Poll: Is the universe deterministic?
-
Unless of course there's something in that system that amplifies the quantum randomness, like the particle detector in the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Which could be true of neurons, but AFAIK we have no reason to believe this is likely.
That being my point. Thoigh really you can't even predict what a rock will do if you get down to the smallest parts. You can predict what the rock at a macro non-quantum level will do to 99.9999...% accuracy, but at a quantum level you could not predict squat about what the quantum parts of the rock are doing. And the more complex the system, the more those micro-inaccuracies bubble up to the macro level.
-
This post is deleted!
-
It's not even god radomness
-
I am not a physicist so can't evaluate this video super thoroughly, but it does seem relevant:
-
What is the purpose of the poll, anyway? When the votes are all counted, does that determine for us whether the universe is deterministic?
It's like the flaw in the statement of the Imitation Game. As usually stated, we have to grant a human soul or whatever to any program that can convince a suitable interviewer that it's human. But it's always preceded by a game where the interviewer doesn't know the sex of the person he's talking to; if a man on the other end of the teletype can persuade him that he's female, does that make him female?
If you had a brother, would he like herring?
-
What is the purpose of the poll, anyway? When the votes are all counted, does that determine for us whether the universe is deterministic?
Depends on whether reality is defined by itself, or by our beliefs. Some people seem to think that, if we believe hard enough, it will be whatever we want, in which case, right now it is 19/23rds non-deterministic.
-
Depends on whether reality is defined by itself, or by our beliefs. Some people seem to think that, if we believe hard enough, it will be whatever we want, in which case, right now it is 19/23rds non-deterministic.
Been spending time in the Millenarian Math?
-
What is the purpose of the poll, anyway? When the votes are all counted, does that determine for us whether the universe is deterministic?
It's deterministic if they were able to predetermine how the voting would result.
FOR SCIENCE!
-
-
The two's complement thing only works if you have an infinite string of 1's, and if you have that, you don't have a number.
Yes you have a number, but it's an odd one
-
No. But some of the suspected references look familiar.
-
How would reality not be defined by itself?
Hmmm, yes, now that you mention it. Unfortunately, I don't feel like playing philosopher.
Instead, I'll point to a glowing paragon, G. W. Bush, who defines reality according to his instincts:
That's not the way the world really works anymore. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
So, see, our perception of reality no longer matters. I'm sure he'd agree that since 19 of us voted non-deterministic and 4 deterministic, that means the universe is definitely 19/23rds non-deterministic.
-
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
—George W Bush
-
If a man on the other end of the teletype can persuade him that he's female, does that make him female?
Ask any f/18 on the Internet.
-
If you had a brother, would he like herring?
I have two brothers, and all three of us like herring. Especially when pickled.
(More seriously, it doesn't matter whether the universe is deterministic because we can't predict it perfectly. We should behave as if the universe is not entirely deterministic. Saves us from doing panglossian stupidities.)
-
-
On the internet, no one knows you're a hornet.
Except @sam, he'd never let one of those past him.
Filed under: badum-tisch
-
We should behave as if the universe is not entirely deterministic.
If the universe is entirely deterministic, the verb should becomes completely meaningless.
-
On the internet, no one knows you're a hornet.
On the hornet, no one knows you're a whore.
-
If the universe is entirely deterministic, the verb should becomes completely meaningless.
If the universe is entirely deterministic, we're necessarily required to behave as if we believe otherwise, and I'd be necessarily bound to argue against what you are saying.
-
If the universe is entirely deterministic, the verb should becomes completely meaningless.
This is true. So, by mixing up cause and effect, we can say that since we have this word therefore the universe is non-deterministic. QED
-
Imagine if the universe actually was deterministic on the physical level, but mental and emotional states weren't. So everyone would be compelled to behave in the way that they do, but when questioned, they'd answer that they were autonomous.
Imagine if your consciousness is just a way of rationalizing behaviour you have no control over.
-
Imagine if the universe actually was deterministic on the physical level, but mental and emotional states weren't.
The silly thing is we don't need to invoke quantum mechanics to make the world non-predictable. Simple non-linear physics (e.g., fluid dynamics or the excitation patterns in even fairly small networks of neurons) will get that anyway due to the way that chaos theory works. Yes, there might be quantum effects too, but we have strong unpredictability of minds anyway because the act of building a complete model changes the nature of what is being modelled.
Whether or not we're theoretically predictable, we cannot actually do it, and so we should behave as if we are not precisely predictable. (Otherwise, you can make a lot of money on the stock market…)
-
Whether or not we're theoretically predictable, we cannot actually do it, and so we should behave as if we are not precisely predictable.
If I understand correctly, computability basically dictates that the only way we can simulate the Universe with 100% accuracy is to recreate the Universe with 100% accuracy. Which just isn't feasible, even if it is theoretically possible.
-
Which just isn't feasible, even if it is theoretically possible.
It's (probably) not possible, as the simulation would have to be contained within itself.
-
You should really be asking whether @boomzilla or @Polygeekery will know everything about this Universe simulation.
-
Those would be two entirely different simulations, wouldn't they? Chiropractic would have different properties, to make just one observation...
-
Chiropractic would have different properties, to make just one observation...
No. Chiropractors would be quacks in both of them, but in one simulation you would have a rube who couldn't see this fact. ;)