Studstill t1_j9fnkns wrote

Downvotes for what?

Excellent point, you nailed it. How far down the Top list do you have to go to find a Paramount TV show? Yellowstone is hot garbage from the intro to episode 1, unless your regressive idiot views left you with only one possible kind of program to watch, and this one has Kevin Costner!


Studstill t1_j2370p8 wrote

Sure, I'm a layperson here too re: QM, perhaps I'll make it back with a refreshed opinion. Thanks!

>Like we dont see random things happening on a macro level we see very predictable things.


>because we dont have 100% knowledge of it how it all works right now doesnt mean we cant know it right?

Hard agree, but nonetheless I think it could be unknowable, these could be purely philosophical questions with this origin in determinism making it seem scientific.

Being able to smoke pot or know where a hippocampus is has no bearing on it, regardless of the "complexity" or our current "X%" knowledge, we might never be able to play back a memory or fully control functions. I assume deterministic thinking disagrees with this?


Studstill t1_j23329a wrote

>But quantum mechanics doesnt effect things on a macro level like qm randomness is never going to make a change to the outcome of a coin flip or a pool shot.

Is this absolutely true?

>mental state is also something thats predetermined, the chemicals that flow through your brain the structure of your brain itself all of that is something thats built for each individual moment of your life.

Again, just to be clear, its not the complexity of it that stops me, its that I don't see the science governing those interactions, I see it being extrapolated but the underlying science is, as of now (and maybe I'm ignorant), not certain on all interactions, particularly fluid flows in adaptable pipes, i.e. the brain.


Studstill t1_j230esa wrote

Sure, hard agree on complexity/nature of things, and great point about the coin, if its all classical mechanics than I totally follow you, but QM's "chances" are almost exactly how I feel about me controlling my muscles to flip a coin, or a pool shot. I think that's part of what is getting me so bad here, I do shoot a lot of pool, and the idea that a game (or worse all shots) are predestined because we understand the physics at hand is like, idk just inconceivable to the million experiments that I've run personally. To me, once the physical fundamentals of the game are learned, whether a shot goes in or not is almost entirely up to your mental state, and I'm not saying it is too complex to nail down, but that its akin to QM's inability to say things with 100% accuracy such as your vacuum sealed machine controlled coin flip.

Fun note: Someone did some coin experiments and I think said its about 1/10000 that it will land on its side, lmao, this the 49.999 instead of 50.


Studstill t1_j22xubf wrote

Ok, I've read a bunch more in this thread, thanks for bearing with me, but yeah, I think I'd say:

The rock is a uniform solid, just simple predictable matter. I don't think a snake, or hamster, or human operates that way. I don't think that, because I can either choose or be unerringly illusioned to choose X or Y.

It seems just as silly to argue we are the same as a rock, than to say things would always happen one singular way, even if we could run it again.

I thought determinism wasn't this silly, so maybe I'm wrong, I thought it meant that there was an XYZ% of given events, that a coin will 49.999% of the time land on heads, not that the coin will always be heads on a given flip. My understanding of QM seems to back this up, as well.


Studstill t1_j20tvkm wrote

Because choices are seemingly made from a near infinite pool of inputs, and due to local or hyperlocal conditions those inputs are not consistent.

Which means, without simulation fantasy, that we have two major problems:

  1. There is no way to differentiate whether I picked the door I was always going to or did I pick the other one.

  2. There is no way to determine how the door was chosen, so even if we could solve #1, it would still be an infinite trial and error.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems the argument is "well what if people were just like protons".


Studstill t1_j20r3mk wrote

I understand the situation you keep stating.

I'm not seeing how you are stating it as such.

Why would I go through the same door everytime?

What if one of the doors had an apple on it?

How are the atmospheric conditions always identical? (oh, because this is a simulation*, you said, my bad)

How does determinism apply to non-particle interactions, specifically how is this being stated?

Edit: Maybe I see, so this is simulation theory masquerading as "determinism".


Studstill t1_j1yh1tu wrote

I think most of my beef is that "prior causes" don't seem to exist? Like, whos done the experiment to show why the the word APPLE just appeared in all caps? Sounds like it would fractal out to nonsense in almost all relevant contexts. I'd reckon more people are uncomfortable with how much of their lives seemingly is/was out of their will/control rather than by this nonsense of predestination masquerading as physics.

Thats what being conscious is, literally having access to free (thoughts) will. We clearly are conscious, and I know a beagle that seems so too, and thats about as far as I can get before this seems to have serious problems. Particles, even quantum ones, don't have such abilities. A chunk of Uranium doesn't decide to decay, the narrative/anthropomorphizing/thought experiment consists of applying metrics for qualities that do not exist . Those questions of "was I always going to live where I live" etc are pointless because they have no further justification than much verbose (as in the article) handwaving about how our understanding of particle/macro physics can allegedly scale or transition to living entities.

I fundamentally do not understand the argument for applying physical models to whatever consciousness/free will is.


Studstill t1_j1yb8uf wrote

Ok, like, I didn't know allegedly serious people were making these arguments, so uhh, just to bullet point it out:

  1. What was "incoherent" about "Free Will" exactly?

  2. Are particles like little tiny people, or rather, where was the justification for applying quantum dynamic statements to conscious living things? (This might be what u/Aka-Pulc0 meant by it being a stretch that we are "part of the world"?)

  3. This reminds me of Xeno, and how movement is impossible, its just a false on its face anti-truism paradox fueled exclusively by "look that coin was heads it was always going to be heads good luck proving this wrong idiot you don't have free will, now let's bang like we were always going to", no?

4.Compatibilism sounds swanky, anyone in particular to check out?