/lit/ - Literature

>>16969210
What is the cause?

>>16969226
The big bang.

>>16969210
Haven't thought about that anon but yeah causality sorta makes science (or even living) completely obsolete

>>16969210
How do you know that the universe is already set?

>>16969210
>What's the point of philosophy if the history of the universe is already set?
Obviously to figure out what the implications are of that determinism.

I don't know. I took an intro level philosophy course in college and in our discussion groups no one ever had a good counter-argument to causality and determinism. We are ultimately organic machines and our though processes are due to the reactions of neurons in our brains. If I had a super computer with a perfect model of the universe, everything would happen the same way every time I ran the simulation.

The only counter-argument is quantum tunneling but we don't know if that is truly random

Why write this post?

>>16969210
You've just reached the inevitable conclusion of life.

Determinism BTFO's everything

>>16969210
The Ethics by Baruch Spinoza

>>16969232
What caused the big bang?

>>16970137
shit happens deal with it

>>16970152
What caused that shit?

>>16969210
Determinism / free will dichotomy is a false one

>>16970519
ie. what happens here?

>>16970507
shit just happens, g. learn to deal with it. no pain no gain.

>>16970582
God

>>16970137
The bigger bang

>>16970582
Big Bång dud

>>16970747
There is no God you retard

what's the difference between determinism and fatalism

>>16970747
>>16970846
Two interpretations. We have two interpretations.

***Monitoring the thread for more***

>>16970519
Based compatibilitist chad

>>16969361
>If I had a super computer with a perfect model of the universe, everything would happen the same way every time I ran the simulation.

>be me
>watch your simulation
>make sure the exact opposite happens of what your simulation prognosticates
determinism btfo?

You are having a first person experience of being alive, you are therefore not a machina, but an Experiencer. I am not talking about your sensorial experiences, I am not talking about your memory, I am not talking about you mind I am not talking about your personality

I am talking about the first person experience of being alive.

>>16969210
>What's the point of philosophy if the history of the universe is already set?
There is no point to it, but people were predetermined to engage in philosophy anyway, so they do.

>>16969210
There's no empirical way to prove determinism. So it fails on its own merits.

>>16970582
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0308039.pdf

>>16969210
Read Time and Free Will by Bergson

>>16970608
>responding to the problem of infinite regress with flippancy
Sorry about your BTFO.

>>16970860
>There is no God you retard
See >>16970137

>>16971116
nah g, I am here mentally fucked and laughing at the people who try to name the unnamable

>>16971140
>the unnamable
That's a name.

>>16969210
Its already been causally predetermined that im gonna kick your ass and do philosophy anyway

It makes no discernable difference if free will or determinism is true/real.

>>16971158
I am not interested in discussing the bullshit limitations of language.
if you have the experience of the theory that you have then that's cool.

>>16970952
the pic is about determinism though, which quantum mechanics rejects

>>16969210
>Any books on this?
Quite a lot of philosophy books.

>>16969210

>>16970952
>From a general perspective, perhaps the most noteworthy consequence of our analysis concerns absolute uncertainty. In a universe governed by Bohmian me-chanics there are sharp, precise, and irreducible limitations on the possibility of obtaining knowledge, limitations which can in no way be diminished through technological progress leading to better means of measurement.
Interesting read, thanks.

Anyone with a basic conception of quantum mechanics and a grasp of wave-point collapse cannot believe in determinism.

>>16971415
QRD?

>>16971459
Physicists don’t understand something so they pretend it’s random rather than admit that they might need a different approach

>>16971539
Incidentally, if the randomness indicated by quantum physics is real, it still doesn’t refute determinism because a multiverse of that kind is still deterministic within limited possibilities. It also does nothing to mess with the determinism of human action that philosophers would discuss. Humans being unable to predict something doesn’t make it undeterministic, it means they don’t understand it yet, we once couldn’t understand the movement of the clouds and waves, that didn’t mean they were once random

>>16971539
This. If you tracked a double pendulum over time and gave the data to scientists 10/10 would say it is completely random

>>16970888
unironically I never have understood the counter to this. If I had a copy of the universe in a simulation, and I fast forward to one second ahead of my reality, then I can watch what I do and do something else. Even if the me in the simulation is doing that, eventually he'll have to move and I'll just fast forward until he does something and then not do that thing

>>16971735
It's just a complication of the trivially obvious proofs against determinism really, though I don't recall whose the originals were, since I pay so little mind to the idea in the first place

>>16970888
If the model were accurate you would have a simulation within the simulation already and what you do would be identical. Nice 105IQ attempt at a rebuttal

>>16971415
Many Worlds, true or not, shows that a deterministic quantum world is still conceivable.

>>16970582
Seconding God.