Determinism is bullshit. Here's why.
Consider that some initial conditions existed @ t=0 setting the dominos of space/time into its cascade of causality. This is determinism.
Consider that whatever set the initial conditions at t=0 continued to exist beyond t=0, Therefore, it can continue to interfere with those conditions anywhere beyond t=0.
Determinism makes no logical sense.
What makes no logical sense is your argument
>>7917871
give it a minute to sink in.
>>7917872
Nonsense doesn't magically stop being nonsense given a minute to sink in, anon
>>7917873
what part of it is nonsense, specifically?
>>7917877
Different guy here.
Specifically:
>it can continue to interfere with those conditions anywhere beyond t=0
doesn't necessarily has to be true. Your argument is weak. Also, your English sucks.
>>7917867
>implying "whatever set the initial conditions" is not bound by causality
>>7917895
>has to be true
>English sucks
I realize the irony here, I eat dicks.
>>7917877
The entire argument
>>7917895
>doesn't necessarily has to be true.
well then neither does determinism.
>Also, your English sucks.
edit# 99 to communicate the idea as concisely as possible fucks up my grammar, so what? i got the message across.
>>7917897
what set the initial conditions for that case then?
>>7917901
lazy answer, why bother even posting
>>7917867
>it can continue to interfere with those conditions anywhere beyond t=0.
This is only a problem if the setter of initial conditions acts indeterminately, in which case you've assumed your conclusion.
>>7917942
derp english - i really need to proofread
>>7917867
time doesnt exist in determinism
>>7917911
>I will assume with no reason "whatever set the initial conditions" not bound by conditions
>I will not consider what "set the initial conditions" for "whatever set the initial conditions"
>I will not consider the possibility of the universe having no beggining
>I will not consider the possibility that universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing
>>7917922
Don't know what you want me to tell you, m8. The whole argument is nonsense
>>7917954
there are only forces, not force over time.
but i did misunderstand your point. you are saying if there is an independent and indeterminate force, that force can continue to be independent and indeterminable.
of course that makes sense. are you suggesting that physics doesnt exert itself on the big bang axiom? physics is a goal oriented science, which is why its not math. the study isnt going to stagnate because we should spend all our time defining creation
>>7917963
>there are only forces, not force over time.
well this is clearly false
>>7917955
>>I will assume with no reason "whatever set the initial conditions" not bound by conditions
initial conditions are inherently unbound by conditions themselves
>>I will not consider what "set the initial conditions" for "whatever set the initial conditions"
this situation will simply call up another iteration of the same paradox i described in the original post
>>I will not consider the possibility of the universe having no beggining
this notion itself contradicts determinism - determinism requires initial conditions.
>>I will not consider the possibility that universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing
this notion also contradicts determinism by principle alone
>>7917960
to you... that's okay. Thanks for taking the time to respond anyway.
>>7917971
Nah. It's nonsense in general. Sorry.
>>7917968
determinism strictly consolidates all movement into a singularity. there is no time
>>7917981
well that's clearly false
>>7917987
how does it feel making the same argument as the other poster that is frustrating you. are you angry that your ignorance is making you respond in the same fashion that you outwardly detest in others?
>>7917963
>you are saying if there is an independent and indeterminate force, that force can continue to be independent and indeterminable.
elegantly stated - yes this is what i am saying
Like any theoretical physics discussion, this is merely a thought experiment about the nature of reality. Approximate determinism exists in some systems, in other systems determinism is paradoxical, such as in the big bang theory.
>>7917993
you are not talking to the anon you think you are talking to, friendo
>>7917981
can you pls describe this in more detail?
>>7917993
ignore trolls
>>7917955
Spontaneous formation of something from nothing is one of the best definitions of magic.
>>7917942
>Aren't initial conditions are inherently indeterminate?
I'm indecisive. (I'm too drunk for rigorous metaphysics so this will also be my final reply for tonight.)
But hopefully I can replace my earlier problem with something better.
I'm thinking: Are the 'initial conditions' really initial if they are contingent (or chosen) by the setter of initial conditions?
From a deterministic point of view, I'd say that the "fake" initial conditions in the OP aren't actually initial, whereas whatever makes the setter act the way it does is 'more' initial.
If the "fake" conditions change along the way. It's a feature not a bug.
It follows inescapably from the "real" initial conditions.
