/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11488006

139KiB, 1499x1000, dims.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 02:57:16 2020 No.11488006 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11488030 >>11489195 >>11489220

Are the universe and the future purely deterministic?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 02:58:25 No.11488008 Report

Quoted By:

If you had two laplace demons, and they had to correctly observe each other, then the world could not be deterministic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:04:51 No.11488030 Report

Quoted By: >>11488035 >>11488040 >>11488070

>>11488006
quantum mechanics implies that the observations made by measurement devices are not deterministic. however, it says that there is some underlying structure that evolves deterministically.

how we make sense of this situation is referred to as "interpretations" which is a field that is basically useless and full of lots of crap not worth paying attention to.

the fact is that the universe is somewhat ambiguous and you need to accept that. once you get past that, you can start either doing real work or, alternatively, getting shit done on the theoretical side. but nobody will ever come back to determinism. that is out of the question.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:07:17 No.11488035 Report

Quoted By: >>11488059

>>11488030
>quantum mechanics implies that the observations made by measurement devices are not deterministic
no they show there is a limit to the accuracy of measurement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:08:55 No.11488040 Report

Quoted By: >>11488059

>>11488030
there can be no evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality as in either deterministic or probabilistic universes the classical interpretation of the uncertainty principle is the limit of measurement. I.e it is always a lie to attribute an experimental result to probabilism before measurement error unless you wield a measuring device outside of our reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:17:37 No.11488059 Report

Quoted By: >>11488071

>>11488035
>>11488040
you guys are both wromg and both definitely have not read any intro textbooks on QM. therefore your opinions can be disregarded as shill retard shit.

if you have any legitimate objections to quantum mechanics, then please share. and if they exist, in the context of ordinary quantum mechanics, then maybe you could point out a page in Griffiths or Sakurai or Shankar where they are wrong. please do so if you can.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:23:27 No.11488070 Report

Quoted By: >>11488091

>>11488030
>however, it says that there is some underlying structure that evolves deterministically.
Literally where

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:24:05 No.11488071 Report

Quoted By: >>11488077 >>11488091 >>11489167

>>11488059
>you're wrong
not an argument.
there is no evidence to add inherent probabilism to the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
There can never be evidence for probabilistic characteristics of reality

the copenhagen interpretation is a lie

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:26:46 No.11488077 Report

Quoted By: >>11488082

>>11488071
>to add inherent probabilism to the interpretation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
>to add
You’re a clown and have zero understanding of what you’re talking about

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:27:19 No.11488082 Report

Quoted By: >>11488120

>>11488077
still no arguments

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:29:40 No.11488091 Report

Quoted By: >>11488095

>>11488070
it’s called the wavefunction
>>11488071
it’s called wavefunction collapse

i know this is confusing, QM is confusing. but a consistent framework exists to deal with these problems called “consistent histories”

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:31:20 No.11488095 Report

Quoted By: >>11488098 >>11488103

>>11488091
wavefunction collapse and consistent histories is downstream are lies downstream of inserting inherent probability as a characteristic of reality when there is no evidence for it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:33:44 No.11488098 Report

Quoted By: >>11488110

>>11488095
there is evidence for it though. do any experiment on a quantum system and you will observe stochastic results

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:35:15 No.11488103 Report

Quoted By: >>11488160

>>11488095
believing in fundamental randomness is not something provable by science because we cannot construct and infinitely accurate measuring device.
You cannot attribute any variance of result and prediction to inherent probability you can only attribute it to measurement error

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:37:21 No.11488110 Report

Quoted By: >>11488126 >>11488160

>>11488098
stochastic doesn't mean inherently random

there is not a single experiment proving a probabilistic characteristic of reality because it is not possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:39:19 No.11488120 Report

Quoted By: >>11488127

>>11488082
If you weren’t retarded, you’d realize the argument being made without having it spelled out for you. No one is “adding” anything to the uncertainty principle. The entire point of it is that there is an inherent uncertainty. It’d be one thing to disagree, but you’re being even more retarded than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:40:52 No.11488126 Report

Quoted By: >>11488139

>>11488110
okay, you can say that a system that looks inherently random actually isn’t . people have tried like Bohm. but they failed. so the conclusion that scientifically minded people have made is that those processes are random. and they went on to use that conclusion to make predictions that turned out true. therefore they are correct empirically

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:40:55 No.11488127 Report

Quoted By: >>11488160 >>11488168

>>11488120
>there is inherent uncertainty
no there isn't there is a limit to measurement which means there is a limit to predictability

you cannot prove inherent uncertainty it is antithetical to science

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:43:02 No.11488139 Report

Quoted By: >>11488148

>>11488126
de broglie bohm has no failures. It is the best interpretation of quantum mechanics

>looks inherently random
is a meaningless thing to say. To prove inherent probabilism you would need an infinitely accurate measuring device which is not possible

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:45:59 No.11488148 Report

Quoted By: >>11488155 >>11488279

>>11488139
>de broglie bohm has no failures. It is the best interpretation of quantum mechanics
no, it is a debunked theory. it uses local hidden variables which are disproven empirically by alain aspect's tests of bell's theorem.

it is really sad that 40-50 year old debunked theories still make appearances here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:47:29 No.11488152 Report

Quoted By:

You're mom sucking my dick is pretty deterministic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:49:07 No.11488155 Report

Quoted By: >>11488169

>>11488148
completely false. It's non local

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:51:04 No.11488160 Report

Quoted By: >>11488171 >>11488279

>>11488103
>>11488110
>>11488127
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what empiricism is. Science proves nothing In any strict epistemological sense. If something looks sufficiently random or inherently uncertain, then scientifically it is. Given the results of Bell’s theorem, the only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain. We could never completely rule out something like superdeterminism, but they’re not theories worth dealing with. Believe them if you want, but people then have the right to call you silly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:55:09 No.11488168 Report

Quoted By: >>11488180

>>11488127
>there is a limit to measurement
Cool original research my guy.
Again, disagree with it all you want but the point of the uncertainty principle IS inherent uncertainty. This is as retarded as arguing the definition of a word.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:55:17 No.11488169 Report

Quoted By: >>11488180

>>11488155
the original Bohm theory was local.

if you want to start arguing nonlocal theories then you are entering magical thinking zone. "nonlocal" implies that things can communicate faster than light, which violates special relativity, a pillar of modern physics that is an essential ingrediant that went into the formulation of electroweak theory, chromodynamics, and the standard model. there is no sense in arguing against special relativity and thus empirically nonlocal theories are false

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:56:11 No.11488171 Report

Quoted By: >>11488189 >>11488190 >>11489181

>>11488160
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, he only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain
this is a blatant lie. bells theorem only disproved local hidden variable theories.

Meanwhile believing in probabilism is antithetical to science, it is not a result that can ever be justified by experiment. All results are explained by de broglie the copenhagen interpretation is a violation of occams razor adding probabilism because you want it not because there is evidence for it

it's astounding how you people just lie

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 03:59:13 No.11488180 Report

Quoted By: >>11488185

>>11488168
no it is not it is an deterministic inequality.

>>11488169
didn't I say de broglie bohm?
einsteins theories did not disprove non local characteristics of reality only that a subset of reality follows his theories. There is no contradiction with non locality and the theories you mention

meanwhile there is still not a single result justifying the belief in inherent randomness which the entirety of the coenhagen interpretation is built on

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:03:07 No.11488185 Report

Quoted By: >>11488202

>>11488180
> There is no contradiction with non locality and the theories you mention

the point i am making is that if you believe in non-locality, then basically you are saying that you believe in teleportation, or alternatively, that one can travel at infinitely greater speed than the speed of light. i find these assertions to be manifestly false given the physics that is known to modern physicists.

if your theory relies on such outlandish shit, then we can safely throw it in the garbage. i know that newagers and "muh life-force" idiots like to believe in these things but it really doesn't cut it for me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:06:32 No.11488189 Report

Quoted By: >>11488202

>>11488171
>this is a blatant lie
Again, you’re misunderstanding what empiricism is. No one is lying. You just don’t like the results. As I said before, there’s other theories that “could” work. None that are scientific.
> is a violation of Occam’s razor adding probabilism because you want it not because there is evidence for it
It’s ironic how much your own statements apply to you and you’re screaming about others being unscientific. You’re adding a pilot wave with zero evidence or need for it other than your autistic need for the world to be deterministic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:06:40 No.11488190 Report

Quoted By: >>11488202

>>11488171
What can be justified has little scientific value if it cannot be disproven. Probabilism can be disproven by producing more consistent results than should be theoretically possible. Meanwhile, how would you go about disproving determinism?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:14:11 No.11488202 Report

Quoted By: >>11488206 >>11488209 >>11488223

>>11488185
non locality violates nothing
probabilism does

>>11488189
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, he only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain
is a lie and you know it is
> you’re misunderstanding what empiricism is. No one is lying. You just don’t like the results. As I said before, there’s other theories that “could” work. None that are scientific.
science is based on experiment. There can be no experimental result for probabilism because you would need and infinitely accurate measuring device

>>11488190
Probabilism cannot be proven in the first place, measurement error is the constraint of experiment.
Determinism, prediction is science

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:15:43 No.11488206 Report

Quoted By: >>11488214

>>11488202
The simple fact that you think ANYTHING can be scientifically proven shows just how misguided your thinking is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:16:43 No.11488209 Report

Quoted By: >>11488214

>>11488202
you're just trying too hard now anon. it's sad.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Letter from Wickliffe Rose to Ni (...).jpg, 253KiB, 640x800

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:19:19 No.11488214 Report

Quoted By:

whether we are in a probabilistic universe or deterministic universe it is impossible to run an experiment that can justify belief in probabilistic characteristics of the universe because we do not have an infinitely accurate measuring device.

>>11488206
I don't think that, there is no experiment you can run that makes it justifiable to believe what has been happening will continue to happen. That is not the purpose of science, science is about prediction. Precisely why is it is insane to believe in probabilism

>>11488209
your shill non arguments are obvious. I can't believe you retards think this is gonna work

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:22:01 No.11488223 Report

Quoted By: >>11488227 >>11488239

>>11488202
>you would need and infinitely accurate measuring device
My God you’re thick. Science doesn’t prove any objective facts.
Let’s do this. How does adding a pilot wave on top of the existing framework change the predictions in any way? If your only answer is something immeasurable or none, then it’s not a scientific theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:25:32 No.11488227 Report

Quoted By: >>11488384

>>11488223
YOU are the one adding things not justified by experiment.
That is not a scientific theory.

The success of science is measured by its predictive utility determinism is infinitely more predictable than inherently random. Which doesn't even make sense because scientific belief comes from experiment not your desire to have a probabilistic interpretation of reality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:30:34 No.11488239 Report

Quoted By: >>11488244 >>11488384

>>11488223
there is as much justification to believe the dial slit experiment is a result for probabilism as there is for newtons projectile motion
You could make probabilistic interpretations of projectile motion as well but there is no result to justify it

the Copenhagen interpretation violates occams razor

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:35:15 No.11488244 Report

Quoted By: >>11488247

>>11488239
I'll take a theory that violates your particular flavor of Occam's razor, over a theory that blatantly violates actual laws of physics like causal relationships.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:38:15 No.11488247 Report

Quoted By: >>11488252

>>11488244
you will take a theory that has no experimental basis. It is not science, it is belief because you want to believe it.

There are no problems with non locality

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:40:46 No.11488252 Report

Quoted By: >>11488258

>>11488247
>There are no problems with non locality
You can point to a sinking ship and say "there are no problems with it" all you like, the ship is still sinking. Your words are blatantly wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:43:34 No.11488258 Report

Quoted By: >>11488266

>>11488252
>points out no problems and lies about bells inequality 2 or 3 times. Still can't refute the point there can be no experimental result that justifies probabilism and tries to change the argument to epistemology

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:47:48 No.11488266 Report

Quoted By: >>11488279

>>11488258
Clarify what "lies" you see here about Bell inequalities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:52:51 No.11488279 Report

Quoted By: >>11488284 >>11488286

>>11488266

>>11488148
>no, it is a debunked theory. it uses local hidden variables which are disproven empirically by alain aspect's tests of bell's theorem.
non local not local
>>11488160
>Given the results of Bell’s theorem, the only scientifically justified position is that QM is inherently uncertain.
deterministic non local qm theories are not disproved by bell

2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:54:49 No.11488284 Report

Quoted By: >>11488290 >>11489223

>>11488279
That first one is fair. However, deterministic non local QM theories are not scientifically justified. They violate foundational principles of 20th century science

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 50FC7EAC-E563-4005-B6DF-5CF12C97 (...).jpg, 8KiB, 300x168

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:55:45 No.11488286 Report

Quoted By: >>11488290

>>11488279

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 04:58:44 No.11488290 Report

Quoted By: >>11488297

>>11488284
Probabilism is the only thing that isn't justified it is antithetical to science as it is impossible to justify by experiment as measurement is the constraint

determinism violates nothing

>>11488286
no arguments

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:00:50 No.11488297 Report

Quoted By: >>11488300

>>11488290
How about coming up with a counterargument instead of repeating the same mantra almost word for word

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:02:46 No.11488300 Report

Quoted By: >>11488307

>>11488297
counterargument to what argument?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:07:02 No.11488307 Report

Quoted By: >>11488319

>>11488300
Deterministic nonlocal QM theories violate the foundational principles of locality, finite speed of information transfer, lack of preferred reference frame, among others without a shred of evidence for the additional pilot equation on top of the wavefunction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:17:01 No.11488319 Report

Quoted By: >>11488327 >>11488329 >>11488337

>>11488307
it maintains locality as a subset of a reality that has non local characteristics. Nothing is violated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:20:05 No.11488327 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488319
The argument in this thread is that probabilism cannot be justified by experiment.
Making the copenhagen interpretation not science

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:21:22 No.11488329 Report

Quoted By: >>11488336

>>11488319
Ironic that you would propose an unobservable underlying reality which is completely different from the one we observe

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:24:22 No.11488336 Report

Quoted By: >>11488340

>>11488329
it is observable but not infinitely predictable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:25:57 No.11488337 Report

Quoted By: >>11488376

>>11488319
Locality can't be created from a nonlocal underlying framework. Reality is either local or nonlocal; to say that the underlying reality is nonlocal defeats the principle of locality. De Broglie Bohm is a conspiracy theory of coincidences which are claimed to explain the appearance of randomness and locality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:27:01 No.11488340 Report

Quoted By: >>11488376

>>11488336
Show an observation of nonlocal information transfer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:27:23 No.11488342 Report

Quoted By: >>11488351 >>11488376

Ever since watching Devs I’ve had a question about determinism that’s fucked with me.
So let’s grant that the universe is deterministic and there is some crystal ball/mirror/quantum doohickey you can observe and witness the future with it. What would happen if you wanted to look at yourself 3 seconds in the future? What if you were also determined to NOT replicate whatever movements/actions you see in the mirror that’s supposed to be the version of you that’s 3 seconds in the future? What would you actually see in the mirror? If you saw yourself raising your right hand you could just raise your left, which would either mean it was wrong or you should’ve seen the left hand get raised. It seems paradoxical to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:31:33 No.11488351 Report

Quoted By: >>11488395

>>11488342
>What if you were also determined to NOT replicate whatever movements/actions you see in the mirror that’s supposed to be the version of you that’s 3 seconds in the future?
This directly contradicts your premise that your future is predetermined. If it is predetermined, you would be incapable of choosing otherwise

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:44:07 No.11488376 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488337
>Locality can't be created from a nonlocal underlying framework.
This is not proven in general.
the particles and the wave function are non local to each other. The interactions between particle and particle adhere to locality the wavefunction relative to the particles does not.
>to say that the underlying reality is nonlocal defeats the principle of locality
no it doesn't, locality exists
>Randomness
cannot be proven by science

once again the thread is about the copenhagen interpretation being unjustifiable as probabilism is not a result that is compatible with experiment. De boglie bohm is the best albeit incomplete theory.

>>11488340
Justify probabilism with an experiment

>>11488342
you don't have the accuracy to measure the state of the wavefunction accurately enough to plug the right variables into the model. It is deterministic but you can't predict the future that exactly
Look at things distributed by power laws and you will find much of your life is predictable enough already

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:49:29 No.11488384 Report

Quoted By: >>11488415

>>11488227
>>11488239
I take it by your refusal to answer that the answer is in fact “none”? In that case your silly pilot wave theory or any other theory that predicts nothing different is unscientific. How can you keep mentioning Occam’s razor yet endorse a theory which makes zero different predictions yet is more complicated for every one of the very same QM makes.
> You could make probabilistic interpretations of projectile motion as well but there is no result to justify it
Except for every single result in QM and its theories/equations. None deterministic. You’re actin like determinism is some default position that must be philosophically disproven in order for uncertainty to be scientific. You’re wrong. Again, read what empiricism actually is. The world isn’t deterministic, get over it child.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 05:57:07 No.11488395 Report

Quoted By: >>11489374

>>11488351
If the universe is deterministic, and through some mechanism we can actually calculate what the future will be, with utmost accuracy, and it’s been calculated that I’ll say “dog” 10 seconds from now, what is stopping me from just saying “cat” out of spite? Either the machine is incapable of calculating the future or I’m incapable of being spiteful, and we know that’s not the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 06:04:09 No.11488415 Report

Quoted By: >>11488446

>>11488384
The universe may not be deterministic but science can not prove that. Probablism cannot be proved by experiment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 06:24:24 No.11488446 Report

Quoted By: >>11488455

>>11488415
Yes it can, according to empiricism. You’re playing tennis with no net. For your theories it’s enough for them to be possible despite no justification other than your irrational position that determinism is the default state that must be dethroned. Yet when it comes to the other side you ask for things like infinite precision and infinite amounts of measurements. You ask only for possibility, now matter how small, for yourself and philosophical certainty for your opponent.
> Probablism cannot be proved by experiment.
Clearly I’m not going to change your mind as you keep repeating unjustified statements as unquestionable truths but just for anyone who still thinks you might b right, ask yourself what benefit or predictive power you get by adding some convoluted pilot wave you know nothing about, can’t describe, and can’t tell anyone how it works. If the only answer is “it lets me keep believing in determinism” then at least realize your belief is a religion not science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 06:33:16 No.11488455 Report

Quoted By: >>11488458

>>11488446
You cant attribute variance between result and prediction to inherent randomness before measurement error. To prove probablism requires an infinitely accurate measuring device

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 06:37:14 No.11488458 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488455
You do not need probabilism to explain quantum mechanics and it is not justified by experiment it is therefore not science. You are making probabilistic theories because you want them.

I dont care either way

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 13:49:14 No.11489167 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488071
Copenhagen is not the only stochastic interpretation and in reality it is the interpretation most in line with the spirit of Empiricism and science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 13:54:59 No.11489181 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488171
"Science" is concerned with understanding how material reality operates.
If material reality is fundamentally non deterministic (which it is) then science accepts this. You are the one who's not being scientific.
There is nothing about stochasticism that is "anti science"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:02:01 No.11489195 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488006
Yes, but we currently don't have enough processing power/knowledge to compute the next event that will happen.

Until then determinists are BTFO

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:11:57 No.11489215 Report

Quoted By:

\end of shitstorm

More research is needed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:12:36 No.11489220 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488006
Not locally deterministic, but superdeterministic, as in the entirety of wave function.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:13:36 No.11489223 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488284
MANY WORLDS passes Bells's inequality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:18:40 No.11489233 Report

Quoted By:

Many world's isn't actually deterministic, if anyone tells you that MWI is deterministic because of the mathematical formalism tell them they're being a pedantic moron.
The "branching" within the schrodinger is still fundamentally non deterministic so MWI is not actually a deterministic interpretation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 14:20:59 No.11489238 Report

Quoted By:

ITT: no one knows the answer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 15:22:21 No.11489374 Report

Quoted By:

>>11488395
>Either the machine is incapable of calculating the future or I’m incapable of being spiteful, and we know that’s not the case.
Then it sounds like you don't believe in determinism. If you do something different from what the machine says, then either the machine failed or the universe isn't deterministic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Mar 2020 18:30:45 No.11489753 Report

Quoted By:

we dont know

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches