User Controls
Determinism
-
2017-06-09 at 4:57 AM UTCinb4 you post shit thats wrong
then i explain why your wrong
then you post more shit thats wrong to try to refute being wrong
captain mongol -
2017-06-09 at 4:58 AM UTC
-
2017-06-09 at 5 AM UTCthis is exactly why i ignore these threads. there's always going to be some butthurt dumbass trying to prove why his wrong ideas are right. it's really headache inducing for me. i honestly think a sploo pussle should be required for registration.
-
2017-06-09 at 5:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth inb4 you post shit thats wrong
then i explain why your wrong
then you post more shit thats wrong to try to refute being wrong
captain mongol
I told you to shut your stupid cockholster, kid. Now I'm going to have to shove my braincock down your gullet and piss facts down your throat.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has nothing. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Sifr. To do with determinism or probabilism. It addresses momentum and position as being conjugate variables, and pertains strictly to the accuracy of measurement for either.
Say it with me, you paste eating gluetard; "The uncertainty principle has nothing to do with determinism". -
2017-06-09 at 5:04 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-06-09 at 5:10 AM UTCif a particle cannot be defined by a single measure, then reality itself which is made out of a near infinitude of particles cannot either. in fact, if we cant define the momentum or position of the base building block of everything, it would be impossible to define the momentum or position of the macro scale, i.e. determinism, given that larger parts are made out of smaller parts. in fact, there has been recent research that the perception of such particles itself may play into the uncertainty of the measurements. which is known as the observer effect.
what does this mean? lets say a building is made out of bricks, you can predict in 10 years it'll be made out of bricks. now lets say a building is made out of bricks that fucking shift around randomly in space. can you predict what the building will look like in 5 seconds, let alone 10 years? -
2017-06-09 at 5:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth if a particle cannot be defined by a single measure, then reality itself which is made out of a near infinitude of particles cannot either. in fact, if we cant define the momentum or position of the base building block of everything, it would be impossible to define the momentum or position of the macro scale, i.e. determinism, given that larger parts are made out of smaller parts. in fact, there has been recent research that the perception of such particles itself may play into the uncertainty of the measurements.
what does this mean? lets say a building is made out of bricks, you can predict in 10 years it'll be made out of bricks. now lets say a building is made out of bricks that fucking shift around randomly in space. can you predict what the building will look like in 5 seconds, let alone 10 years?
I'd hate to post the same video twice in a row.
The uncertainty principle has
ABSO
FUCKING
LUTELY
NOTHING
TO DO
WITH
RANDOMNESS.
Say it with me. -
2017-06-09 at 5:24 AM UTC"observation of quantum particles yields random values. And we have no theoretical basis for there existing a cause which predetermines this. So that is mighty strong evidence per se. So your question then boils down to "yes, I know all that, but I want to believe the contrary even though there is no evidence to support my position other than it seems reasonable."
"We present an efficient method to extract the amount of true randomness that can be obtained by a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG). By repeating the measurements of a quantum system and by swapping between two mutually unbiased bases, a lower bound of the achievable true randomness can be evaluated. The bound is obtained thanks to the uncertainty principle of complementary measurements applied to min- and max- entropies. We tested our method with two different QRNGs, using a train of qubits or ququart, demonstrating the scalability toward practical applications. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics.
Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely
(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state.[1]
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
if i misused the word "uncertainty" for "indeterminacy" i'm so very very sorry, even though uncertainty implies indeterminacy. either way i'm still right. -
2017-06-09 at 5:27 AM UTCtfw 2oo smart 5u
-
2017-06-09 at 5:28 AM UTCbrb sleep
-
2017-06-09 at 5:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth "observation of quantum particles yields random values. And we have no theoretical basis for there existing a cause which predetermines this. So that is mighty strong evidence per se. So your question then boils down to "yes, I know all that, but I want to believe the contrary even though there is no evidence to support my position other than it seems reasonable."
"We present an efficient method to extract the amount of true randomness that can be obtained by a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG). By repeating the measurements of a quantum system and by swapping between two mutually unbiased bases, a lower bound of the achievable true randomness can be evaluated. The bound is obtained thanks to the uncertainty principle of complementary measurements applied to min- and max- entropies. We tested our method with two different QRNGs, using a train of qubits or ququart, demonstrating the scalability toward practical applications. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics.
Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that
(a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely
(b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state.
Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state.[1]
Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
if i misused the word "uncertainty" for "indeterminacy" i'm so very very sorry, even though uncertainty implies indeterminacy. either way i'm still right.
Literally 0% of your pasta is in any way related to the Uncertainty Principle. You used the specific term "uncertainty principle". That's an actual thing. For the billionth time, at least Google the retardation you spew before using big words you don't understand.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-09 at 5:30 AM UTCLiterally 100% of my pasta is in any way related to the Uncertainty Principle
you're dense as fuck
i think ur iq is 118 -
2017-06-09 at 5:32 AM UTC
-
2017-06-09 at 6:09 AM UTCIm very sad that I haven't been refuted at all. Do you guys all think I'm that fucking stupid that my points make no sense? You just gloss over whatever I have to say and talk to the next person who is smarter? FUCK.
This is determinism. This is why I'm getting fucking pissed off after having 12 drinks that I haven't been specifically addressed and the thread is involving others arguments ALWAYS igrnoning mine. ITS B EEN DETERMINED by your faacggot lifestyles that you don't want to fucking engage in conversation with me online because you assume I'm too fucking stupid to hold an actual converstaion. THANKS.
DETERMINISM is me actually swan diving off my balcony and snapping my stupid bird neck because it was meant to be. FUCK ALL OF YOU.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-09 at 6:38 AM UTC
^ No its cuz troll detected -
2017-06-09 at 6:45 AM UTCWAT do you thinka troll is actor? I'm goig to need you to remove your seat belt and step out of the vehicle, I don't like the size of your pupils right now.
-
2017-06-09 at 8:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rebirth determinism is not possible because the uncertainty principle contradicts it.
CF already destroyed you on this so I'll pass it up beyond saying you're a moron.philosophy is bullshit and grandiose because as a species that is a direct descendents of apes, every week there's conjecture and speculation on the billions and trillions of miles outside oneself with only the basis of "intuition"
lol, le monkey argument. Well meme'd friend.
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I didn't ask you if you did. I asked you how. You're dismissing cases of free will, but not providing a definition for what it is, and that definition would be the basis for you to dismiss these cases being offered.
Either out up a definition of free will or don't try to say what isn't free will.
Where am I dismissing cases of free will? I guess said I did say quantum indeterminism doesn't imply freedom but that covers all of compatabilist, incompatabilist, and libertarian definitions of free will so I guess take your pick?
I don't feel obligated to offer a definition of free will because I don't want to defend a definition of free will and it doesn't really matter with respect to the point I was making: experts seriously argue for both the presence and absence of free will in both the presence and absence of physical determinism. -
2017-06-09 at 8:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Im very sad that I haven't been refuted at all. Do you guys all think I'm that fucking stupid that my points make no sense? You just gloss over whatever I have to say and talk to the next person who is smarter? FUCK.
This is determinism. This is why I'm getting fucking pissed off after having 12 drinks that I haven't been specifically addressed and the thread is involving others arguments ALWAYS igrnoning mine. ITS B EEN DETERMINED by your faacggot lifestyles that you don't want to fucking engage in conversation with me online because you assume I'm too fucking stupid to hold an actual converstaion. THANKS.
DETERMINISM is me actually swan diving off my balcony and snapping my stupid bird neck because it was meant to be. FUCK ALL OF YOU.
Come on man, don't be like that. What would you like to discuss with me? As in, was there a specific point you'd like to see addressed? I don't think you stupid at all, quite the contrary and that's real talk. -
2017-06-09 at 10:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Wrong. Even if you put a gun to my head and say, "Choose Option A," I can override my will to live and choose Option B if I so desire.
Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. In other words, you can choose option B over option A if you so desire, but you can't choose to desire it or not. Where is the freedom in that?
Freewill is not conceptually coherent. Either our wills are determined by prior causes (desires) and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them.
The popular conception of freewill rests on two assumptions: that each of us could have behaved differently than we did in the past, and that we are the conscious source of most of our thoughts and actions. Both of these assumptions are false.
There is no way I can influence my own desires - for what tools of influence would I use? Other desires? To say that I would have done otherwise had I wanted to is simply to say I would have lived in another universe had I been in a different universe. Compatibilism amounts to nothing more than an assertion of the following creed: "A puppet is free as long as he loves his strings."The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-09 at 10:49 AM UTCI JUST THINK THAT ALL OF YOU WILL-TARDS NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THE CONCEPT OF FREE WILL OR FATE OR DETERMINISM IS A COMPLETELY NON-QUANTIFIABLE AND ILLOGICAL TOPIC OF THOUGHT IN A UNIVERSE GOVERNED BY PHYSICS WHERE LIFE IS JUST A CHEMICAL REACTION REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
