How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothing, which is essentially what they believe when they support quantum uncertainty
>>16760746We justify it by saying "we don't know how it works. We just know that determinism doesn't work."It's not that hard. You can eliminate one possible explanation for things without always having a more thorough one. You could write a super thorough theory of electrico-magnetism which is philosophically consistent but reliant on magic pixies to explain the phenomenon of charge propagation and EM fields/waves. That doesn't mean we'd need to have a better theory to propose to eliminate the magic pixies as an explanation.
The universe is just light
Fuck off you dumb kot
>>16760746so, the previous identical thread explained to you why you are stupid, so you opened a new one?
>>16760746Added to my cat folder, thanks
>>16760746they probably cope by repeatedly saying their retarded models say its impossible to predict because its defined to be impossible.
>>16761828>Prove a negative for meNo, the ball's in your court.
>>16761546Nah you got btfo’d in that thread
>>16761828It's not "impossible to predict." You can predict whatever you want to predict. The issue is that your predictions are never right lmao. You can use basic calculus to predict the kinematics of a ball down to the angstrom if you really want to. You'll just be lucky to have that prediction even be in the right cubic cm in reality.
>>16760746lol
>>16760746>How do anti-determinists justify something coming from nothing,But the mathematical logic shows that something else is necessarily yielded from functions of pure nothingness, so something else resulting from nothing is entirely demonstrably deterministic, the anti-deterministic are the one who need to prove that magic can replace logic while also appearing completely logical for the most part.
>>16761864Are you saying it is not possible for you to prove that you're holes aren't filled with cocks?Is that a theoretical issue or is the problem just that your holes are indeed always filled with cocks?
>>16762315So what is better at predicting the path of the ball than current physics models?
>>16764415Well, the current physics models actually used in practice aren't deterministic. The actual way to handle these problems outside of introductory undergrad courses is that you have a deterministic model (generally a system of ordinary differential equations) with additive process noise at the level of acceleration. The real way to actually model basic mechanics reliably is "deterministic physics + added process noise."
>>16764474So deterministic physics with deterministic additive (Gaussian?) noise is the best way predict the path of a body of mass?
>>16764478It is the way that every target tracking, navigation and state estimation/prediction system I have ever encountered functions, yes. Usually the process noise is Gaussian, (mostly because of Gaussians being stable and a maximum entropy distribution). You will, in general, get a more accurate result by assuming uncertainties in your process and adjusting for them. Assuming exact determinism will usually get you driving into a wall as your dead reckoning system integrates errors it doesn't know to look for.
>>16762071No that was you. Thread was alive for months with like 150 posts. I posted once, and then within a day it reached the bump limit with seething (from you and your crowd).
>>16764496How does deterministic model plus deterministic noise equal anti-determinism?
>>16760746determinism is equivalent to explaining something by "God did it"
>>16764500What is "deterministic noise"? Process noise is stochastic, not deterministic.
>>16764511Probabilism is any better? "And so everything was just conjured". Even magic has a cause.
>>16760746Stupid OP
>>16761554corrpropa good kittingtonshire diss wun
>>16760746Causality is unverifiable
>>16767385sounds gay
>>16764512>What is "deterministic noise"?Noise that is algorithmically determined like gaussian noise.>Process noise is stochastic, not deterministic.Maybe in theory, but not in practice since the models all model randomness with nonrandom algorithms with formulaic determination.
>>16764498No, it would have been at more like 350 posts the day before its bump limit.
>>16764511Only if god has an exact formula that can be used to do things like predict solar eclipses down to the minute among other things.
>>16768558I'm sorry, what? Gaussian noise isn't algorithmically determined. The existence of pseudorandom algorithms for approximation sampling from Gaussian distributions doesn't somehow make the idea of a Gaussian suddenly deterministic. Also, pseudorandom algorithms are only deterministic on paper. As soon as you implement them on physical hardware, they are subject to random and uncontrollable errors in the implementation process. This happens both via errors at the bit-arithmetic level with bit-flipping occurring due to ambiguous transistor states, and at the level of seed synchronization due to jitter in the computational clock.
>>16768932>Gaussian noise isn't algorithmically determined.The type of gaussian noise we are talking about >>16764496 that is being added to a model in calculation certainly is.>they are subject to random and uncontrollable errors in the implementation processStill, as you already admitted, its the best currently known way to make successful predictions to make stable communications in things like satellites and transportation and even with that increased error, its not anywhere near 100% error.
>>16769732> Still, as you already admitted, its the best currently known way to make successful predictions to make stable communications in things like satellites and transportation and even with that increased error, its not anywhere near 100% error.You should probably spend a few minutes learning how these systems work before you make such pants-on-head retarded statements. >The type of gaussian noise we are talking about >>16764496 (You) # that is being added to a model in calculation certainly is.No, that's literally backwards. You're confusing the simulation process (i.e., where samples are generated in a controlled way to test a particular algorithm/process in isolation) for the actual use case. When you're using an additive white noise Gaussian communication channel model, as an example, there is no process in the real application problem where you are "generating" Gaussian random samples. You're confusing the modeling process for the actual problem the modeling is trying to solve. Those algorithms are used because treating the real observations as random variables and stochastic processes is far far more effective than pretending the real channel would be deterministic with the right parametric model and the perfect blend of herbs and spices.
Probabilists are silly creatures
>>16771293It is infinitely better to be honest and aware of uncertainty than to be certain and living in delusion.
>>16771427There is order even to chaos. Always. There is always a background to the foreground. Always. Being certain of uncertainty isn’t admitting it’s all lolsorandom. It just means we haven’t figured it out.
>>16771429> There is order even to chaos. Always. There is always a background to the foreground. Always.> Source: My assSure bro. Whatever you say. If it helps you cope with the problems in the world to believe there is some real pattern, then keep believing it. Unfortunately, I see no reason to believe in such fairy tales.
>>16771431>he actually believes something can come from nothing Laughing at you rn
>>16770288>You're confusing the simulation process (i.e., where samples are generated in a controlled way to test a particular algorithm/process in isolation) for the actual use case.No, I am equating the model prediction process to the simulation process because it is the same thing.>for the actual use case. Models don't generate the actual use case, actual measurements are compared to the models and an error rate is determined where scientific predictions with well developed models are the most consistent way to generate data that is the closest match to actual cases.> Those algorithms are used because treating the real observations as random variables and stochastic processes is far far more effective than pretending the real channel would be deterministic with the right parametric model and the perfect blend of herbs and spices.No, they use the models that most closely match the actual measurements, but the Gaussian nose model is always algorithmically determined because its the only way to generate models.
>>16771699>he doesn't believe in or understand math0!=100%
>>16771429no you literally say its lolsorandom, you dont know hidden variables so you just BELIEVE its random
>>16772425the randomness isnt pure randomits just that what is actually happening is too detailed too high energy too fine-scaled for us to describe it. it looks random just because we are basically looking at a zoomed out picture
>>16772422This is a waste of time. You are very sure of yourself over a misunderstanding of the scientific process that even an hour of honest research would correct.
>>16772931>>16772425If it helps you cope with the uncertainties of reality to pretend that there's some magical combination of hidden variables, feel free to believe this. All available evidence points to this idea being wrong, but you can believe it if you want.
>>16771699Why do you believe stochastic/random behavior requires "something to come from nothing?" Could there not, as an example, simply be multiple possible paths and object could follow, each requiring and expressing equal energy by the time they reach the end, and it is fundamentally intractable to predict which they'll follow? Is that not also a form of randomness? Where does the "something coming from nothing" part come into that scenario?
>>16772959No, you are the one who doesn't even understand that the gaussian noise added to computer prediction models for is entirely algorithmic and you are only trying to use that to distract from the fact that you still can't name anything better than those kinds of scientific models at determining accurate future predictions.
>>16773008Where did all those possible paths come from if not nothing and if something else set up all those random equally likely paths, what forced them to take the one they took, if not nothing?
>>16773197> the gaussian noise added to computer prediction models for is entirely algorithmic.Firstly, this is not exactly true. This is a pedantic point, but pseudorandom number generation algorithms are only deterministic on paper. As soon as they are implemented on real hardware, they become stochastic due to bit errors in the communication between the cache where the previous sequence values are stored and the active processing units. Their results are fairly consistent, with errors typically only occuring after the 5th digit of precision for single precision floats, but they are non-deterministic nonetheless.Secondly, there is no "added noise" in the prediction models. When you are using a Kalman filter on a time-series, aside from maybe using a Gaussian random generation for the initial state, you never use any additional Gaussian random variables again. They are strictly deterministic manipulations on the time-series data. The models fit because the time-series data itself has stochastic variations, not because the model itself is stochastic conditioned on the data sequence. The randomness is in the data, not the processing! >>16773199> Where did all those possible paths come from if not nothing and if something else set up all those random equally likely paths, what forced them to take the one they took, if not nothing?The possible paths came from the same place they would if the material universe had deterministic physics, a casual chain connected to the current state of the object. I'm sorry to tell you, but you're looking for "God," not physics.
>>16772963nibbaall qft is effective theory because we literally dont have the computing or empirical power to probe reality at the smallest scalesthere is a huge depth of ocean below what current qft lets us talk.aboutthere is plenty of room for hidden ahit going on
>>16773550The argument isn't "are there variables we don't know about." The answer to that question is clearly yes. There clearly are variables in these interactions we do not have the current ability to observe, model and predict.The question is whether or not there is ever a level of "hidden variables" which will make all of the randomness disappear. The answer to that question appears to be "no, it's turtles all the way down." It doesn't matter that we as mortal beings who like neat and simple relationships don't have the capacity to understand what "turtles all the way down" really means. The material universe doesn't give a shit about whether we will be able to understand it.
>>16773606no theres no reason to believe what you saybell scenarios do not refute kind of hidden variables im talking abkut
>>16773744> no theres no reason to believe what you say.When you're modeling a physics process, there are two kinds of uncertainties. There are epistemic uncertainties, which can be resolved into deterministic processes with "better models" or "better measurements" and there are aleotoric uncertainties which are intractably random. In just about every practical physics modeling system, these are represented through process and measurement noise. Why is it more reasonable to believe that all of this noise comes from a lack of knowledge alone than to believe that there is likely some amount that will be forever irreconcilable and unknowable? Why do we even have the assumption that all of physical existence follows rules that we find rational? Do you not see how strange it is to confuse the rules of what we can observe and understand for the rules of the things we are trying to observe?
>>16773773>Why do we even have the assumption that all of physical existence follows rules that we find rational?because its dumbits kinda fing people believed 300 years ago in greece when they thoight pantheon of gos controlled everyfing on mount olympusits so dumb to just resign to this irrational bullshitthe idea that universebehaves irrationally is dumb. everywhere else ithas shown contrary. i dont fink it will be different for qm.why anything?well better question is:why not that?because everywhere else in science is normal. our inclination should be the resumption of.normality
>>16773450>Firstly, this is not exactly true.It is though.> they become stochastic due to bit errors in the communicationThen there is no such thing as deterministic anything since there is always error and tolerance, by your logic, hard defined math problems aren't even deterministic since sometimes kids do the calculations wrong instead of following the formulas exactly as written.>Secondly, there is no "added noise" in the prediction models. Yes there is.>filtera filter is not a model, a model is when you model weather patterns by creating a gaussian data set consistent with known physics and historical sensor data to see if you can project into the future.>using a Gaussian random generation for the initial stateThat is specifically adding noise instead of starting at 0, the gaussian random generator was still generated based on deterministic calculations.>The possible paths came from the same place they would if the material universe had deterministic physics, a casual chain connected to the current state of the object. So in your worldview the past is determined by the future instead of the other way around?
What if it’s all sourced to parallel timelines?
>>16774188Adding to the list of words you don't understand, "model." A nearly constant velocity models is a model of a stochastic differential equation (in particular a linear ito process). A Kalman filter whose update equation uses the nearly constant velocity model as it's forward state propagation is a linear Gaussian of a said differential equation, which models the state transition between observations via a linear quadratic Gaussian LMMSE solution. > Then there is no such thing as deterministic anything since there is always error and tolerance, by your logic, hard defined math problems aren't even deterministic since sometimes kids do the calculations wrong instead of following the formulas exactly as written.It's like you don't even pay attention to what you are writing. Yes, unpredictable and uncontrollable execution errors are a source of randomness. If your process is subject to unpredictable and uncontrollable errors on execution, it isn't deterministic. It is stochastic. It may have a deterministic model, but the realistic representation of the actual phenomenon has randomness involved. > So in your worldview the past is determined by the future instead of the other way around?Let us add "causality" to the list of terms you don't understand. Causality tells you the "direction of the arrow," not where it fires. In reality, if you want to know exactly the path an object in motion will take, the only way to know this is to know the future. You can make predictions based on deterministic models, but those models will be intractably incorrect.
>>16773806> its so dumb to just resign to this irrational bullshit the idea that universebehaves irrationally is dumb. everywhere else ithas shown contrary. i dont fink it will be different for qm.Okay, you can think it's dumb. I personally think that pretending the world must behave in ways that we understand is dumb. It is confusing the reality of a particular circumstance for our limited observations. It confuses the real size of an object for the markings on the best ruler we have available. That is dumb. It is far less dumb to shrug your shoulders and say "this model is wrong, but it's close enough to be useful."
>>16773806> its so dumb to just resign to this irrational bullshitthe idea that universebehaves irrationally is dumb. everywhere else ithas shown contrary. i dont fink it will be different for qm. Bullshit. There is not a single problem within classical physics that has actually shown to be reliably modeled by determinism. You can't even do practical kinematics without stochastic errors showing up in the process.
>>16760746god paradox nigga
>>16775031like so much science now couldnt have been conceived 3000 years agojust dumb to like assume that something cant be explained when it might be explainable if you just out effort into it
>>16775054You're misunderstanding me. I think there are still parts of what we consider open problems that will be solved by physicists/mathematicians/engineers over time. I simply do not see any reason to assume that this will include literally all of the open problems of physics to the point where we will ever "achieve" a perfect deterministic model of everything.I think that this is a delusional concept. That doesn't mean we should just give up hope on the pursuit of physics entirely. It just means we need to temper our expectations, and also try to understand that models and reality are fundamentally distinct concepts.
>>16775029Correct nobody understands your redefined nonsense where deterministic models don't even exist and words don't have to conform to definitions because anyone can just interpret them however they want and you can arbitrarily use words completely differently than they are actually defined.
>>16775031Sure everyone is pretending when the solar eclipses occur on the exact day and place they were predicted to occur, nobody can actually understand anything about the world.
>>16775088Stochastic =/= incomprehensible.A pattern can have randomness with stable and well defined statistics. My belief is that the material world has near deterministic statistics/moments, with significant randomness in individual realizations. This randomness is often of quite small scale, but can impact things in important ways if you actually need precision. The movements of cosmological bodies, as an example, are cases where these distributions are so concentrated that their level of random variation is quite small compared to their level of deterministic variation. We are able to make predictions about when the next solar eclipse will happen, and provided you don't need to be 100% certain what time it will occur in one particular spot on the Earth, you should be fine. If you need our predictions of its occurr time to be accurate to the millisecond in a 1 square meter patch of grass, you're dead in the water. Physics works because it is on the average correct. Being on the average correct does not mean the underlying phenomenon is deterministic, it means it is a (at least locally) stable process with predictable moments.
>>16775276>We are able to make predictions about when the next solar eclipse will happenNot according to >>16775031 who says its just pretend when the world behaves in ways we understand so well we can accurately predict future states.
>>16775087Deterministic models exist. They exist as models. Their modeling does not reflect reality, and they cannot be exactly implemented in reality. If you use a classical transfer function approach to designing a feedback controller for a mass-spring-damper system, that is a deterministic modeling approach. It will get you in the right ballpark, but it will never get you exact determinism. It could get you "deterministic behavior on the average" where the random variations are centralized around your deterministic model, but you can't have exact determinism.Exact determinism implies that there is no level of precision where the noise dominates over the signal. Claiming the material universe follows exact determinism is to claim that you could pick a spot on a ball down to the angstrom, and you could know exactly where that ball will be to the angstrom after knocking it with a controlled force. That will never happen because the material world doesn't respect the idealizations we use to make deterministic models (like F = ma, or V = IR).
>>16775279> Not according to >>16775031 (You) # who says its just pretend when the world behaves in ways we understand so well we can accurately predict future states.Well, the word "accurately" is where the problem lies. We can predict the patterns of the world to certain levels of precision, but beyond that random variation takes over.
>>16775281>Their modeling does not reflect reality, and they cannot be exactly implemented in reality.Sure sure, solar eclipses are just larps, they don't really happen, people just pretend the sun is real like santa we can't actually even actually predict day/night cycles in reality because those kinds of models aren't real.
>>16775282"accurately" doesn't appear in either of the posts you referenced, but we do accurately predict the days and places solar eclipses occur based on models, so you are definitely demonstrably wrong.
>>16775295> "accurately" doesn't appear in either of the posts you referenced, but we do accurately predict the days and places solar eclipses occur based on models, so you are definitely demonstrably wrong.Yes, we can accurately predict them to the day and a certain degree of accuracy on land for their coverage. Try and predict them to the minute, or the second for a 1 square meter patch of land and you'll see where uncertainty becomes a problem.>>16775294Is your plan just to engage in tactical nihilism? We can make predictions. Those predictions will always be wrong in the sense that there is always some degree of precision to which the model won't be corresponding to reality. We can reliably predict the time of sunset for a particular part of the world to the hour, maybe even the half hour in some regions. Try to predict the time of sunset for a single spot down to the minute or the second and you'll see that the model is, in fact, wrong. It's useful, and good enough for cases where we don't need such accuracy, but it isn't exactly correct.
>>16775061models dont need to be perfectly deterministic to have a sensical interpretstion
>>16775382Why do you believe I think otherwise? Random is not the opposite of sensical. Random processes may still have deterministic moments and deterministic characterization functions.
>>16775322>Yes, we can accurately predict themConcession accepted, >>16775031 is retarded, >Try and predict them to the minuteThey do that, did you not see the last eclipse where they literally tell you to the minute depending on where you are when it will start and end days in advance.>Those predictions will always be wrong in the sense that there is always some degree of precisionNo, knowing only 99.9% doesn't mean you are completely wrong and don't know anything like you keep wanted to conflate, it means your predictions are 100% correct 99.9% of the time rather than 0% all the time as you seem to want it to be.>Try to predict the time of sunset for a single spot down to the minute or the second and you'll see that the model is, in fact, wrong.No, they accurately predict eclipses down to the minute.
>>16775590>Random is not the opposite of sensical.Random is the opposite of calculable, random things are not deterministic, you are confusing pseudorandom algorithms with randomness again.
>>16776010You don't know anything about probability theory, do you?>>16776008> No, they accurately predict eclipses down to the minute.Bullshit. They make a prediction, but it's never accurate.
>>16776095Probabilities aren't calculations, they are estimation ranges.>it's never accurate.Its always been accurate at every eclipse I have experienced.
>>16776098> Its always been accurate at every eclipse I have experienced.Accurate to what level of precision? Seconds? Would you even notice if it was off by 30 seconds? Pure determinism would mean that there is no level of precision too small for us to make accurate predictions if we had "all of the information." Their computers can predict down to the femtosecond if they want to, they'll be lucky if they are even in the same minute. > Probabilities aren't calculations, they are estimation ranges.You're a moron. If you have a set of N random variables, x_1, x_2, ... , x_N, which are drawn from the same distribution, you can predict their average via the sample mean or sample median. As that N grows, for most real use cases, that sample mean will approach a fixed number. That doesn't mean you can exactly predict x_{N+1}. The next sample will always be random, but you still get convergence in the posterior mean. It is entirely possible for the universe to be stochastic in a way that for individual realizations there are small bits of randomness, but those bits of randomness "average out" to a satisfactory degree of precision. That convergence doesn't mean that those x_i samples are "pseudo-random," it means they are samples of a distribution with a stable mean. Most predictions in deterministic physics correspond to posterior means. They give us our best guess at the average based on the previous set of observations. The reason they do this is that sample means generally converge, are stable, and usually will minimize the error between the prediction and the truth. That error will never become zero. It will always be there, but you can minimize it (in a minimum variance sense) via a posterior mean.
