/lit/ - Literature

>>17575173
Just find anyone with a very low IQ. If you can't, it just wasn't fated to be

I've never seen the appeal of determinism vs free will.
If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

>>17575173
you are a fucktard

>>17575189
>>17575224
t. seething christ niggers

>What are some philosophers/books that argue in favor of this kind of determinism?

Just wait and see if you find them. :)

>>17575292
you are also a fucktard

>>17575173
Upanishads and all vedantic philosophical systems for the most part. Daoism arguably.
Islam is actually deterministic and so are a lot of versions of protestantism especially calvanism.
>>17575210
It matters because determinism can be a justification for being a shit person. At least in a free will system people are responsible. The fact that we do attribute responsibility is a semi proof that it matters and its a socially beneficial belief, which is why leftist determinism is also a cancer in society- as it shifts responsibility away from individuals towards abstract systems. Capitalism is not the problem, individual greed is the problem etc.

>>17575551
But it doesn't shift the reality of punishment. If a person was predetermined since the big bang to be a murderer, he still needs to be removed from society. There is no justification. Nothing changes. You cant tell the difference so, as I said, it doesn't matter.

>>17575173
>I believe I'm essentially watching a movie
That's how it feels to me too, and even my own thinking and willpower feel like that. They just sort pop up and I watch them, it's weird when you consciously are thinking about it and you realize that that is also just part of the movie

>>17575551
>determinism can be a justification for being a shit person
Lmao is this the best excuse for being a degenerate waste of oxygen that you could come up with? "Oh, I'm just born this way, there's nothing I can do"?
If there's nothing you can do to stop being a degenerate waste of oxygen then I suppose we have to exterminate you immediately instead of trying to help, sorry.

>>17575551
>It matters because determinism can be a justification for being a shit person
It's not really though, because it's also a 'justification' of people treating other people as though they were responsible, which is what almost everyone will do anyway.

>>17575210
It doesn't matter, to humans. Humans are not the arbiters of reality.

>>17575630
>>17575173
This is DP/DR, you tards. Even hard determinists agree it's not supposed to feel like that, the self model is transparent.

>>17575823
>self model is transparent
my self model is aqua-marine you pleb

>>17575811
Wow, way to say absolutely nothing. Did you think that was profound?

Why do people seethe so hard about this stance lmfao

>>17575173
You acted on it. Therefore this is more of a delusion than a plausible belief.

>>17575173
go away john
>"You are going across a bridge; it collapses; at the moment you feel it giving way under your feet, the exertion of your will, if it were free would no doubt carry you to the opposite bank; but its effort is useless: the sacred laws of gravitation must be carried out in the world, and you must therefore fall and perish:"

>>17575173
You are 100% correct. You don't need philosophy to defend this. Philosophy is useless outside of Cioran and a few others. Read neuropsychology texts. We literally decide on things beforehand and then our "conscious" mind comes up with an argument narrative for the "choice"
There is no God!

>>17575292
>can't make a coherent refutation without using buzzwords

> I believe I'm essentially watching a movie that lasts a lifetime and absolutely nothing I've ever done was conscious or willed, in fact I don't think there's an "I" at all. Whatever "I" am, is some sort of abstract spectator completely disconnected from any actual action, I can only feel and experience but never actually "do" anything
Isn't that epiphenomenalism?

>>17575551
>The fact that we do attribute responsibility is a semi proof that
it's a spoo kmade up by the ruling class

>>17576359
But scientific realism is a garbage narrative created by the atheist academia.

Does the fact that Quantum Superposition exists, support a deterministic worldview or refute it?
Don't know enough about physics to understand the full implications of this phenomenon but I feel like it might be relevant.

>>17575173
>absolutely nothing I've ever done was conscious or willed, in fact I don't think there's an "I" at all.


this sounds kinda like buddhism

>>17575173
Who is the "I" watching the "movie"?
Why does this cinema-viewing experience exist, to what purpose?

I feel myself to be a free agent, you say it's an illusion, then what's the purpose of the illusion? And who's being fooked here? How can you fool someone who doesn't exist as ego?

Determinism, I must confess, seems utterly retarded

>>17575173
I dont understand how free will can exist without determinism.

>>17575173
>I believe in the hardest determinism there is.
then you don't.

>>17576764
the schrodinger equation is deterministic

the output though is a superposition of a few states, which is where the non-determinism meme is about

>>17575173
>everything has a cause

Causality is not real and cannot hurt you.

>>17575292
You being retarded an projecting was determined.

>>17575551
>>17576304
Its unredutable so all they can offer are moralistic platitudes like this >>17575551 guy

>>17576539
>refuting buzzwords and insults

Building on this >>17577479

Quantum mechanics seem fundamentally random in a sense, but I don't see how this changes anything. If you excuse me for using a computer analogy, you can think of it as a program with a random seed. If you run it twice with the same seed you will get the exact same behavior, i.e deterministic, but if you use a different seed you will get different behavior, but it doesn't make the program any less deterministic.

Let's assume quantum mechanics are truly random, how would this make free will possible?

>>17578724
>Let's assume quantum mechanics are truly random, how would this make free will possible?
look at kochen theorem about ''''free will''

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079
On the basis of three physical axioms, we prove that if the choice of a particular type of spin 1 experiment is not a function of the information accessible to the experimenters, then its outcome is equally not a function of the information accessible to the particles. We show that this result is robust, and deduce that neither hidden variable theories nor mechanisms of the GRW type for wave function collapse can be made relativistic. We also establish the consistency of our axioms and discuss the philosophical implications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

The theorem

The free will theorem states:

Given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments.

That is an "outcome open" theorem.

If the outcome of an experiment was open, then one or two of the experimenters might have acted under free will.

Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen–Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements. As stated by Cator and Landsman regarding hidden-variable theories:[4] "There has been a similar tension between the idea that the hidden variables (in the pertinent causal past) should on the one hand include all ontological information relevant to the experiment, but on the other hand should leave the experimenters free to choose any settings they like."

For the bell theorem, watch alain aspect videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOa-eXMcGI
The debate between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr over the interpretation of quantum mechanics was settled by the experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities. Those experiments drew attention to the revolutionary character of quantum entanglement, which is now a key ingredient of quantum computing and quantum information.

In this lecture, Alain Aspect will first explain Einstein’s reasoning about entangled particles. That reasoning led to his conclusion that quantum mechanics is not complete, in contradiction with Bohr’s point of view. Aspect will then show how Bell’s inequalities have allowed experimentalists to settle the debate, emphasizing the most extraordinary features of entanglement and prompting the emergence of basic ideas for quantum information and quantum communication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBNzhVd_Yuw

What is quantum entanglement? What does the future promise in quantum technologies?

>>17578838
Can't watch videos at the moment, can you give a quick rundown?
My position is that quantum mechanics cannot give a form of free will that I find satisfying since instead of being at the whim of your systems initial condition, you're now at the whim of your systems precondition and some random noise.
I know it's rude to not listen and just keep on talking, I'll read up when I get home later.

>>17578724>>17575173>>17576359
>>17575210
>>17576304
Also don't forget that physicalism, scientific realism is really BS. just like determinism. It's peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ''rules'' and those ''rules'' 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don't live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a system, say a particle, is supposed to know how to behave, ie following the rules during an interaction, before it interacts.

>>17578888

>>17578887
>rules are not subject to determinism
What are you even trying to communicate here? The rules imply determinism, we don't know why the rules are the way they are. We can throw out the rules in general if you want and just drift in skeptic dreamworld

>>17578887
This is just an irrelevant reframing. We're all aware that you cannot know nuffin, but some of us choose to pretend as if we can and see where that takes us.

>>17577565

To elaborate:

>>>/lit/thread/S15928023#p15929799
>Yes. Not that God does this, since he always is, or rather, he simply is, but in general, things emanating therefrom do not need a cause in the Materialist or even grossly Temporal sense. I myself do not think they have one proper, "causality" being merely that which moves backwards, so to speak, relative to final immutable things, as they reveal their finality, through which they have always been to being with.

>>17578882
Not the anon u were replying to. As I understand it, all the randomness aspect of quantum physics does is btfo the “hardest form of determinism” which would mean that the outcome of the universe is 100% preordained by causality from the moment it came into existence. It disproves the Laplace Demon if u know what that is. Any further inquiry into free will can and has to build up on that, but I like to see it as a sign of hope, almost like the universe has a safety rule that specifically eliminates the blackpill of total causality.

>>17579287
That still sounds like total causality to me, you just have a variety of possible pre-determined paths based on the outcomes of the dice rolls.

Don't forget that in QFT, there is only ONE [1] wavefunction of any particle, FOR THE WALL UNIVERSE.

If I have a box with a red and green light connected to a switch that allows me to turn on either light, and then that switch is connected to a causal predictor (for the sake of the thought let's say the predictor is privy to a universal causal chain back to the beginning of time). The function of the predictor is to always pick the opposite color that a person using the switch chooses. So if the predictor realizes a chooser will pick red it turns green, or if a person picks green it will turn red. How does determinism reconcile the disruption of the causal chain?

5/all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best

>>17575210
what do you mean does it matter? in a practical sense no, not really. it's usually invoked when discussing religion and the problem of evil though

yes

>>17575173
>I
you just debunked yourself

>>17579300
The paths might still be determined, but now you have multiple dice rolls for every molecule that bumps into the next instead of 1 single path for everything that exists.

>>17581833
Yeah but imagine a colossal tree that is all of those branching paths. you start your universe from the trunk and then you just follow one of those paths up through the branches. That's still causality isn't it, there's just a giant number of possible causal paths. The random events are still caused in the sense that the outcome happens because of the condition. From the perspective of any given universe it could only be the one way no?

>>17581881
Its just a huge cope. We're no more free if we're fixed by one preordained "path" or if our outcomes are determined by quantum dice rolls. It makes no difference. These people will bring it up constantly but also constantly dodge the question of how exactly their lives are not completely determined by forces outside of their "I" anyway.

>>17581124
cope

>>17581881
Not him, but wouldn't the appeal of that be that while there's one way things went there are multiple ways things can go? The difference i think is to imagine getting a haircut. After you got one, you obviously are stuck with it. While before you can make a choice and ponder about which one to choose.

But really this is just a question that's currently impossible to answer. What we can say is that we have a mental model in the head we construct and we can imagine different situations playing out and think which is the best one. It's quite possible this uses some indeterministic elements, but we don't know. Our minds and their workings are in large part a mystery. They certainly are unique though and nothing in the universe has such an ability for reflection about itself and the world. How that is possible and how it works will be really difficult to answer.

>>17582016
>there are multiple ways things can go
Yeah I suppose it would. But if we're talking about random outcomes of atomic interactions, then the future just becomes randomly unknowable. There would have to be a connection between these random outcomes and our individual choices for this to matter. In a certain sense though this seems illusory, because while the future is unknown or unknowable once it does happen it couldn't have happened otherwise in the universe we live in.

I'm not entirely discounting the idea of choice being somehow related to this randomness, but if it is we have no way to think about this clearly. My guess would be that we only think of things in this 'what could have happened' way because it's a useful psychological model for us, it allows to us to consider possible outcomes of a situation in the light of previous situations that resembled them. This is not fundamentally different than a chess program learning to play moves in a situation that resembles an earlier one it encountered. This at least is a plausible model imo even if it can't be known certainly.

>>17582100
>There would have to be a connection between these random outcomes and our individual choices for this to matter.
And maybe there is. I just don't in a way see much point in making big claims about things we don't understand. Maybe our cognition uses the indeterminancy of quantum particles for some choices. After all, we don't have to call these particles random. It could entirely be that they play a fundamental role in our choices and our thoughts reflect that. After all they are called random because classical physicist found them to not be deterministic. They could have also be called free. I am not saying they are, just that these are big claims about things we don't understand and we should approach them without judgment.
>once it does happen it couldn't have happened otherwise in the universe we live in.
I mean, yeah, but for that to happen we would literally be lawless in every sense of the word. If the past could be rewritten every moment we want that too would be bizzare.
>but if it is we have no way to think about this clearly.
Yeah, but why then make big claims? We aren't electricity generators. They can easily be described with few equations, they don't reflect about the world, they don't understand or know anything too. It would be bizzare to talk about humans like we talk about electric generators. Not because it would be uncomfortable, but because we don't get anywhere. We have tried it. Economics deals with that frequently it doesn't explain human behavior. We can't put in few inputs and calculate how people will behave, unless you put them in an arbitrary strict environment. But finding how people behave in arbitrary situations with 2 possible outcomes doesn't prove anything besides that indeed that situation allows for very few outcomes.
>This is not fundamentally different than a chess program learning to play moves in a situation that resembles an earlier one it encountered.
If it would be so easy we would have computers who can do that. But if you put new data in front of a computer it doesn't know what to do. Actually this is an issue with self driving cars because putting them on highways is relatively easy. Not much can happen. But putting them in a more chaotic and unpredictable environment messes them up. They can't think abstractly, they just think in patterns. They are even better at it than us, but machines don't actually seem to construct whole models where they navigate complex tasks with unpredictable results. A computer so far hasn't done the same work as Godel did with his take on letting mathematics speek about mathematics.

And I am not saying this must be determistic or not. I am saying there's no way of knowing and trying to understand human behavior which so far nothing else seem to display by using allegories to computers or electricity generators. It doesn't get us anywhere. We can't talk meaningfully about things we don't know.

>>17582389
>If it would be so easy we would have computers who can do that. But if you put new data in front of a computer it doesn't know what to do.
That's what chess programs do though, that was my point, they react to a board setup they've never seen before by comparing it similar ones they have seen. It's just less sophisticated.
>They can't think abstractly, they just think in patterns.
I think all we really do is think in patterns as well, we just switch between modules.

I agree that computers are nowhere near human intelligence yet, and maybe they never will be, maybe they can't reproduce what we do with our minds. My intuition is just that what we call abstract thinking is actually fairly formulaic and moments of creative genius are just synthesis of patterns. We create new categorical schemas, but this is just applying a categorical process to a new set of things, rearranging the associative architecture.

The abstract mind as a set of evolved processes that take in input and output webs of patterns doesn't seem implausible to me.

>>17576764
Doesn't it come down to which interpretation of the math you subscribe to? Until they're testable in some way there's no way to decide between Many Worlds or Pilot Waves (deterministic) or Copenhagen (random) or whatever the others are.

determinism means the universe is just a huge a ocmputer

Determinism goes back to when humans have invented machines and now they go muh the universe is like that. Determinism is jsut engineers thinking they're smart.

bump

>>17576359
>Philosophy is useless outside of Cioran and a few others
Thanks for the keks

>>17584145
Yeah it's engineers not just literally anyone with a basic knowledge of physics

>>17579599
This is a retarded argument.

(1) I don't see how this violates a causality
(2) A predictor like this cannot be built. See at the halting problem.

If hard determinism is true and I'm depressed with no direction in my life should I just off myself? Seems logical. I guess I don't really have a say in whether I live or die. Existence is so fucked.

>>17586411
No, because you don't know your future

>>17575173
This shit is true bro.
Our brain creates self models to sort shit out and send us cheap info. There is no you, there is no i, there is no they, there is no human race.

>>17586411
that would be a choice, which you don't have. see you tomorrow.

>>17586379
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

>>17575173
>in fact I don't think there's an "I" at all.

>>17586577
>.m.

Why do people think that if determinism is true they can't change themselves?

>>17579599
impossible due to halting problem