Nothing is random, Free will does not exist, There are no

>>8604849
>no infinites in nature
>in nature
no duh

>>8604849
determinism is something I can get behind,
no infinites seems like a obviously false claim

>>8604849
prove it faggot

File: 1481790694525.gif (901KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

901KB, 500x375px

Op is a faggot,

and a brainlet,

stating bullshit without proving it is euphoric.

"I'm edgy and cool''

>>8604849
Define random
Define free will
Define infinity and
define nature

>>8605572
this bitch is woke
right on bruh

File: 160927210830-tk-ah0927-exlarge-169.jpg (35KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 780x438px

Only cucks believe they're not in control of their own destiny.

File: Face2Face Real-time Face Capture and Reenactment of RGB Videos CVPR 2016.webm (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>8604849
There is no Perfect Vacuum or Perfect Circle in nature.

>>8604849
I wouldn't rule anything out. We don't know if black hole singularities have infinite density or not, but you cannot say it goes one way or the other, we have no proof.

It would be better to say that all systems of proof are incomplete or inconsistent and so all reasoning is doomed, since that is prooven lol

File: IMG_1116.jpg (155KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x1000px

>>8605666
Define "nature".

>>8605666
If a vacuum is just empty space, would the nature consist mostly of vacuums?

>>8605666
Something else that doesn't exist: time

>>8605893
There is no empty space in nature.

>>8605999

What about the parts of a particle where the wave function touches zero?

>>8604849
the universe is THE infinite.

>>8606639
Eh not really, there are clearly defined boundaries of our universe.

>>8606658
ever expanding into nothing? meaning nothing is something, ergo; universe is infinite

>>8605666
Satanic trips
>>8605999
Reverse satanic trips

>truth confirmed

>>8604849
What about randomness? Like a state of maximum entropy

>>8605998
>thinks time isn't real.
>on sci

>>8606661
Expanding means space itself is expanding, growing sparser and sparser. Not that stuff moves anywhere.

>>8606661

Is a balloon infinite? It expends as you inflate it, assuming you have a perfect balloon that can't burst, it can expand forever. At hat point does it become infinitely large?

>>8604849
Nothing is random, & everything is random. It's all relative. Concepts of random and not random kinda break down when you realize time isn't real man

I believe this will shed some light on the perfect circle inquiry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmqsk1vZSKw

>>8604849
yes no yes

>>8604849
>Nothing is random
true, what does random even mean?

>Free will does not exist
true, it's the only logical consequence of the first assumption

>There are no infinites in nature
analytical infinities exist of course, but i'm not sure about synthetic infinites

>what is quantum physics
this isnt the 1800s faggot
you dont even have basic knowledge of modern physics
kys

>>8604849
Free will exists if p != np

>>8604849
>There are no infinites in nature.
Unfalsifiable claim

>>8607158
So you think the world is deterministic but you can still make decisions freely nontheless?

>>8606805
>At hat point does it become infinitely large?

no

>>8604849
>There are no infinities in nature

So I won't be dead forever? Glad to hear!

>>8606792
Time is a concept, not a thing. A concept like Lord of the Rings, time travel, and the perfect woman. All of it is a fiction. A type of superstition.

Those people that don't believe in free will. Do you believe in gematria?

File: 1484446764962.webm (1MB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x640px

>>8607211
The only thing we've learned from quantum physics is that science understanding isn't complete. It hasn't actually disproven anything, just because we can't measure shit properly doesn't mean it can't be measured.

File: pi.jpg (42KB, 650x392px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 650x392px

>>8607242
No.

>>8604849
Sure man

>>8604849
I have my doubts about the third statement. How can the universe not be infinite when it's expanding faster than light into the "nothingness'? That's basically infinity because it has no definite end

>>8608065
It's just the objects that we see in space that are expanding.

>>8604849
random stands for something we can't predict given our measure abilities, wich acutally exist.

I agree there is no free will according to mathematic analysis
But once again this is not very useful in real life

Since we don't know anything about whatever there is outside the universe, I'd rather just say
"universe is finite"

What's the point of this topic ?

>>8604849
>There are no infinites in nature.
Your wrong, consider the real numbers.

>>8608154
Can't agree with that, since the number of particle in the obervable universe is very likely to be finite, any combination would still be a finite numeric value, even if it's a very big number
For me infinite doesn't include " extra big numeric values that can't be esteemed by any computation " but more like the thing after the last number, wich can't be a thing in reality

>>8604849
But why is it that determinism/causality has to be mutually exclusive from free will. In do agree that we do not posses TOTAL free will, but still we have a consciousness (inb4 how can you know everything is real) and it feels so much that we do have free will. Maybe we have something like a local free will.
The way I view it is that by the very existence of our conscious brain, the anterior cortex, which allows us to analyze, introspect and question things around us, in itself proves that something about the world allows the apparition of an organism that can decide for itself as a sentient entity aka us. The other component of the brain, the unconscious, is the one the we do not have control over, it's the part of the brain that is still functioning deterministically; so in other words there are parts of our brain that we cannot access nor control.
Either we have free will or not, we have no choice but to obey one of the two variants.
To rephrase it in a more understandable way, the laws of physics that govern the universe, by way of the limits that they impose onto every atom, molecule or structure and by the way the same laws govern interaction between these components allowed for the emergence of an organism which posses self-realization of existence, and that, in itself, proves a strange quirk of the universe and that determinism is direct causation of, let's call it, semi-free will.
I said semi-free will because the very idea of free will, IMHO, is preposterous, in the sense that how can we actually have free will if that doesn't imply we are God himself. We have to be limited in order to exist, hence the local free will earlier mentioned.

>>8608193
iz u sayin dat while u iz a slave 2 da universe in a way u iz da universe n derefore u own master?

hot shit mah nigga

>>8605572
Define "define"

If nothing is random, then why does throwing dice multiple times end up with uniform distribution? Or are you saying that is not "true randomness"?

>>8604849
>No infinities in nature
Incorrect. We may not know it yet, but singularities inside of black holes are presumably infinite in mass.

Ofcourse there are perfect cirkels. A drop of olive oil in a glass of water gives a perfect circle. Other than that, a circel with a hight is a spiral. A straight line is only straight when it points straight down to the centre of the earth. And here is a question: what do we use pi for when we measure the circumference of a circle, when we can just do r^4/3?

>>8609946
>Ofcourse there are perfect cirkels.
Not in nature. A circle is composed of an infinite number of dots. In nature objects what we call circles are made of atoms and neither infinitely many atoms nor are atoms dots. It only makes sense to simplify such an object because it's close enough to the ideal construct for such a description to be useful.

I have no idea what you mean with the rest of your post.

>>8609106
I guess he means a more intrinsic way of randomness in a sense that it is not possible under any circumstances to predict a certain outcome. The randomness of throwing dice comes only from the ignorance of the boundary conditions. How where the dice placed in the cup? How exactly did you shake and throw them? At which angle, heigth and force? ...
If you knew all that you could predict the outcome. With "true randomness" you still couldn't do that even if you had the maximum amount of information about your system. Thats because the laws that govern the process are probabilistic itself. This is what we have in our current description of quantum mechanics. And I guess OP thinks that this randomness still comes from our ignorance about the underlying principles which are deterministic according to him.

>>8609899
Density, not mass, faggot.

get some knowledge