please tell me.

To my limited understanding, the physical properties of atoms, photons, electrons, etc. can be described by wave functions. These properties include position, momentum, etc. Wave functions describe the value of the property (e.g. position) probabilistically, so an electron's position is not at a specific point, but at a region of space (with each point in space having a specific probability, described by the wave function). This is not due to limitations in measurement. This is actually due to the nature of the universe itself. So fundamentally the universe isn't deterministic, since it's governed by probabilities.

Well some things change and some don't. For example I'm fairly certain OP is going to be a fag even 1000 years from now.

I'm pretty sure that's a limit of observation.
And literally how does that work?
Either a piece of matter is going x velocity in at a certain time in a certain place or it isn't.

Technically yes, we have no reason to believe we don't exist in an entirely deterministic universe, but it's pretty close to impossible to know all the infinitely small physical and mathematical variables that govern everything we describe as "random probability", so as long as we dont have all the hidden variables we can't act like we live in a deterministic universe, the day we do find all the data then yeah, we can create and destroy matter and energy at will, bend the universal momentum and catch virtual particles mid-existance, but until that day the universe will behave the way Copenhagen wanted it to behave

And now you have 2 options OP, a) Consider you live in a timeline where our approach to mathematics is utterly useless since its inherited flaws makes so it cant never accurately simulate the behavior of this or any other universe with similar properties, or b) Realize we can probabilistically account for those hidden variables enough so that we can calculate the energy required in the quantum tunneling that dopes the transistors that you use to shitpost in this Thai trap discussion image forum

Your call

>I'm pretty sure that's a limit of observation.
No, there are actually lots of experiments in QM demonstrating that small particles can act as waves (which has no specific position). Check out the "double slit experiment". It's pretty counter-intuitive, but it's not really disputed now since it has been done for decades. It shows a particle acting as if it is in 2 places at the same time (it's actually not - its wave properties are just showing). So this is not actually a limitation of our observations.
>And literally how does that work? Either a piece of matter is going x velocity in at a certain time in a certain place or it isn't.
I guess the best I can do is make a case for how a counter-intuitive theory may still be true, even though it defies common sense. Think of how special and general relativity works. There is no such thing as a "universal clock" that everyone can agree with. Instead, time passes at different rates depending on parameters like velocity and gravity. We non-physicists may be tempted to say "Literally how does that work? Obviously time passes at the same rate everywhere." But the fact is that general relativity describes the universe more accurately than a description where there is a "universal clock". It's the same with QM. It turns out that describing matter in terms of probabilities is a better description than the description where "a piece of matter is going x velocity in a certain time in a certain place or it isn't."

but doesn't that just mean it's a wave and therefore acting as a wave when it produces hits as a wave instead of a single particle?

Relativity does make sense. The higher the gravity the more acceleration due to gravity there is. Light seems to bend around because it slows down and some of it gets taken in. Time slows as well of course.

This isn't complete randomness.
If there is an electron
And I give you coordinates in the x y z plane on the Planck scale and same with time and I ask you how fast that particle part of the electron you can give me a velocity. There is no probability. It is either in that section of space going an x amount in a given direction or it isn't. It's not a coin flip and even a coin clip can be determined.

What angle was it thrown at
How much energy was used
Initial position
Air drag
Density
Gravity
External factors such as wind or sound vibrations
Where the energy of the flip was concentrated
And many other factors
It's not 50/50 chance if you can figure out all the variables and then calculate on what side is going to land.

And again doesn't qm just mean we can't measure it and that our observation changes the result itself? I mean to look at sub atomic particles you need to use an electron microscope, correct? Well that certainly adds to the event. On a macro scale it's fine since it doesn't add anything to an event to simply observe the light being reflected off said event/object, unless you illuminate it yourself of course.

I don't even really care, honestly. What is the difference to me between a universe in which everything I will ever do has been pre-ordained but that somehow has an illusion built in that makes it seem as if I'm making my own decisions and a universe where I can actually make conscious decisions?
Total determinism is a pointless thought experiment unless you can actually know the initial state of every single thing in the universe, the exact laws of the universe and have some sort of magic prediction machine that lets you extrapolate from these.

>I give you coordinates in the x y z plane on the Planck scale and same with time and I ask you how fast that particle part of the electron you can give me a velocity. There is no probability. It is either in that section of space going an x amount in a given direction or it isn't.
You literally can't do that because of the laws of physics - specifically the "uncertainty principle". Here's probably the simplest way to explain it:
We can describe particles as waves. We can get a particle's properties from its wave function by looking at the wave's properties. For example a particle's momentum (p) is determined by its wave function's wavelength (λ) by the formula p = h/λ, where h is the Planck constant. You can only know λ precisely if λ is constant. But that means that the wave is spread out throughout space - i.e. you don't know what its precise position is. On the other hand, you can only know a particle's position precisely if it is localized in space - but that would mean that you can't determine its λ precisely. Pic explains it nicely

>Prove to me that an hydrogen atom 2 billion lighf years from earth that is in a certain position going at certain velocity wasn't determined to be there going that certain speed when the universe initially started to expand
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, kys retarded brainlet OP

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

When I suffered from psychosis everything felt predetermined, too many coincidences between my thoughts and what was happening around me.

determenism is not an opinion or idea, it's a theory and no has been able to disprove it
>inb4 muh heisenberg
even he had no actual proof the particle "randomness" wasn't caused by a determenistic process, srsly fucking pseudo science brainlets

read Bell's Inequalities you moron. It fucking proved that there are no local hidden variables (i.e. the "randomness" is not caused by any deterministic process)

bell's Theorem doesn't disprove Determinism you fucking brainlet, bell starts from certain assumptions, such as Hidden Variables and Locality, and derives an absurd conclusion from them. Now, any one of the assumptions he started off with could have been responsible for the absurd conclusion, so all Bell's Theorem tells you is that either Hidden Variable Theory or Locality or both are wrong, now go back to school

Is it possible your thoughts were delayed so you were thinking about things that you had already seen but thought you hadn't?