Thread 16828627

>>16828627 (OP)
Yes.

>>16828627 (OP)
No.

>>16828627 (OP)
Maybe.

>>16828627 (OP)
I don't know.

Can you repeat the question?

>>16828627 (OP)
We don't know the initial conditions so it's hard to tell how sensitive they were, if they exist

>>16828627 (OP)
Extremely. But it has island chains of stability.
>>16828789
See: jack-knife.

>>16828788
What?

>>16828793
I don't understand.

>>16828810
I didn't hear you way up there in the back? Can you repeat the question?

yes

the three-body problem of "gravity" is literally what gave rise to chaos theory.
There is no stable ~orbital~ solution to gravitational systems of three or model bodies. Either they will have eternally chaotic orbits, or they will eject a body, or smash into eachother.

The solar system can aproximate every planet as a two-body problem around the sun.
But when you actually model the solar system as a 8-body-problem, the system is chaotic, and should not have more than a few thousand cycles before ejecting a planet, or smashing planets into eachother.
Basically the entire theory of gravity is an enormous fraud.

>>16828627 (OP)
>>16829108
Did you know that "chaotic systems" are fully deterministic?

>>16829133
it's not quite so simple... chaotic systems are very sensitive. If you use 20 significant digits of accuracy on your numbers instead of 21, you will get a completely different state after a long enough timespan. Do you still call that deterministic? And what if you add in quantum uncertainty, or the infinitesimal forces from faraway bodies?

>>16829133
Yeah the future condition can be modeled based on the initial conditions - but it depends how accurate your model is, because ignoring Jupiter gravity on Saturn will FUCK YOUR SYSTEM after thousands of cycles, but for only a few cycles it can be ignored.

Now try tossing a magnetic ball towards another magnetic ball and making them orbit eachother for thousands of cycles.

>>16829140
>Do you still call that deterministic?
yeah. in some given initial state, theres only 1 possible state at the next instant of time later. for 2 different initial states, theres 2 different states at the next instant of time.

>>16829133
>Did you know that "chaotic systems" are fully deterministic?
Determinism doesn't exist and chaotic systems have nothing to do with this question one way or another.

>>16829142
What's the difference between something you will never be able to predict because it's impossible to collect enough information to, and something random?

>>16829143
>Determinism doesn't exist
I have determined that you are a very homosexual man with a small phallus and little success in sexual endeavors.

>>16829140
>>16829142
>QRNG output feeds into a microcontroller that controls a motor to give a double pendulum a slightly random nudge
The system is chaotic and nondeterministic.
>Same but with normal pendulum
The system is nondeterministic but not chaotic.
>A user-controlled potentiometer feeds output into a microcontroller that controls a motor to give a normal pendulum a user-specified nudge
The system is not chaotic so you can pretend it's deterministic.
>A user-controlled potentiometer feeds output into a microcontroller that controls a motor to give a double pendulum a user-specified nudge
The system is chaotic and the illusion of determinism breaks down.
>Fantasy fiction metaphysical thought experiment about a magical device that always gives the double pendulum the exact nudge specified by the user
Deterministic and chaotic.

Conclusion: whether or not a chaotic system is deterministic depends on whether or not you're dealing with real life or abstract determinist fantasies.

>>16829156
>What's the difference between something you will never be able to predict because it's impossible to collect enough information to, and something random?
The difference is that he can play determinism of the gaps to defend his irrational dogma against any kind of empirical refutation.

>>16829164
All systems are deterministic

>>16829167
Good thing you went straight for incoherent religious chanting instead of mental gymnastics.

>>16829169
It's a simple fact.

>>16829171
The simple fact is that you're mentally ill and not making any effort to hide it. Next.

>>16829172
Why is a pendulum nondeterministic?

>>16829174
>Why is a pendulum nondeterministic?
Quote the part where I said a pendulum is nondeterministic. You can't. You hallucinated this. You are mentally ill as I've already determined.

>>16829175
>>16829164
>>Same but with normal pendulum
>The system is nondeterministic but not chaotic.

>>16829178
Notice how the statement you quoted doesn't claim the pendulum is nondeterministic (whatever that even means). Take your meds and try again.

>>16829180
>The system is nondeterministic but not chaotic. (Referring to a pendulum)

>>16829182
>(Referring to a pendulum)
That is neither stated nor implied in the stated you quoted. Your psychotic episode only keeps worsening.

>>16829183
statement*

>>16829183
Then what did you mean by "normal pendulum" and "nondeterministic"?

>>16829190
And now you are showcasing your mental retardation as well, by failing to ask the correct question that would resolve your deep confusion.

>>16829191
Bot?

>>16829196
I see you've degenerated into total incoherence. Thanks for playing. That's plenty of subhuman posts to associate with the determinist worldview.

>>16829197
Lol.

>>16829164
>whether or not a chaotic system is deterministic depends on whether or not you're dealing with real life or abstract determinist fantasies.
/thread
reality is nondeterministic at base level, as far as anyone can tell. chaotic systems can make uncertainties bubble up to any scale

this board is the worst blend of egotistical coping insecure pretentious stem losers and people who never even went to undergrad

>>16829182
kek. anon, you really are retarded

>>16829213
>npc threatened by the collapse of its hyperdeterministic materialist programming
>unable to respond with a coherent argument
>resorts to personal attacks

>>16829685
>npc
Wrong. Determinitrannies are PNCs (player-negating characters). They exist to gaslight PCs into thinking they're NPCs.

>>16829140
>If you use 20 significant digits of accuracy on your numbers instead of 21, you will get a completely different state after a long enough timespan. Do you still call that deterministic?

Uhhh, YES? Absoiutely. Complexity has no bearing on whether a system is determined or not. If you have a machine with 10 parts or a machine with 10 trillion parts they both behave with the same deterministic certainty.

>>16829727
It's funny you say that because non-determinists cannot give their reasoning for why determinism is wrong without resorting to schizobabble pseudoscience and "gut feeling" so you're basically like malfunctioning AI chatbots lol

>>16829997
Determinism debunked in pic rel.
Consciousness has subtle effects on matter.

>>16829997
>non-determinists cannot give their reasoning for why determinism is wrong
No one cares why your abstract metaphysical fantasies, which have no intersection with observable reality, are "wrong".

I'd love to hear what you retards arguing actually believe determinism to mean, versus what you think non-determinism means, because I bet you don't even have the same concept of what these ideas entail, and a lot of your disagreement is due to miscommunication. It also doesn't matter who has the right definition of these things in mind. All that matters before that is to at least be on the same page.

>>16830230
yet you are here so its obvious you do care otherwise you wouldnt be trying to convince anyone to believe your schizo ramblings

>>>/x/

go back

>>16830226
Looks schizolicious.

>>16830328
I'm just here to remind you to what realm your metaphysical fantasies actually belong and how it contrasts with what's observed in reality.