agent_nycto comments on Determinism

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 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

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 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

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 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

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 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

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 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

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 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

[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 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