Determinism

Free will doesn't exist. It's all just a bunch of physics rules.

What happens when you mix red and blue paint? You get purple. What happens when you put mentos in coke? It fizzes. If you put two magnets next to each other with similar polarities, they will repel. These are just things that happen automatically. They do not "choose" to happen.

Human personalities and thoughts are just more complicated versions of that. We do things based on our previous experiences. Our personalities and decision-making processes are just complicated algorithms. It's like a more complicated version of Conway's Game of Life. We have no say in the matter.

If you knew the position of every particle in the universe, you could know the future, because we are all just interacting in linear ways.

People cite dumb shit like the uncertainty principle, as if not knowing the position or speed of something means none of this is true. Other people cite pseudoscientific metaphysics bullshit. But at the end of the day, 2+2 does not choose to be 4. It just is. Similarly, Everything we do is already determined based on the interactions of particles in us and around us.

I didn't mean to capitalize "everything" there.

>>1
Thats very simplistic, mechanical model of the universe. Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

>>3
That just backs up what I say in more words? What's your point?

Issac Newton was a white supremacist and should be removed from physics books.

>>5
What does that have to do with determinism?

>>6

If you knew the position of every particle in the universe, you could know the future, because we are all just interacting in linear ways.

>>7
it's true though

>>1

2+2 does not choose to be 4

You just showed yourself to be wrong, but did not notice presumably due to autism. You see, 2+2 does NOT =4 because it isn't an objective concept. If we take 2 objects and put them next to another two objects, you would claim this proves that objectively there are four objects. However, where does one object end and the next begin? That depends on what size you are, what position you are perceiving from.

You also mentioned that mixing red and blue paint produces purple, yet colors don't exist outside of human perception. Can you "choose" to not see purple when you mix blue and red? No but all that proves is that humans are not able to fully control what they perceive, probably due to limitations in brain processing power requiring us to auto-disregard irrelevant (to survival) perceptions. But does this mean reality is deterministic? Well, no because all it means is that our perception of reality at this "moment" is limited. But did we choose to limit ourselves?

Essentially your post failed horribly because it is based on word games. Words are good for communicating relevant (to survival) concepts, but can't be expected to accurately communicate reality. Does linear time exist? If so, is our sense of duration accurate? Is consciousness an emergent property of the body's system, or are bodies receivers for consciousness? What about "subconscious" choices / "instinctive" reactions?

>>4
Read the entire article, especially the criticisms and competing interpretations.

>>10
And for what purpose exactly?
What does it accomplish???
Answer me that simple question genius.

>>11
So you have better understanding of the overall field. Determinism has many interpretations and alternatives.

>>12
Not really. Things are either predetermined or there not. You literally don't need to read wikipedia to grasp this lol.

>>13
Brainlet.jpg

>>1
I don't know about you but i cogito, ergo sum.

But at the end of the day, 2+2 does not choose to be 4. It just is

2 + 2 is 4 only under a certain set of axioms.

>>8
Show me the general formula to describe the relative motion of a mere three particles then. This remains an unsolved problem and yet you claim it can be done for all the particles in the universe.

>>16
simple rules have complex emergent properties

a unifying theory is simpler than studying all of the emergent effects of said unifying theory

it's hard to find though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

If everything is determined, it becomes a moot discussion.

>>18
moot left 4chan to be a generic silicon valley soyboy at google

apparently 4chan wasn't very profitable so he was living with his mom when he ran 4chan

>>19
he sold a collapsing festering shithole to make the big bucks, win win situation except for the sucker who bought it

ITT brainlets that think free will is illusory and mechanical determinism rules the world.
Quantum randomness can't be predicted. Heck even brownian motion and radioactive decay aren't possible to determine in advance. Simple brownian motios is actually happening in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_quantum_system
Because the "closed" system of "brownian" motions is subjected to external EM fields,thermal flux/convection, gravitation, vibrations etc fully quantum-level nano-scale interactions that can't be predicated in advance.
A perfect deterministic system where everything can be predicted exists only in computer simulations like "Conway's Game of Life" mentioned above - only there the notion of pre-determined order exist.

>>21
Everything you said is just an assumption, lower than even an opinion. Come back when you at least have a hypothesis if not a theory.

>>22
this

>>22,23
Thats not an assumption, quantum randomness on nano-scale is fact.

We don't know if it's truly random, there might be a pattern we haven't noticed yet

>>25
People tried
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

>>26
The variable does not need to be hidden. Time is a variable by itself.

>>27
Do you have even the slightest clue what you're are talking about?

>>21

Quantum randomness can't be predicted.

*holds up spork*
so randum XD
shit, even cat /dev/urandom isn't really random

I meant cat /dev/random because urandom doesn't even attempt to be actually random (but the entropy pool for random can run out I think)

on this topic: what's your preferred method for generating secure random numbers, encryption keys, etc?

>>31
/dev/urandom is the standard. In most system it basically tries to get a small "random" seed from the environment and uses it to initialise the chacha20-based RNG.

>>28
sure

duuud what if
what if
the reality is random, but all the results, like
the results are all dependent only on physics and randomness
so free will is a lie, but so is determinism?

>>34
interesting point

>>34
"Random will" sounds way worse than "Free"(which implies chaos/freedom/randomness/uncertainty/doubt/etc). Perhaps it would make us reexamine where the "Freedom" of the will comes from.

The problem is that "Free will" is interpreted by religious crowd as something like "100% fully determined by the individual based on his thoughts(thats btw some sneaky determinism)" so "Free will" implies all "Free"(chaotic/random/externally influenced) actions are ultimately our responsibility(as if source of Will is located solely with our decisions).

That thinking leads to current culture where sin is a personal failure of "picking the wrong option" and not from random influence/chaos. Btw free will and hard determinism are incompatible by design, but religions try to combine them anyway.

>>36
are you serious?

>>37
His logic seems sound.

determinism is a spook

>>39
That sounds like hippie speech, FUCK YOOOOUUUU!

https://science.slashdot.org/story/18/09/15/1641233/quantum-experiment-confirms-causality-is-fuzzy
Quantum Experiment Confirms Causality Is Fuzzy (physicsworld.com) 109
Posted by EditorDavid on 19:34 15th September, 2018 from the if-B-then-A dept.
"An experiment has confirmed that quantum mechanics allows events to occur with no definite causal order," reports an article shared by long-time Slashdot readers UpnAtom and jd. Researchers at the University of Queensland in Australia believe this could link Einstein's general theory of relativity to quantum mechanics, according to Physics World:
In classical physics -- and everyday life -- there is a strict causal relationship between consecutive events. If a second event (B) happens after a first event (A), for example, then B cannot affect the outcome of A. This relationship, however, breaks down in quantum mechanics because the temporal spread of a particles's wave function can be greater than the separation in time between A and B. This means that the causal order of A and B cannot be always be distinguished by a quantum particle such as a photon.

In their experiment, Romero, Costa and colleagues created a "quantum switch", in which photons can take two paths. One path involves being subjected to operation A before operation B, while in the other path B occurs before A. The order in which the operations are performed is determined by the initial polarization of the photon as it enters the switch.... The team did the experiment using several different types of operation for A and B and in all cases they found that the measured polarization of the output photons was consistent with their being no definite causal order between when A and B was applied. Indeed, the measurements backed indefinite causal order to a whopping statistical significance of 18 -- well beyond the 5 threshold that is considered a discovery in physics.

Science Magazine applauds the experiments for "obliterating our common sense notion of before and after and, potentially, muddying the concept of causality.

So not only everything in unpredictably random, on top of that causality breaks down at quantum level.

>>41
That is a mockery of the idea of science. That is not an experiment and it doesn't "prove" anything. It is shameful but unsurprising to see.

Babby's first philosophical insight.

>>44
cool reductionist dismissal, it's so cool and edgy to be overly cynical and put people down instead of having interesting discussions

>>45
To be fair, the OP is mostly a question of language. If he had paused for a moment and looked further into the history of the concepts he is bringing up, he would have realized that his statements are merely a function of words and do not reflect reality. Much like we can't expect fish to explain water, so we can't expect OP to explain reality. It was OP's folly to think otherwise.