True or False?

>>9170425
im comparatively a brainlet, but kek

>>9170425
>>9170425
If quantum phenomenons are deterministic all is just planned since big bang, if indeterministic nope

>>9170589
And I hope for the indeterministic one

>>9170589
Deterministic just means way too complex for us to predict. Not actually unpredictable.

>>9170425
>everything is predetermined
>can't predict anything
how is this "observation" any different from superstitious fatalism or any more useful

The funny thing is that we say its a law for macroscopic scales. But for quantum scales we have not been able to prove it is.

This doesn't seem to mesh, yet they both are true as far as any experiments can tell, right?

>>9170589
This

applying Calvinism to science is even
more stupid than applying it to theology

>>9170425
Yes. If you were to understand the factors/conditions that preclude every event that has ever happened, none of it would be random, but instead clearly cause and effect. The decision you are making right now to read this, or that I am making to type this, could have been determined if you looked back far enough to see what would lead into this outcome. There is no true randomness- it is by definition based entirely on what human beings cannot know or perceive, and so we take our best guess with most things.

Take even a coin flip. A fair coin, heads or tails, has an exact 50% chance to land on heads and 50% chance to land on tails. This is granting that we do not know what side we are keeping up before we flip, or the amount of force put into the coin, the angle of the flip, the height of the coin from the surface it will land on before flipping, the effect of air resistance on the coin, the weight of the coin, the surface area of the coin, etc etc. We cannot account for all of these factors with any given coin flip before being forced to make a decision. In the same sense, we make weather predictions based on previous data, not on all the individual factors that actually cause certain weather to happen or not. And even with those factors known, they tell us little about anything beyond the immediate future because there are more factors at play, all of which feed into one another in ways too complex and too fast for human beings to reliably interpret.

Randomness doesn't exist. The big bang, if it could be replicated under the exact same conditions, would lead to a repeat of every event that has ever happened, including this moment right now. In that sense, determinism is real and free will doesn't exist, but since human beings are not omnipotent, our choices lie in how we manage risk, and thus we can perceive randomness and have some form of "Free will".

>>9170724
(perceiving) randomness != free will

>>9170741
Prove it

If you know exactly how every decision will be made, where is the free will in that?

>>9170724
You can be right or wrong, you have to consider quantum physics because it is the only thing that we don't know if it is random (indeterministic) or not (deterministic)

>>9171570
we know it's random it's not the 1920s anymore

>>9171580
citation needed

>>9171650
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/15/proof-of-god-playing-dice-with-the-universe-found-in-the-suns-interior/#6fb588f3b030

>>9171650
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-probability-quantum-world-local-realism.html

If you don't have free will, you don't have free will sufficient to not have free will. You have to experience making choices either way.

>>9170425
Causality doesn't apply in QM, conscious observers can modify the current worldline.

You are a brainlet.

>>9170746
>Prove it
/sci/ence does not "prove" anything, philosotard.
Lrn2proof fgt pls

File: bacon-cheeseburger-1100[1].jpg (192KB, 1100x535px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1100x535px

Quantum fluctuations appear to all as random. It's not likely that the Big Bang could influence them, besides providing a medium for them to exist in. While quantum fluctuations do not normally affect things at the macroscopic scale, they sometimes do. You could use a quantum number generator to decide what you want for lunch, for instance.

Also, if future events can be predicted, someone with free will can choose to change or attempt to change what will happen. On large scales, humans are predictable. Individual scales, they are much less predictable.

>>9170708
Schrodinger's equation was tested with great precision, and it gives deterministic evolution.

>>9171722
Bell inequality only debunks hidden variables hypothesis, it doesn't mean there's no local realism. And indeed nothing moves faster than light in EPR experiments.

>>9170425

Even if we accept this to be ture, and it proably is - I dont think we can REALLY accept it. Your brain just won't accept that everything you do is predetermined and thus you can just let go of control.

Is there a term for this phenomenon; when we know something is true, but still know we cannot accept it?

>>9171855
If brain was indeterministic then it could go full nigger at any time, which would be pretty sad, but luckily it's not how it works.

>>9171804
>Individual scales, they are much less predictable.
It's a known fact that even when a human tries to be indeterministic, he fails miserably. This how encrypted messages were hacked in WW2 when they used human generated notebooks.