GILGAMESH DOES NOT EXIST

prove me wrong

"Scientific determination says there is only one possible future"
You say that as though determinism has been proven. Unless I missed something, it has not.

Quantum theory, String theory, And General Relativity all point to determinism, as does the vast majority of eastern and western philosophy.

A non-deterministic universe seems (at least to me) far too chaotic and inconsistent to really be considered: If you toss a die, the number that comes on top is not really random, as a multitude of forces lead to the outcome, a la the forces of how much you throw it, the spin you put on it, the details of the surface it lands on, the air pressure of the environment you toss it in, et cetera...all these factors and events come together to permit (see: determine) only one outcome of such a die toss, and all these forces had all their own forces that lead up to their own events, and et cetera, all the way back to the big bang.

>>42
No they dont. Quantum theory specifically states that some events are completely random and unpredictable. And I doubt you have even superficial knowledge of what, if anything, 'the vast majority of eastern and western philosophy' point to.
Contrary to popular belief, and some minor schools of philosophy, the universe works pretty independently of your considerations.

>>42
it's possible that the universe is entirely random, and everything you see is completely random and unconnected from one moment to the next, and it has just happened to have appeared to have causation by some slim chance.  in fact, given an infinite amount of time, you could expect such a scenario to be the case at some point in time.

>>39
Yes, there would be unimaginable impacts compared to the unperturbed world.  Unfortunately, we do not have a 2nd universe with which to compare, so it cannot be known if our world has ever been perturbed by divine entities in a small fashion.

>>43
If quantum mechanics breaks locality, then it can still be deterministic.  We currently do not know exactly what is going on.

>>45 , >>43 was not trying to say that the universe is definitely non-deterministic, just that some events are unpredictable and that unpredicability at this quantum scale leads to the thought that things may be non-deterministic since we currently know of no other factors which could account for the randomness. This is why it isn't like throwing a dice (where quantum scale effects can pretty much be ignored and newtonian physics used).

I guess you may have understood, just making it clear.

There can never be any evidence that the universe is or is not deterministic.

>>47 If a smaller scale of predictable particles were discovered which caused the apparent randomness of quantum scale particles then I would have no trouble believing that the universe was deterministic, and I would call it evidence.

I smell Pseudo-Science.

>>49
I smell RedCream

the laws of physics can not change, only our understanding of them.  to say otherwise is to assert that something can be what it is not.  things necessarily are what they are.  the laws of physics are the laws of physics, if they "change" as we understand the word, then the laws of physics are such that across time, rules may vary, but the entirety of the laws of physics remains a constant.  it's a priori.

>>43
>No they dont. Quantum theory specifically states that some events are completely random and unpredictable.

It only becomes random or chaotic at states like in and around singularities where general relativity starts to break down under strong gravitational forces. For the rest of the universe we are stuck with the outcomes of Newtonian laws, which govern actions that were governed by the actions before them.

>"And I doubt you have even superficial knowledge of what, if anything, 'the vast majority of eastern and western philosophy' point to."

O rly?

>>52
radioactive decay is fairly common outside of singularities.

>>51 If gravity suddenly changed to repel instead of attract I'd say the physics of gravity changed (then run inside the nearest building). Saying otherwise is `ABSTRACT BULLSHITE' (but technically correct).
Here have a cookie.



Ahm. I don't actually have any.

>>46
Thanks for the clarification, but my primary point was to make note of a hidden assumption that most people ignore.  It is not proven that quantum mechanics is a truly local theory, and thus determinism is possible.

>>51
a) You don't know if they really never change
b) We are not certain that the "laws" we discover are really "laws".  We just call them "laws" because they seem universally true.  If you ever discover the true "laws" do remember to tell me.

Quantum mechanics applies to subatomic particles movements and speeds. It states that we cannot exactly determine them both at the same time. It is one or the other. So while we determine a 100% Speed on a particle, his position can change in a range of value. And the other way around. That made Einstein unhappy about quantum mechanics. He stated that " God can't play dice ".

Quantum mechanics is a local theory, but if you consider extreme situation like black holes or the universe during its first minutes, you need to refer to the quantum mechanics because in that extreme environiment g. relativity and other classic mechanics theory do not work properly.

>>55
a) we do know they never really change.  give me an example of how they could possibly change.

b) i agree.  which is why i'm not talking about our "laws", i'm talking about the laws.  if there are no laws, then the law is that there are no laws.  otherwise, there are laws, and the laws don't change.  i'm not saying our theories on how the universe behaves don't change, because that would be fucking retarded, considering they have changed and will most likely change in the future.

consider a small algorithm

t = 0
loop
{
x = t
t = t+1
}
repeat

what is x?  now its 0... now its 3... now its 24...
x changes, the law doesnt.  if one day you check and find x = -3, then you've made a bad measurement, because that's not possible in this set of laws.  if you're absolutely sure x = -3, then those weren't the laws.  maybe the laws were

t = 0
loop
{
x = t
t = t+1
if t = 500 then x = -3
}
repeat

>>56
"not being able to determine" does not mean "random", it means "unpredictable"

>>56
We're currently assuming that QM is local, and hence QM is inherently random, but this assumption cannot be proved.

In those extreme environments, QM also dies due to extreme spatial and temporal curvature.  Some other theory is needed.

>>57
I see what you're saying now.  The conventional notion of "laws" is a simple set of unchanging rules (eg allows for some degree of prediction).  The laws that describe the systems you describe are essentially "unpredictable", since knowledge of x(1) tells you nothing about x(2).

Just imagine the universe as a giant program.  Imagine there being a 1 kg object, and we have a function a(F) that describes its acceleration as a function of force (with SI units).

a(F) = {
...
1 if F = 1
...
2.0000001 if F = 2
...
3 if F = 3
...} (obviously uncountably large, but you get the idea)

This already gurantees the failure of Newton's law, though it would still be fairly accurate.  I guess you could call this a law, but it would be very strange indeed.

Lol /sci/!

It's amusing to find a thread started by a newbie fail troll without any intention to be taken seriously get this many replies and fall so far away from the fucking fail troll topic at that. Only on 4chan.

42. law of /sci/:
Any discussion about science will eventually turn to religion.

corollary:
Any discussion about religion will eventually turn to science.

As you might know, Gilgamesh is my wife in real life and has placed a significant amount of work into the guild and people are likely to respond why not give it to her. The primary reason is I intend to gkick her from the guild when I return home from work tonight.

As it turns out playing wow isn't the only thing she likes to do in her free time. I hear that she is often very friendly over ventrilo...very friendly.

With that said, I have decided not to disband the guild- the guild deserves to live on. I would like to just give it away....for free. Website, DKP, everything.

Whats the catch?

Simple really, I need some information. I want to know EVERYTHING. Considering Gilgamesh doesnt work, and I pay for everything, I have access to everything. Name your virtual price.

Visit http://www.dirtysonsofliches.com/ for my contact information.

Thank you very much and happy hunting.

-Demeter

I like this thread.

The question is not whether or not Gilgamesh exists, but does he have enough swords.

http://tinyurl.com/2hwgwb