470
Determinism (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

I know. The matrix (or any other metaphysical idealism for that matter) is an example of a situation where we cannot trust our perception for knowledge about the true nature of the universe (much like the allegory of the cave), although taken to the extreme. The epistemological and metaphysical aspects of Plato's cave are very much intertwined.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    But you're assuming, from what I'm reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I'm interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can't trust completely.

    As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It's the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: "... As far as we know."

    This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    Our senses and measurements (or are those the same thing, with one merely augmenting the other?) tell us that we live in a purely material universe. I'm not claiming that our senses are perfect or that science is over with every secret revealed, but questioning the validity of our observations on such a foundational level invokes questioning the validity of the worldview (metaphysical materialism) built on top of them. That's what I interpreted Mickey was on about in the meme.

    Donald is despairing about the inherent meaninglessness of a purely material universe, so I assume that Mickey, with his radical rejection of all that Donald says, represents at least some sort of metaphysical dualism or idealism which would allow for inherent cosmic meaning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    And I'm saying that not questioning your senses is unscientific. Questioning our observations, and retesting them, is the very foundation of scientific thinking.

    As for living in a purely material universe, how exactly would you test for something immaterial using material means? Would it look like weird unknown forces we can't explain or the results of tests looking different depending on if it's being observed or not?

    And also are we going to throw out human experience? Are we not part of the universe? So would not the immaterial things we imagine into existence also exist?

    Numbers aren't material but we treat them as real, and use them to study material things to understand them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I suppose I should've emphasized the "on such a foundational level" -part of that sentence. Questioning and refining observations is obviously of paramount importance, but that's only valid if we assume that deriving knowledge about the nature of reality is at all possible via our senses and observations.

    That's where the distinction between physics and metaphysics comes in. Metaphysics is philosophy and thus inherently unverifiable.

    The things we imagine do exist, as patterns of activity in our brains, emerging from the complexity of a whole bunch of neurons in brains and as part of societies. I said as much in a previous comment about emergent materialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Heh, for someone who has a poor view of philosophy you sure do subscribe to it a lot.

    You're fine with making an assumption, and that's ok, that's part of your philosophy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Care to explaing what "subscribing to philosophy" would even mean? If you instead meant to say a philosophy, then yes. I do have my own worldview, as I think every thinking being does. I apologize if I was unclear in my previous comment, I was commuting while I typed it and had to rush it a bit. The first paragraph was a response to the first paragraph of your preceding comment, the second one to the second and the third to the rest of it. I'll elaborate a bit:

    If we don't make the assumption that our senses and measurements could possibly derive information about the nature of the reality around us, then trying to do so (empirical science) would be quite insane in my opinion. Why would anybody seriously try to do something which they think is categorically impossible to do?

    If some physical phenomena is found which can only be explained via some sort of substance dualism or idealism, I'll let you know.

    weird unknown forces we can’t explain

    I assume you're referring to dark matter with this one. It's just an unsolved mystery. It sure would be interesting if it was ghosts, but we have no reason think so as of currently.

    the results of tests looking different depending on if it’s being observed or not

    How do you feel something without touching it and thus affecting it? To see something requires the object of observation to reflect or emit light. At small enough scales that will affect the object itself in a significant manner. Quantum physics sure is weird, but I don't see how that would be a reason to think that ideas could exist independently outside of a brain or similar material substrate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Is it not equally insane to completely trust your senses? We know how they can be tricked fairly easily. Like I said before, that's one of the reasons why real science always has the caveat of "as far as we know", unwritten at the end of every discovery.

    At the end of the day, you don't know, for sure, with 100% certainty, that you're not a brain in a jar. Or more statistically likely, a brain popping into existence after the universe ended and then popping out again. (An actual scientific theory backed up by the math which is wild). You simply don't. All of your existence could be a lie. You just have to make the best guess you can with what info you've got and hope you're correct. Science is very, very good at guessing within the parameters of the information we can observe, but it's always assuming what we are observing is true.

    It's like, you're, idk, sitting in a cave, and like, you're watching these shadows on this wall. You can't turn around and look at what is making these shadows, so you're doing your best at guessing, like, what the heck is actually making these shadows. Something like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    I never said completely. Sure it's fun to entertain such possibilities, but science doesn't bother with unverifiable claims. That's the realm of metaphysics, unless somebody clever or lucky finds an actual glitch in the Matrix which would allow the claim to be verifiable.

    Boltzman brain sure is an interesting concept. If I am one and you're a thought within it, then I must say that it's a bit funny that it popped into existense with the correct theories of thermodynamics and cosmology that explain the brains own existence. Also means that the universe has seen or will see every possible brainstate, nightmare and daydream, infinite beauty and horror. Oh yeah and we may as well be living in a Boltzmann galaxy that popped into existence in a similar manner. But alas, the relative improbability of our own (non-Boltzmann brain) existence is not proof against it. Same goes for the simulation hypothesis.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    So if you don't completely trust your senses, then you, in the end, agree with Mickey. Donald is freaking out because his viewpoint is that of total materialism and that everything has no value.

    Mickey points out that you cannot completely trust your senses and the information we get from those senses, so being upset over an intrinsically worthless universe is basing everything on that fallacy.

    You've been implying, and thus pretty easy to assume, that this implies the spiritual, what with starting this off saying that Occam's razor beats Plato's cave, but the allegory of the cave isn't saying gods or spirits are making your perceived reality. It's just saying the thing you already agree with, that you can't completely trust your senses.

    So if you don't completely trust your senses, and you understand that your perception of reality is based on those senses, you should now understand what the allegory of the cave is about.

    QED

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I don't agree with the conclusion that Mickey makes. Yes, our senses can't be fully trusted, but they are the only way we will ever get any empirical information. Arguing against a materialist worldview by noting that our senses can't fully be trusted implies that the materialist worldview is flawed. My issue here is that any alternative has even more dubious foundations. (this is why I raised Occam's razor in my original comment). Would any inherent cosmic meaning even be relevant if we can't ever know about it? I doubt that Donald here would be reassured about the theoretical possibility of meaning existing somewhere beyond our senses. I am not.

    The allegory of the cave, as I'm sure you know, came about in the context of Platonic idealism. That's how I've been talking about here as well. The allegory becomes moot if the objects casting the shadows and the shadows themselves are essentially the same thing. You need a dichotomy between two completely different things for it to be relevant. If it's matter casting metaphysical shadows which we perceve as matter, then Mickey has no argument and it's just accurate observations with extra steps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You can't be empirical if the data is suspect, and all data is suspect. So you put your faith in your senses. It's not like you have much other choice, since that's all you've got, but putting your blind faith in it is still taking that leap of faith, even if it's a more sensible one than believing it's demons or whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent