Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GsTSaien t1_jblnw7r wrote

Reply to comment by testearsmint in I just published an article in The Journal of Mind and Behavior arguing that free will is real. Here is the PhilPapers link with free PDF. Tell me what you think. by MonteChristo0321

I think any theistic model immediately crumbles upon any sort of scrutiny. Sure, a deity itself can not be disproven; but we can explain why religions exists, we can track their origins, their evolutionary value, and on an individual level all major theistic belief systems are full of contradiction. Couple that with a complete lack of evidence that any theistic interpretation of the world could be righr, and that is enough for me to completely disregard any theistic perspective from consideration.

I can't know if there are any reasons quantum mechanics are as they are any more than the reason a photon spins left or right. It just does!

I do not believe we are in a simulation, but I also like the thought experiment of how a simulated universe would need to work, and I like the idea that, in a simulated universe, superposition (light behaving as a wave when the precision of a particle is not needed) is a computational trick to save resources. Like a videogame engine showing you an approximate idea of what a tree looks like from far away, but showing you a fully detailed model of a tree if you get closer and start inspecting it.

This ties everything up in a neat little package that makes sense, that is why it is tempting to believe in it. But making intuitive sense to a human is not required for an aspect of reality to be true, so likely not in a simulation.

5

testearsmint t1_jbls6ri wrote

Simulations have a lot to be considered about them, and there's a fair bit of uncertainty there too (the idea of simulated realities simulating realities simulating realities and the probability of us being in one versus the question of whether simulating an entire universe (or even a galaxy) would require an entire universe/galaxy anyway and thus one wonders what difference it would make/could it even continue ad infinitum).

Regarding God, it's more of an idea before even getting to/outside of any big religion in particular. Is the universe/multiverse causeless or is there a being that created it that's causeless? That's where the question lies, and where I don't really know what to believe in either direction.

−1

GsTSaien t1_jbluusm wrote

Regarding god, if there were a being that created the universe, I would expect something to suggest that, which is not the case. Furthermore, even if we entertained the idea of a creator it would not be one that stuck around. It is abundantly clesr that the universe has ran itself since its inception, whether that inception was some concious entity's design is interesting, but ultimately unlikely and makes no difference to reality.

The idea of a creator being needed is a human construct, it follows our instinct, nothing else in reality suggests the need for a creator.

5

testearsmint t1_jbm50nu wrote

I think there are some interesting arguments here and there (fine-tuning's one example). It's interesting to consider because it may have some combination of certain metaphysical implications (mind-body dualism, idealism, afterlife, reincarnation), but it is true that it could be possible that these metaphysics may also exist in a creatorless universe. After all, we've yet to solve such issues as bridging the gap between general relativity and quantum physics, consciousness, etc.

Organized religion, kind of a separate matter, is definitely pretty common for humans, though. Whether for social community or authoritarian inclinations of opportunists.

0

GsTSaien t1_jbm89po wrote

I don't really find much value in anything metaphysical or spiritual. Growing up surrounded by it as well as religion it has become incredibly apparent that it is all made up. I understand the desire to imagine there is something more to us than matter being funny, but everything we know suggests we are only matter.

I think we have free will and intelligence as an emergent quality of the biochemical processes that we are formed by, conciousness may indeed be more than the sum of its parts. Perhaps conciousness is the result of the quantum superposition of what happens in our brain, but I do not think it is reasonable to entertain the concept of some unmaterial soul, some entity that exists beyond the body and brain. All of our best evidence tells us the only logical conclusion is that there is no afterlife, or karma, or reincarnation. It really is not logical to believe in anything else when we can be pretty certain we already know nothing happens.

People still believe in other things, of course, or they at least entertain some ideas related to spiritualism. That is ok, belief is natural. I personally feel like truth is more important, and I am simply not convinced by "no one can truly know". Just because something can not be proven false does not mean it is possible. I know there is no afterlife and consider that a fact, because that is the only possible option.

3

testearsmint t1_jbmbfty wrote

That's all fair. I just think of metaphysics as physics potentially not yet realized, and quantum physics has at least put forward the idea of the possibility of extra possibilities beyond things we can currently conceive.

Regarding things that may not be currently falsifiable, I think it depends on the idea. Sometimes the ideas are useless to consider, sometimes we may in time know the truth of them, and some of them are just left in a state of "remains to be seen". In that sense, a lot of that kind of stuff is in the grouping of things I don't necessarily believe in, but are interesting to consider, may be verified in the future, and aren't necessarily worth tossing out straight from the get-go.

−1