Is it all just handwavey nonsense or did they actually put some thought into the whole determinism thing
Is it all just handwavey nonsense or did they actually put some thought into the whole determinism thing
Is it all just handwavey nonsense or did they actually put some thought into the whole determinism thing
Worst fricking writing in a show I've seen in recent memory. They didn't put any thought into any of it. Nothing interesting to say at all, they squandered what could've been an interesting premise. Alex Garland is a hack. The upcoming civil war movie he is making will be dogshit. Screencap this.
Wrong.
>Wrong.
Wrong.
.
>Wrong.
Wrong.
>Wrong.
Correct
.
.
>Wrong.
Wrong
>
.
.
.
>Wrong
Right
The series went over your head.
The messaging is built in in a number of ways.
Even the lead actors name is integral (Offerman).
see
i think you got filtered when you thought it was good and started conjuring up moronic theories like Offerman to make sense of it. the reality is much more simple; it's trash
Are you a Chink, pissed off at the show’s message ?
This.
The fans are brain damaged, it's the only explanation
yup. total waste. if you arent going to at least try delivering on the premise, then why even pretend? you can be wrong. just be wrong consistently the whole way through so we can follow the logic. that's what satisfying hard sci fi is.
from start to finish the show as actively avoiding having to put any thought into determinism vs deterministic prediction.
This. Garland doesn't understand enough about the universe to have made such a show.
You just watch the show hoping someone will view the future, then you hope they disobey what they saw on the screen. You think that will be the best thing the show could do, and how exciting would it be to see determinism tested in such a way. You watch, hoping to see the characters do something like that, especially because they tout the main character as being some type of hyper-functional geniusbrain savant. I mean, what else would the show do with all the parts?
Then nope. Never. Nothing like that. Go to Hell now lol.
The main girl does it at the very end. They don't ever take the time to think on it. Fricking moronic show
>The main girl does it at the very end
Does she? I don't remember that. What was the context?
>talking about a show you don't even remember
>learning disability formatting
Found the moronic zoomer.
Yeah she doesn't do it.
moron.
>didn't remember the show he's trying to discuss
>is as moronic as both his parents combined
is lyndon a troony?
no. female cast in a male "super-genius young boy" role, bawds it up hard ever since.
Her and the CEO guy watch the machine's projection of what they're about to do. It shows that she gets him into the shuttle that moves people in and out of the computer room, and then shoots him. Then, when they actually do it, she tosses the gun outside just as the doors close. Then the black guy disables the security on the shuttle from the outside and makes it collapse, killing them both. They don't ponder about what that means, what it changes, etc.
>wahhhhh! they don't ponderrrrrr!!!
Maybe you need to ponder.
I mean the show doesn't, in any way, even though it was billed as some sort of show that "explores themes of determinism and free will."
Maybe you need to stop sucking wiener long enough to follow the conversation
>it was billed as some sort of show that "explores themes of determinism and free will."
Where was it billed as this?
google
You made the claim. Burden is on you, b***hbreasts.
Oh no, an anon on Cinemaphile might not believe me??
She and the CEO guy*
No idea why nobody does it before this though, or even mentions trying it, including when the black guy does the projection with everybody that's one second ahead in time. Fricking moronic shit show
slight correction. we aren't shown what they saw in the final projection. then she throws the gun out, which leads us to assume she shot someone. then poetry-Black crashes the wonka-vator.
as far as the show is concerned, this is just playing with all the scenes where they show variations on all the significant events that led to the events of the show. but, again, avoids actually dealing with any of the concepts of the show.
Makes sense. Go against determinism then you die. It's not extremely different to what they saw anyway, he expected to die and I think I remember they saw something about the machine breaking anyway?
It is very different considering the machine was supposed to be able to calculate the future. Also doesn't make any fricking sense that the machine wouldn't be able to calculate what happens in time after the machine is broken, or used for another purpose. The entire idea behind it was that time is deterministic and so it can calculate any moment in time, past or future.
And while I'm on the subject, when they swapped the back-end to the other interpretation of quantum mechanics, they get the better picture and audio, and the explanation the CEO guy and the kid give, that everybody accepts, is that what they see isn't necessarily exactly what happened long ago, it is only one possibility of what could've happened. That's fine, makes sense, but then why would they expect their forward-looking projections to be what happens rather than one possibility of what could happen?
Just makes no frickin sense at all. Garland's a hack.
the idea the show leans into, for sake of making the narrative perfectly simple, is the machine can't calculate any reality that doesn't result in the machine being created, and then can't calculate any reality in which the machine isn't being used to calculate reality.
this is not defending the show. it is horribly written.
>the machine can't calculate any reality that doesn't result in the machine being created, and then can't calculate any reality in which the machine isn't being used to calculate reality.
Where do they mention that?
its what the show is centered around.
when many-worlds accurately simulates beard-man's daughter
>just do the opposite thing to test it!
You fail to realise what determinism is and seemed to have missed the entire point of the show, which is that everything is pre-written.
Even the main guy (hippy hair man forget his name) repeatedly says things like "don't bother quitting smoking, it won't make any difference wink wink"
You don't know how to read.
Is this thread just full of lukewarm IQs or some shit?
determinism is a mindtrap for pseuds with IQs of about 85
Actually, free will is a safe space comfort thought for morons who can't handle the deterministic truth of reality.
anon. please. you're embarrassing yourself. magic/skydaddy isn't going to force your to obey a prediction.
>prediction
Awww, when do you graduate high school?
before you were born
why are you like this? stop bringing your weird emotion into a rational discussion. ad hominems don't make him wrong
I accept your concession.
if that was the point of the show then how did the main character, the girl, manage to not do what was pre-written?
The machine was broken.
She died.
You can clearly see how immature and inept you are in your posts. I already asked you to self-evaluate, but you refused to do so and continue to look stupid.
I accept your concession.
>T-two plus two equalling four m-means the numbers have sentience
That's the level your brain is at. You conceded ages ago, I know, but I accept nothing from you.
see
Your description of determinism is wrong.
In fact that explains everything - if your premise is flawed, and your very base understanding is flawed, you can only ever produce Jenga towers of flawed thought on top of that. How embarrassing for you.
Did you think no one would notice that all you said was "uh... you're wrong... because uh... you're wrong."
This is the last time I'll say this; highlight the inaccuracies and flaws in your own post if you expect others to engage with you. Not really interested in discussing anything with such an emotional, immature moron such as yourself.
anon. the simple fact is determinism == cause and effect. if cause and effect can be predicted and those predictions can be shown to people, that establishes new causes and new effects, breaking previous predictions.
but you did have breakfast this morning.
>She died.
so?
>the entire point of the show, which is that everything is pre-written.
You missed the point of the show. Everything wasn't pre-written, the machine would only be created in a specific universe where x, y, and z happened, and it couldn't predict beyond those specific circumstances. there were minor variations on the circumstances that lead to the creation of the machine, but the machine couldn't predict beyond those.
They put thought, but painted themselves into a corner with how the frick the girl break determinism.
She shouldn't have broken determinism (and I guess she didn't), that shouldn't have been in the script but I guess since Hollywood has no balls they would never make a pessimistic show like that.
you "break determinism" by deciding to contradict a deterministic prediction.
Which technically is impossible. If you drop a tennis ball it can't "decide" to break gravity.
except it its not impossible at all. you seeing a deterministic prediction creates a new determinism, that of course the prediction can't predict.
>see a projection five seconds into the future, where I scratch my head
>I decide to not scratch my head
problem?
>decide to not scratch your head
You can’t do that. The urge to itch will overpower your will.
Why would it overpower my will?
Because that’s what happens.
What do you mean that's what happens? We can't exactly test it
>name a random event
why did noone mention radioactive decay?
Or the location of subatomic particles at the moment of measurement. I would've thought they'd talk about that in a show about quantum computers
Because you can't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story. Unfortunately in this case they didn't let facts get in the way of a bad story either.
>black man plays prediction one second in advance
Why didn't anybody just... not do what they saw?
because they didn't write anyone to do that
Because it can’t be done.
>Watch screen
>Plan to do nothing
>See yourself jump and point at the screen
>Excitedly, you jump and exclaim that “aha! I’m not going to do that!” while pointing at the screen
listen, the prediction introduces a new cause and effect that can produce new cause and effect. you aren't going to be magically forced to follow what the prediction shows.
The prediction creates a new cause which causes you to do what you saw.
not necessarily. the only way determinism is maintained is if there is a meta-deterministic prediction that accounts for deterministic prediction.
Err no, that’s not how it works at all. You see the thing, you do the thing, it’s inevitable.
nope. seeing the thing changes the causality of the thing,
Incorrect. Seeing the thing grants you no extra agency or power to avoid doing the thing you saw happen.
why wouldn't it?
Because you don't have agency in the first place; it's deterministic. You believing you have "choice" is a falsity.
see
the only way around this is to claim skydaddy is governing causality.
How so? That's a bit of a jump, logically. It's not even theologically consist with Abrahamism which states man has free will.
But you're not the guy to be able to discuss determinism if you immediately jump to "god did it".
humans are machines, for x input, y output. that falls within the deterministic model, hence, predictable by the model
Did you mean to post that to me or to the guy who said "only god determines causality"?
to you. he's right. the only way for consciousness to short circuit causality involves some kind of dualism and thats basically god, right there
I'm saying consciousness cannot escape determinism.
oh ok
except you don't need to "short circuit" causality by deciding to contradict a deterministic prediction. the prediction is part of causality and the "short circuiting" is also part of it. but also not part of it.
thats the thing, the prediction already involves you, and it existing is conditional on there being a resolution that doesnt involve you breaking determinism, otherwise the existence of that prediction itself is a paradox. the burden is on the prediction itself, not on your action
except its not a paradox. you're just not able to map past "prediction::response to prediction." because your IQ is about 80
this guy gets it!
think like this.
>deterministic prediction
I'll help you, because you don't seem to understand. There is no "deterministic prediction". There's determinism, or nothing. So there's no "prediction" - you see what happens and that's what happens. "Prediction" implies potential variety of outcome.
Here's some more help, either there is causality and causality, cause and effect, can be predicted and displayed to people, or there isn't. Then people can either react to that development of causality or SKYDADDY is forcing them to obey the causality as shown. Which stops being causality, cause and effect, physics, and starts being fricking magic.
See
lmfao
prove it. you can't.
It's easier to prove determinism than to prove non-determinism.
For example, at least one of you, probably you, will respond to this post.
So your proof that the universe is deterministic is that somebody will reply to your post? How do you reconcile various properties of quantum mechanics, like the uncertainty principle, or nonlocality, with determinism?
then you're claiming sight, photons hitting your retina, neuronal processing, is not a physical reaction.
You can't even articulate what it is you're trying to say - what you said makes no sense.
determinism is the idea that cause and effect can be predicted, to the atomic and subatomic level. You're asserting that a deterministic prediction can't be contradicted, despite a deterministic prediction (and reactions to it) being simply yet another effect of causality.
basically you're claiming that you can't known how you would feel if you didn't have breakfast, because there is nothing that could cause you to ever have breakfast.
You should be able to see the inconsistencies and flaws in your own post. There's multiple.
I accept your concession.
You know when you get older they'll ask you to write counter-arguments to your own points in school. It's essentially a foundational requirement in writing papers. If you can't even see the flaws in your own post (and again, there are many) come back when you're at least at that level.
you could've just said "okay." if you have an actual counter-argument to
feel free to post it.
You could just say you're too young to be posting.
think of it as, the only thing that can happen, is the thing that would resolve to happen anyway even if you saw it
>gives you a private Ted Talk before having you killed.
What the frick was his problem?
hard determinism is an 80 IQ mind-trap
lyndon a cute
>quantum suicide
jfc
bruh she talked the kid into being excited for suicide
Belief in determinism is no different from belief in a religion until quantum mechanics can be expressed deterministically. Simple as.
there are deterministic interpretations, MWI for one
>interpretations
of quantum mechanical results. what is confusing you?
you can keep calling him stupid but he's right and you've yet to elucidate what rational reason makes you think he's not
>of quantum mechanical results. what is confusing you?
The existence of interpretations is not evidence that those interpretations describe reality. Ultimately the acceptance or rejection of this or that interpretation is a matter of faith, a guess. Subscription to the MWI only passes the buck for determinism up the pole.
You're too stupid to discuss this.
>If you believe 2+2 always equals 4 it means you think God created the world in 6 days
?????
you're too moronic to even comprehend what I was saying in that post
determinism is the idea that 2+2=4 even if we throw a million 2s in the equation.
No it's not.
How about you invalids prove your positive contention.
The insistence or "skydaddy" and "religion" means you can't partake in this discussion.
>no, MY interpretation is the negative case that doesn't need to be proven!
I see you can't prove your point and thus concede.
>I see you can't prove your point and thus concede.
I see you can't prove your point either, and thus I accept your concession. You were the one taking the positive position insisting on the reality of determinism by the way.
It's actually that your brain broke ages ago and you retreated to "post proof" much earlier in the discussion due to lack of being able to prove your own contention.
hey, anon? we can all see there's no substance to your post... did you mean to post something? say something? or did you think bluster would work on... Cinemaphile...
Another post, another lack of proof on your part, and another dismissal of facts.
thats a nice gif of how everyone is looking at your posts.
Again, you're the one with the positive position. Determinism is an interpretation, not a description of reality, and this is evident when we consider various topics in quantum mechanics, like the measurement problem.
Don't try that bullshit. If determinism is one "interpretation", then any "interpretation" you ascribe to would be a positive assertion that you would need to prove. Hiding behind "nooo only you have to prove it" is fricking shit, who you think you're fooling?
you sound mad
You sound like you have zero proof behind any of your emotional moronic contentions and frequently try to squirm your way out of other people noticing that.
Protip: you fool no one, tard.
anon. you never had an argument in this thread.
Like that. Those really short, poor excuse for witty replies. Those are obviously you squirming away from posting proof.
Pitiful.
Listen, seriously. If you want someone to respond to your "arguments," you need to either link them or reiterate them.
But we both know you wont. Because you never had one.
>Listen
Stopped reading there. You're too young/stupid to have this discussion.
I accept your concession.
>I accept your concession
How's Reddit this time of year? Do they notice how stupid you are too?
i accept your concession
what are you trying to say? pretty sure you're the one squirming now lol
Two redditors, of course.
its always fun to be called a redditor despite being here since before reddit existed.
>be outed as a moron
>turn into a babbling baby whining, "reddit reddit reddit"
they dont actually say that on reddit. interestingly, theyre worse than arguing than Cinemaphile. probably because the hive mind phagocytes move in to neutralize wrongthink at a moments notice.
tfw my ex girlfriend went by "phagit" for a while
moronic post(er) but epic gif
Again, for the second time, you're the one with the positive position. My position is, "I have no idea." My position is based on the fact that we have no idea what interpretation of quantum mechanics accurately describes reality. To posit that determinism describes reality you'd need to adopt a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, but again, we don't know which interpretation describes reality. So to marry yourself to determinism, while we don't know which one is accurate, is moronic, like you. There's my proof, where's yours?
>M-my position is "I don't know"
Nah chump, that's not the position you've been taking. You're squirming. You should be embarrassed.
That's the position I've had in every single post I've made on this thread. Started here:
. Follow it down if you want. I accept your concession, thanks for playing
>No it's not.
>2+2=4
>okay but what if the twos are sentient and we show the twos that they'll equal 4 and they don't want that?
>THEY MUST EQUAL FOUR THEY WILL BE FORCED TO EQUAL 4
christ this entire thread is fricked, i regret making it.
go away, all of you. but mostly that one particular moron
ESLs + determinism = this moronic bullshit
the show sucked by the way
Ponder it, wienersucker.
ponder my dick
devs
Nah it's too small to ponder, we don't have the equipment to measure smaller-than-quantum particles.
I don’t know. What movie?
this is a semantic disagreement, until ESLanon understands what determinism actually means
please come back to these threads when you understand what cause and effect means. i'll be thrilled to hear your "thoughts."
>137 replies
>12 posters
mods how do i delete this thread
Black person, you've been copying devs threads for a few days now. those is what they all devolve into. morons trying to troll people into "determinism" debates. Revel in what you have sown.
is this the one where ron from parks and rec is a crazy tech nerd? this shit was so boring. had really high hopes and just....tears in the rain
yeah, its kinda grim ngl, lot of promise, no real showing. the "questions" it poses about determinism are about as deep as these two morons arguing
i started watching this last night, this is the second thread i've made on it, get a grip
>if you believe in determinism you believe in religion
>Even though religion maintains the stance that free will exists
How did people become this stupid?
determinism, simulation theory, and skydaddy, are all about parsing reality into terms our shitty monkey brains can understand.
>our
Speak for yourself.
so you've just asserted you're not human. good job, go forth with that.
This is one of your issues: the inability to see multiple perspectives or understandings. You have one idea and you operate solely from that perspective, literally unable to comprehend anything outside of that. It's nothing more than the sign of a small, stupid mind.
That's been you, actually.
>I accept your blahblah
Is just moronic shit dumb people say. Fooling no one.
Black person, i just acknowledged three (actually four) different means of parsing reality into different ways to make it comprehensible. (you) failed to comprehend that, meaning you are the one who is autistic.
I provided the justification for my position, still waiting for yours by the way. I'll take your continued whining as a concession
Brainlet of the year coming through right at the very end. I know you're a moron despite reading your posts because of determinism.
which religion?
way to fail to comprehend my post for the second time, you could ask for clarification or develop the reading comprehension skills necessary for understanding my post but you're not interested in that really, huh?
anon in another thread said Legion was low kino, and Devs was high garbage.
inclined to agree
The writing in Devs was atrocious but at least it was entertaining enough to complete. Never seen Legion but I'm always weary of capeshit
least capeshitty capeshit there is.
Reddit: The thread.
anyway, so this show only makes sense if you ignore QM and believe in total determinism, despite it leaning heavily on QM. that makes no sense
it's so reddit when people have a conversation
>Is it all just handwavey nonsense
Yes
>did they actually put some thought into the whole determinism thing
No
>no
*yes
>*yes
No
>>no
>*yes
**no
explain the ending
the ending was what literally anyone would've done within five minutes of being in the presence of a computer that could predict cause and effect
Garland realized he was in way over his head and tried to throw a curveball to distract people from the fact that the show went off the rails like halfway through
seems like it
>188 / 14 / 16
>guy watches a mid show
>won't stop making threads about it where he constantly samegays
Wonder what this autist is going to be obsessed about next
I made the first couple threads a few days ago but I swear I haven't made the last two or three that I've seen
no, i did. but idiots think we're the same person
its a legitimately bad show and threads about it are just begging for pseudointellectuals to rush and and start gibbering about magical determinism.
I wish people were so eager to talk about other movies and shows, because few threads I've made have taken off like those devs threads. And I think my assessment of the show has improved for it, pseudo-intellectual discussion or not. The positive reviews made absolutely no sense to me and it was only after talking about it here that I became firm in my conviction that the show was awful.
how? it was pretty clearly awful from the start
Talking about stuff with other people makes it easier to evaluate it. Other people see stuff you didn't, you can bounce questions and ideas off them, they try to defend it or attack other elements of it. Boggles my mind that it got so many positive reviews along the lines of:
>A hauntingly beautiful meditation on humanity, Devs' slow unfurling may test some viewers' patience, but fans of Alex Garland's singular talents will find much to chew on.
agreed tbf
These threads are not quality discussion. It's one weirdo(probably youlol) responding to every post and himself over and over.
more quality discussion than film reviewers that can't help resorting to incomprehensible gobbledyasiatic to mask their half baked assessments
cool.
The machine knows exactly what's going to happen but shows people different futures to make them do the real future
no i have not seen the show
you're welcome
machine is not sentient
Yes we are.
We are not machine
she or landon should play astro boy
Been a while since I saw this garbage, but I do remember a scene in which someone with a phd in mathematics makes an assertion that there is no such thing as randomness in nature.
Garland didn't even bother googling randomness.
>
why did noone mention radioactive decay?
Ironically I'm pretty sure they introduce her as the expert on quantum physics
Knowing the future changes the future as it becomes a cause by itself. What a silly premise for a show.
Been a while since I watched this. Did they bring up Heisenberg?
Yeah, but it was the character from Breaking Bad, not the physicist