/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15152171]

doesn't matter how i flip it i keep getting to the same conclusion: free will is an illusion

If the universe can be predicted and we are a part of that universe, we also can be predicted

in fact, everything we do, everything that will ever exist and happen was already set in motion billions of years ago the moment the universe came into existing.

does anyone have an alternative theory?

[Anonymous No.15152176]

>>15152171
Your diseased worldview dies along with your inferior genetics.

[Anonymous No.15152185]

>>15152176
this is not an argument

[Anonymous No.15152191]

>>15152185
Why do I need to argue with you? Nature itself has ruled that your worldview has no place in it.

[Anonymous No.15152195]

>>15152171
Great. Nothing matters. A settled path ≠ unpleasant. So, now you figured it all out. Just lean back and enjoy life.

My personal tip, learn/engage into an activity with induces heavily the flow state, except for video games, because they are, at least for now, still 'constrained'.

I, for example, love to play music. I loose myself completely in the creative process. You'll feel rarely as a mere deterministic event.

[Anonymous No.15152203]

>Great. Nothing matters. A settled path ≠ unpleasant. So, now you figured it all out. Just lean back and enjoy life.

[Anonymous No.15152211]

>>15152176
fpbp
/thread

[Anonymous No.15152237]

>>15152191
because nobody cares about your opinion yet you keep spouting like a kid with down syndrome who drank too much coffee
>>15152211
patting your own back

[Anonymous No.15152240]

>>15152237
Why do you keep responding with incongruent seethe and lashing out at other posters?

[Anonymous No.15152242]

>>15152240
this is my first reply to you, smooth brain

[Anonymous No.15152243]

>>15152242
Doesn't change anything. Why are you seething and lashing out at randos like a chimp?

[Anonymous No.15152252]

>>15152176
>>15152191
Are you sure you're not the genetic dead end? The majority of conquerors, scientists and philosopher in history believed in either determinism or fate, the religious version of determinism.

[Anonymous No.15152255]

>>15152252
>Are you sure you're not the genetic dead end?
Let's suppose I am. Nature is still culling your worldview.

[Anonymous No.15152257]

>>15152171
So what am I gonna do tomorrow? Next week? In 25 years? You can't predict it because it isn't set in stone, every day brings something new, everything new changes the path the universe takes, your simplification of free will is absurd

[Anonymous No.15152260]

>>15152171
Quantum mechanics literally disproves your viewpoint, the universe is unpredictable. Retard.

[Anonymous No.15152262]

>>15152255
Cope. Determinism and atheism is on the rise in first world countries.

[Anonymous No.15152265]

>>15152262
>Determinism and atheism is on the rise in first world countries.
Ok. Were trying to dispute what I wrote? Nevermind that your narrative is false; it doesn't even help your case.

[Anonymous No.15152270]

>>15152265
Are you esl? What are you confused about?

[Anonymous No.15152271]

>>15152270
I'm confused about why you're lying in a way that actually supports my point.

[Anonymous No.15152272]

>>15152171
The human understanding of the universe or "reality" is extremely limited. Every developed concept you're using to conclude this is incomplete.
Fact:
You are a dumb animal on a ball.
Conjecture:
The universe, time, reality, etc is absolute and predictable.
The key takeaway is that you are a faggot, and probably won't derive satisfaction from wasting time on useless questions.

[Anonymous No.15152273]

>>15152271
How am I supporting your point, esl?

[Anonymous No.15152274]

>>15152257
not knowing something doesn't mean it can't be known.
on the human scale, its highly unlikely that we'll be able to predict complex objects behaviors. altho we can do it just fine with simple object like planet movement
>>15152260
Quantum mechanics is physics copium, a way to speculate on thing that we don't know or understand yet.
the fact that we don't know something doesn't mean the universe doesn't know it too

we don't know if Schrodinger cat is alive or dead, but the universe know it.

[Anonymous No.15152275]

>>15152273
I guess you've lost your mind with rage. Next.

[Anonymous No.15152280]

>>15152275
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15152283]

>>15152272
fallacious argument "b-but we don't know!", doesn't disprove the premise in OP

if the universe is ruled by laws of physics, interactions with in it can be calculated and predicted.
just like throwing a bowling ball and calculating the score you'll get based on its trajectory

[Anonymous No.15152284]

>>15152280
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15152286]

>>15152171
>doesn't matter how i flip it i keep getting to the same conclusion: free will is an illusion
Fake news. You simply lack depth of thought and knowledge with regard to these things
>physics
>computer science
>informal logic
>mathematical logic
>philosophy of mind
>various other subjects
See here
>>15152026
No need to cope. Physicalism can't account for consciousness (as rightly stated in pic related) and so any asserted conflicts with asserted types of physical causation are irrelevant. Your line of argument generally pre-supposes a (false) physicalist metaphysical position of theory of mind and then it takes this unproven and unprovable metaphysical position as a fact and tries to further constrain freewill by two more unproven metaphysical presuppositions, namely that there are only two possibilities with regard to causality in the physical world, namely mechanistic and reductionist/microcausal materialist event causation, and indeterministic materialist event causation. All of these assertions are unfounded metaphysical assertions and they prove no constraint on free will.
and here for some leads
>>15152144

[Anonymous No.15152287]

>>15152283
It's fine not to know.

[Anonymous No.15152289]

>>15152283
>if the universe is ruled by laws of physics, interactions with in it can be calculated and predicted.
Doesn't follow.

[Anonymous No.15152290]

>>15152284
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.15152293]

>>15152171
with regard to this post
>>15152286
there was a green text failure on my part. It should have been
>No need to cope. Physicalism can't account for consciousness (as rightly stated in pic related) and so any asserted conflicts with asserted types of physical causation are irrelevant. Your line of argument generally pre-supposes a (false) physicalist metaphysical position of theory of mind and then it takes this unproven and unprovable metaphysical position as a fact and tries to further constrain freewill by two more unproven metaphysical presuppositions, namely that there are only two possibilities with regard to causality in the physical world, namely mechanistic and reductionist/microcausal materialist event causation, and indeterministic materialist event causation. All of these assertions are unfounded metaphysical assertions and they prove no constraint on free will.
and here for some leads
You are making the classic sam harris/plebbit argument from false metaphysical pre-suppositions about materialist event causation and a physicalist theory of mind. Both are fake news.

[Anonymous No.15152294]

>>15152287
jesus christ, if humanity were made exclusively of people like you we'd still be in caves
"we don't know! stop asking ok!"

[Anonymous No.15152295]

>>15152290
>Determinism and atheism is on the rise
>...in countries with plummeting birth rates
You sure won this one, champ.

[Anonymous No.15152303]

>>15152294
Direct your effort into something that has a pay off.

[Anonymous No.15152304]

>>15152295
There are two buckets, bucket A and bucket B. Water is pouring into both buckets, and water is also leaking from a hole in the bottom of both buckets. Bucket A has 3ml poured into it and 1ml leaking out of it every second. Bucket B has 4ml pouring into in and 7ml leaking out of it every second. Which bucket gaining more water per second?

[Anonymous No.15152307]

>>15152274
>we don't know if Schrodinger cat is alive or dead, but the universe know it.
Yes we do, because we know if you starve a cat it's going to die you retard, that's the entire point of schrödingers thought experiment, that there will be predictable outcomes based on input parameters regardless whether you are there or not

[Anonymous No.15152309]

>>15152304
I accept your concession. Auto-hiding your drivel again.

[Anonymous No.15152311]

>>15152309
I already accepted your concession first. See >>15152280

[Anonymous No.15152312]

For all the annoyance this faggot causes, it's not like there would be anything meaningful to discuss in the absence of this faggot. Maybe we should just categorically reject all free will and consciousness threads to >>>/his/.

[Anonymous No.15152316]

>>15152171
>If the universe can be predicted and we are a part of that universe, we also can be predicted

>be me
>write letter detailing every action of anon
>anon does it
>did not even interact with anon
I did not change your free will

Moreover, read these
https://crossexamined.org/5-arguments-existence-free-will/

[Anonymous No.15152317]

>>15152171
It’s not an alternative theory you’re looking for, you’re looking to realise the implication or conclusion of such a premise

Namely, determinism goes hand in hand with the universal concept and application of evolution
>big bang ->stars ->planets->life->technology

Determinism, for all its inherent restrictions, allows for the concept of evolution, micro and macro scale

What this means? We literally work and live and observe the universe to progress it to the point of absolution.
Think 5th dimensional humanity from interstellar

Evolution begets greater will, this process will continue to a limit defined by the universe. If that means godhood and absolution are off the table then that’s that, but until then…

[Anonymous No.15152319]

>For all the annoyance this faggot causes, it's not like there would be anything meaningful to discuss in the absence of this faggot. Maybe we should just categorically reject all free will and consciousness threads to >>>/his/.

[Anonymous No.15152383]

>>15152171
Great, another retard nihilist, just what the doctor ordered. You know, I think this ole cowpokes about ready to mosey the fuck off this board for good soon.

[Anonymous No.15152384]

>>15152317
Omega point

[Anonymous No.15152396]

>>15152316
>I did not change your free will
doesn't change the postulate that free will is an illusion.
were are merely complex systems, but not beyond the rules of this universe
"our choices" are merely the result interactions between external inputs and our internal hardware, no different than typing a code in a computer and getting results

i know that smooth brains like to believe that humans have a "soul" and are in some way immortal. but nothing other than our fear of death could back up that theory

[Anonymous No.15152433]

>>15152396
>doesn't change the postulate that free will is an illusion.
you are literally castrating yourself in a metaphysical an spiritual sense, you are no better than a chatbot. if you have qualia, which i really doubt, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous No.15152436]

>>15152307
are you retarded? that's not the point of schrodinger's cat at all. it was originally posed as a reductio to illustrate the absurdity of QM

[Anonymous No.15152441]

>>15152396
>"our choices" are merely the result interactions between external inputs and our internal hardware, no different than typing a code in a computer and getting results

>he compares the human body, the brain, and everything related to it, to literally a fucking computer, when he or anyone else for that matter can't even build a computer that behaves exactly and does exactly what he assumes the brain does and works like, even when scientists cope by saying it's actually a quantum system he does not stop parroting shitty materialist memes

You just cemented your status as a hylic, begone npc.

[Anonymous No.15152452]

>>15152384
Thanks for the new info

[Anonymous No.15152454]

>>15152171
free will is fake, yes. but we cannot (nor will we ever be able to) predict the universe with complete accuracy. sometimes we will guess right, but it will always be guessing, not predicting (aka computing).

[Anonymous No.15152471]

>>15152171
ok, then you're unable to know real truth, since everything in your little brain is predetermined.
I wouldn't trust the theories from someone claiming to be an automata with no ability to judge real truth so good luck with your theory.

[Anonymous No.15152474]

>>15152436
Did you reply to the wrong person or something? That's what I said, the cat is not dead or alive until observed, if you put a gun in the box that shoots the cat in the face in 12 hours the cat's gonna be dead in 12 hours.

[Anonymous No.15152479]

>>15152441
>hylic
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.15152485]

>>15152474
yeah that's retarded. the cat is either dead or alive. it can't be both.

[Anonymous No.15152500]

>>15152171
Why do you care? It's not like you are the laplace's demon kek

[MB No.15152712]

>>15152171
Anyone with a seperate theory is a glowie desu, good job figuring out the universe via the internet anon, it took philosophers lifetimes of study to arive at determinism/fatalism

[Anonymous No.15152741]

>>15152274
But how do you know that “the universe” knows?
>b-b-because I just do okay!

[Anonymous No.15152785]

>>15152171
Consciousness is the basis of reality, not physics
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

[Anonymous No.15152827]

>>15152785
consciousness. is. not. heckin. real. periodt. consciousness is just a model. physics is actual reality

[Anonymous No.15152845]

>>15152176
>inferior genetics.

are you talking about the orcs?

[Anonymous No.15152858]

>>15152741
when i say the univers "know" i don't mean its awear like an individual would know

what i mean is, if you throw a ball to a certain direction, that ball is going to interact with objects in that direction
because there is no external forces after the ball has been thrown, every interaction that ball with have with objects down its path is already set at the moment it is thrown.

[Anonymous No.15152860]

>>15152845
>the orcs
Americans do exemplify nihilism, vulgar materialism and rejection of personal agency, but I'm talking in general.

[Anonymous No.15152872]

>>15152827
Yeah we can tell you're not very conscious, I think twitter is a more suitable platform for the likes of you.

[Anonymous No.15152878]

>>15152858
>every interaction that ball with have with objects down its path is already set at the moment it is thrown.
Wrong, as that would require for everything to have already happened, but everything hasn't happened at once, but things are happening one moment at a time, the path of the ball is dictated by its interactions with its surroundings at any given moment, you're just a regular multiverse schizo

[Anonymous No.15152891]

>>15152858
>every interaction that ball with have with objects down its path is already set at the moment it is thrown.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15152907]

>>15152860
he confuses orcfrica with america. have things got that bad? america should not have entered WW2. Germany would have save Europe. Japan would have saved Asia

[Anonymous No.15152913]

>>15152891
>>15152878
thats literally newton's first law!
>as that would require for everything to have already happened
no, it doesn't
if a throw an object into the empty void its going to keep moving indefinitely. i know that even tho i never throw that object in the first place.

>but everything hasn't happened at once
no, the motion that set everything did, every other interaction after it is just the result of that first impulse
>but things are happening one moment at a time, the path of the ball is dictated by its interactions with its surroundings at any given moment
see previous answer
>you're just a regular multiverse schizo
never said there was a multiverse

[Anonymous No.15152919]

>>15152913
predicting something will happen =/= something has happened

[Anonymous No.15152927]

reminder the only argument FOR free will is "muh bible" and "muh quantum physics"

[Anonymous No.15152931]

>>15152913
>thats literally newton's first law!
So? Prove that it applies to the real world with perfect exactness.

[Anonymous No.15152952]

>>15152919
strawmaning much?
you're the only one having a problem with time.
its irrelevant in this particular case.
it doesn't change the premise, things have been set in motion when the universe was born.
you subjective view of time doesn't change that.
past, present, or future.
that fact that things did not happen yet doesn't disprove the premise either. your just confusing yourself
>>15152931
are you questioning the first law?
>>15152927
which is ironic because the god of the bible is supposed to be all knowing
which means, he was fully aware that some of his creature won't be "good" will end up in hell for eternity.
he basically created them to torture them, which would make the idea of god being "good" questionable

[Anonymous No.15152969]

>>15152952
>are you questioning the first law?
I am questioning your insane and fundamentally unfalsifiable dogma. Physical models deal with idealized abstractions of real objects and idealized conditions. Go ahead and demonstrate that implications of idealized models born specifically out of the unrealistic assumptions of those models, actually apply to the real world.

[Anonymous No.15153016]

>>15152969
>Physical models deal with idealized abstractions of real objects and idealized conditions
yes, they are simplifications, in reality the universe is not completely empty.
the fact that the interactions in the real world are more complex doesn't make the law less valid
>Go ahead and demonstrate that implications of idealized models born specifically out of the unrealistic assumptions of those models, actually apply to the real world.
GPS and the theory of general relativity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/
https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

[Anonymous No.15153052]

>>15153016
Everything I said stands completely unchallenged. Come back when you can test your (inherently untestable) hypothesis. Screeching that the world works exactly like the model because the model says so doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.15153066]

>>15152171
No.

[Anonymous No.15153072]

>>15152260
>Quantum mechanics literally disproves your viewpoint,
NTA, but actually this isn't true. It isn't true for the following reasons.
1. You don't understand quantum mechanics enough to draw conclusions based on it.
2. Quantum mechanics is still being researched and isn't fully understood in a comprehensive way.
3. It is probably impossible to prove or disprove superdeterminism.

[Anonymous No.15153101]

>>15152171
If free will is an illusion does it matter that we do not have free will?

[Anonymous No.15153166]

>>15153101
that makes us complex objects, there will be more complex objects in the future all the way to the omega point but ultimately even them will not reach true free will

[Anonymous No.15153176]

>>15153052
you asked for an example, i gave you one.
now you're just rambling

[Anonymous No.15153269]

>>15153176
I didn't ask you for any examples. I asked you for proof of your mentally deranged dogma, which you naturally cannot and will not provide. You're losing your mind with rage.

[Anonymous No.15153281]

>>15152171
It is unfortunately another infinite regression, to prove determinism one would have to know the origins of the universe and what caused that and so on.
Even still it seems likely that whatever the origin of the universe is, it would probable be compatible with determinism

[Anonymous No.15153343]

>>15152952
>things have been set in motion when the universe was born.
Prove it, so far you are using circular logic to justify your claim, which is like claiming God exists because the bible says so, you've provided zero physical or observational evidence to support your claim, because you're just another schizo.

[Anonymous No.15153357]

>>15153166
Does free will actually matter at all though? Is the question

What difference does it make?

[Anonymous No.15153390]

>>15153357
NTA but if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have so many drones arguing against it so vigorously.

[Anonymous No.15153606]

>>15153101
Freewill defined as the ability for an agent to make any possible decision of its own "will" is probably not good for that agents survival.

[Anonymous No.15154240]

>doesn't matter how i flip it i keep getting to the same conclusion: sin is an illusion
The oldest trick the Devil ever played was pretending He didn't exist...
>If the universe can be predicted and we are a part of that universe, we also can be predicted
Yes, but in practice this only comes up when somebody is near the point of no return when it comes to being saved from sin, i.e. when it is getting close to the point where it is no longer possible to save someone from sin
>in fact, everything we do, everything that will ever exist and happen was already set in motion billions of years ago the moment the universe came into existing.
yeah, but sin is the thing that is going to kill you first, before everything else, i.e. the proximate or closest cause of death, that actually goes up to your heart and says,
>"Fuck you, heart, stop beating."
>does anyone have an alternative theory?
eristics
we should start an /erg/ eristics general for readers interested in disputing theories

[Anonymous No.15154243]

there is really only one way to answer these threads, and that is
- the readers of /sci/ just don't spend the time getting into the relevant material
- the /lit/ readers do most certainly
- the /his/ readers do as well, but they'll call you protestoid...so if you can take that, have at it...
- free will just means you aren't currently dying from sin right now, and it also usually entails a fair amount of knowledge regarding the nature of the sin, i.e. we have some theory as to how you're going to die in the near future, it involves sinful patterns of behavior, self-reinforcing and self-deluding tailspins that are
>love where there is no lover

[Anonymous No.15154294]

>>15152171
>If the universe can be predicted
>If
There is no complete model of the universe that accurately predicts the future, though, the theory of everything isn't actually a theory at this point, its just a hope, wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.15154296]

>>15152176
No, that worldview was born long before anon and it will live long after. Take some classes, so you don't look like such an ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.15154408]

>>15152176
based, scientifically

[Anonymous No.15154414]

>>15152907
>he confuses orcfrica with america

its an easy mistake to make

[Anonymous No.15154418]

>>15152255
No, it is culling christianity in favor of islam while the no religion secular group expands faster than both.

[Anonymous No.15154422]

>>15152265
The opposite of culling is rising, of course evidence that something is rising instead of culling helps make the case that it isn't being culled by nature.

[Anonymous No.15154428]

>>15152309
The only thing you clearly accepted is that you aren't smart enough to actually do math calculations or support your terrible opinions with evidence or logic.

[Anonymous No.15154434]

>>15152316
>I did not change your free will
No, you were just able to identify his clear lack of free will by analyzing him and discovering his underlying programming.

[Anonymous No.15154450]

>>15152383
Great, another completely impotent freakout caused by someone with a bunch of shitty assumption's about nature, but who is completely unable to disprove that nature's fundamental state is one of nihilism and would rather just take their ball and go home instead of trying to disprove the obvious.

[Anonymous No.15154454]

>>15154450
If your diseased ideology was "natural", you wouldn't need an entire industry to brainwash children with it, and you wouldn't be going around screeching, straining and foaming at the mouth trying desperately to defend it. Your impotent rage is an expression of insecurity. Your worldview is being culled.

[Anonymous No.15154464]

>>15154454
>you wouldn't need an entire industry to brainwash children with it,
We don't, most nihilists naturally arise when they reject the diseased ideology that that their parents bought into on an industrial scale, often sending innocents to brainwashing institutions where they get raped and realize exact how wrong all the claims of divinity in the organization really are.

>culled
Being the fastest rising ideology in the world >>15154422 is the exact opposite of being culled, sending you kid to bible camp to be raped so they hate theology when they mature is an example of your religious views being naturally culled by reality.

[Anonymous No.15154468]

>>15154464
>Being the fastest rising ideology in the world >>15154422 is the exact opposite of being culled
Nope. It's still being culled. You're just too absorbed by your impotent rage to realize how it's trivially possible.

[Anonymous No.15154472]

>>15154468
Yes I don't understand how the fastest rising ideology can be considered to being culled while religious affiliation is at an all time low every single passing year. Maybe you can explain the contradiction of you claiming that what is being culled is increasing in numbers while what you say isn't being culled is dying.

[Anonymous No.15154474]

>>15154472
>Yes I don't understand
Not my problem. It's obvious to anyone who isn't already a part of your exponentially shrinking cult. Your impotent rage and denial make me hard.

[Anonymous No.15154478]

>>15154474
>shrinking
This is what I don't understand, how you can categorize the fastest growing ideological affiliation as shrinking when it is only religion that is shrinking rather than the lack thereof.
It is your problem because you are the only retard claiming that the only growing demographic is somehow the only one shrinking.

[Anonymous No.15154483]

>>15154478
I'm okay with you making the same imbecilic argument over and over again. I don't even have to do anything. You expose yourself as a mentally deficient cretin.

[Anonymous No.15154492]

>>15154483
Then why are you the one who has to admit to being an imbecile utilizing imbecilic arguments over and over?

[Anonymous No.15154500]

>>15154492
See, if you weren't such a low-IQ, low-impulse-control cretin, you would have stopped for a second and asked yourself if it's possible that you're misunderstanding something. But your likes are on the very margins of sentience and are imcapable of metacongnition, so you just keep posting the same thing over and over. lol

[Anonymous No.15154510]

>>15154500
I understand you don't know how to judge shrink nor growth in populations. Why would I need to post anything different than the facts, you are the one who has to reach and constantly contradict yourself trying to prove that the fastest growing demographic is actually shrinking. But you are obviously not interested in discussing facts, you are just compelled to flaunt your pathetic inferiority complex.

[Anonymous No.15154512]

>>15154472
there are more muslims, christians, hindus, etc. on the planet today that there ever have been before, the number atheist nations has shrunk down to 3

[Anonymous No.15154515]

>>15154510
>constantly contradict yourself
A disease is spreading. A disease is removing the afflicted from the gene pool. There is no contradiction between these two statements. Notice how instead of acknowledging the fallaciousness of your reasoning, which apparent independently from any facts, you will try to cope using denial of the facts.

[Anonymous No.15154518]

>>15154512
Not as a percent of the population.
All western nations that separate state and religion are atheistic nations, if they are run by some kind of congress or parliament instead of some holy men who get all the rules straight from god instead of through negotiation, they are explicitly atheist nations.

[Anonymous No.15154524]

>>15154515
>any facts,
Which facts you haven't presented any facts, just a bunch of delusions based on your savage ideations. The only thing being removed are people from your religion every single day every time one of your supposed holy men touches a little kids butthole due to uncontrollable lust since you people can't actually live up to the supernatural standards you imagine for yourselves.

[Anonymous No.15154525]

>>15154524
Why didn't you acknowledge that your mongoloidal logic was fallacious, despite it being indisputably demonstrated to you?

[Anonymous No.15154535]

>>15154525
Because I clearly disputed it and you have yet to present a single fact because the facts >>15154422 clearly don't support your nonsense because the facts show that religions are the ones declining as a portion of the population and you say think that the population is shrinking in a time of exponential population growth that is mostly tied to asian and african continents with the least religious historical affiliation in the first place.

My position doesn't rely on logic it relies on measurable population demographic changes over the last several decades, your argument is the one that is purely semantic and emotional without facts and figures to support it.

[Anonymous No.15154538]

>>15154535
>My position doesn't rely on logic
That's obvious, but you were claiming that I'm contradicting myself because it's impossible for something to be spreading among the population while simultaneously culling the afflicted from the gene pool. So now I know the following things about you:

1. You're incapable of logic
2. You're incapable of basic metacognition, like questioning your own beliefs
3. You're incapable of basic human decency, like admitting a mistake

You are subhuman filth just as I said from the start. Thanks for playing. Auto-hiding all of your posts from here on. You will reply again and screech something about "my concession" because you are an animal with no impulse control.

[Anonymous No.15154542]

>>15154538
>it's impossible for something to be spreading among the population while simultaneously culling the afflicted from the gene pool.
No its a leap of logic not an application, it is pure conjecture without facts to back it up because the facts directly disprove the conjecture, if they were being culled, it wouldn't be a decades long growth trend, if your religion was growing, it wouldn't be a smaller portion of the population than any other time in history and mostly only present in countries where religious affiliation is mandatory and/or subsidized by the government.

[Anonymous No.15154559]

>>15152171
>does anyone have an alternative theory?
quantum theory suggest anti-determinism because of it's (suggested) random nature (which can lead to theories such as branching multiverse etc)

[Anonymous No.15154561]

>>15154542
he's right and you really are a total retard. there's a decades long trend of plummeting birth rates and aging of the population to go along with your trend of increasing nihilism

[Anonymous No.15154566]

>>15154561
Well, totally not him, he clearly doesn't understand birth rates are plummeting because the atmosphere is full of microplastics, forever chemicals, and other things that interfere with hormones and prevent pregnancies plus the major religions stopped enforcing birth control around the turn of the century, catholic carl is only having a couple of kids instead of the 9 to 12 his parents had, muslim mike can punch his wife in the belly if he doesn't think he can't feed another kid between war with the other sect of muslims, birth rates are not just plummeting among atheists, they are happening to nearly all demographics, religious or otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15154568]

>>15154566
your cope doesn't help your case in any way. the only people who manage to maintain birth rates above replacement rate reject your views

[Anonymous No.15154573]

>>15154568
According to your logic since their birth rates have plummeted too, they are also being culled by nature and their god isn't saving them from persistent hormonal imbalance and eventual death.

[Anonymous No.15154580]

>>15154568
Too bad birth rates are only up in african and asian shitholes where they average lifespan is in the teens.

[Anonymous No.15154589]

>>15154580
those trashskins are dying a lot less often than you think now

[Anonymous No.15154595]

>>15154589
They are dying at whatever frequency it takes to make their country's average age still be in the teens.

[Anonymous No.15154594]

>>15154573
>they are also being culled by nature
"they" being who? people who, unlike you, have birth rates above replacement rate? no, they're not being culled by nature. you are

[Anonymous No.15154596]

>>15154594
>above replacement rate
Only because they are regularly replacing their dead 14 year olds with the baby that caused them to die due to lack of medicine and training.

[Anonymous No.15154597]

>>15154596
>Only because
you're lying but it makes no difference

[Anonymous No.15154609]

>>15154597
If I am lying, why are you the one trapped on the internet all day and night impotently raging about all the atheists that surround you instead of caring for your own replacement babies that you want to impart your religion to?

[Anonymous No.15154612]

>>15154609
>If I am lying
you are lying, but the sad thing about your lie is that it doesn't even make a difference. it doesn't matter why the people who reject your worldview manage to reproduce at or above replacement rate; only that they do while you don't

[Anonymous No.15154620]

>>15154612
Nobody is rejecting any world view, places that can't protect teenage girls from rape and don't have the technology to safely perform abortions tend to have more births than countries that don't implicitly sponsor rape through apathy, its not a matter of religion except that religion creates idealistic psychopaths who foment those kind of horrible situations through their active denial of reality.

[Anonymous No.15154625]

>>15154620
>Nobody is rejecting any world view,
you're really losing it now, but it's still the case that populations where nihilism is the norm are undergoing population collapse, while populations who manage to avoid it abhor you and your worldview

[Anonymous No.15154630]

>>15154625
No, its still the case that you can keep making claims that you can't actually back up with facts and figures because when you actually look at the facts and figures, the only thing collapsing is religious affiliation >>15154422.

[Anonymous No.15154633]

>>15154630
do you acknowledge that populations where nihilism is the norm have birth rates below replacement rate?

[Anonymous No.15154637]

>>15154633
If you had facts and figures to show, you wouldn't need to beg people to acknowledge something, you could just provide the facts and figures instead of solely relying on your twisted logic.

Populations where running water is the norm have birth rates below replacement the rest are just replacing dead teenagers with infants.

[Anonymous No.15154641]

>>15154637
do you acknowledge it or not? why are you struggling to give a straight answer?

[Anonymous No.15154645]

>>15152171
>free will is an illusion
incorrect
>If the universe can be predicted
it can't
>and we are a part of that universe, we also can be predicted
valid argument, but not sound, due to the faulty premise that it's possible to predict the universe
>in fact, everything we do, everything that will ever exist and happen was already set in motion billions of years ago the moment the universe came into existing
wrong on several counts, not fact at all
1) everything that happens is set in motion spontaneously in the present, recontextualizing the past
2) the universe never "came into existing", it exists eternally

[Anonymous No.15154647]

>>15152171
What's predicted has already happened. All we know is memory. The universe remains unknown. Will you make it follow a new path? That's up to you to decide. I reckon you will.

[Anonymous No.15154653]

>>15154641
I acknowledge that the fact you have to impotently rage about how you can't convince everyone else of your illogical superstitious nonsense and you god won't come to help you proves that reality is apathetic to your superstitious nonsense and your silly imaginary gods.

[Anonymous No.15154657]

why do sois love to argue about their nondisprovable conjectures on the science board, nondisprovables are not part of science they're excluded by definition.
ppl who get emotional fulfilment out of hearing themselves speak but are too cowardly to ever say anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.15154660]

>>15154653
why do you keep frothing at the mouth about religious boogeymen instead of answering a simple yes/no question?

[Anonymous No.15154666]

>>15154660
not them, but I think I see their point
you're asking specifically about the birth rates of "places where nihilism is the norm", which seems somewhat biased
I'd venture to guess that there are many places where nihilism isn't the norm that still have negative birth rates, and conversely probably also places where beliefs in some underlying meaning that have negative birth rates

[Anonymous No.15154673]

>>15154666
>you're asking specifically about the birth rates of "places where nihilism is the norm"
yes. so, do you have an answer, maybe?

[Anonymous No.15154679]

>>15154660
Finally you admit religious ideology is just an imaginary boogeyman and not based in measurable fact or nihilistic reality.

[Anonymous No.15154680]

>>15154679
ok, so, do you acknowledge that populations where nihilism is the norm have birth rates below replacement rate? what causes your comical levels of defensiveness?

[Anonymous No.15154682]

>>15154673
Running water and soap is more closely associated with falling birth rates than nihilism.
Do you have an answer for why Catholics and other religious families stopped having dozens of kids?

[Anonymous No.15154684]

>>15154673
again, I'm not them, I just explained what it seems like their point is
my personal answer would be that I don't think that's the case, as I mentioned, since you can probably find many places where nihilism is the norm that have positive birth rates, and vice versa too
that's just guessing on my part, so feel free to provide relevant data if there is any

[Anonymous No.15154685]

>>15154680
You mean in the 3 nations that you claim are the only ones with nihilistic populations while the rest are religious and also experiencing falling birthrates outside of african and asian countries where the life expectancy is about a year after puberty?

[Anonymous No.15154688]

>>15154684
>you can probably find many places where nihilism is the norm that have positive birth rates
can you name some?

[Anonymous No.15154689]

>>15154685
can you show me population of nihilistic atheists with birth rates above replacement rate?

[Anonymous No.15154720]

>>15154688
>>15154689
i guess not. enjoy getting culled

[Anonymous No.15154733]

>>15154689
I never claimed any nation was majority nihilistic, though, just that it is the largest growing demographic among all the nations.

[Anonymous No.15154739]

>>15154688
it's an interesting question, so I'm looking at some data now to check what it says (using a 2017 report by Pew and including only people who specifically state they're not religious or specifically state they're atheists)
my preliminary findings seem to point to a candidate I wouldn't have thought of: Israel
apparently ~60% of Israel's population are irreligious, and the fertility rate is ~2.9, well above replacement
however, from what I gather from the data now, it seems that my original intuition about the question being misleading seems to check out, because fertility rates don't seem to correlate with religiosity at all, and there are many places with high degrees of religiosity which have fertility rates below replacement

[Anonymous No.15154745]

>>15154689
>>15154733
I did claim that their lawmaking system was not religious though and plenty of parliamentary or constitutional countries without legally ingrained theism have fertility rates above 2.

[Anonymous No.15154762]

>>15152171
We are guided by nature that imposes a certain behavior on us, so we are not really free. We believe it, but we are predetermined.
I advise you to read the works of Schopenhauer, he explains the concept well.

[Anonymous No.15154766]

>>15154733
>>15154745
can you show me population of nihilistic atheists with birth rates above replacement rate?

[Anonymous No.15154770]

>>15154739
>apparently ~60% of Israel's population are irreligious, and the fertility rate is ~2.9, well above replacement
that mostly comes from Orthodox Jews and Muslim Arabs, but either way, even Israelis that aren't religious consider themselves "traditional" and strongly reject your nihilistic attitude. wanna try again?

[Anonymous No.15154782]

>>15154770
>your nihilistic attitude
my what?
I don't think you're replying to the right person
in any case, if you have specifying criteria for even irreligious people, then what countries do you consider to be "majority nihilistic"?
I couldn't really find any data giving any percentage of people identifying that way at all, irreligiosity was the best proxy I could find

[Anonymous No.15154784]

>>15154766
They only collect statistics about nations (and no nation is majority nihilistic atheist even though that is the fastest growing demographic in every nation), not about populations of nihilistic atheists even though the population of redditors who only have kids to play dressup is likely above replacement rates and so are the populations of nihilistic atheist faggots and dykes who only want to make more kids to rape and to feel like normal breeders.

[Anonymous No.15154792]

>>15154782
>>15154784
so you can't provide a single example of a nihilistic population with a birth rate above replacement rate?

[Anonymous No.15154795]

>>15154792
well, as I just asked, what do you consider to be a "nihilistic population"?
irreligiosity was the best proxy I could find, but since you didn't agree to that criterion we'll have to settle on another one before I can continue to search for countries in the data

[Anonymous No.15154801]

>>15154792
I just provided two examples.
Can you provide a robust data statistic set for any population of nihilistic atheists?

[Anonymous No.15154806]

>>15154801
>I just provided two examples.
you mean your schizophrenic rambling about lesbians who spawn litters of children to rape?
you sound like you're actually going off the rails. take a break

[Anonymous No.15154811]

>>15154795
>irreligiosity was the best proxy I could find
that's not a very good proxy, but we can go with that and see what we find out about your candidate populations, if there are any at all

[Anonymous No.15154813]

You're like an actor in a movie and when it ends the credits roll and you get a standing ovation for your part.

[Anonymous No.15154816]

>>15154811
I already did that, and mentioned that Israel has ~60% of their population be irreligious, yet have a fertility rate of 2.9, well above replacement
I wrote that here: >>15154739
to this you replied that they consider themselves "traditional" and thus are not to be included
in other words you rejected that proxy, hence why I'm asking for a new one so we can look at the populations with respect to that

[Anonymous No.15154817]

>>15154806
Can you provide an explanation for why so many christian nations and industrialized nations in general also have falling birth rates below replacement if it is religious rather than environmental factors causing the decline?

[Anonymous No.15154820]

Determinism is fated to be refuted.
You have free will but only because you are made to.

[Anonymous No.15154821]

>>15154816
>I already did that, and mentioned that Israel has ~60% of their population be irreligious, yet have a fertility rate of 2.9, well above replacement
and i've already shown that you are lying by conflating a bunch of different populations, and in any case, most israelis consider themselves "traditional" and reject nihilism. try again

[Anonymous No.15154823]

>>15154806
Rosie O'Donnell literally documented the process of organizing cruises and annual gathering so that fags and dykes can swap genetic material and make babies to rape in her documentary All Aboard! Rosie's Family Cruise, gay families are the largest growing demographic of families too ever since they let them start adopting kids.

[Anonymous No.15154824]

>>15154821
I don't recall ever having lied about anything, and you haven't replied to anything I've written previously with anything of the sort
Israel is the only population I've mentioned as a candidate so far
>most israelis consider themselves "traditional" and reject nihilism
yes, you already mentioned this, hence why we can't use irreligiosity as a proxy
thus we need to define what a "nihilistic population" is by a different proxy if we are to proceed, because I can't give you any example of a nihilistic population if we don't have any set criterion for what populations are included in that term

[Anonymous No.15154825]

>>15154821
>lying by conflating a bunch of different populations,
No that is how statistic work, they collect them by nations which tend to consist of a bunch of different populations rather than a monoculture.

[Anonymous No.15154827]

>>15154824
>Israel is the only population I've mentioned as a candidate so far
and i've just refuted it. try again

[Anonymous No.15154831]

>>15154825
>that is how statistic work
you are clearly mentally ill. ~2.9 is the fertility rate for the entire population, not for the atheist population of israel

[Anonymous No.15154832]

>>15154827
Your style of arguing without facts or figures has refuted the existence of nihilistic atheists at all.

[Anonymous No.15154834]

>>15154827
>just refuted it
yes, I'm aware you rejected irreligiosity as a proxy
that's why we have to find a different one, so that I can look at the data with respect to this
do you have a definition of "nihilistic population" I can use?
alternatively a list of nihilistic populations so I can check against it

[Anonymous No.15154837]

>>15154831
I'm the one who mentioned Israel, anon
not them
these are my posts:
>>15154666
>>15154684
>>15154739
>>15154782
>>15154795
>>15154816
>>15154824
>>15154834

[Anonymous No.15154840]

>>15154827
Was the before or after you failed to explain why most religious populations are also experiencing birth rate collapse?

[Anonymous No.15154841]

>>15154832
>>15154834
>>15154837
this is what profound mental illness looks like. no wonder you can't breed

[Anonymous No.15154850]

>>15154841
I don't really see anything mentally ill in what I've posted, seems like straightforward inquiry to me
what exactly have I said that was "mentally ill" in your view?

[Anonymous No.15154852]

>>15154841
Show me one statistical agency that collects or reports"nihilistic atheist" statistics.

[Anonymous No.15154853]

>>15154850
simply take your meds

[Anonymous No.15154854]

>>15154853
Take some statistics classes and you won't find basic statistics to be so crazy.

[Anonymous No.15154858]

>>15154853
I'm not on any medications
I don't really see what this is about
I'm only asking what qualifies as a "nihilistic population" because you asked me to provide you with a nihilistic population with a fertility rate above the replacement rate, that seems like a straightforward question to me
I naturally can't give you any example if I don't know what qualifies as such in the first place

[Anonymous No.15154861]

>>15154852
see >>15154853
your levels of desperation are stunning. your ~2.9 fretility for israel comes from orthodox jews, with a rate of 6.6, and muslims, with a rate of 5.5. in any case, it's absolutely clear that israelis aren't nihilistic redditors like you, since a majority of them identify as "traditional". try again

[Anonymous No.15154864]

>>15154861
you're replying to the wrong person again, anon
they never mentioned Israel, I was the one who mentioned Israel
see the list of posts I provided here: >>15154837

[Anonymous No.15154865]

>>15154854
>>15154858
see >>15154861 and then contemplate why you're so mentally ill you keep samefagging like this

[Anonymous No.15154866]

>>15154853
Medication is a atheistic construct of modern science that has nothing to do with religion, advocating for the use of meds instead of prayer is a clear rejection of spirituality and religious ideals in favor of atheistic objectivity.

[Anonymous No.15154868]

>>15154864
i'm not replying to the wrong person because you're quite clearly not a person. in any case, i'm still waiting for someone to show me a nihilistic population that isn't getting culled :^)

[Anonymous No.15154869]

>>15154865
you're replying to two different people, anon
also, I acknowledged your point about Israel having a traditional population, thus that they don't count
that's why I'm asking for a new criterion, because I can't give any examples if we don't have any set criterion for what a "nihilistic population" is in the first place

[Anonymous No.15154870]

>>15154869
>that's why I'm asking for a new criterion
why do we need a new criterion? because the religiosity one only proves me right?

[Anonymous No.15154871]

>>15154868
Which will happen as soon as you prove such a thing exists when you >>15154852.

[Anonymous No.15154874]

>>15154870
>why do we need a new criterion?
because you rejected the previous one?
>because the religiosity one only proves me right?
no, by that criterion Israel would qualify
but you made a good point in that Israel has a traditional population despite being irreligious, so we have to scrap irreligiosity as a criterion due to that
hence we have to establish a new criterion for what counts as a "nihilistic population" to proceed

[Anonymous No.15154877]

>>15154874
>because you rejected the previous one?
why are you lying so desperately?

>by that criterion Israel would qualify
this is what serious mental illness looks like

[Anonymous No.15154879]

>>15154877
how is that a lie?
you pointed out that people in Israel have traditional views despite being irreligious, thus that they don't count as nihilistic
that's a great point, and I agree with you
thus we can't use irreligiosity as a proxy, because that would include Israel despite how they're not actually a "nihilistic population"
do you see what I mean?

[Anonymous No.15154881]

>>15154870
Your evidence only proves there is no such thing as nihilistic atheism since no such thing exists in population statistics.

You still can't explain why religious nations also have falling birth rates with many openly christian and muslim nations falling below replacement levels which is happening because the global population is being told that the world is overpopulated and they specifically shouldn't breed at replacement levels while also pumping the environment with toxins and encouraging lifestyles that reduce fertility.

[Anonymous No.15154882]

>>15154879
you are genuinely mentally ill. i don't know where we can go from here. you're not okay in the head

[Anonymous No.15154884]

>>15154882
You are right, atheist, he should medicate instead of pray because theology doesn't work in reality while pharmacology does.

[Anonymous No.15154885]

>>15154882
well, you already made that claim, but I still don't see how anything I've written can be construed as "mentally ill"
is it that strange to ask for a definition of "nihilistic population" when you ask me to provide you with examples of such that have fertility rates above the replacement rate?

[Anonymous No.15154886]

>>15154885
>I still don't see how anything I've written can be construed as "mentally ill"
for starters, you think that if you keep pretending that i didn't point out your false conflation of different populations, i will forget about it and let you deflect. that's not normal or rational even as an attempt at being a dishonest parasite

[Anonymous No.15154887]

>>15154885
Drugs are his only coping mechanism so recommending drugs is his goto for every time he is proven wrong and doesn't know how else to cope.

[Anonymous No.15154888]

>>15154886
>pretending that i didn't point out your false conflation of different populations, i will forget about it
but I fully acknowledged that and said it was a great point
that's why I'm asking for a different criterion instead

[Anonymous No.15154892]

>>15154888
lol. you seriously need to have your head checked

[Anonymous No.15154893]

>>15154888
You mean how you tried to conflate atheist as the only population experiencing birth rate decreases when that is happening all over the globe to all populations and atheism is the fastest growing demographic compared to all the other declining populations experiencing population collapse?

[Anonymous No.15154894]

>>15154892
I still don't see why asking about what criterion you think can be construed as a sign of mental illness
seems like straightforward inquiry to me, if someone were to ask me that I'd try to establish a reasonable criterion so that we could discuss the matter properly

[Anonymous No.15154897]

>>15154893
I never did that as far as I can remember
where did I do this?

[Anonymous No.15154899]

>>15154894
why would we need a different criterion? you've failed even by your own criterion. israel is not a singular population with respect to the criterion, so your ~2.9 figure is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15154903]

>>15154899
>why would we need a different criterion?
because by the previous criterion, Israel would be included due to its status as an irreligious population
>israel is not a singular population with respect to the criterion, so your ~2.9 figure is irrelevant
yes, I already acknowledged this point, it's a great and valid point, I absolutely agree
that means we can't use irreligiosity as a criterion, because by that criterion Israel would be included, but as you point out we need a criterion which excludes irreligious populations that are still traditionalist
until we can establish such a criterion we can't move forward

[Anonymous No.15154904]

>>15154903
>because by the previous criterion, Israel would be included due to its status as an irreligious population
israel is not a single population with respect to that criterion. you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15154906]

>>15154904
>israel is not a single population with respect to that criterion
yes, the data for irreligiosity in this case is grouped by nation, so it doesn't account for different populations within each nation
hence why I'm asking you for a different criterion, perhaps one that accounts for different subpopulations or something similar, whatever you think is correct

[Anonymous No.15154907]

>>15154904
No nation is made of single population and statistics are collected by nation which is why your question is ridiculous. Take some classes, learn statistics then come back when you have ideas that aren't based only in how your dad forced your religion on you.

[Anonymous No.15154910]

>>15154906
>it doesn't account for different populations
then your data doesn't help your case. try again. i don't know what mental illness compels you to keep trying this

[Anonymous No.15154913]

>>15154910
>then your data doesn't help your case
yes, indeed, that's exactly what I'm saying, i.e. I acknowledge that your point about different subpopulations is a good and valid point
>try again
yes, that's what I'm looking to do, i.e. go over the data with a new criterion instead
I can't do this, however, without an actual valid criterion to go by for determining what counts as a "nihilistic population"
do you see what I mean?

[Anonymous No.15154914]

>>15154910
Show me one statistic organization that documents nihlistic atheist statistics, then if its such a common metric.

[Anonymous No.15154915]

>>15154913
you can't find any data that supports your delusion with your own criterion, so now you're begging me to change it. lol

[Anonymous No.15154916]

>>15154915
>with your own criterion
we've already established that this criterion doesn't work due to the existence of heterogenous subpopulations
that's why we have to find a new one

[Anonymous No.15154919]

>>15154916
>we've already established that this criterion doesn't work
why? because you can't find data that supports your delusion?

[Anonymous No.15154921]

>>15154919
>why?
because it's grouped by nations
by that criterion, Israel is an irreligious nation
as you've pointed out, a good and valid point indeed, this doesn't reflect the reality of Israel's heterogenous subpopulation, where even irreligious people can be traditional, and thus not nihilistic
hence a new criterion is necessary

[Anonymous No.15154922]

>>15154921
>because it's grouped by nations
not my problem. find better data

[Anonymous No.15154927]

>>15154922
that's exactly what I'm asking you about, because I can't find any good data giving any good proxy of being a "nihilistic atheist population" that accounts for subpopulations
since you're positing that there is a correlation between such populations and fertility rates below replacement level, I would assume that you have such data to use as a criterion, hence why I'm asking you to provide it (since the criterion I used, "irreligiosity by nation", is invalid, as you correctly point out)

[Anonymous No.15154928]

>>15154927
>I can't find any good data
not my problem

[Anonymous No.15154929]

>>15154928
but...you were the one claiming the correlation to exist in the first place, were you not?
pardon me, I assumed you were basing that claim on data, and that it wasn't simply conjecture

[Anonymous No.15154932]

>>15154929
>you were the one claiming the correlation to exist in the first place
yes, and your own criterion and data confirm this, because the only exception you could find is one that conflates the secular population with a slightly smaller religious population with an insane fertility rate of 6.6

[Anonymous No.15154933]

>>15154928
So you aren't basing your opinion on data, there is no good data and all your information is based on bad data?

[Anonymous No.15154935]

>>15154932
>your own criterion and data confirm this
no, the criterion I used would imply that Israel would qualify, since it's considered an irreligious population with a positive fertility rate
as you pointed out, this isn't a good criterion at all, due to the heterogeneity of the population
hence a new criterion is necessary, i.e. different data
since you made the claim in the first place, I had assumed that you were basing it on some data that you could provide, and that you weren't just putting a conjecture out there, my bad for getting confused by this

[Anonymous No.15154938]

>>15154935
it's stunning how mentally and morally deformed you are

[Anonymous No.15154942]

>>15154938
how so?
I don't see how anything I just wrote is out of place for the discussion at all
but in any case, I believe we've cleared up the confusion now anyway, i.e. that I was under the false impression that you were basing your claim on data, rather than it being conjecture
again, my apologies for the confusion brought on by this

[Anonymous No.15154943]

>>15154942
>how so?
because your data and criterion err in your favor, and despite this, you still only managed to find one exception to my rule, which falls apart as soon as it's examined more closely. it honestly baffles me what makes someone develop into a vile degen like you

[Anonymous No.15154947]

>>15154943
I only provided the most striking example that stood out from the data
in any case, we've established that using that data doesn't work in this case, since it fails to account for subpopulations
this would naturally affect all other nations as well, so there could then be false negatives all over that data
hence why it's best to simply throw that data out and go by some other data
I can't find any such data, and since you weren't basing your original claim on any data either, I guess we'll have to conclude for now that there's insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the conjecture

[Anonymous No.15154950]

>>15154947
>I only provided the most striking example
the only striking thing about that example is the muslim and orthodox jew populations having fertiltiy rates so high they offset everyone else. do you have anything else?

[Anonymous No.15154953]

>>15152171
Read The Law of Plato.

[Anonymous No.15154964]

>>15154950
I meant striking as per that data itself
that data doesn't say anything about subpopulations
also, what data are you basing the claim you just made about the subpopulation fertility rates on?
and no, I've already mentioned that I can't find any data other than this that would serve as a good criterion, which is why I were asking you for the data I thought you were basing your claim on

[Anonymous No.15154967]

>>15154964
do you have any examples besides israel, which doesn't support your point?

[Anonymous No.15154969]

>>15154967
what's the point of going through bad data for examples when we've established the criterion to be faulty?
due to the point about heterogenous subpopulations, there would likely be false negatives and positives all over the place

[Anonymous No.15154974]

>>15154969
>what's the point of going through bad data
because i would concede that your data weakens my position and that the burden of proof is on me if you managed to provide a few more examples that aren't as trivial to refute

[Anonymous No.15154984]

>>15154974
I don't really see how that makes sense when all nations are likely to have heterogenous subpopulations
there would also be false negatives that would be hard to spot without knowledge of such subpopulations, i.e. nations with a low degree of irreligiosity and high fertility rates where a small and irreligious minority were responsible for those high birth rates
if we are going to start cherry-picking nations and give arbitrary ad hoc refutations for only a select few we would no longer be doing good science

[Anonymous No.15154986]

>>15154984
see? you don't have anything. you will keep going in circles and deflecting because despite rigging it in your favor in every way, you couldn't provide a single counter-example. vile parasite, as i said from the start

[Anonymous No.15154995]

>>15154986
I believe I already mentioned that I only went through the data until I found the most striking example, which was Israel
then you made the point about heterogenous subpopulations invalidating the data, and after that I don't see the point of continuing to use flawed data
so yes, as I already pointed out, I'm left without any valid criterion to use at all, and thus cannot disprove your conjecture due to that (in the same way that you cannot prove your own conjecture either, also due to a lack of a basis in data)

[Anonymous No.15154998]

>>15154995
compare and contrast your desperate jewish pleading and bargaining, to my allowing you to rig the discussion it in your favor and still lose. this is the difference between a position rooted in a dysgenic ideology and one rooted in reality

[Anonymous No.15155001]

>>15154995
compare and contrast your desperate jewish pleading and bargaining, with my allowing you to rig the discussion it in your favor and still BTFOing you. this is the difference between a position rooted in a dysgenic ideology and one rooted in reality

[Anonymous No.15155003]

>>15155001
once again I fail to see how these personal attacks contribute meaningfully to what is being discussed
also, we weren't "rigging" anything, I simply agreed that the point about heterogenous populations invalidates the data, as per your excellent point
continuing to go through bad data would be meaningless
that's why I asked you for whatever data I thought you were using, but we've cleared that confusion up by now, i.e. I didn't realize you were simply stating a conjecture

[Anonymous No.15155004]

>>15155003
>I fail to see
it doesn't matter. anyone with eyes to see, who cares to look, will see it immediately

[Anonymous No.15155005]

>>15155004
people will see immediately how personal attacks contribute to the discussion?
or see the purported truth of your conjecture?

[Anonymous No.15155032]

>>15152295
Ideology is not hereditary, determinism and atheism has nothing to do with birth rates, birth rates are plummeting across the globe, it is not isolated to one set of beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15155039]

>>15155001
>with my allowing you to rig the discussion
But you didn't you do that at all, you completely dismissed the data he had and introduced some other tangential data that you can't even prove and just ended up calling bad data when challenged.

[Anonymous No.15155050]

>>15152255
Perhaps it's their fate.. eheh

[Anonymous No.15155056]

>>15155032
>>15155039
>being this desperate

[Anonymous No.15155064]

>>15155056
Ideology is not hereditary, though, you are creating false connections where connections do not exist.

[Anonymous No.15155068]

>>15155056
>I will rig the votes for you
>Your votes don't count

[Anonymous No.15155070]

>>15155064
>Ideology is not hereditary
Show me where I claimed ideology was hereditary.

[Anonymous No.15155079]

>>15155070
When you tried to make that connection between rates of birth and rates of ideological spread, but ideology doesn't spread by birth. Birth rates have gone down in the developed world because people are able to keep a closer eye on their hormone crazed teenagers so they don't get knocked up.

[Anonymous No.15155080]

>>15155079
So you can't show me where I said ideology was hereditary?

[Anonymous No.15155087]

>>15155080
>>15152295
This post tried to make some connection between birth rates and ideology, but the two are not related, ideology is not hereditary, so justifying countries' birth rates in relation to the national ideology is an incongruity, you are hallucinating.

[Anonymous No.15155091]

>>15155087
>This post tried to make some connection between birth rates and ideology
Show me what part of that post says ideology is hereditary.

[Anonymous No.15155098]

>>15155091
Show me where I said you said that.
I effectively said that for you post to be congruent ideology would have to be hereditary, but it is not, your post is nonsense based on some connection you have imagined between ideology and birth rate.

[Anonymous No.15155102]

>>15155098
Glad we have it settled that I never claimed ideology was hereditary.

[Anonymous No.15155106]

>>15155102
Glad you conceded that your attempt to connect the two was delusional while proving you can't show me where I said you said ideology was hereditary.

[Anonymous No.15155113]

>>15155106
You can froth at the mouth and screech that until you die from a stroke. Meanwhile your population will continue to shrink exponentially while Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, the Amish etc. continue to breed. Case closed. Further posts from you automatically hidden.

[Anonymous No.15155120]

>>15155113
Keeping coping until the day you blow out your heart from all that unnecessary rage (and don't actually explain the hate you spread in all your posts to any god because the universe doesn't care how mad you are or who you hate) while pretending like all your precious religions won't keep lose the same amount of their population to other ideologies over time at an ever increasing rate since ideology is not hereditary and your continually attempts to connect the two when you know they aren't connected just makes everyone else feel sorry for you and your poor conceptualization abilities.

[Anonymous No.15155151]

>>15155113
I don't know how anyone can deny that religious people are outbreeding everyone else, I thought that was pretty universally accepted. I don't really see the negative implications for me as an individual, though. I don't consider anyone "my population", and I'm definitely not going to breed no matter what, so why should I care? It's not like I will hover around after I'm dead and be angry about all the religious people who have taken over.

[Anonymous No.15155255]

>>15155151
>I don't know how anyone can deny that religious people are outbreeding everyone else,
Single moms are outbreeding each religion.

[Anonymous No.15156808]

>>15152171

[Anonymous No.15157107]

>>15156808
if we're truly doomed to repeat all this horrible stuff then it's over.

[Anonymous No.15157118]

>>15155151
>I don't really see the negative implications for me as an individual, though.
But that's exactly my point. Nihilistic atheists don't see the negative implications of having their lineage and system of values erased, because "there's no heckin' implications for me as an individuarinoooooo cattle head", so they fail to breed under all but the most favorable conditions. It's a self-culling belief system that has no place in the world.

[Anonymous No.15157125]

>>15157118
But that's true. There aren't any negative implications for the individual. Why should I care about some delusional concept of "my lineage" or a "system of values"? Sounds like you're just coping with the fact that no one is going to give a shit about you or anything you ever said or did after you're dead to me. Sure, you can say that it's "self-culling" to stop breeding, but why should I give a shit? It doesn't matter to me at all.

[Anonymous No.15157126]

>>15157125
>But that's true. There aren't any negative implications for the individual.
Irrelevant circular reasoning.

> Why should I
Show me where I said anything about "shoulds". I'm just making the objective observation that people who are prone to your type of thinking are genetic dead ends, and insofar as it makes sense to talk about the evolution of ideas, your belief system is an evolutionary dead end as well.

[Anonymous No.15157138]

>>15157126
I don't think you understand what "circular reasoning" means. Circular reasoning would be saying that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because there aren't any negative implications for the individual. Fact of the matter here is that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because the individual ceases to experience anything once they're dead. And I'm not saying that you're implying that anyone "should" do anything, I'm just saying that the type of thinking I'm talking about is what's rational and intelligent, whereas breeding is not, it's typically based on delusions. Yes, religious people outbreed others massively because of those delusions, but there's nothing inherently good about that at all. And it doesn't make sense to talk about any "evolution of ideas" at all, understanding that you're better off not breeding is the pinnacle, after that there's not really much more to realize, anything else is just delusional cope, no matter how much you breed.

[Anonymous No.15157140]

>>15157138
>Circular reasoning would be saying that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because there aren't any negative implications for the individual
That is precisely what you're arguing. You're just not intelligent enough to see it, but it doesn't matter.

>it doesn't make sense to talk about any "evolution of ideas" at all
It makes a lot of sense. You're just not intelligent enough to see the parallels.

[Anonymous No.15157145]

>>15157140
No, it's not. I'm arguing that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because experience ceases upon death. That's the argument here. Seems like you're the one who isn't intelligent enough to see the difference, and who doesn't even understand what actual circular reasoning is. And no, it doesn't make sense to talk about any "evolution of ideas" at all, because once you understand the reality of the situation you've reached the end of thought, there's nowhere to go from there at all. Anything else is just delusional cope, which is exactly what religious people engage in, and why they keep breeding. Yes, that means the world will keep being populating by religious morons, and intelligent people will keep being genetic dead-ends. That's simply inherent to life itself.

[Anonymous No.15157150]

>>15157140
No, it's not. I'm arguing that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because experience ceases upon death. That's the argument here. Seems like you're the one who isn't intelligent enough to see the difference, and who doesn't even understand what actual circular reasoning is. And no, it doesn't make sense to talk about any "evolution of ideas" at all, because once you understand the reality of the situation you've reached the end of thought, there's nowhere to go from there at all. Anything else is just delusional cope, which is exactly what religious people engage in, and why they keep breeding. Yes, that means the world will keep being populated by religious morons, and intelligent people will keep being genetic dead-ends. That's simply inherent to life itself.

[Anonymous No.15157153]

>>15157118
life is not only worthless, but actually has negative value, under bad conditions. this is what theists commonly fail to grasp. being dead > suffering.

they then had to invent the fiction of hell so they could portray death to be worse than life.

[Anonymous No.15157154]

>>15157153
Spot on. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Anonymous No.15157169]

>>15157150
>I'm arguing that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because experience ceases upon death.
Which is a total nonsequitur and I'm reading any further. You are mind-bogglingly stupid but you agree with me that your worldview culls itself, which is all I care to argue.

[Anonymous No.15157170]

>>15157150
>I'm arguing that there aren't any negative implications for the individual because experience ceases upon death.
Which is a total nonsequitur that boil down to a thinly-veiled "it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to me", which is circular reasoning at the core. Not reading any further. You are mind-bogglingly stupid but you agree with me that your worldview culls itself, which was all I cared to argue.

[Anonymous No.15157174]

>>15157170
No, that's not a non sequitur at all; another term you clearly don't know the meaning of. There not being any negative implications of not breeding for the individual clearly follows from the fact that experience ceases upon death. The argument isn't "it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to me", it's "it doesn't matter to me because I'll be dead", and anything else is just delusional cope. Seething and coping by yelling "muh stoopid" is just a projection on your part, you're the one who clearly isn't intelligent enough to see something that simple. But yes, I do agree that the most rational and intelligent people cull themselves, and only the dumbest and most religious people breed enough to keep population growth going. Glad you see that, at least.

[Anonymous No.15157176]

>>15157174
Don't care. Didn't read. So long as you concede that your worldview culls itself, we're good.

[Anonymous No.15157234]

>>15152195
why exclude video games. they are wonderful to achieve the flow state.

[Anonymous No.15157237]

>>15152171
Universe isn't deterministic. It's quite predictable, but still random at the core. We can predict outcomes, but it becomes a lot harder with bigger systems and the random nature introduces deviations

[Anonymous No.15157271]

>>15157237
>Universe isn't deterministic
it is though. qm isn't fundamental

[Anonymous No.15157275]

>>15157271
>it is though
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.15157281]

>>15157176
Thanks for conceding.

[Anonymous No.15157284]

>>15157271
If qm isn't fundamental, what is?

[Anonymous No.15157297]

>>15157275
the nonexistence of counterfactual worlds proves determinism. saying they're real is equivalent to saying unicorns are real.

[Anonymous No.15157300]

>>15157284
superdeterminism (aka determinism)

[Anonymous No.15157339]

>>15157237
>>15157300
false and false
reality is neither random nor deterministic

>While a complete set of laws would amount to a complete deterministic history of the universe, calling the universe "completely deterministic" amounts to asserting the existence of prior determinative constraints. But this is a logical absurdity, since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it (by the containment principle). It follows that the universe freely determines its own constraints, the establishment of nomology and the creation of its physical (observable) content being effectively simultaneous and recursive. The incoversive distribution of this relationship is the basis of free will, by virtue of which the universe is freely created by sentient agents existing within it.

>According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self-contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."

[Anonymous No.15157352]

>>15157297
>the nonexistence of counterfactual worlds proves determinism
Psychotic word salad. Try saying something that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.15157365]

>>15157339
oh great, a langantard.

>since if these constraints were real, they would be included in reality rather than prior or external to it
doesn't follow.

>rejects "prior determinative constraints"
>while asserting its own constraints ("Reality Principle", "UBT")

"self determinacy" would just be a type of determinism anyway. start with x, then everything follows from that x, necessarily. self/non-self distinctions are besides the point.

and as with any langian text, too much word salad garbage.

[Anonymous No.15157367]

>>15157281
Conceding what? You're clearly mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.15157368]

>>15157352
counterfactual worlds is a simple idea and it's pretty central in physics. you really should be familiar. it's anything which did not happen. e.g. me not making this post. prove these alternative worlds exist, and only then have you disproven determinism.

many worlds claims they exist but not in this universe, therefore there is no threat to determinism.

[Anonymous No.15157380]

>>15157368
>things that didn't happen didn't happen therefore muh heckin' determininoes
Mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15157383]

>>15157380
that's literally how it works. we are supposed to formulate theories in loyal accordance to exactly what we observe. amd guess what, we don't observe these imagined counterfactual worlds. we just fantasise about them. it's really that simple.

[Anonymous No.15157388]

>>15157383
You are legit psychotic.

[Anonymous No.15157391]

>>15157388
nice argument. you really deboonked me.

[Anonymous No.15157397]

>>15157391
>things that didn't happen didn't happen therefore muh heckin' determininoes
>you can't deboonkerino this!
I don't need to. I'm not your psychiatrist.

[Anonymous No.15157404]

>>15152171
Only way out is to take the schizo pill.
The /x/ view is that it's both true.
Fundmental building block of reality is consciousness and free will, the observable material universe is an emergent product of these two.

The materialistic universe is deterministic. But since it's much more than 4D with just a determined single timeline, there are infinite timelines dennoting all possibilties. Your inner states/free will determine which timeline you end up observering.
The movies are already filmed and set in stone, but you get to pick which one you watch.

[Anonymous No.15157407]

>>15157397
you still have no argument. you're just greentexting my own argument in a childish way. you won't discover even one the infinitely many counterfactual worlds necessary to disprove determinism. but maybe you're too stupid to realise that this is what it takes to disprove determinism in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15157411]

>>15157404
that's not both, that's some "free will infinite timelines" nonsense. a child's fantasy, not the real world we deal with.

[Anonymous No.15157412]

>>15157407
Argument against what? Your delusional mental illness? I wasn't trying to argue against it. The idea that I should debate overtly delusional "people" is itself mental illness.

[Anonymous No.15157421]

>>15157412
in the end i can only pity you for being determined to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.15157426]

>>15157421
According to your own worldview, your opinions are a mere happenstance independent of the truth and you couldn't change them even if they were wrong. lol

[Anonymous No.15157430]

>>15157426
>your opinions are a mere happenstance
yes.
>independent of the truth
no. my worldview just happens to agree with the truth. you weren't so lucky, i'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.15157432]

>>15157430
>yes.
That means it's independent from the truth. Discussion ends here.

[Anonymous No.15157443]

>>15157432
no it doesn't. what? lmao

[Anonymous No.15157448]

>>15157443
Your last post conclusively proves my point. Auto-hiding all further posts form you. You will respond again because you're a dumb nigger fresh off of reddit who doesn't understand what I mean by "auto-hiding".

[Anonymous No.15157449]

>>15157448
just note, you never explained your assertion

[Anonymous No.15157460]

>>15157367
You gave up, implicitly conceding the argument. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15157463]

>>15157460
>You gave up
Gave up on what? You agreed with me that your worldview is self-culling multiple times.

[Anonymous No.15157467]

>>15157463
Wrong, I didn't do that at all. I explained to you how that world-view emerges as a consequence of intelligence over and over again. It's only when you reach that point that you stop breeding. Thus thinking of the world-view as "self-culling" is incorrect. Thanks for playing, but you lose. BTFO!

[Anonymous No.15157470]

>>15157467
>it's not self-culltng
>it's just so heckin' smart that people who have it fail to breed
LOL. Auto-hiding all further posts from you.

[Anonymous No.15157473]

>>15157467
>it's not self-culltng
>it's just so heckin' smart that people who have it fail to breed
LOL. Auto-hiding all further posts from you. To confirm your lack of sentience, reply again and say something about "concessions".

[Anonymous No.15157474]

>>15157473
Indeed it's not self-culling, it emerges over and over again. Still getting BTFO. And smart people aren't failing to breed, they're choosing not to breed because they're intelligent enough to see that breeding is moronic.

[Anonymous No.15157487]

antinatalists should be put out of their misery whether they consent to it or not

[Anonymous No.15157496]

>>15157487
natalists should reincarnate as african child slaves, then we'll see if they still love life so blindly

[Anonymous No.15157497]

>>15157411
That is precisely both.
If consciousness is a product of physical matter, then you have no free will, no matter how you cut it. None of that quantum randomness will get you out of this bind.
If you have no free will, doesn't matter if it's a result of determinism or randomness, then human effort is meaningless. Afterall you are just an automaton whose decisions have already been made by your past and environment and your fate is already sealed, that or it's completely chaotic. What's the point of trying?
You know as much about the inner mechanics of the universe as a monkey does about vending machine. This absurd view that the self-evident free will does not exist is the one that's truly childish.

[Anonymous No.15157499]

>>15157496
Ironically Africa keeps outbreeding the rest of the world despite abysmal conditions, so the natalists are getting their wish, mountains upon mountains of African child slaves going through life suffering.

[Anonymous No.15157500]

>>15157496
reincarnation doesn't exist, schizo. there's no treatment for your mental illness. you should be euthanized

[Anonymous No.15157504]

>>15157499
there is no such thing as a "natalist". antinatalism is a clinical mental illness

[Anonymous No.15157505]

>>15157497
see my earlier posts about counterfactual worlds.

free will is the insistence that counterfactual worlds in which one chose differently are somehow real. this is just false. there is only one real world, this one.

[Anonymous No.15157508]

>>15157500
well done missing the point entirely

[Anonymous No.15157517]

>>15157508
what point? your views stem from mental illness. there is no genuine intellectual substance to them

[Anonymous No.15157519]

>>15157505
>free will is the insistence that counterfactual worlds/alternative timeline in which one chose differently are somehow real
>this is false
You know this conclusively from which experiment again?

[Anonymous No.15157522]

>>15157519
things that didn't happen didn't happen you fucking natalist retard!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.15157523]

>>15157504
Yes, people who believe life is a positive and ascribe a positive value to birth are natalists. Those people are totally deranged, completely delusional. The problem is just that this delusion has been biologically hard-wired into all lifeforms, because only organisms with this delusion will keep breeding. Humans are an extremely rare exception where our brains have developed so far that a select few with exceptional intelligence can see through how this works biologically, and make the rational decision not to procreate.

[Anonymous No.15157524]

>>15157523
>people who believe life is a positive and ascribe a positive value to birth are natalists
no, they're just normal, healthy people. you are mentally ill and your ideology is a symptom

[Anonymous No.15157525]

>>15157522
>Scientism™
Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.15157528]

>a select few with exceptional intelligence
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15157529]

>>15157517
point is, natalists speak from a position of privilege. they got lucky in life so they mistakenly assume the children will get lucky too.

and when their lives suck but they promote natalism nonetheless, that's just extreme retardation.

[Anonymous No.15157531]

>>15157519
from the obvious nonexistence of these alternatives. no experiment will find them or has ever found them.

"could have" is just empty words. there is only what which exists, and that which does not. "potential" is woo woo garbage.

[Anonymous No.15157532]

>>15157522
Wtf does natlist have anything to do with this logically.
You are projecting like a madman.

[Anonymous No.15157533]

>>15157524
>normal
Yes.
>healthy
Absolutely not. Totally deranged. An insane delusion hard-wired into them biologically to ensure reproduction. They are literally all mentally ill. My "ideology" is only a "symptom" of one thing: superior intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15157534]

>>15157529
there is no such thing as a "natalist". you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15157537]

>>15157533
>My "ideology" is only a "symptom" of one thing: superior intelligence.
Then how come the overwhelming majority of people who agree with you suffer from clinical mental illnesses like anxiety, depression and autism, have physical deformities, and rarely have an IQ over 115?

[Anonymous No.15157539]

>>15157534
yes there clearly is. people who believe procreation is universally good, irrespective of the circumstances

[Anonymous No.15157545]

>>15157539
>people who believe procreation is universally good, irrespective of the circumstances
basically nonexistent. you are mentally ill

[Anonymous No.15157548]

>>15157545
no, not nonexistent. fairly common. stop being dishonest

[Anonymous No.15157549]

>>15157537
Because "clinical mental illnesses" are the domain of the absolute horseshit quackery that is psychiatry. Of course intelligent people are depressed and anxious; they are literally surrounded by braindead morons. The claim about physical deformities is pure bullshit, not even remotely true. And the claim that antinatalists "rarely have an IQ over 115" is as wrong as you can possibly get it, antinatalists are the most intelligent people around, most generally have far higher IQs than 115 (mine was measured by Mensa to be above 140). Nice try; try again.

[Anonymous No.15157556]

>>15157531
>no scientific experiment has found them yet
True.
>obvious nonexistence of these alternatives >no experiment will ever find them
Again, you know this, how?
>there is only what which exists
Agreed, and free will is as self evident as the color of an apple to an everyday individual.
See, nobody is dumb enough to tell people a red fruit aren't red. Yet here you are, autists like yourself trying to convince others the very faculty they use in their everyday life is "woo woo garbage".
Truly, I feel silly already.

[Anonymous No.15157558]

>>15157549
>Because "clinical mental illnesses" are the domain of the absolute horseshit quackery that is psychiatry.
Right, I forgot. The reason you have autism, depression, social retardation and constant anxiety is also your astronomical IQ 115, and the profound insight that comes with it. :^)

[Anonymous No.15157560]

>>15157558
It's not that you "forgot" anything, you're just way too dumb to understand it; I mean way, way too dumb. Yes, psychiatry is braindead quackery, only total morons, such as yourself, ascribe any value to it. Yes, of course intelligent people are depressed and anxious, seeing as they're not just surrounded by retarded idiots like you, but also constantly recognize life for the gruesome thresher it really is, just biology endlessly perpetuating itself and its own suffering through programs optimized exclusively for survival and reproduction. Also, my IQ is beyond 140, it's not 115; try turning on your brain, maybe you'll manage to read simple sentences. I believe in you.

[Anonymous No.15157567]

>>15157556
>you know this, how?
not observable = nonexistent.

[Anonymous No.15157573]

>>15157567
>not observable = nonexistent
That's not science you dumb dumb.
Not observable = we don't know
But again, you know what IS observable right in front of your own and everybody's eyes?
Free will.

[Anonymous No.15157581]

>>15157573
no, it is perfectly scientific to assert the nonexistence of x, if x is never observed.

>we observe free will
no we don't. you don't observe yourself having done differently.

[Anonymous No.15157584]

>>15157365
>a langantard
Langan is a genius
>doesn't follow
yep, it does
for constraints to be real they have to be contained by reality
otherwise you're just redefining reality to have to include those external constraints, but then you end up with the exact same situations: the constrains contained within reality
reality by definition is the most inclusive domain, anything that exists is contained within reality, so that means that any constraints upon reality must be included within reality itself, and can't be external to it
not very hard to understand
>>rejects "prior determinative constraints"
correct, no such thing exists, literally a metaphysical impossibility
>>while asserting its own constraints ("Reality Principle", "UBT")
the reality principle isn't a constraint, it's simply a metalogical consequence of what it means for something to be real, it's true by definition
UBT is not a constraint either, that's the completely unbounded state of limitless potential, it's quite literally the opposite of constraint
you really couldn't get it more wrong if you tried, could you?
>"self determinacy" would just be a type of determinism anyway
wrong, determinism is the notion of everything being determined causally by previous causes in one big chain
self-determinacy is more accurately identified as choice, i.e. free will
it's absolutely not "start with x, then everything follow from that x" at all, it's rather "everything is spontaneously selected for existence, and any idea of a "past" is recontextualized in terms of this new spontaneous generation
it should be simple to understand the difference: determinism thinks of reality as some sort of complex Rube Goldberg machine, where everything follows from something in the past, but reality is rather generated in the present moment, and the past flows out from the present moment like the wake of a ship, or an echo
>too much word salad garbage
well, that's one way of admitting that you're not very smart

[Anonymous No.15157597]

>>15157581
>it is perfectly scientific to assert the nonexistence of x, if x is never observed
To assume, not assert.
Only way to assert is through direct observation to the contrary.
>no we don't. you don't observe yourself having done differently.
Whether one observes an alternate reality have nothing to do with free will.
Free will is an observable fact. Alternate reality is just one theory to explain this fact and the deterministic universe.

[Anonymous No.15157645]

>>15157584
there is nothing impossible about constraints. in fact without constraints, you will never explain the universe we observe. chalking it all up to "free will" is not an explanation. it's just laziness. that also doesn't account for the evolution all the non-sentient systems like the weather and planets, which have no will whatsoever.

you are denying that self-determinacy is determinism when it clearly is. it's in the name. the future follows from the past just the same. if you are arguing for spontaneous creation of the future, that is indeterminism, not determinism. and indeterminism is false because it entails the temporal generation of something from nothing.

i bet you argue that transgender men will never be women. but in the next breath you talk about limitless potential and no constraints. so which is it? no, really, these two ideas are in contradiction. i like to pose this example against langians. if transgender men could truly determine themselves with no limits, they would become actual women, not merely facsimiles of women.

[Anonymous No.15157662]

>>15157645
>nothing impossible about constraints
no one said that
try reading more carefully
what's impossible is prior determinative constraints, not constraints themselves
the point is that reality selects its own constraints, that's the way it entelechially refines itself from the state of limitless potential
again:

>According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self-contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
>without constraints, you will never explain the universe we observe
what I've explained to you is the only way to explain not just the universe we observe, but the metaphysics that underlie it and give rise to it
>chalking it all up to "free will" is not an explanation
it's the inevitable conclusion once you understand the metaphysics of it, not explanation itself
try actually reading what I write for the explanation
>denying that self-determinacy is determinism
correct, couldn't be more different, literally diametric opposites
>it's in the name
yes, just as "car" and "carpet" must mean roughly the same thing, right?
retard alert
>the future follows from the past
wrong
the past flows out from the spontaneously generated future
>if you are arguing for spontaneous creation of the future
wrong again
spontaneous generation of the present
the future is just a concept, just as the past is only a memory
>that is indeterminism, not determinism
it's neither
it's the third option to that false dichotomy: choice
i.e. free will, self-determinacy

[Anonymous No.15157663]

>>15157597
whichever word you want to use. i am totally justified to assume there is no free will just as i would be to say that there are no unicorns.

>Whether one observes an alternate reality have nothing to do with free will.

it has everything to do with free will. "you could have chosen differently" is invoking a counterfactual reality. and if you say those words, the onus is on you to show that world is ontic, not just a fantasy.

the only way around this is if you want to provide some other definition of free will. such as the weaker compatibilist definition: "my will is free because i can do what i want to do"

[Anonymous No.15157669]

>>15157645
>transgender men will never be women
it's possible, but it would require technology far more advanced than we have today
the idea is explored in series such as e.g. The Culture series by Banks, where people can freely switch biological sex whenever they want to
>in the next breath you talk about limitless potential and no constraints
correct, but that applies to reality as a whole, not to subparts of reality
maybe your parents didn't clue you in, but you're actually not all that exists
you have very definite constraints put in place by the larger reality
yes, we could easily overcome these constraints if we truly wanted to, but the entire point of reality is to have the constraints in place
when you play a game of chess, you don't suddenly flip the board over and pound your chest like a gorilla (well, maybe you would, you're not that bright after all), you put the rules of the game in place for a reason
however, those rules can be changed at any time, but we need to collectively agree on the rules for that to happen
so the fact that you like to pose that example just makes it clear that you have an extremely poor understanding of how reality works
>The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.

[Anonymous No.15157672]

>>15157662
so under the langian model, we start with everything and just spontaneously refine into this world we observe. that hasn't explained anything. it's just stating "we began with everything then it got narrowed down". how? no mechanism is given.

>the past flows out from the spontaneously generated future
you're splitting hairs now. the point is that you're arguing for spontaneous generation of some kind. this is indeterministic because you're saying now that the present is emerging from nothing. it is determined by nothing. something from nothing is a contradiction.


>the future is just a concept
no it isn't. it's a real thing. it's almost oxymoronic to have typed this statement out. that the future is real and arrives, is the reason you were even able to type anything out.

you didn't address nonsentient systems or the transgender problem i posed to you.

[Anonymous No.15157681]

>>15157669
you want to have your cake and eat it too. you want to make the langian model personal as it concerns freedom of human will, but suddenly now it's impersonal so it can evade having to explain real life constraints.

>could easily overcome these constraints if we truly wanted to
so i can just suddenly feathery sprout wings and fly right now? really now?

now you're talking about idealism. that is a whole other can of worms. idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis. untestable and unprovable outside of 'waking up' from that simulation after death.

[Anonymous No.15157687]

>>15157672
>under the langian model
I mean, his "model" is just a description of reality
plenty of metaphysical traditions throughout the ages have described it, he just puts it into more Western technical and scientific terminology
>we start with everything
no, UBT is quite literally nothing, the diametric opposite of everything
it's pure potentiality, devoid of any actuality
>spontaneously refine into this world we observe
this part is true, reality selects itself for existence out of this infinite potentiality by placing constraints upon itself, thus eliminating the paradoxes inherent to pure potential
>that hasn't explained anything
it quite literally explains everything, it's an accurate description of exactly how reality works
>no mechanism is given
see, that's your problem, you're still stuck in determinism
see that word you're using, "mechanism"?
yeah, that's a vestige of deterministic thought, thinking that one thing causes another, and so on
in reality there is no such thing as a mechanism, all apparent mechanisms are just temporary constructs set in place by temporary laws of physics collectively agreed upon in order to explore the limitless potential of the eternal source of it all (the UBT)
>splitting hairs now
no, it's an extremely important distinction
reality is generated spontaneously in the present, and the past flows out from this like a wake or echo
it's not caused by past states, which in turn are caused by more past states
>this is indeterministic
wrong
still the same false dichotomy
it's self-determined, i.e. chosen
>the present is emerging from nothing
yes, but not in an indeterministic fashion
it emerges in a self-determined fashion, it's chosen
>it is determined by nothing
wrong, reality determines itself
>no it isn't
it absolutely is, the future is just an idea
>it's a real thing
it's only "real" insofar that a thought is real, and your imagination is real
>the future is real and arrives
hilarious misconception, not how it works at all

[Anonymous No.15157691]

>>15157663
>i am totally justified to assume there is no free will
No you are not.
That was talking about alternate reality, not free will.
Nobody is justified in assuming there is no free will. The whole Scientism argument against free will is a mental gymnastics of epic proportion. There are two observable fact A and B. Instead of coming up with a better theory to incorporate both typical "scientists" decides to gymnastic away one of the fact so their theory stay intact.
>Whether one observes an alternate reality have nothing to do with free will.
>it has everything to do with free will. "you could have chosen differently" is invoking a counterfactual reality
Look, I'm just going to ask you a very simple question.
If you decide not to study and fails your test, is it your fault for not studying or is it because the universe since big bang pre-determined you would not study.

[Anonymous No.15157699]

>>15157681
>you want to have your cake and eat it too
I'm just explaining how reality works
>want to make the langian model personal as it concerns freedom of human will, but suddenly now it's impersonal so it can evade having to explain real life constraints
Langan very explicitly points out all the various levels of sentience contained within reality
only at the top level, reality itself, can there be no external constraints, since it's the most inclusive domain
for all lower levels there can absolutely be constraints
however, note that these constraints are shaped by the collective will of the sentient agents making up reality, which is why physical laws are simply temporary constructs, and how we make up "technology" to alter the constraints whenever we like
>i can just suddenly feathery sprout wings and fly right now? really now?
if the sentient agents inhabiting reality were to collectively select upon some "story" or "laws of physics" allowing such thing to occur, yes, but that's unlikely to happen
more likely would be cybernetic wings fulfilling the same purpose, since we've settled upon technology rather than magic as the way of having more definite constraints in place for now
>talking about idealism
objective idealism is true, yes
>whole other can of worms
no, it's the exact same description, Langan is just more precise than most idealist authors
>idealism is just a type of simulation hypothesis
objective idealism can be seen as self-simulation, which goes far beyond standard simulation theory
Langan has written extensively about this:
https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/867/1477
the first excerpt I provided is from that paper
>untestable and unprovable
untestable, yes, because it's a metaphysical fact
you can only "test" the empirical, but what gives rise to the empirical in the first place can't be tested, it has to be rationally understood, and can't be understood in any other way
it's certainly not unprovable, as seen above

[Anonymous No.15157704]

>>15157687
ok so you're just arguing for indeterminism but refusing to call it indeterminism for some reason. i don't know what to say. you've now clearly admitted that you think the something (that is: the universe) comes from nothing. i don't know how you think that's defensible.

>it quite literally explains everything, it's an accurate description of exactly how reality works
explanation =/= description. anyone can describe what's happening, even a child. the sky is blue. blood is red. the challenge is to explain why we have this world over imagined alternatives. and i've yet to see the langian account succeed at that.

[Anonymous No.15157708]

>>15157691
>There are two observable fact A and B
what would those be?

>is it your fault for not studying or is it because the universe since big bang pre-determined you would not study.
obviously the latter.

[Anonymous No.15157713]

>>15157699
>we are under constraints
>but constraints are shaped by our wills
>and our wills are free

so really we should have no constraints. yet here we are, under constraints. so this idea doesn't work.

>but that's unlikely to happen
why? how would you know? and now you're saying we have to all agree on it like some council?

[Anonymous No.15157714]

>>15157704
>arguing for indeterminism
again, wrong
doesn't become less wrong no matter how much you repeat it
self-determinacy is not indeterminism
reality is determined through choice
>refusing to call it indeterminism for some reason
because it's not
you're the one repeating the false dichotomy between determinism and indeterminism, when the reality is self-determinacy, i.e. choice, free will
>you think
none of this has anything to do with what me or anyone else "thinks", they're simply provable and necessarily true metaphysical facts of reality
>something (that is: the universe) comes from nothing
yes, but "nothing" means just that, "no thing", because the state of limitless potential from which everything springs is not a thing, it's pure potential, devoid of actuality
it's far more accurate to describe this state as "emptiness" rather than "nothing", if that helps you understand it
>explanation =/= description
a description of the metaphysics behind which reality selects itself for existence is just that: an explanation
>why we have this world over imagined alternatives
already explained that in the very first post, and even repeated it
here it is again:
>According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self-contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
note particularly the last part:
>"existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
we have this world over imagined alternatives because we choose to, it's that simple

[Anonymous No.15157719]

>>15157708
>what would those be?
Humans have free will.
Universe is deterministic.
>obviously the latter.
You are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15157730]

>>15157713
>so really we should have no constraints
again, reality at large has no constraints
we, as subparts of reality, have constraints, i.e. the constraints selected by the larger reality, which in turn is collectively determined
again, think of the chess board: you aren't actually constrained to move the pieces according to the rules of chess, you can pick up your king and throw it at your opponent's face or stick it up your butt if you so desire
alternatively you can both agree to play by the rules you've made up (the constraints) in order to explore the possibilities inherent to those constraints
this is also quite clear from not just the numerous variants of games similar to chess, and games in general, but also how games often undergo rules changes throughout their history (e.g. the queen in chess used to move like a king, and was one of the worst pieces, but now is the strongest piece on the board)
>why? how would you know?
I'm talking about the selections likely to occur in the present
over the course of eternity there is sure to be angelic beings with human form and feathery wings flying around, especially when operating under more magic-like constraints rather than technological ones (although the combination of the two is a lot more interesting if you ask me)
>we have to all agree on it like some council?
not exactly how it works either, because it has to do with creating a plausible story for it, the past has to be properly recontextualized in the present, that's part of the overall constraints we have put in place
in other words, even if everyone on Earth sat down and told themselves they'd grow angel wings tomorrow, it probably wouldn't happen, because they wouldn't have made sense of it or properly recontextualized the past for it to be a coherent "story"
on the other hand, the moment people envision how something could be achieved through technology (in our case), it rarely takes long before it "manifests"
that's why science-fiction is powerful

[Anonymous No.15157731]

>>15157714
this is the most severe form of the disease that is 'agency ascription'. you're labelling everything as a choice, down to the exact coordinates of every grain of sand. it is absurd, and more importantly, doesn't explain reality over imagined alternatives. under your "we chose it" model, you could have any outcome and just slap that on as an answer. it isn't very illuminating.

[Anonymous No.15157736]

>>15157719
where is your free will? i certainly don't have any.

define free will. i have my preferred definition (libertarian definition), but maybe yours differs. if you can't define it, then there's no point in having this discussion.

[Anonymous No.15157739]

>>15157731
>agency ascription
yes, all sentient beings have agency, that is correct
"disease" would be failing to understand that fact
>labelling everything as a choice, down to the exact coordinates of every grain of sand
yes, for the larger reality that is correct, literally every single aspect of the entirety of reality is chosen freely by reality itself
>it is absurd
not really, it's just true, and not that hard to understand
>doesn't explain reality over imagined alternatives
yes, I just explained that
want me to paste it for the fourth time?
>According to the Reality Principle, the universe is self-contained, and according to infocognitive monism, it regresses to a realm of nil constraint (unbound telesis or UBT) from which it must refine itself. According to the Telic Principle, which states that the universe must provide itself with the means to do this, it must make and realize its own "choice to exist"; by reason of its absolute priority, this act of choice is identical to that which is chosen, i.e. the universe itself, and thus reflexive. I.e., "existence is everywhere the choice to exist."
reality is what it is rather than imagined alternatives because it chooses to be
very simple
>you could have any outcome
yes, everything is possible
again, the underlying state from which reality emerges is one of pure potentiality
it is literally limitless potential, all possibilities
understanding this and more precisely how reality refines itself from this is absolutely quite illuminating

[Anonymous No.15157744]

>>15157736
>where is your free will?
free will isn't located anywhere, it's a principle that pervades the entirety of reality
>i certainly don't have any
you do, all sentient beings have free will
>define free will
the ability to choose certain outcomes rather than others

[Anonymous No.15157757]

>>15157730
you are describing reality as if it's purely a group of humans, when it's a lot more than that. the vast majority of reality is devoid of humans.

so i can't grow wings and fly, because i'm not likely to grow wings and fly? that hasn't explained the constraint. why are you now talking about plausibility and sensibleness? these should not be factors if we are unconstrained.

just admit that we are constrained. you have partially done so, but are still clinging to some notion that we are somehow not constrained. that is false.

[Anonymous No.15157758]

>>15157736
>define free will. i have my preferred definition (libertarian definition)
What the other anon said for me.
Political definitions are too shallow for these sort of discussions. This is metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.15157768]

>>15157739
>reality is what it is rather than imagined alternatives because it chooses to be
and i say reality is what it is because of some unknown thing (call it x) which has forced everything to be how it is through mechanisms we dimly understand. i think my view has more support, in the form of the physics to chemistry to biology paradigm. in these fields, there is no talk of choice.

[Anonymous No.15157770]

>>15152171
>does anyone have an alternative theory?
no, or at least not yet

[Anonymous No.15157771]

>>15157758
this is a dodge. you can't have any discussion without agreeing on definitions. it is not political, it is a matter of requiring definitions to work with.

[Anonymous No.15157776]

>>15157744
seems like you're using the libertarian definition too, then. but it is better to phrase it as "could have chosen otherwise". and i reject that because it entails something from nothing.

"you could have chosen differently, based on nothing"

doesn't work. if you change the choice, that change must be paid for in a physical way.

[Anonymous No.15157783]

>>15157757
>you are describing reality as if it's purely a group of humans
wrong
that's exactly the fallacy I'm explaining to you
in reality there are countless hierarchies of sentient beings both above and below us
hence why it's not so simple to alter the constraints put in place on us, but we have the partial ability to do this, and certainly to find ways to generate what we choose to within the already existing constraints through proper recontextualization
>so i can't grow wings and fly, because i'm not likely to grow wings and fly?
you can't grow wings and fly because that wouldn't make sense relative to the constraints put in place on reality for now
>that hasn't explained the constraint
yes, it explains it perfectly well: it's a choice, but on a higher level than just a personal one
see the first excerpt I provided, where it is explained quite succinctly how reality is freely created by sentient agents existing within it
in other words we are, as the crystal-loving tree-hugging hippies might say, co-creating reality together
that is the most apt explanation I can think of to explain what you seem to not quite get
it's not that you alone can alter reality to your liking, nor can anyone else, but we literally co-create it together
>admit that we are constrained
I've already explained how we are constrained
it's just that those constraints are themselves freely chosen, and not prior determinative constraints (which are metaphysically impossible)
>>15157768
>i say reality is what it is because of some unknown thing (call it x) which has forced everything to be how it is through mechanisms we dimly understand
that is blatantly false, not even remotely correct
and again, there's no such thing as a "mechanism" either
what you describe here would be equivalent to something external to reality placing prior determinative constraints on it
this is quite literally metaphysically impossible
as explained quite clearly by now, reality determines itself fully

[Anonymous No.15157786]

>>15157771
>the ability to choose certain outcomes rather than other
How is that not a workable definition.
I don't want to get into politics because then people will argue if A then society B and that gets into a shallow discussion.
Not that such a discussion would be in your favor. The kind of societal collapse if people seriously entertain the disregard for free will is obvious to any that saw your answer to the studying question.

[Anonymous No.15157795]

>>15157783
explain how it's impossible. you're doing the same thing anyway. you're saying we "freely chose" to constrain ourselves in this way. so you're also appealing to an external constraint. calling it free doesn't make it any less of a constraint. you can say "but we could change it" but that doesn't actually change anything.

[Anonymous No.15157807]

>>15157786
you don't win the political argument. i could name many people more successful than you and i, who strongly reject free will. like sam harris, as an obvious example. but i don't play that game. i don't think belief in free will relates to societal wellbeing. in my view it's just a roulette whether you believe in free will or not, and has no bearing on your life outcome or that of your society.

[Anonymous No.15157816]

>>15157776
yes, free will is certainly completely incompatible with determinism
and no, it's not better to phrase it that way at all, it's much better to phrase it as the ability to choose certain outcomes rather than others
and no, that doesn't entail "something from nothing" unless you are comfortable with labeling the state of pure potentiality that reality refines itself from as "nothing" (which it technically is, but a more descriptive term would be "emptiness", or a variety of terms used by different metaphysical traditions, e.g. "Tao", "Eyn Sof", "Natura Naturans", "the absolute", "Dharmakaya", the "Ground", and so on)
>"you could have chosen differently, based on nothing"
this is falling into the same false dichotomy between determinism and randomness
choice is not based on "nothing", but based on what one wants
>>15157795
>explain how it's impossible
that's the very first thing I explained, and have repeated many times: reality is the most inclusive domain, so while subparts of reality can have higher parts of reality constrain them, reality itself can't have any external constraints, because these would have to be redefined as part of reality
it follows that reality itself can't have external constraints, it freely selects its own constraints
this is simply a metaphysically necessary truth about reality
>we "freely chose" to constrain ourselves in this way
reality itself freely chose to constrain itself in this way
we are only small subparts of reality
again, didn't your parents teach you that you're not the center of the universe?
we co-create reality, you can't create reality all on your own
>ou're also appealing to an external constraint
wrong
I've already explained this many times
subparts of reality can have external constraints, namely imposed by higher parts of reality
that's not a problem at all, because reality is hierarchical
but reality itself, at the highest level, is the most inclusive domain, nothing outside by definition, so it can't have

[Anonymous No.15157821]

>>15157816
>choice is not based on "nothing", but based on what one wants
i know. so you're just saying "you could have wanted something other than what you wanted, based on nothing." it's the same issue

[Anonymous No.15157840]

>>15157807
>i could name many people more successful than you and i, who strongly reject free will. like sam harris
What does that have to do with anything?
I can strongly virtual signal rejection to medicine too while getting cured of my illness.
The fact they are successful is because they excerised their free will responsibly, doesn't matter what they say.
The fact society will collpase if people seriously entertain disregarding free will is because people will no longer take care of excerise theirs responsibly.
These are all facts as obvious as day.

[Anonymous No.15157844]

>>15157840
Sam Harris is a total moron, an absolute dimwit.

[Anonymous No.15157856]

>>15157840
i reject those as being facts. i just brought that up because you started suggesting (and are still doing so) how disbelief in free will is unhealthy in some way. but clearly it isn't, when many people who reject free will live high quality, successful lives. again though, i don't think there's any correlation in any direction.

[Anonymous No.15157875]

>>15157844
I have no idea who that is but if he's more successful than you he did something right no?
>>15157856
Like I said, these societal discussions are shallow in the grand scheme of things.
The evidence of free will is the same as the evidence that sky is blue, direct observation.
I can snap my fingers anytime I want, period.

[Anonymous No.15157879]

>>15157875
>I can snap my fingers anytime I want, period.
do you define free will as "the ability to do what you want"? i don't.

[Anonymous No.15157892]

>>15157875
>he's more successful than you
He's literally the worst failure at life imaginable. I am incomparable more successful than he is.

[Anonymous No.15157895]

>>15157875
>he's more successful than you
He's literally the worst failure at life imaginable. I am incomparably more successful than he is.

[Anonymous No.15157907]

>>15157879
Yes that is how I or anybody else not playing gymnastics define it.
I can choose to stab the person next to me on the train anytime I want
I can choose to give alms to a homeless by the road anytime I want
I can choose to do a silly dance anytime I want
See how that works?

[Anonymous No.15157935]

>>15157907
ok, if you are using the definition i provided before, then we don't really have an issue. the issue i have is with the other definition of free will.

[Anonymous No.15158305]

>>15157821
Not that anon, but that sounds like the classic Schopenhauerian fallacy of "you can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will", and by that logic there isn't actually any free will at all, just determinism. I don't see how that can be possible, since determinism always leads to infinite regress. You'd have to trace back causes to some initial cause which exists "based on nothing" as per your phrasing.

[Anonymous No.15158354]

>>15158305
it doesn't lead to an infinite regress. i argue that it leads to a single brute fact (equivalent to 'god'). which yes, is in a sense based on nothing (it exists without prior reason), but this is not the same as the 'from nothing' which I took issue with earlier. i argue that this type is 'legal' because it concerns something outside of time. whereas, the type appealed to earlier (spontaneous decisions being made in spacetime) involves temporal events.

the universe as we know it had a beginning, and each decision also has its own beginning. i think that everything which has a beginning must also have a cause. so then, only that which has no beginning can in some sense be 'from nothing'

[Anonymous No.15158468]

>>15158354
From what I can see it clearly leads to infinite regress. You can't simply postulate your "single brute fact" by that logic, because this cause would be based on nothing, which you argue is nonsense. You even just said so yourself. Saying that it works because this initial cause is outside of time doesn't change anything, and from what I gathered you could say the same thing about the other anon's claims, with the decisions themselves being made outside of the spacetime on a continuous basis rather than an initial one. Consider the analogy of a computer: I'm not sure how much you know about how computers work, but when you boot a computer and don't give it any more input from that point on, it will simply run deterministically based on its configuration (let's assume it's not connected to the web and won't take input from anywhere else either); that seems to be analogous to your deterministic conception of reality, with the initial cause being the initial configuration of the computer. However, that still doesn't explain why the configuration was like that in the first place, nor why it started computing at that moment (for that you'd have to appeal to something external, in this case whoever configured it and turned it on). On the other hand, consider how you can give a computer input while it's on, non-deterministically altering its course of computation. This can occur on a continuous basis while the computer is on. This would essentially be the equivalent of having causes outside of the "spacetime" of the computer's computation, but on a running basis instead of just for the initial conditions. Of course, neither explains the same thing for reality as far as I can see, because whatever is causing the computation in the first place (the "initial cause" or the alterations to the computation (the "choices") would still be left unexplained, and it's difficult to see how you could ever explain that without infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.15158855]

>>15158468
all theories must accept at least one brute fact. it is impossible to formulate a theory with zero assumptions. it is necessary to postulate an uncaused thing if one wishes to avoid infinite regress. the buck must surely stop somewhere.

i don't agree with the computer analogy. modifying a computer isn't analogous to having atemporal causes, because both the computer and any person operating it are within spacetime. there aren't separate spacetimes for the computers and for us, we are sharing a single spacetime.

it isn't a priori false to postulate that each human decision is its own uncaused, brute fact. but in addition to the problem of describing something with a beginning as uncaused, this would result in a theory with countless assumptions, one for each and every human decision. i also can't see how it would entail freedom of will, since every decision "just is".

[Anonymous No.15158927]

>>15152255
Demonstrably false, particularly if you only look at the educated

[Anonymous No.15159068]

>>15152286
How about you get a tumor on your brain. It sure will change your consciousness. Tired of these /his/ losers coping about not having free will.

[Anonymous No.15159120]

>>15159068
a tumor in your brain would be a reflection of your change in consciousness, not the other way around
you've got it backwards
the brain is a representation inside of the mind, depicting the cognitive process itself

[Anonymous No.15159241]

>>15159120
You fucking idiot, that's not how it works. God damn tired of people denying the fucking obvious; Consciousness is totally reliant on physical properties because it is a result of physical properties. There's no shitty voodoo bullshit involved.

[Anonymous No.15159610]

>>15159241
>You fucking idiot, that's not how it works.
yes, that's exactly how it works
>God damn tired of people denying the fucking obvious; Consciousness is totally reliant on physical properties because it is a result of physical properties.
again, literally ass-backwards
what we call "physical properties" is totally reliant on consciousness, because they are a result of consciousness, and only exist inside of consciousness

[Anonymous No.15160242]

>>15159610
You're fucking stupid. Like consciousness can stop you from getting drunk because it's above it. You are dogshit and I hate you and your fucking kind

[Anonymous No.15160256]

>>15160242
based but unfortunately they'll never see the light. they'll continue believing in the fantastical until humanity dies out

[Anonymous No.15160370]

>>15160242
you still don't get it
becoming drunk is caused by consciousness in the first place
if consciousness is used to create the state of drunkenness (reflected in the mental representation phenomenologically as "drinking alcohol" or similar), then you are actively using consciousness to get drunk, not stopping yourself from being drunk
if you wanted to use consciousness to stop yourself from being drunk, you'd see the reflection of that in the representation as "sobering up"
this isn't very complicated
>>15160256
what they said is as unbased as possible, it's just total nonsense, putting the cart before the horse
there's nothing "fantastical" about consciousness being primary and fundamental, it's just the obvious truth that anyone can observe and figure out if they just think about it a little