Why does r9k gravitate to either extreme? Even Jow Forums is generally somewhere in the middle...

He is originally right you know

Attached: He's right.jpg (800x598, 73K)

Theyre categories. On one extreme you have the nihilist worldview, on the other extreme you have the determinist/religious worldview. And then somewhere in the middle is the truth. Every worldview is somewhere on that spectrum

What's this retarded shit? Determinism is the scientific consensus, not some religious bullshit. Free does not make sense as anything but a social construct. If you believe anything else, congrats, you're a retard that doesn't understand how to think correctly

Quantum physics means that determinism is impossible

>I'm a person with no knowledge about quantum physics
Just because we don't understand the cause, doesn't mean the cause doesn't exist. "Wow, we've found a cause for almost everything we know about, but I guess we'll just call it a day here at this shit we barely understand that obviously has no effect on the macro world"
Please kys retard

We know that there are particles in the universe that are immeasurable because they are inherently random. This part was specified by the original quantum physicists, it's not that we don't have measuring equipment accurate enough to do so, it's that these particles change the moment you observe them. The moment you measure it it changes, meaning you cant measure it even with the best possible measuring technology.

Tl;dr the universe on a microscopic level is inherently "random". Determinism is impossible, its decisively debunked by quantum mechanics. It doesnt matter what additional things we find out about quantum physics, what we so far have confirmed to be true makes determinism physically impossible.

Damn that pic is stupid and I've never heard of anyone here spouting the opposite sides of the pic.
Also it's kinda both of them in a way. Also the "truth" part is not entirely correct.

Its literally just a categorization of worldviews on a spectrum. There is nothing crazy about it.

>scientific consensus

What do you really know yourself though I wonder? Would you be able to reasonably defend your position (which isn't even really defensible by scientific consensus) without just saying "wow ur dumb, most scientists said reality is this way so it is". Don't be an intellectual cuck. Go have your own experience, find your own limits.

Reality is a lot more than what our senses and brains can process. I used to be like you. You're just grasping for certainty in an uncertain world. Scientism is a religion by any other name, and it serves the same social function in the modern era.

>determinism
>god
fuck outta here
For example.

Again, just because something appears random doesn't mean it actually is. It's impossible to make a claim like "it's inherently random" without having exhausted all probable causes, which we haven't done, and don't have the tools to ever do. And if the universe was inherently random on a microscopic level, why wouldn't it be on the macro level? You're grasping at straws by clinging onto the one unknown phenomenon we don't really understand, while I can point to the billions of things we understand the cause of. It's as if you're looking at a person who's dropped an object a billion times, and every time it has fallen to the ground, but you still believe it can actually float upwards instead bu just never happened to do it.

Not believing in determinism is like believing in anything else that has no evidence. We've proven billions of things to act deterministically, but never once have we proven anything to act randomly. With your mindset, I'll assume you're another retarded flat-earth, anti-vax, climate change denier that believes they know better than scientists that research the shit for a living. Please grow up, the world isn't as mysterious and full of conspiracies as you want it to be.

Again, you're debating something that has already been debated. Go read on the work of the original quantum physicists like Bohr and Weninger. It has already been confirmed that the particles are inherently immeasurable and change at the moment that you observe them. Think about that last sentence. Imagine a line that the when you put a ruler to and the moment you're about to match up the line with a point on the ruler, its length changes. Its not an exactly precise analogy but thats about how quantum particles work. Its not a matter up to debate, it has already been debated on.

If you believe determinism is religious and randomness is scientific, I don't know what to tell you dude

Also
>And if the universe was inherently random on a microscopic level, why wouldn't it be on the macro level?
Thats the point. It is. Why do you think we are unable to even precisely predict the weather? Determinism is not true.

>I am stupid and can't argue so I just claim my retarded opinion is a fact that cannot be argued against

because we don't have all the necessary information you double digit iq troglodyte.

Do you understand why they change at the moment that you observe them? No, so stop acting like an idiot. If you don't understand how it works, you can't say it's "inherently immeasurable/random". You're just seeing what you want to see.

It explains the reasoning behind why it chose to call those two worldviews that. Regardless, if you dislike those terms you can change randomness to nihilism.

Wow when you were typing this out did you think that was actually a comparable situation? *tips fedora*

You won't believe me, and I don't think you should, I think you should go see for yourself, there are spiritual/other dimensional layers superimposed over each other. These would probably be subject to scientific observation and empiricism if they were in the range if that thing we know as human objectivity. It is not incompatible, just goes unseen by most. Stop letting scientists define your reality, if what they say is true or relevant you can prove it yourself. Don't forego experience because someone said something is a certain way, prove it to yourself. Since you like stupid comparisons, what you are doing is like sitting at a stop sign and treating it as a traffic light because someone told you to. You will sit at that stop sign for eternity waiting for it to change to green.

Because the weather is extremely complicated? If it was random, how are we even able to make close predictions in the first place? You have one smooth brain, my friend

>there are spiritual/other dimensional layers
Atleast you're proving OP's retarded thread wrong. There is no middleground. There are people who are rational, and then there are the "people" who post nonsense about spiritual dimensional layers.

I'm not going to argue with a religious nutcase, please just go back to doing drugs with your spirit friends instead of spreading your stupidity online

lol this thread. these types of discussions are always unproductive.

Who comes to Jow Forums to be "productive", I'm just here to bully incels and have fun

Because consciousness is a signal being picked up by the brain, not being created by it. What we observe in neuroscience is the after not the before. Consciousness is the free will factor in an otherwise deterministic universe. Reality is infinite, every potential exists somewhere in the fractal lattice. Consciousness is what allows us to navigate the lattice and allows us to change our quantum path. Quantum states apply to the microcosm, but the macrocosm is in the realization that the sum of those states is the quantum meta state of the universe in that moment. In any moment think how exponentially the lattice "grows".

You're not debating against me here, you're debating against some of the greatest scientists the world has seen. Again, go read up on the theories of the original quantum physicsts and debunk their theories if you disagree. I'll be impressed if you can

It doesnt really matter, the randomness principle is an already established part of the theory that has been thoroughly debated. Unless we find something that completely debunks quantum physics, determinism is impossible.

Although i will tell you this, we may never know what makes quantum particles act the way they do. Because the thing that makes quantum particles inherently immeasurable is the observer problem. The moment you look at the particle, the wave function collapes and its not the same thing its used to be. Its like trying to chase a carrot on a stick. You'd have to somehow be able to observe the particle without observing it to be able to measure it, which is obviously not possible.

you can tell they're really trying their hardest. look at them running in circles

Didnt expect anything else from an airhead that tries to argue against scientific fact because he is incapable of understanding anything that is not cut and dry

Normans prove all the points r9k makes on them every single time they talk shit

>Because consciousness is a signal being picked up by the brain
that's some nice religious cope. too bad this signal can't be detected or shown to exist in any way.

Kek, scared brainlets. Religion only works in the way of using symbology and metaphor to explain that beyond the senses. Rarely is it sensible or clear what is being said without esoteric context.

>You're not debating against me here, you're debating against some of the greatest scientists the world has seen.
Debunk what? Bohr was a mathematician and so was Einstein, who didn't agree with Bohr on there being any randomness involved. Neither had any real grasp on epistomology or philosophy of science, so you can't really blame some of them for thinking in the abstract terms of probabilities and coordinate systems.

Yeah I am sure you have magical powers you crazy loon.

Did you know that people have experienced medical "brain death", thay is to say their brain was showing no activity, they were literally dead? Did you know that as their brain showed no activity, they reported experiencing intense things that if experienced when conscious would have been a high arousal state for the brain, in other words the activity would be off the charts?

Just an interesting thing i thought i'd share.

>he thinks we're seeing the whole picture

Oh what hubris, how scientific of you! It's a good thing you can lean on that comfortable empiricism assembled by others instead of actually having to figure out something for yourself for once.

Facts are human arrogance.

>Einstein and Bohr had no grasp on epistomology
>i, a random retard who is scared of new information, know better than some of the greatest scientists in the history of humanity

Attached: gold.png (912x905, 946K)

They were autistic mathematicians. Bohr couldn't even put his shoes on without help. This guy lived in a world of abstract mathematical concepts, he didn't live in the real world.

Never implied any such thing, but your attempt to conflate anything even remotely outside of empiricism with me somehow believing I have magic powers shows what a stimulus in, response out state your mind is in. Determinism probably is real for you.

One of the best brainlet filters is to start talking about things that cannot be understood in an empricist way. If they recoil in terror like that tard in this thread, its a good sign they have a very low iq.

They dont even need to agree with you on it, they just have to be willing to entertain the idea. Most people are able to do so, if someone cant even do that you can be sure he is retarded

>as their brain showed no activity
How would the people know when they were experiencing anything seeing as they were unconscious?

Oh what reddit spacing. He is an egoist who thinks he has free will, because the thought of his self being an illusion scares him.

Here go the armchair pseudoscientists again...

Did you know that as their brain showed no activity, they reported experiencing intense things that if experienced when conscious would have been a high arousal state for the brain
How did they report anything with no brain activity? Oh nevermind, you're doing that right now. I guess I was wrong, sorry

People were monitored as they were "dead". They came back with knowledge of experiences they did not have before "dying". Most importantly they were dead in every scientifically measurable way. Then they came back.

>Unless we find something that completely debunks quantum physics, determinism is impossible.
>Although i will tell you this, we may never know what makes quantum particles act the way they do.
Please just read these two lines a few hundred times and try snapping out of your stupidity bubble, this is absolutely ridicilous. You can't claim it's random and that you don't know how it works simultaneously

They have no way of knowing when they experienced what they did. They weren't conscious. They couldn't have gone, wow look I have no brain activity right now, but I'm experiencing this. They probably experienced those things before and after they had no brain activity.

>They came back with knowledge of experiences they did not have before "dying"
And these experiences couldn't have happened while the brain had activity, why?... How could they ever confirm that their experiences happened in the same timeframe as them not having brain activity?

>this post

All ad hom, and with very stupid assumptions. Stimulus in response out. There's supposed to be something between those two things, you know? The one part of your post that could be considered an argument isn't even definitively true by your own standards. You probably feel like a big boy smiting low iq creationists with your reason and logic, but truth is there are many people more intelligent than either of us who at least entertain the prospect of spiritual reality. Ya know, since you love appeal to authority and being an intellectual cuck.

It doesnt matter. They're immeasurable regardless, meaning that determinism is impossible. Whichever way you want to twist it, quantum physics disproves determinism, because for determinism to be real every single particle in the universe has to be able to be accounted for (theoretically). Since quantum physics means you cant, determinism is impossible.

They did still die and come back to life though. There is definitely something to that.

No, moron. Objectively it doesn't matter what you can meassure or account for. You can't predict the winning lottery numbers, but that doesn't mean they are chosen at random.

nothing supernatural about that.

It does matter, theoretically. You dont have to actually go and measure all particles, you just have to BE ABLE to do so. Quantum physics means you cant even theoretically measure all particles in the universe.

You're pretty funny. I know the egoself is transitory and illusory. Try again. You should have at least said something mutually exclusive with what I was saying of you want to make baseless speculation about me. But look at your pattern, every one of your "arguments" are just baseless attacks on me. It's especially funny because you recite the "reddit spacing" meme like it means something, and furthermore with what seems like a lack of awareness of the memes origin and actual intention.

No, you don't have to be able to do so. The measuring equiment has to be able to interact with what it is measuring for you to measure it.

No, dude. You're a retarded idiot. No one's going to take you seriously when you rattle on about ghosts and spirits and trolls living under bridges. Least of all me.

Yeah, you do have to be able to account for all particles for determinism to be real. You cant do that because of quantum particles.

No, you don't, idiot. If something has an objective existence, then that existence is by definition independent of any accounting for or observation.
As I said earlier, you have a laughable grasp on epistomology. You seriously don't get this kindergarten stuff, yet you want to make sweeping judgements about the universe.

I didn't do any of that though, I approached the topic very maturely without any reference to any of your continued attempts to throw me in with groups rather than ever confronting me meaningfully. The way you view those words poisons your thinking. No one's going to take YOU seriously when you've shown repeatedly you have no real arguments other than "no ur dumb, I bet you believe in these other dumb things I don't like lol, haha good thing I don't have to argue with you cuz ur dumb and here's more dumb things you probably better retard".

I can personally guarantee you on aesthetics and nothing else (since salt in reality this is what decides must debates) that most readers would side with me in this argument.

You have a laughable grasp on consciousness and metaphysics. You're scared of the responsibility of free will.

Oi, my dude who keeps harping on about particles being inherently random because we can't measure them, got something to tell you.

They can't be measured, because to measure them means they need to be physically interacted with in some manner. Doing that moves their position because they are so small.

That movement is unpredictable because we don't have any way to control how the interaction between the medium of measurement and the particle affects the position of the particle.

It is this interaction which is the source of the 'randomness'. It is not, I repeat, not, some inherent feature of the particle that it is 'random'.

It's like throwing dice. A regular person throws them and gets a random result but a machine could throw for a specific result just using physics, and reliably get it.

Eventually, we should be able to figure out a medium of measurement which interacts with the particle in a predictable way such that the particle's position can be extrapolated based on that.

Couldn't care less about your argument with the other anons. Just really, really, hate this misunderstanding people have about the measurement problem and wanted to do my part to demystify it for anyone interested.

Okay dude, be sure to check your closet for hobgoblins and gremlins, I know with the swift in the astral tide this time of the cosmic year, those little buggers are fierce.

No, I'm just too smart to confuse myself with nonsensical concepts.

Religious people believe in free will aka randomness not determinists. Read some Descartes

>people grow up poor, abused, ugly, otherwise disadvantaged
>this is caused by patterns your parents designed, environmental and societal factors, and genetics
>from the day you were born you were determined to live your life the only way that is possible
>literally the only thing that backs up free will is the belief in god, a man-made construct used to control people and has never been proven and if a higher power did exist we probably couldn't understand it nor would it concern itself with human suffering

So you were just a shitposter all along then? Interesting, well played friend!

why do you think gravitating to an extreme is an insult?

You're just going off into irrelevant things now, in what appears to be an attempt to make yourself look smart on an internet imageboard which is pretty pathetic.

For determinism to be real, you have to theoretically be able to measure all particles in the universe and based on that predict the future. You cant do that because of quantum particles. Come back when you have evidence that we can measure quantum particles. Until then you're just a sputtering retard scared that his foundation of reality can be shattered any moment.

I don't really engage retarded loons.

>For determinism to be real, you have to theoretically be able to measure all particles in the universe and based on that predict the future
No. It's completely irrelevant what you can measure. It doesn't matter. You don't grasp this. You are stupid.

Oh ho ho, if only you knew how silly that statement is. Intellect precedes abstraction and other nonsense. They do not exist without the prerequisite of intellect.

I have no idea what retarded shit you are on about.

You are wrong because the reason you cant measure them is the moment you observe them, the wave function collapses. It doesnt matter what interacts with them, the moment you look at it the wave function collapses making it physically impossible to measure regardless of the measuring equipment. You are regurgitating a common but false theory that has been debated and debunked since the very early days of quantum physics. The original quantum physicists EXPLICITLY specify that your proposition is not true, its not the measuring equipment, they're inherently are immeasurable. They go to great lengths to make this point because your misconception here is the first and most common misconception regarding quantum physics.

Ahh, so you must be without an internal monologue. That is a shame. I guess it shows in your lack of self awareness though.

beep beep
bop bop
"Entity = me" does not compute bop bop
"Human organism" not speaking in binary translatable way beep beep. Bop bop.

if you actually belive in a god, i feel sorry for the damage your parents did to you when your brain was devolping.

If you really can't understand what is being said in my post you might want to reconsider calling anyone retarded when you lack reading comprehension.

If you really need me to spell it out: one could not even conceive of abstraction and nonsense without first having the intellect and concepts to engage such ideas.

No, sorry. Still just retarded nonsense.

>Mark Passio
Based and fucking Redpilled

Attached: 021.jpg (1920x1080, 653K)

I bet your concept of god is a vague bearded abrahamic one.

No actually I'm presenting to you a logical argument regarding how intellect works and what it allows for. If it's a little over your head that's fine. If I'm wrong engage me and show me the mistake in my reasoning. It's kind of funny seeing someone who doesn't even understand cause and effect in a thread discussing free will.

>It doesnt matter what interacts with them, the moment you look at it the wave function collapses making it physically impossible to measure regardless of the measuring equipment
The wave function is derived from observables that are affected by the interaction during the measurement. The measuring medium (the equipment is not the medium) does matter.

I'm pretty sure you're just tripping over yourself trying to say something, anything, really.

And what do you call what you're doing?

A study on animal behavior.

You do know you cant be both the test subject and the tester right?

You got those backwards. Abrahamic religions are based on free will, while science tells us we are to a very very large degree still ruled over by instinct and other inherent behaviors. And morality does not come from God, The State, or society, it's something innate. Not everyone has it though.

If that were actually the case, you would know exactly what I am trying to explain to you. Because animals don't fuck around with these concepts because the lack the intellect to engage them. Lucky them, really, imagine being able to just be and not exist in constant existential crisis.

You are an animal. You realize that don't you?

Its talking about WORLDVIEW, not people. The left side believes that the universe is a cosmic accident, the right side believes that everything is made by a god and already predetermined so no change is possible.

Mhm, an animal capable of intellectualizing things at a level much more complex than even the closest runner up.