Determinism and probabilism are the same

>>16643631 (OP)
Determinism determines itself through probability. Probability is determined through itself.

>>16643631 (OP)
"Probabilism" is something you just made up. Anyway, probabilism is just a type of superdeterminism.

>>16643631 (OP)
How do you figure?

>>16643631 (OP)
Nope. Everything is pre-written. Nothing moves probabilistically, while its previous state determines its current movement recursively. The fact that its next state cannot be predicted does not change this fundamental cause and effect phenomenon. Everything has a cause and an effect.

>>16645900
>previous state determines its current movement
objectively untrue. many experiments have validated the probabalistic nature of reality.
>>16643631 (OP)
wrong, by definition
>>16645870
its a bait thread, obviously

>>16645921
>objectively untrue. many experiments have validated the probabalistic nature of reality.
Prove it.
I'm sure you can't.

>>16645928
NTA, but it's super simple. Try a basic kinematics experiment like kicking a ball in a quadratic arc but maintain as much precision as possible. You'll find that the stochastic errors are turtles all the way down.

There is no exact second order physics of force transfer, because rigid objects and closed systems don't exist.

why haven't we merged /sci/ with /x/ and created a board only for mathematics? these fuckers are so retarded

>>16646588
What are you expecting from a management that left parts of the site's codebase deprecate for up to a decade?

>>16643631 (OP)
The limit of a deterministic ensemble as N >>> 1 is probabilistic.
The limit of a probabilistic ensemble as N >>> 1 is deterministic.
Whether a system is more easily modeled as a classical trajectory or a stochastic process is purely a matter of context.

Indeed.

Everything everywhere, every when, happens all at once.

Every probability is determined by way of it already happening everywhere, every when.

>>16646588
You are more retarded than them

>>16643631 (OP)
cool story AI bro

>>16646839
hahahaha, found the projected nigger

>>16645921
>objectively untrue
Retard detected

Don't care
t. Suing the french

>>16645586
>Anyway, probabilism is just a type of superdeterminism.
Prove it.

>>16643631 (OP)
ok

>>16643631 (OP)
no
also yes
but also no

>>16643631 (OP)
Determinism has been a dead scientific theory for years at this point given our universes capacity for true symmetry and its breaking.

If you take determinism seriously it’s a religious belief you hold

>>16643631 (OP)
Probably not.

>>16653125
>everything is dude so random
You’re an idiot.
>namefag
Mega fucking idiot.

>>16654015
It’s not random, it’s causally indeterminate due to our universes capacity to generate true symmetry but thanks for filtering yourself as a brainlet

>>16654056
>it’s causally indeterminate
>it’s causally
>causally

>>16654061
>is a retard
>continues to be a retard
Yes, the whole system is set up in such a way that it is by definition indeterminate via symmetry breaking as the universe causally has the property of generating symmetry which means it is causally indeterminate

>>16654067
So it’s (super)deterministic. Got it.

>>16654069
No it’s a system set up for indeterminacy and free will. The superdeterminism you are talking about is gods will and his will is that ours is free self evidently from the laws of nature

I'm actually a bit shaken at the responses elsewhere and here and if they represent the scientific community at large, even more so. This is very much a scientific question and must not be shunned away to philosophy (not that science doesn’t have a natural philosophy).

Indeed all science is based on causality and determinism, but suddenly now, people here are trying to draw a line between determinism and 'superdeterminism'. What's the difference? Ok, at what point does determinism end and statistical independence begin? Why? How do you snip out the causal threads at any scale?

I suspect that a lot of people have invested a lot of time and career in interpretations of quantum theory, and cannot face the fact that determinism just simply avoids it. Is determinism or superdeterminism an interpretation of quantum mechanics or a substitute to it entirely?

Someone said that determinism is ok, but there is enough noise between it and the event to now make it statistically independent or truely probabilistic. Isn't noise just complexities of causality? How do you snip those tiny threads and say that an event has been born from nothing?

Yes. cigarettes causes lung cancer because the more impactful bundle(s) of causes towards lung cancer originated from inhaling tar by a group of people and others not.

Are we going to just ignore the truth about nature of reality that is staring at our face and seek comfort in avoiding it because it supposedly undermines science? I thought determinism implied this very stark truth from the very beginning, why suddenly all this gymnastics for quantum theory?

>>16653125
You’re a pretentious quack.

>>16654074
Yawn, it’s hilarious the brainlet thinks “noise” is what the scientific community is referring to when they say indeterminate. What’s actually happening is our universe generates true symmetry at the lowest unit of quanta (as well as other places) via its geometry which means by definition our universe is causally indeterminate as that symmetry constantly breaks and is reformed over the axis of time. Think of our universe like a windup toy that balances a Planck perfectly at the top of a point Planck point, by the nature of space the symmetry will spontaneously break but there is no smaller shapes to determine which way so we have created a causally indeterminate toy whenever the ball falls, our universe is just doing that constantly

>>16654087
Planck ball* perfectly

Probabilists are retarded. They think throwing a dice isn’t deterministic.

idk

All the probabilism resolves to a single outcome, so you may call that deterministic anyway. (the RNG for a single event will never roll a different value)

>>16643631 (OP)
Probabilities measure how little we know about the phenomenon not how sure we are about the outcome.

>>16656450
Good point.

Frog meet duck
>>16653778

I agree sort of. One still eats the other tho.

>>16656450
Bingo.

>>16646370
>scope in on a small part of a closed system so claim closed systems don't exist.
retarded mathematical gibberish.
the universe is the closed system and you can't rewind it or run it twice.
Those statistical 'errors' were always going to happen.

>>16643631 (OP)
They are.

https://youtu.be/82e283rqxrY?feature=shared

Oh god another frog thread

>>16643631 (OP)
Dumb frog thread

>>16643631 (OP)
Yeah

Ribbit

>>16643631 (OP)
I guess so

>>16643631 (OP)
Probably.

>>16643631 (OP)
How so?

>>16677686
How not so?

>>16643631 (OP)
ya

>>16653125
You're fuckin' retarded.

>>16643631 (OP)
literally useless ways of understanding the patterns around us lol

Why are there so many dumb frog threads

>>16681508
Because this is a dumb frog website.

>>16683196
How could I not see it.

>>16645921
>reality

Indeed

>>16653778

>>16681508
Where do you think you are?

>>16643631 (OP)
They really are though

>>16643631 (OP)
yes

>>16685553
Oh whatever duck you

Hm. We’ll see.

>>16656450
Also there is no causation. That happened, then this happened. That's it.

>>16692988
Wat.

Everything has a chance but chances still happen.

>>16694748
no thats a common misconception about with probability 1

>>16695060
It’s not a misconception. Things that are possible can possibly happen. Things that are impossible cannot possibly happen. Things that happen that are deemed impossible are in fact possible.

Shit happens. A chance/probability of something happening at all just affirms that everything is superdeterministic.

What a headache

>>16643631 (OP)
Yeah.

It’s all nihilism. It’s all a debate on/against free will.

Derp.

Perhaps

Maaaaybe…