by the age of ten I'd independently arrived at the concept of Laplace's daemon (only realized through the conceit of a super-fast computer) and from that strict determinism. Later, I realized that such a computer would be impossible because to store information about the position/velocity of every particle, the computer would need to have more atoms than exist in the universe; sort of a variation on the "map the size of the country itself" thought problem, and concluded that (my conception of) Laplace's demon was impossible.
When I found out that the argument was a known thing, I was sort of disappointed, but also sort of relieved.
Personally, I'd like to believe that there is some quantum magic happening in the brain and consciousness that allows free will, but as an empiricist, I have to conclude that the universe is, on the whole, at best almost entirely deterministic. Kind of depressing, but at least it absolves me of all personal responsibility!
And that's the story of my relationship with determinism.
Why does being an empiricist lead you to being deterministic?
because evidence shows that with increasing refinements in precision of measurement, increasingly accurate predictions can be made about the future
sure, you can waffle about Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum decoherence, but on a macro scale, ie, the world we live in, classical, predictable physical processes rule our existence. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sufficiently good input data, you could make highly accurate predictions of any physical process, which, as far as science can tell, includes human brain functioning. It's not as strong as strict determinism, but it's pretty close.
I can't see that way at all. Just look at Alexander the Great's conquests, or any number of battles that were so close yet really shaped the world we live in.
Although you did say the universe as a whole, which I guess I would agree with being a determinist.
by the age of ten I'd independently arrived at the concept of Laplace's daemon (only realized through the conceit of a super-fast computer) and from that strict determinism. Later, I realized that such a computer would be impossible because to store information about the position/velocity of every particle, the computer would need to have more atoms than exist in the universe; sort of a variation on the "map the size of the country itself" thought problem, and concluded that (my conception of) Laplace's demon was impossible.
When I found out that the argument was a known thing, I was sort of disappointed, but also sort of relieved.
Personally, I'd like to believe that there is some quantum magic happening in the brain and consciousness that allows free will, but as an empiricist, I have to conclude that the universe is, on the whole, at best almost entirely deterministic. Kind of depressing, but at least it absolves me of all personal responsibility!
And that's the story of my relationship with determinism.
Why does being an empiricist lead you to being deterministic?
because evidence shows that with increasing refinements in precision of measurement, increasingly accurate predictions can be made about the future
sure, you can waffle about Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum decoherence, but on a macro scale, ie, the world we live in, classical, predictable physical processes rule our existence. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sufficiently good input data, you could make highly accurate predictions of any physical process, which, as far as science can tell, includes human brain functioning. It's not as strong as strict determinism, but it's pretty close.
This is pretty much the same as my thoughts about it. It sucks, I don't like determinism, but I can't think of any reasonable way to explain it away.
I don't get why people think life has to have no meaning if determinism is true; it's not as if it actually takes away our choices or makes them less meaningful.
by the age of ten I'd independently arrived at the concept of Laplace's daemon (only realized through the conceit of a super-fast computer) and from that strict determinism. Later, I realized that such a computer would be impossible because to store information about the position/velocity of every particle, the computer would need to have more atoms than exist in the universe; sort of a variation on the "map the size of the country itself" thought problem, and concluded that (my conception of) Laplace's demon was impossible.
When I found out that the argument was a known thing, I was sort of disappointed, but also sort of relieved.
Personally, I'd like to believe that there is some quantum magic happening in the brain and consciousness that allows free will, but as an empiricist, I have to conclude that the universe is, on the whole, at best almost entirely deterministic. Kind of depressing, but at least it absolves me of all personal responsibility!
And that's the story of my relationship with determinism.
Why does being an empiricist lead you to being deterministic?
because evidence shows that with increasing refinements in precision of measurement, increasingly accurate predictions can be made about the future
sure, you can waffle about Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum decoherence, but on a macro scale, ie, the world we live in, classical, predictable physical processes rule our existence. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sufficiently good input data, you could make highly accurate predictions of any physical process, which, as far as science can tell, includes human brain functioning. It's not as strong as strict determinism, but it's pretty close.
I can't see that way at all. Just look at Alexander the Great's conquests, or any number of battles that were so close yet really shaped the world we live in.
by the age of ten I'd independently arrived at the concept of Laplace's daemon (only realized through the conceit of a super-fast computer) and from that strict determinism. Later, I realized that such a computer would be impossible because to store information about the position/velocity of every particle, the computer would need to have more atoms than exist in the universe; sort of a variation on the "map the size of the country itself" thought problem, and concluded that (my conception of) Laplace's demon was impossible.
When I found out that the argument was a known thing, I was sort of disappointed, but also sort of relieved.
Personally, I'd like to believe that there is some quantum magic happening in the brain and consciousness that allows free will, but as an empiricist, I have to conclude that the universe is, on the whole, at best almost entirely deterministic. Kind of depressing, but at least it absolves me of all personal responsibility!
And that's the story of my relationship with determinism.
Why does being an empiricist lead you to being deterministic?
because evidence shows that with increasing refinements in precision of measurement, increasingly accurate predictions can be made about the future
sure, you can waffle about Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum decoherence, but on a macro scale, ie, the world we live in, classical, predictable physical processes rule our existence. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sufficiently good input data, you could make highly accurate predictions of any physical process, which, as far as science can tell, includes human brain functioning. It's not as strong as strict determinism, but it's pretty close.
I can't see that way at all. Just look at Alexander the Great's conquests, or any number of battles that were so close yet really shaped the world we live in.
How on earth does that contradict Toss's ideas?
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
by the age of ten I'd independently arrived at the concept of Laplace's daemon (only realized through the conceit of a super-fast computer) and from that strict determinism. Later, I realized that such a computer would be impossible because to store information about the position/velocity of every particle, the computer would need to have more atoms than exist in the universe; sort of a variation on the "map the size of the country itself" thought problem, and concluded that (my conception of) Laplace's demon was impossible.
When I found out that the argument was a known thing, I was sort of disappointed, but also sort of relieved.
Personally, I'd like to believe that there is some quantum magic happening in the brain and consciousness that allows free will, but as an empiricist, I have to conclude that the universe is, on the whole, at best almost entirely deterministic. Kind of depressing, but at least it absolves me of all personal responsibility!
And that's the story of my relationship with determinism.
Why does being an empiricist lead you to being deterministic?
because evidence shows that with increasing refinements in precision of measurement, increasingly accurate predictions can be made about the future
sure, you can waffle about Heisenberg uncertainty and quantum decoherence, but on a macro scale, ie, the world we live in, classical, predictable physical processes rule our existence. With a sufficiently powerful computer and sufficiently good input data, you could make highly accurate predictions of any physical process, which, as far as science can tell, includes human brain functioning. It's not as strong as strict determinism, but it's pretty close.
I can't see that way at all. Just look at Alexander the Great's conquests, or any number of battles that were so close yet really shaped the world we live in.
How on earth does that contradict Toss's ideas?
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
it means the future is fixed, events play out exactly the same no matter what, and free will doesn't exist
I take it to mean we have an effect, but everything is purely based on a chain of cause and effect since the start of the universe. Our effect is the sum of everything that caused us, if you will, and as such our concept of free will can't change it at all. Everything that happens was already going to happen, and was predetermined.
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
Okay, I see your link between empiricism and determinism now. Still don't think they are mutually inclusive but I get it.
lets say there is determinism? who the fuck cares? it's predetermined, so you may as well be predetermined to not care.
and if there isn't? you just cared about something that didn't exist!
philosphy too i mean we already got laws and shit, spending all day thinking about ethics or whatever gay bullshit ain't helping anyone
theoretical physics, why not
i mean, string theory? how we ever going to test that, and how is knowing that we're made of 10th dimensional vibrating strings relevant to everyday life
oh duh, art
who needs art, all it is is a bunch of pretentious jackasses wasting time when we've already got cameras, sheesh
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
I actually used this argument to disprove the theory of a multiverse to myself once
T. J. Nutty Nub on
0
Options
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
I actually used this argument to disprove the theory of a multiverse to myself once
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
I actually used this argument to disprove the theory of a multiverse to myself once
explain
alternate universes can't really interact with each other, so I don't see how you could prove or disprove them.
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
I actually used this argument to disprove the theory of a multiverse to myself once
explain
alternate universes can't really interact with each other, so I don't see how you could prove or disprove them.
You know what, fuck you
Posting that made me realize I had a hole in it
I was assuming each universe started at the same exact state, identical to each other
but now I realize that is a horrible assumption
so to summarize, fuck you
I have to go sit on my rock and think about this for awhile
Posts
A modern day love story.
smooches
it flabs my gast all about town
Probably by Shank, who will just say "when you get older then you will know that now you are WRONG"
I can't see that way at all. Just look at Alexander the Great's conquests, or any number of battles that were so close yet really shaped the world we live in.
Although you did say the universe as a whole, which I guess I would agree with being a determinist.
Nevermind, I guess I can see that.
This is pretty much the same as my thoughts about it. It sucks, I don't like determinism, but I can't think of any reasonable way to explain it away.
Just get her real drunk, seems to have worked for you in the past. Maybe she'll need some roofies too this time.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
How on earth does that contradict Toss's ideas?
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
We could turn it into a romantic comedy. Take my fair lady, reverse it and bam we've got a hip new movie and thousands of dollars.
I think it'd work better as a Sitcom
How I Molested Your Mother
It might be my misunderstanding of what determinism is. I take it to mean that we as individuals really don't have much influence or effect on the world we live in.
strict determinism at any rate
That title makes it seem more like a cinemax late nite special.
christ you're stupid
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
yeah, that's a flawed understanding. determinism doesn't say that we don't effect the world, it just says that those effects are the immutable consequence of their antecedents. pretty much, Alexander the Great had a huge effect on history, yes, but he did so because of the circumstances of his life and the chemical composition of his placenta (etc) rather than any special magic inside him. Determinism says if you knew to the atomic scale those circumstances and chemicals, you could draw a map with the limits of his empire before his mother reached the second trimester.
Let me have a few more beers and I'll jump right into this conversation with opinions I've made up on the spot
lets say there is determinism? who the fuck cares? it's predetermined, so you may as well be predetermined to not care.
and if there isn't? you just cared about something that didn't exist!
That's pretty dumb. It's an interesting idea, but it's not one that should affect the way you live your life in any way.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Okay, I see your link between empiricism and determinism now. Still don't think they are mutually inclusive but I get it.
philosphy too i mean we already got laws and shit, spending all day thinking about ethics or whatever gay bullshit ain't helping anyone
theoretical physics, why not
i mean, string theory? how we ever going to test that, and how is knowing that we're made of 10th dimensional vibrating strings relevant to everyday life
oh duh, art
who needs art, all it is is a bunch of pretentious jackasses wasting time when we've already got cameras, sheesh
I actually used this argument to disprove the theory of a multiverse to myself once
smoke less weed
explain
alternate universes can't really interact with each other, so I don't see how you could prove or disprove them.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
You know what, fuck you
Posting that made me realize I had a hole in it
I was assuming each universe started at the same exact state, identical to each other
but now I realize that is a horrible assumption
so to summarize, fuck you
I have to go sit on my rock and think about this for awhile
Also, beginning of the universe theories are fun times. The religious ones are way more entertaining than the scientific ones though.
Shut up, Shut up!
because God hates redundancies