If the universe is deterministic and all events are linked by

Because that's fucking stupid, OP. You're fucking stupid.

>>8999066
>if a book is written before you read it, how come you don't know the ending?

you can only add new links to the chain

your if part was wrong, therefore the therefore part is wrong. i.e. you're retarded

>>8999066
If the universe wasn't deterministic, how is it that I already know you are a massive retarded faggot?

>>8999066
Because your brain is not the universe and the universe is not conscious

>>8999166
>Because your brain is not the universe
the only real answer

>the universe is not conscious
debatable

Quantum consciousness is non-deterministic. Causality is only a meme, and so is the unidirectionality of time.

>>8999066
Forming memories are events too. You can't remember the future because your brain didn't create those memories yet.

>>9000771
this is the dumbest fucking thing i've seen on this board.

>>8999081
Lel

if life was completely deterministic and we had a computer powerful enough we could determine the future.


however theres prob just barely not enough mass or energy in the entire universe to build a computer like this

File: 1494505931289.jpg (125KB, 581x820px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 581x820px

>>8999066
We cant remember the future because the world is coming to an end and we're all going to die

File: 1498643631743.jpg (147KB, 581x820px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 581x820px

>>9001256
fixed that for you

>>9001294
Lmao. Mad much eurofriend?

>>9001303
nah i have a day off work.
like to spend it shitposting

>>9001255
lol this reminds me of the story of multivac by isaac asimov

>>8999066
>past
>future

Time does not exist. There is no past or future.

>>8999072
FPBP

>>8999066
Because we love to make up and hate to choose.
We know how to be sorrow, yet fail to recognize happiness.
By now we are capable to blame the past, will we ever thank the future?

>>8999072
It's not a stupid question at all.

>>8999066
If you consider different possible past events, then a system that acts as a memory is still correlated to the events well (change a detail and the memory would've changed accordingly). If you had a system capable of remembering the future, you'd need to know every particle's position and momentum. This is why the "psychological" and thermodynamical arrows of time align.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1095

The quick rundown:
http://physicscentral.com/explore/action/memory-and-time.cfm

>>9001331
Apparently that's the dumbest fucking thing this guy's ever seen on this board though. >>9001225

The question is: is it really deterministic? The determinism wouldn't be lost due to quantum mechanics?

>>9001372
Not necessarily.

>>8999066
>vague words that also have technical terms depending on field - not defining what you mean
>sweeping claims and denials based on undefined terms when an anon assumes definitions
lovely dear

File: 1498500089492.jpg (22KB, 511x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 511x288px

>>9001312
>Time does not exist. There is no past or future.

File: Capture.png (40KB, 622x235px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 622x235px

>>9002235

>>9002235
Time is a psychological construct - it's a concept, not a physical thing.

When someone says "Time doesn't exist" they mean that there is no real physical property of time, not that the mind cannot relate experiences with cause and effect.

But you're probably some dipshit 18 year old who still thinks "spacetime" is actually legitimately literally physically really truly space and "time" combined as a property of universal fabric.
>and there's no helping people like you

>>9000736
Nothing can be truly non-deterministic, it can only appear random, like in a computer random number generator. Also when you say time is not unidirectional you seem to be thinking of space.

File: 1466885252757.gif (2MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x400px

>>9003025
Space is a psychological construct - it's a concept, not a physical thing.

When someone says "space doesn't exist" they mean that there is no real physical property of space, not that the mind cannot relate experiences with length and separation.

But you're probably some dipshit 18 year old who still thinks "spacetime" is actually legitimately literally physically really truly "space" and time combined as a property of universal fabric.
>and there's no helping people like you

>>8999066
You seem to be confusing space with time.

With space, you can see everywhere, in all 3 dimensions and in both directions. You might be correct to wonder why you could look in front of but not behind you if time were space.

However, with time it simply hasn't happened yet and you have to be there to know it, kind of like how people might think something has to be in front of them for their eyes to see it.

>>9003038
I'm glad we can agree on tw othings at the same time, anon.