deleted by creator
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.
I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it’s inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn’t keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you’re aware that objective meaning doesn’t exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.
Nothing matters, but knowing nothing matters,
It’s just life, so keep dancing through
What if some parts of the universe are deterministic, and some others aren’t? Or that is is deterministic sometimes, but sometimes it is not?
Then, would it mean that initiating a chain of deterministic events that eventually causes suffering makes me responsible for this suffering?
What if i choose to cut taxes because i think I’ll have more money, but it causes a series of events that end up increasing organised crimes? What if it was always the deterministic result of that choice, but the choice itself was not deterministic and I could have chosen not to do it?
Oh it’s even worse.
The universe is indeterministic. It’s probabilistic and uncertain, but that doesn’t mean you actually have a choice. Your “choices” are just determined by quantum dice rolls.
Anything can happen, nothing is certain, but you still don’t actually exercise will over reality.
That’s assuming that our current understanding of quantum mechanics is even close to accurate, just because we haven’t figured out how to predict the outcomes yet doesn’t mean it can’t be done
That’s called Hidden Variable Theory, but there’s also no indication that this is how the universe works and everything we find just reinforces indeterminism and uncertainty.
The most notable development is the math working out to make hidden variables irrelevant i.e. they do not actually help us better describe reality or predict outcomes of measurement.
The math doesn’t seem to care whether God is rolling dice or not.
Tbh I dont think that this is actually incompatible with determinism, since the mechanism by which the future is predetermined doesnt necessarily have to be that all causes only have one possible effect associated with them. I mostly suspect the universe is deterministic because I suspect (though this is only a suspicion that I cannot prove) that the universe has block time and therefore that, even if random events with no clear “this must lead to that” chain exist, the future is predetermined merely by “already” existing along some time axis. Sort of like how if you had a character in a flipbook roll a die, and nothing earlier in the flipbook forces the die to have to land on one particular number to keep the plot self-consistent, the outcome of the die will still always be the same, because the pages where its result is shown already have been drawn.
Sure, but now you have to make a bunch of assumptions about things we can’t test or observe to keep the universe consistent with determinism. It’s not impossible that the universe is predetermined, but there’s just no reason to believe it is. You’re making more of an aesthetic argument than a scientific one.
This reminds me of that stupid thing in fallout 4 about possibly being a robot essentially and how it was supposed to be some big deal but I never understood what difference it made
deleted by creator
not much you can do if your memories are wrong, they are just as real as they where when you started so why change? this is something that hit me real hard as a kid but i just brushed it off eventually
deleted by creator
Occam’s razor defeats Plato’s cave. There’s no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey’s shoulders.
Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.
deleted by creator
Occam’s razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.
If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that’s the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we’re in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we’ve built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It’s definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can’t entirely trust the scientific framework because it’s still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.
I don’t think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn’t be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren’t physical, but I doubt you’d say they don’t exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you’re the most extreme materialist.
Eliminative materialism isn’t my thing no. Emergent materialism is what I roll with. So the human mind and culture and numbers are things that exist as emergent properties of other things.
Sure it could all be a lie with us living in the matrix or so on, and it’s fun to entertain such thoughts every now and then. But I won’t accept it as truth without a better reason than “but technically it’s possible”.
Now I’m not sure you get what the allegory of the cave is about. It’s literally trying to explain that our perception can’t be 100% trusted.
I know. The matrix (or any other metaphysical idealism for that matter) is an example of a situation where we cannot trust our perception for knowledge about the true nature of the universe (much like the allegory of the cave), although taken to the extreme. The epistemological and metaphysical aspects of Plato’s cave are very much intertwined.
But you’re assuming, from what I’m reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I’m interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can’t trust completely.
As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It’s the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: “… As far as we know.”
This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.
