Do you believe in chaos

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 11:52:59 AM

i don't mean like the edgy shadow the hedgehog version of chaos. I mean, do you believe that there is a random element to the universe? Or can everything be predicted with enough information? This has been bothering me lately and I value your esteemed opinions and ideas.

Mat Cauthon · May 25, 2015, 11:54:19 AM

I believe...

YouTube

Mr. Psychologist · May 25, 2015, 11:56:49 AM

I think everything can be predicted with enough information, obtaining enough information to predict everything on the other hand, you'd need a supercomputer the size of... I don't know... a planet <_<

Elegiac · May 25, 2015, 11:57:54 AM

See my signature.

Aether · May 25, 2015, 12:07:32 PM

Well nothing that comes into being exists inherently. Everything is caused by something else. I suppose the future could be predicted with enough information, but I like to think that sentience adds some degree of 'randomness' to the equation.

Some people argue that our entire consciousness and ego is nothing more than chemical/physical process and has no more substance than that, which would mean that even the nature of sentience could theoretically be predicted.

Still, if existence just so happens to be infinite, then what could ever conceive or process enough information to predict the future of something of that scale?

Girl of Mystery · May 25, 2015, 12:07:42 PM

I believe in miracles

True Turquoise · May 25, 2015, 12:20:19 PM

Do you believe in order?

Turkey · May 25, 2015, 12:33:32 PM

Apparent randomness is the result of unsophisticated measuring tools, though on the quantum level we do see the necessity of uncertainty, though it is not the same as randomness.

Ásgeirr · May 25, 2015, 12:39:18 PM

Lightning fought the chaos so you and the human race could live.

Elegiac · May 25, 2015, 12:41:14 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 25, 2015, 12:33:32 PM

Apparent randomness is the result of unsophisticated measuring tools, though on the quantum level we do see the necessity of uncertainty, though it is not the same as randomness.

So, the fact of the universe is orderly (And beyond that?)?- or rather, would be seen to be orderly if we could map it?

Verbatim · May 25, 2015, 12:48:53 PM

nope

hard determinist here
anything can be predicted with enough info

True Turquoise · May 25, 2015, 12:51:46 PM

Quote from: oss on May 25, 2015, 12:39:18 PM

Lightning fought the chaos so you and the human race could live.

and cried

Ásgeirr · May 25, 2015, 01:04:51 PM

Quote from: True Turquoise on May 25, 2015, 12:51:46 PM

Quote from: oss on May 25, 2015, 12:39:18 PM
Lightning fought the chaos so you and the human race could live.
and cried

We dont...talk about that...

True Turquoise · May 25, 2015, 01:07:28 PM

Quote from: oss on May 25, 2015, 01:04:51 PM

Quote from: True Turquoise on May 25, 2015, 12:51:46 PM
Quote from: oss on May 25, 2015, 12:39:18 PM
Lightning fought the chaos so you and the human race could live.
and cried
We dont...talk about that...

Spoiler

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 01:17:21 PM

Quote from: DemonicChronic on May 25, 2015, 12:07:32 PM

Still, if existence just so happens to be infinite, then what could ever conceive or process enough information to predict the future of something of that scale?

God, or that which people call God

Quote from: Verbatim on May 25, 2015, 12:48:53 PM

nope

hard determinist here
anything can be predicted with enough info

Why? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you believe that your life, past present and future, has already been determined? Do you have free will?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 25, 2015, 12:33:32 PM

Apparent randomness is the result of unsophisticated measuring tools, though on the quantum level we do see the necessity of uncertainty, though it is not the same as randomness.

So the difference between random and uncertain is how we perceive it?

Verbatim · May 25, 2015, 01:27:48 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 01:17:21 PM

Why? How did you come to that conclusion?

logic
newton's laws of motion

Quote

Do you believe that your life, past present and future, has already been determined?

essentially, yes

Quote

Do you have free will?

no

not that i can tell

DAS B00T x2 · May 25, 2015, 01:30:44 PM

where x, y, and z make up the system state, t is time, and sigma, rho, beta are the system parameters. Five of the terms on the right hand side are linear, while two are quadratic; a total of seven terms. Another well-known chaotic attractor is generated by the Rossler equations which have only one nonlinear term out of seven. Sprott found a three-dimensional system with just five terms, that had only one nonlinear term, which exhibits chaos for certain parameter values. Zhang and Heidel showed that, at least for dissipative and conservative quadratic systems, three-dimensional quadratic systems with only three or four terms on the right-hand side cannot exhibit chaotic behavior. The reason is, simply put, that solutions to such systems are asymptotic to a two-dimensional surface and therefore solutions are well behaved.

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 01:39:53 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 25, 2015, 01:27:48 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 01:17:21 PM
Why? How did you come to that conclusion?
logic
newton's laws of motion
Quote
Do you believe that your life, past present and future, has already been determined?
essentially, yes
Quote
Do you have free will?
no

not that i can tell

memes aside, doesn't that make you want to kill yourself? What is there to live for if autonomy and time are illusions?

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 01:41:34 PM

Quote from: DAS "كافر" B00T on May 25, 2015, 01:30:44 PM

Sprott found a three-dimensional system with just five terms, that had only one nonlinear term, which exhibits chaos for certain parameter values.

What do you mean by exhibits chaos? how does it manifest in regards to the equation?

Verbatim · May 25, 2015, 01:42:24 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 01:39:53 PM

memes aside, doesn't that make you want to kill yourself? What is there to live for if autonomy and time are illusions?

it makes me want to live even more

because i have a role to fulfill

life is not an illusion

Jono · May 25, 2015, 02:48:44 PM

Reminded me of that one Billy moment

YouTube

DAS B00T x2 · May 25, 2015, 02:52:07 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 01:41:34 PM

Quote from: DAS "كافر" B00T on May 25, 2015, 01:30:44 PM
Sprott found a three-dimensional system with just five terms, that had only one nonlinear term, which exhibits chaos for certain parameter values.
What do you mean by exhibits chaos? how does it manifest in regards to the equation?

Chaos theory, motherfucker, do you theorize it?

Pendulate · May 25, 2015, 05:57:20 PM

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html?m=1

Good read for hard determinists. I lean towards soft determinism myself.

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 06:53:33 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 25, 2015, 05:57:20 PM

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html?m=1

Good read for hard determinists. I lean towards soft determinism myself.

Thank you, that was interesting, i just have an issue when he says "the “laws” of physics treat time as symmetrical, which means that the present and the future “fix” the past just in the same way in which the past “fixes” the present and the future. No particular area of the time axis has priority over the others." If he's trying to make a case for the existence of free will, why does he cite this claim? If things are symmetrically fixed, then isn't hard determinism further proven?

Pendulate · May 25, 2015, 07:07:44 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 06:53:33 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 25, 2015, 05:57:20 PM
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html?m=1

Good read for hard determinists. I lean towards soft determinism myself.
Thank you, that was interesting, i just have an issue when he says "the “laws” of physics treat time as symmetrical, which means that the present and the future “fix” the past just in the same way in which the past “fixes” the present and the future. No particular area of the time axis has priority over the others." If he's trying to make a case for the existence of free will, why does he cite this claim? If things are symmetrically fixed, then isn't hard determinism further proven?

He's not making a case for free will. He doesn't believe it exists (or, to be foward, he accepts that it cannot exist). He's arguing against the hard causality of determinism, or that we should at least be agnostic about it.

Bear in mind that a chaotic universe still wouldn't result in free will.

ａｄｕｂａｔｏ · May 25, 2015, 07:22:09 PM

Quote from: Pendulate on May 25, 2015, 07:07:44 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 06:53:33 PM
Quote from: Pendulate on May 25, 2015, 05:57:20 PM
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html?m=1

Good read for hard determinists. I lean towards soft determinism myself.
Thank you, that was interesting, i just have an issue when he says "the “laws” of physics treat time as symmetrical, which means that the present and the future “fix” the past just in the same way in which the past “fixes” the present and the future. No particular area of the time axis has priority over the others." If he's trying to make a case for the existence of free will, why does he cite this claim? If things are symmetrically fixed, then isn't hard determinism further proven?
He's not making a case for free will. He doesn't believe it exists (or, to be foward, he accepts that it cannot exist). He's arguing against the hard causality of determinism, or that we should at least be agnostic about it.

Bear in mind that a chaotic universe still wouldn't result in free will.

Well then why should we be agnostic about it when it's fixed from both ways? I don't understand how this symmetry "softens" a deterministic point of view, unless I am misunderstanding something.

Pendulate · May 25, 2015, 07:54:30 PM

Quote from: adubato on May 25, 2015, 07:22:09 PM

Well then why should we be agnostic about it when it's fixed from both ways? I don't understand how this symmetry "softens" a deterministic point of view, unless I am misunderstanding something.

The point of the paper is to refute the downward causality argued by hard determinists -- our intentions are determined by past events that could not have been any other way. Instead of our intentions being determined strictly by the past (outward-in) our intentions arise from themselves and affect the world around us (inward-out). This is by no means unanimously agreed upon and I don't think the blog was advocating it more than simply an interesting theory. And it would still leave no room for free will.

"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Mmmmm Napalm · May 25, 2015, 08:04:26 PM

Do not speak of that heretical filth!

RomanGladiator · May 25, 2015, 08:09:25 PM

Only chaos theory