Hey determinism fags, If the whole fucking universe if deterministic,

>>62011353
>given enough information
It is not possible to obtain this information due to the Uncertainty Principle

>>62011353
Sure it's "theoretically possible" but you making such a device would also be inevitable (if you did), and if the machine was perfect then it would predict any alterations you make upon receiving this information. If it's not perfect your point is moot. The universe is fixed and as such me calling you a retard is inevitable. Retard

>>62011426
>and if the machine was perfect then it would predict any alterations you make upon receiving this information

That would create an endless loop.

>>62011440
basically the computer would end up predicting every physically possible future.

>>62011421
That's my point, uncertainty proves there are many possibilities ergo the future is not fixed

>>62011440
If so then such a machine is not possible, further invalidating the dumb kurisuposter's thread.

>>62011457
That's not what the uncertainty principle actually means dumb high schooler.

>>62011461
If such a machine is impossible to build, what does that imply?

The future is unpredictable?

>>62011463
>Ad Hominem
>Zero Facts, corrections, et cetera

I hate 4chan

>>62011353
The calculated future would be 1 you wouldn't want to change.
By the Heisemberg unceirtanty principle you can't obtain all the present information to calculate the future.
If you could actually do that you would be creating a universe equal to ours that would either be impossible to fit inside or run faster than our universe, making it impossible to make any predictions with it.

>>62011542
I get it..

Thanks.

It is impossible to simulate the "universe" (or "multiverse" or the set of all things encompasing everything else).
I.e., there must be an unmoved mover, or a prime mover.
The reason for this is that lets make two assumptions:
>The universe is possible to simulate
>Simulations require finite computational power
If we were to simulate the multiverse, this would imply that we would have to simulate the simulation (as the simulation exists within the multiverse). This gives us a simulation that would need infinite recursion, or infinite computational power to work (we must simulate a simulation within a simulation within a simulation...)
This means one of our assumptions is wrong. Either we can have infinite computational power simulations, or there is a prime mover and the multiverse cannot be simulated. It seems more reasonable (Occam's razor) that the universe is impossible to simulate.

>>62011353
While computing the universe, the machine will eventually compute itself being built and then itself computing the universe. If the real machine takes 1 or more steps to compute the simulated machine taking 1 step, then the simulated machine (and the simulated world) will never be able to get ahead of the real machine (and the real world). So the machine can't compute the future before the future happens.

>>62011353
>Hey determinism fags, If the whole fucking universe if deterministic, then it's theoretically possible to build a computer/program than can calculate EXACTLY what is going to happen in the future, given enough information.
No. Determinism doesn't imply perfect information is possible.

>And if that can be calculated, you can purposely alter the future.
No. There are many things that you can predict that you cannot change. For instance, if you reply, it will be vacuous, like your OP.

>If you alter the succession of events, that means that the predicted future wasn't correct.
You can't use knowledge of the future to change the future otherwise the knowledge is wrong, and therefore what did you base your changes on? If you let a contradiction like this in, anything follows. This isn't a proper reductio either, because your assumptions are flawed, see above.

>As soon as you knew the future, the future changed to a future where you know the future.
Incoherent by this point.

>How is this not alike the "many worlds interpretation"?
Don't hurt your brain with all this pop-physics and armchair philosophy you don't understand.

>Also, if the universe if fixed, then how come you are mad at me if it was inevitable that I posted this?
I'm not. If I was mad, I wouldn't be doing you this favor in giving you a chance to realize you are not as smart as you think you are.

>Also, why the fuck am I so depressed, does the universe hate me?
>It makes more sense that I fucked up..
Stop blogging. Go back to your hugbox on Steam or MMOs if you need emotional support.

>>62011353
I've thought about this before the exact same way. But this is actually a retarded proof for why determinism is false. Because you'd end up having your machine simulate your machine recursively infinitely which is impossible.

A better proof is suppose it is known with certainty that you will do P in the future doesn't matter the source. Then do ~P. Determinism BTFO

>>62011353
That's sweet but whatever machine you make will be part of the universe and therefore its construction was pre-ordained too.

However, both building a computer larger than the universe inside the universe, and getting the exact settings of every single particle in the universe are both fundamentally impossible,.

File: IMG_9292.jpg (19KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x200px

>>62011782
>Determinism is true because you can't have knowledge of the future
Nice argument bruh you almost had me there for a second

>>62011842
Determinism may be true or not, but I did just predict the future there

>>62011353
The calculations would have to include you making the calculations and reacting to them to be a accurate predictions. Otherwise you are not creating an accurate model of the universe in the first place. QED

>>62011421
While that may be a true obstacle, I think it's bad to leave the answer at that because it implies the rest of the reasoning is valid and would work in a classical universe.

And I'm not sure that would be a true obstacle. It might be that the starting configuration for the universe is something very simple, maybe the simplest possible configuration, that's discoverable from using first principles and checking its predictions against the world. (It could be like uniform mass at all points, and then as space expands the mass starts to clump, etc.) In that case, it's no problem that we can't accurately measure the current state of the entire world. (Granted, assuming many-worlds interpretation, it would be possible to simulate all the possible branches, but even if the machine could compute itself infinitely-recursively fast enough, it wouldn't be possible to determine which branch you'll experience in the future because there will be a you in each branch later on.)

>>62011703
What the hell is this prime mover nonsense? That could be something encoded in the starting position of the simulation or as another part of physics.
The real answer is like you said about infinite recursion. Another way to put it is that the simulated simulator can't outpace the real simulator because the simulation can't have faster processing power than the real universe because it uses a subset of the real universe's processing power to do anything.

>>62011353
Some smart people, way smarter than you, already thought about this ages ago.
Look up "Laplace's demon".

>>62011353
Such a machine would take into account being built, and you seeing the future, thus the future it would predict would already include the actions you would take upon seeing the future, whether you purposely fight it or do nothing.

However no machine could predict how much of a failure you'd turn out to be, and how disappointed your parents would be.
You parroting, psuedo-intellectual autist.

Can you emulate a 486 perfectly on a 486? No, eventually it will halt because you will run out of resources. This is why such a machine is impossible.

Such a machine would have to not only simulate all the universe, but also simulate itself simulating the universe ad infinitum to be perfectly accurate.

>>62011353
>it is this stupid guy again
Even those who believe in God and believe in destiny know that destiny is contingent and if you just sit on your ass doing nothing then nothing will happen.

>inb4 fedorafags spreg out on me

>>62011353
>then it's theoretically possible to build a computer/program than can calculate EXACTLY what is going to happen in the future
You would have to consume the universe in the process though :^)

>>62011853
Causes definitely have an effect.
Determinism is true, it's just the scope that's the issue.

>>62012496
Who said anything about simulation?
Such a machine predicts future events based on previous data.
It does not take the initial condition of the universe and runs the numbers from there.

I don't need to simulate your life to predict you're going to suck a dick, knowing you wrote that retarded post is enough.

DETERMINISM AND PROBABILITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE YOU UTTER FUCKING RETARD

THERE IS PROBABILISTIC DETERMINISM
HOLY SHIT I SWEAR EVERYONE THAT PRETENDS TO UNDERSTAND PHYSICS BUT CANT EVEN GRASP ITS BASICS SHOULD BE SHOT IN THE HEAD

FUCK OFF OP YOU ARE RETARDED

SAGED

>>62011888
THIS

>>62011353
It's only predictable to an external observer with all the information brainlet.

>>62011782
This, the retard OP thinks that the fact that our universe is quantum in any way contradicts determinism, it does not since you can have probabilities tied to wave function collapses and still manage to have a set of finite states, hell several phyisicists have already calculated the total number of universes in the "multiverse" off this basis and at no point there is conflict with poincares conjecture

>>62011353

There's a couple of problems with that.

-Chaotic deteminism (we can't even predict the movement of a simple double pendulum beyond a very short amount of time)

-Gödel's incompleteness theorems: every logical system of a certain power is incomplete. Therefore we can't make a simulation powerfull enough to calculate EVERYTHING.

-A simulation is always an abstraction - you look at certain parts, simplify them and can do fancy math with it. A simulation which doesn't provide a simplification is meaningless, since it's an experiament and can only run as fast as !real time". Therefore it's simply an dublitation and you can't predict, only observe.

-Heisemberg unceirtanty principle (you have to chose what information you want to extract and what information not).

..and so on.

Go to the science and math board instead of /g/