Is the Universe random or deterministic?

Determined to be random.

>>8916300
pls

The Schrödinger equation is perfectly deterministic.

>>8916322
Except for the results.

>>8916297
Deterministic except for consciousness which is random.

>>8916297
Micro level: random
Macro level: deterministic

>>8916297
both at this point in time. things could change drastically

>>8916297
*Universe does random shit*
Scientists: "is this evidence of determinism? does the universe have a plan to it?"
Universe: "Sure bro, I totally know what I'm doing!"

>>8916297
deterministic but unpredictable because you cannot calculate the complexity of the universe from inside the universe.

>>8916502
t brainlet

>>8916502
This.

>>8916344
Will this meme ever stop?

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

>>8916523
the fact that it can question and analyze itself and the universe around it. yeah it is special you moron

>>8916526
I fail to see how that means it isn't subject to the same laws of the universe everything else is.

>>8916297
it's random nigga

http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

>>8916738
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.

>>8916440
>were the universes first day at its new job
>Its too nervous to do anything properly

>>8916297
Absolutely deterministic. Probably the whole universe is an energy cascade powering an alien turbine

>>8916523
Free Will

>>8916544
>>8916770
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: http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf

>>8916942
>Subatomic particle's have free will
What does that even mean? That's a nonsense statement that merely devalues the concept of free will.

>>8916523
>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.

>>8916962
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.

>>8916970
Plenty of influential people still make that argument.

>>8916984
The future already "exists". It's a block universe. No free will is possible and these arguments are all pointless.

>>8916984
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.

>>8916993
You don't know that.

>>8916986
No they don't, this is literally 1970s understanding of neuroscience kek

>>8917000
Yes, they do. These are people who are saying that this "new" understanding is wrong.

>>8916544
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

>>8916997
Einstein knew that

>>8916995
The only difference is intentionality. How do you know particles don't behave the way they do because they want to?

>>8916770
>Again. Why is consciousness the only thing like this in the universe?
but tat's wrong faggot

>>8916351
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?

>>8917008
Did he prove it?

>>8917021
Yes, with relativity

>>8917024
Relativity still allows degrees of freedom. You just can't affect things outside of your light cone.

File: f71d393431f0e5fbd91daae5d65653dc.jpg (18KB, 300x337px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x337px

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

>>8917020
>randomness has rules
What am i reading

>>8917007
What did the Anon mean by this?

>>8917028
There is something outside the determined world: randomness

The quantum world is our first glimpse of it

The universe is approximately deterministic.

>>8917030
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?

>>8917012
Why is /sci/ so fucking bad at reading comment chains? Like, possibly worse than any other board.

See the start of the chain, >>8916344

>>8917049
>le comment chains
to reddit w/ u

>>8917045
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.

>>8917045
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.

>>8917049
it isn't the only thing like this in the universe, do i have to spell it out for you

>>8917063
But think about why you so demand laws to explain other laws. This is fundamentally meaningless.

>>8917068
Like I said above, randomness is the unmoved mover.

>>8917027
That's hardly freedom.
>>8917068
If you put it in that way then everything is meaningless.

>>8917055
Browsing that site seems less intuitive. Do their science boards have better users than this place?

>>8917073
And what if it is? Reality does not care that its nature makes you uncomfortable.

>>8917076
yes. please leave redditor

>>8917064
Are you a actually illiterate?

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

>>8917068
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.

>>8916297
>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.

>>8917077
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 >>8917087

>>8917081
dude you're retarded. you're so far up your deterministic ass you can't even read.

>>8917092
>interpreted as randomness

That's seems about right.

>>8917092
Well there is the interpretation that leads to the multiverse which involves true randomness

>>8917095
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.

>>8917078
Okay, thanks, I'll give it a look! :)

>>8917096
>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

>>8917105
No, it's the other way around: many-worlds is deterministic, single-world is random.

>>8917045
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.

>>8917121
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.

>>8917134
Never heard of such interpretation.

>>8917000
what did he mean by this? Or will anyone give me the short version of what makes a brain nondeterministic?

>>8917142
You've never heard of the multiverse theory? It's discussed here all the time

>>8916297
Random, fite me faggot
Deterministic if you're a Christcuck

>>8917148
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.

>>8916523
>What makes the OS of your head computer special over everything else in the world

God hacking in a soul.

>>8917148
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)

>>8917161
Yes, they latched onto it because it sounds like it would allow freedom. It doesn't

>>8917168
>sounds like
Well, yes, they are believers.

>>8917163
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.

>>8917161
2.5/10

>>8916523
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.

>>8917190
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.

>>8917197
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.

>>8917190
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.

>>8917197
That's right. Egoism is the perfect indicator of the unintelligent or ill mind.

>>8917190
>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.

>>8916297
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.

>>8916322
>>8916344
>>8916351
>>8916502
>>8916520
>>8916523
>>8916544
>>8916770
>>8916962
>>8916993
>>8917005
>>8917007
>>8917008
>>8917024
>>8917030
>>8917028
>>8917040
>>8917063
>>8917068
>>8917073
>>8917092
>>8917081
>>8917129
>>8917134
>>8917148
>>8917161
>>8917190
>>8917197
>>8917231
>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

>>8916297
It's mechanistic with emergent properties
So detiriministicish

>>8916523
Right
>>8916526
That's a mechanism

>>8916526
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.

File: demiurge.jpg (9KB, 150x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 150x184px

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.

File: D-K.jpg (33KB, 694x585px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 694x585px

>>8917888

File: dunning_kruger.png (37KB, 434x395px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 434x395px

>>8918298
>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?

>>8918298
>"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.

>>8916297
Balance of evidence suggests genuine randomness but reason finds this abhorrent and determinism is still technically possible

>>8917927
literally this. determinism is retarded

>>8916322
This, Quantum mechanics could be deterministic

What if, the wave function not only describe the probabilities of the position spreading over time, but its actually the particle itself that spreads on the space like some sort of fluid, and then when it gets perturbated by lets say a measurement, it join back together by the force of the collision? (or just pass through too)

>>8918321
It assumes that the quantum RNG is genuinely random and this cant be proven

I honestly cant decide whether determinism or randomness is more horrifying

>>8918314
>being so stupid that "no nothing" being a joke is too hard to understand

>>8918336
>enjoying stupid meme graphs
Is this honestly bait? i cant tell anymore on this website. fuck it. Ill just say its bait and not continue arguing with trolls

>>8918321
its assuming that the number generator is true random except thats fundamentally impossible with our current understanding

>>8918336
he's probably autistic (his later reply seems to confirm this). they make the whole site much less enjoyable

>>8918298

le may mays!!! xDDDDD
also cute samefagging
>>8918344
>>8918336

>>8918336
>>8918344
Its not that "no nothing" is just some joke above my head, but that its something youd proudly post with a graph that literally means nothing. Fuck off brainlets. Go back to >>>/b/ where you belong.

Wow you pol/tards really got triggered by the blasphemy of your orange retard hero.

Thanks for the laughs.

>>8918365
who the fuck is talking about trump? are you retarded?

>>8918365
literally not a single person here cares about cheetoman other than you cunt. Get off this board

File: you.png (115KB, 600x367px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 600x367px

>>8918350
>>8918354
>triggered by jpg file

>>8917888
What's your point? Btw you seem less mature than them.

>>8917033
Not him but in thread discussion about why our minds have free will, what makes us special about this. Other anon said "I fail to see how that means it (our minds) isn't subject to the same laws of the universe everything else is."
So this anon said that quanta should be subject to the same laws, but they aren't.

>>8917163
>Blah bleh blah God does not plays dice. Blah

It's funny anon, because all hiden variables theories were refuted.

>>8918514
But unless our minds are the only systems in the universe that depend on the state of quanta, then anon's point remains.

>>8918526
Does you know about pilot wave theory? Were refuted and now it's called De Broglie–Bohm theory. Still deterministic, not refuted though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

>>8918530
>but unless quanta is the only thing in the universe that behaves differently, they are deterministic
Yours is an argument from incredulity

>>8916297
If you say "deterministic" you need to grow up and get an education.

Determinism is already completely debunked and not one bit more logical then "flat earth" or """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""god"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".

>>8918585
Why are you intentionally being obtuse?

Holy hell. This whole thread needs purged.

>Free will is a thing
>No it's not.
>LOL DETERMINISM HAS BEEN REFUTED
>Im not advocating determinism. There may indeed be purely random events in the universe, but randomness doesn't imply free will
>LOL YOU DETERMINIST IDIOT WHY CANT YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOUR PHILOSOPHY IS

As for your post specifically, I'm not arguing quanta are deterministic. I'm arguing that consciousness isn't the exception to the rule that >>8916344 implied. Which is all I have been arguing.

I am not determinist. I do not give a fuck about whatever you're going on about. I am simply refuting the idea that consciousness is the special non-deterministic thing in the universe. If either it is also deterministic, or if other things are not deterministic, it doesn't matter. That point is wrong either way, and that is what I have explicitly been saying this entire time.

>>8918608
The universe behaves in a mostly predictable way with some true randomness thrown in

>>8918704
your whole argument is "why should our consciousness be the exception to the rule, "the special non-deterministic thing in the universe?" (argument from incredulity) when it's already been pointed out to you numerous times that such exception already exists in QM.
the fact that determinism seems to emerge inexplicably from purely random phenomena and we can't even begin to comprehend how just goes to show you how little we know or understand about this matter, so much for your refuting it with fallacious argumentations.

>>8918734
I'll be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say.

A person, this person >>8916344 said that the universe is deterministic except for consciousness.

Do you agree with that statement? If you do not, then you and I likely do not disagree and I'm just completely confused why you keep trying to argue with me.

File: quote.jpg (82KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 850x400px

Only delusional brainlets think randomness is anything more than a mere concept

>>8918794
>The distinction between point a and point b is a stubbornly persistent illusion

What did the original Bill Nye mean by this?

>>8918734
The human brain would be an interesting exception to *physical* determinism (which I emphasize because it seems like three quarters of the trolls in this thread are being pedantic about free will, which is not exactly a /sci/ question), in that the brain is a macroscopic object. To say that a quantum mechanical object is predicted by quantum mechanics is not very interesting and does not act as the "exception" to anything in classical mechanics. If you are trying to say that quantum mechanical effects somehow determine what people think and experience, I would be very interested in hearing about the mechanism behind that.

Also, as to
>determinism seems to emerge inexplicably from purely random phenomena and... just goes to show how little we know or understand
I have heard this argument four times on this thread and still do not understand at all how this is mystical to anyone. I would really like for anyone to explain this.

>>8918807
Careful with that edge kid.

>>8918883
Like a steppin razor don't u watch my sides, I'm dangerous, so dangerous