I like to shave with Ocamm"s razor. Hard to imagine you'd be able to predict that I would tweet this tweet based on a set of initial conditions 13 billion years ago.
-
-
Replying to @cenobyte3 @InertialObservr
I could if I have all the relevant information about the universe that gave rise to this moment (you tweeting). All I need are information about past events, in conjunction with the laws of nature to predict the current states (on a classical scale anyways).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HerbertHitchens @InertialObservr
But because of both quantum and chaos theory there is a physical limit to how much information even exists...so always some room for inderermenancy
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cenobyte3 @HerbertHitchens
Right, but what reason do we have to believe something of such a small scale has a non negligible interaction at human-brain energy scales? There's just as much room for little gnomes controlling your every move as there are for the freedom to choose x over y
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @InertialObservr @HerbertHitchens
I'd know if the gnomes were controlling me.pic.twitter.com/QhOZGIvhy7
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cenobyte3 @HerbertHitchens
hahah yes you would, but not at scales with E~< h
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr @HerbertHitchens
Planckian gnomes living in the Calabai-Yaubl spaces?pic.twitter.com/PLPyvFbq10
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @cenobyte3 @spacenerd19 and
Free will imo, is an effective theory since predicting human behavior is impractical using the physical laws of nature. Suggests, we can’t predict things like love or faith, it just happens. It’s like someone wakes up, “today, my calculations show that I’m going to fall in love”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eloace @cenobyte3 and
The truth of a statement has nothing to do with utility, so whether or not it’s impractical to use determinism in the areas you mentioned still doesn’t invalidate determinism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HerbertHitchens @eloace and
Determinism didn’t die with quantum physics, but it’s certainly up in the air until we work out the connection between it and relativity. We’re talking about philosophy here.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don't know how much "in the air" it is.. it's just that the definition of determinism needed refining.. or rather, pardon the pun, *quantum corrections*
-
-
Replying to @InertialObservr @HerbertHitchens and
Determinism= if you know the state of everything you can accurately predict everything that will happen afterward. What’s your definition?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @spacenerd19 @HerbertHitchens and
Determinsm' = Randomness is not inherent in the universe. All processes are governed by physical law, be that statistical or exact.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.