Metaphysics Discussion

[Wayfaerer]

And even if it's all genes + environment, I still think that people can be responsible for their actions, and that praise and blame are valid categories.
I don't think these require some mystical idea of free will which somehow interacts with material processes in a way which violates known physical laws.

You're right, we do still need to punish and reward people for their actions but we aught to do so purely out of practical necessity. Being aware of having no free will doesn't equal just letting everyone do whatever it is that they want. Civilization would collapse if we were to use "no free will" as an excuse for wrongdoings.

On a sidenote, you know stephen jay gould said that if it were possible to turn back the tape of evolution to the beginning 4 billion years ago, the history of life would not repeat itself. The world would turn out to be unfamiliar, and most likely lack humans.
And every time you rewound the tape, evolution would turn out much differently with different creatures etc.

Any thoughts as to why he thought this?

That's very interesting because I hadn't thought of that before. I would think because gene mutation is not a product of the environment but due to random chance, but wouldn't the environments still select for the same or near-same mutations? If not exactly identical, then the new species would have to be functionally similar if not aesthetically I would think.

I think mutations are not like dice-throw random afaik (which isn't that much) because mutations do not occur as a product of forces within its environment but happen innately? Or I could be totally wrong on that. I don't really know but I would like to.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I think mutations are not like dice-throw random afaik (which isn't that much) because mutations do not occur as a product of forces within its environment but happen innately? Or I could be totally wrong on that. I don't really know but I would like to

I'm not sure if there is any definite scientific consensus on the exact biochemical nature of dna mutation.

There is a whole field called quantum biology though.

"A theory for the reasoning behind dna mutation is explained in the Lowdin DNA mutation model. In this model, a nucleotide may change its form through a process of quantum tunneling. Because of this, the changed nucleotide will lose its ability to pair with its original base pair and consequently changing the structure and order of the DNA strand.

Exposure to ultraviolet lights and other types of radiation can cause DNA mutation and damage. The radiations also can modify the bonds along the DNA strand in the pyrimidines and cause them to bond with themselves creating a dimer" -- wikipedia article on quantum biology

So if quantum tunneling is involved, it would seem that dna mutation really is indeterministic and may not produce exactly the same genetic results even with the exact same initial biological conditions.

This could present a further difficulty for eternal recurrence theory...

This whole field isn't something I know much about though.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I was just thinking, if there is such a thing as universes multiplying themselves indefinitely, then the probability of two universes ever being identical to each other, let alone infinitely many, is effectively 0.

Because it would require universe multiplication to operate within an uncountable set, i.e. infinite with too many elements to even be countable even in principle.

Basically it would take an eternity for universe 'y' to be replicated. Which is the same as saying it will never actually happen.

And even if you eventually get a universe 'z' which is identical in every way to universe 'y' up until the point where life emerges on some random planet, quantum biological considerations together with the 'infinite sites model' (ISM) idea (the assumptions of which are that (1) there are an infinite number of sites where mutations can occur, (2) every new mutation occurs at a novel site, and (3) there is no recombination), mean that you would have to posit another uncountable (or transfinite) set for all the possible ways dna can mutate and evolve.

maybe the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics can somehow deal with all this, I don't know.

The more I try to think about infinity the more confused I get and the less confident I become that eternal recurrence is possible.

Still, I think we both may need to go to that eternal recurrence support group lol

 

[Wayfaerer]

I'm not sure if there is any definite scientific consensus on the exact biochemical nature of dna mutation.

There is a whole field called quantum biology though.

"A theory for the reasoning behind dna mutation is explained in the Lowdin DNA mutation model. In this model, a nucleotide may change its form through a process of quantum tunneling. Because of this, the changed nucleotide will lose its ability to pair with its original base pair and consequently changing the structure and order of the DNA strand.

Exposure to ultraviolet lights and other types of radiation can cause DNA mutation and damage. The radiations also can modify the bonds along the DNA strand in the pyrimidines and cause them to bond with themselves creating a dimer" -- wikipedia article on quantum biology

So if quantum tunneling is involved, it would seem that dna mutation really is indeterministic and may not produce exactly the same genetic results even with the exact same initial biological conditions.

This could present a further difficulty for eternal recurrence theory...

This whole field isn't something I know much about though.

That's what I'm saying: mutations occur from the environment but also at the quantum level (quantum tunneling) which would render ER impossible? Nietzche did die the same year that quantum mechanics was discovered. I was vaguely recollecting a video I saw on quantum biology some time ago. That's super! Then again, eternity is an insane, crazy long time...

I was just thinking, if there is such a thing as universes multiplying themselves indefinitely, then the probability of two universes ever being identical to each other, let alone infinitely many, is effectively 0.

Because it would require universe multiplication to operate within an uncountable set, i.e. infinite with too many elements to even be countable even in principle.

Basically it would take an eternity for universe 'y' to be replicated. Which is the same as saying it will never actually happen.

And even if you eventually get a universe 'z' which is identical in every way to universe 'y' up until the point where life emerges on some random planet, quantum biological considerations together with the 'infinite sites model' (ISM) idea (the assumptions of which are that (1) there are an infinite number of sites where mutations can occur, (2) every new mutation occurs at a novel site, and (3) there is no recombination), mean that you would have to posit another uncountable (or transfinite) set for all the possible ways dna can mutate and evolve.

maybe the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics can somehow deal with all this, I don't know.

The more I try to think about infinity the more confused I get and the less confident I become that eternal recurrence is possible.

Still, I think we both may need to go to that eternal recurrence support group lol

You seem to be doing a great job of tearing it to pieces so I don't understand you're anxiety over it lol

Just to make this all clear to me, in MWT, each quantum moment splits off into a separate universe for each possible configuration (probability from our perspective), right? If so, god damn, that is A LOT of universes!

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I swear, one of these nights, when I feel I can do it justice, I'll reply to this thread with gusto. The weather has been so nice and I'm outside all the time. When it rains, maybe...
Until then:

 

[esse_est_percipi]

You seem to be doing a great job of tearing it to pieces so I don't understand you're anxiety over it lol

Because I'm still afraid I may be wrong lol

But I'm slowly getting over the worry.

Just to make this all clear to me, in MWT, each quantum moment splits off into a separate universe for each possible configuration (probability from our perspective), right? If so, god damn, that is A LOT of universes

Yes, that sounds right.
Yes, it basically would result in an infinite amount. Because all the universes resulting from quantum splits would also be subject to the same quantum splitting at every instant where discrete quantum states occur. The many universes soon become uncountable even in principle. I don't see how you can avoid the tyranny of infinitude if you go down the rabbit hole of many worlds realism.

To be honest, I don't think many worlds realism is definitively correct as an interpretation of QM.
I agree with martin gardner that it's a science fiction fantasy that doesn't have any empirical data to justify it.
I think you can keep the modal talk and the probability calculations without the modal realism.
All current interpretations of quantum mechanics are inadequate and partial insofar as they cannot yet incorporate general relativity.

Nietzche did die the same year that quantum mechanics was discovered

In 1900? I guess Planck's black body radiation discovery can be sort of seen as inaugurating the new era of particle physics, but I think quantum mechanics proper first go going in the early 1920s.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

[Edit: I've just realized this is bordering on an essay, sorry.]

Going back to a difficulty with infinite recurrence theory, just based on a multiverse.

Leaving aside difficulties with the idea of infinity, let's say there are infinitely many temporally and spatially distinct universes (infinite because the hyperspace within which they exist is infinite, not because there are necessarily infinitely many different types of universes: ontological possibility is limited by quantum mechanical laws, and quantum mechanical laws operate within a limited though very large space of possibilities) which can never communicate with one another because they are receding from each other faster than light.

Let's also say that an indefinite number of those are 'identical' in the sense that their initial conditions, physical laws, and fine tuning of constants are the same, so exactly the same history will occur within exactly the same physical layout, same history on earth, same events, beings, consciousnesses etc.

It would seem that such a multiverse would actually preclude a type of eternal recurrence scenario, in which the same conscious beings have to live out the same lives over and over ad infinitum.

Why? Because there would be no universal meta-measure by which we could say that the events in universe a occur [earlier or later than] or [at the 'same time' as] events in 'identical' universes b, c, d, etc.

So say a conscious organism lives and dies in universe a. On multiverse theory, there will be an indefinite number of other universes b, c, d, etc in which that 'same' organism lives and dies, but unless we are willing to arbitrarily posit (somewhat ad hoc) some absolute metric time system which governs the whole multiverse (for which there is no actual evidence and which would violate relativity theory), there is no meaningful way in which we can apply the temporal properties of [later than], [earlier than] or [at the same time as] to describe possible inter-universe time relations between such conscious organisms.

By definition there can be no such relations, not even relative ones, because not even the speed of light can connect any two universes to allow common reference frames to be used.

Therefore there cannot be an infinitely or indefinitely recurring (one after the other in some kind of temporal sequence) series of 'identical' lives for any particular organism which occur in distinct yet 'identical' universes.

It seems to follow that everything that occurs from a first-person conscious perspective within the lifetime of an organism in a universe can only be experienced once, even if indefinite identical organisms in indefinite identical universes within the multiverse also exist. Assuming that the identity between organisms x, y. z, implies identity of conscious states, it cannot be the case that the same conscious states will be repeated for that organism in identical universes after that organism has died (since repetition, even subjectively experienced, implies temporal sequence, which cannot have any meaning in a multiverse).

It would seem that all the 'same' conscious states of the 'same' organism in the different 'identical' universes would collapse into one undifferentiated conscious state.
This isn't to say that there is some kind of absolute temporal simultaneity occurring between events and conscious states in identical yet spatio-temporally distinct universes, but only that [consciousness of x in universe a] = [consciousness of y in universe b] = [consciousness of c in universe z] etc.

It's a relation of ontological and phenomenological identity in which considerations of time/sequences/metric ordering etc. are meaningless and would constitute category errors as far as any known physical ideas of time are concerned.

Now, if you don't want to say that each 'identical' being/conscious experience x, y, z, (corresponding isomorphically to 'identical' universes a, b, c, etc.) is strictly ontological identical, but that the spatio-temporal separation of each 'identical' universe implies that each being is different if solely by virtue of its being in a spatio-temporally distinct universe, then this also seems to undermine infinite recurrence of the same experiences.

Because the departure from strict logical identity gives us no reason to suppose the 'same' conscious experience to repeat 'itself', since it occurs in a different spacetime within the multiverse manifold. We might say that that each token occurrence of the 'same' conscious experience instantiates a unique and single type (something like a platonic form), but that each token is distinct from every other token, just like every identical clone is distinct from every other identical clone, although all the clones conform to the same original genetic model.

In summary, there can be no before or after relation, or things happening at the 'same time' between universes on a multiverse model.
Time loses all meaning within the context of thinking about the possible relations of distinct universes within a multiverse.
So no infinite iterations from a first-person conscious perspective can be posited from this way of looking at the possibility of ER.

The notion of an iteration or sequence presuppose some form of time-ordering which I propose and argue cannot hold or have any meaning for a multiverse theory.

 

[nothingchanges]

haven't read too much on here but i believe free will does not exist. (this is an idea working from the presumption that as conscious beings we are in some sense more than just our bodies. [this isn't a religious or metaphysical claim, just a biological observation] my consciousness or inner awareness is what i consider to be myself. i didn't choose this body or even brain and thoughts so these are things i don't consider to be myself.)

anyway, on free will: while you can choose to do what you want, you can never choose what it is that you want. in any given scenario. all you want is to feel good and positive emotion is your body's reward for doing what it wants. (eating, socializing, seeking success, having sex). even if you think it's conscious you thats choosing to want something, all you're choosing is the associated emotional reward. all we care about is how we feel. that's it. and you'll do anything your body wants in order to feel better. this is because our brains are programmed for a single purpose and that purpose only: the survival of our genes and their propagation (the pursuit of reproduction involves seeking social status, fiscal success, physical security, etc.) our bodies fight to achieve that end by leading conscious us around via emotions. we're only aware of a tiny fraction of what goes on in the brain and really, it's pulling all the strings. if youre not convinced, try to predict your next thought.

this is all not to mention that as biological creatures we can be nothing more than our genetics and conditioning. everything is predetermined. all you can be is what your genetics have defined and your experience has sculpted. had i been born in your shoes and had all the same experiences, i would be exactly what you are. and you me. and anyone else.

 

[Wayfaerer]

[Edit: I've just realized this is bordering on an essay, sorry.]

Going back to a difficulty with infinite recurrence theory, just based on a multiverse.

Leaving aside difficulties with the idea of infinity, let's say there are infinitely many temporally and spatially distinct universes (infinite because the hyperspace within which they exist is infinite, not because there are necessarily infinitely many different types of universes: ontological possibility is limited by quantum mechanical laws, and quantum mechanical laws operate within a limited though very large space of possibilities) which can never communicate with one another because they are receding from each other faster than light.

Let's also say that an indefinite number of those are 'identical' in the sense that their initial conditions, physical laws, and fine tuning of constants are the same, so exactly the same history will occur within exactly the same physical layout, same history on earth, same events, beings, consciousnesses etc.

It would seem that such a multiverse would actually preclude a type of eternal recurrence scenario, in which the same conscious beings have to live out the same lives over and over ad infinitum.

Why? Because there would be no universal meta-measure by which we could say that the events in universe a occur [earlier or later than] or [at the 'same time' as] events in 'identical' universes b, c, d, etc.

So say a conscious organism lives and dies in universe a. On multiverse theory, there will be an indefinite number of other universes b, c, d, etc in which that 'same' organism lives and dies, but unless we are willing to arbitrarily posit (somewhat ad hoc) some absolute metric time system which governs the whole multiverse (for which there is no actual evidence and which would violate relativity theory), there is no meaningful way in which we can apply the temporal properties of [later than], [earlier than] or [at the same time as] to describe possible inter-universe time relations between such conscious organisms.

By definition there can be no such relations, not even relative ones, because not even the speed of light can connect any two universes to allow common reference frames to be used.

Therefore there cannot be an infinitely or indefinitely recurring (one after the other in some kind of temporal sequence) series of 'identical' lives for any particular organism which occur in distinct yet 'identical' universes.

It seems to follow that everything that occurs from a first-person conscious perspective within the lifetime of an organism in a universe can only be experienced once, even if indefinite identical organisms in indefinite identical universes within the multiverse also exist. Assuming that the identity between organisms x, y. z, implies identity of conscious states, it cannot be the case that the same conscious states will be repeated for that organism in identical universes after that organism has died (since repetition, even subjectively experienced, implies temporal sequence, which cannot have any meaning in a multiverse).

It would seem that all the 'same' conscious states of the 'same' organism in the different 'identical' universes would collapse into one undifferentiated conscious state.
This isn't to say that there is some kind of absolute temporal simultaneity occurring between events and conscious states in identical yet spatio-temporally distinct universes, but only that [consciousness of x in universe a] = [consciousness of y in universe b] = [consciousness of c in universe z] etc.

It's a relation of ontological and phenomenological identity in which considerations of time/sequences/metric ordering etc. are meaningless and would constitute category errors as far as any known physical ideas of time are concerned.

Now, if you don't want to say that each 'identical' being/conscious experience x, y, z, (corresponding isomorphically to 'identical' universes a, b, c, etc.) is strictly ontological identical, but that the spatio-temporal separation of each 'identical' universe implies that each being is different if solely by virtue of its being in a spatio-temporally distinct universe, then this also seems to undermine infinite recurrence of the same experiences.

Because the departure from strict logical identity gives us no reason to suppose the 'same' conscious experience to repeat 'itself', since it occurs in a different spacetime within the multiverse manifold. We might say that that each token occurrence of the 'same' conscious experience instantiates a unique and single type (something like a platonic form), but that each token is distinct from every other token, just like every identical clone is distinct from every other identical clone, although all the clones conform to the same original genetic model.

In summary, there can be no before or after relation, or things happening at the 'same time' between universes on a multiverse model.
Time loses all meaning within the context of thinking about the possible relations of distinct universes within a multiverse.
So no infinite iterations from a first-person conscious perspective can be posited from this way of looking at eternal recurrence.

The notion of an iteration or sequence presuppose some form of time-ordering which I propose and argue cannot hold or have any meaning for a multiverse theory.

I think the argument your making is similar to mine but It was in favor of the eternal recurrence of the same. Since there is no link between "before" and "after," the "next" iteration of our universe would play out the exact same, consciousness and all. However, my belief in ER has taken some hits so I do not see it as strongly as I once did. I think it necessarily relies on MWT being true for it to even be possible, because quantum nondeterminism would render an exact repeat impossible at least not without variation of our lives in between exact repetitions.

From what I gather, Hawking implicitly believed in a single, eternal universe, so that must mean the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is true? If so, I think that undermines ER. That is assuming we are not in a simulation which totally undermines that.

Still, what the hell started it all? It could not have come from total nothingness as that makes no sense at all. Something has to be eternal, even if it is seemingly minuscule. There are so many possibilities it's scary. Are we doomed to an eternal horror show or do we get the end credits and that's a wrap? I had assumed it was the latter for so long but I'm stuck pondering the implications of all these metaphysical interpretations and some of them are gut-wrenching. If only I had been privy to metaphyics when my life was salvageable, then maybe they wouldn't be as petrifying. It at least would've cured my nihilism.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

However, my belief in ER has taken some hits so I do not see it as strongly as I once did.

hooray. Me too. I still can't completely rule it out as a possibility, but it no longer seems as coherent if you really try to examine its presuppositions and the logic upon which it relies to be meaningful.

Hawking implicitly believed in a single, eternal universe, so that must mean the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is true? If so, I think that undermines ER. That is assuming we are not in a simulation which totally undermines that.

He wasn't a multiverse realist at any rate.
If copenhagen is true, then that goes some way to undermining one route to ER yes.
But I think the copenhagen interpretation is falling more and more out of favor with physicists.
I think there are a number of other ways to interpret quantum mechanics which would also make ER difficult to conceive.

Something has to be eternal, even if it is seemingly minuscule. There are so many possibilities it's scary

yea, it seems that there always has to be some kind of backdrop to whatever exists, but then if the backdrop isn't eternal what's the backdrop to that, etc?
And if the backdrop is eternal, it can't be 'nothing', it has to have some kind of positive existential status, however minimal. But then why is it 'there' in the first place?
The whole thing is mind boggling. Maybe the human mind just isn't capable of thinking about such things, just like the mind of a rabbit isn't capable of solving algebraic equations. We have no reason to think that the human mind is somehow (potentially) infinite in its powers of comprehension.
It must have its own inherent limits, set by its neurobiological basis, which is just a result of evolutionary processes which modulate survival rates for species.
Unless the human mind is some kind of monstrously improbable miracle which evolution threw up one fine day.

 

[Choronzon]

Just kind of checking in, since I take the topic as at least partially polling people.

Metaphysically, I'm a physicalist. I don't think there's anything more exotic than matter, and basic forces, though of course those do get pretty weird at different scales.

Free will: compatibilist. I have yet to be convinced that quantum anything matters very much to the argument, and the simulationist idea, while interesting, doesn't bear much more weight for me than Roko's Basilisk (which I think is hilarious). I think of it as another sort of "scale" thing. In principle, you could break down, say, epidemiology to the atomic or subatomic scale, but practically, you need different systems to talk about these two things, and the connections between them are basically beyond our abilities. Free will is a thing we invoke to talk about responsibility, and we only bring causality into it where it comes to reasonably predictable things that are "willed" in the conventional sense. Trying to tie it to metaphysics (or quantum physics) doesn't really bear much fruit.

I'm great fun at parties.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Roko's Basilisk

I had to google that.
Pretty weird idea.
I can't quite decide if it's a sort of practical joke, pr stunt, or something with a more sinister motive, and which is given a veneer of credibility by associating it with decision theory, quantum mechanics, legitimate AI research etc.

I can't quite see the rationality of an ai system torturing people for things they didn't do in the past (i.e. bring the ai into existence). If the ai is already in existence, why would it waste resources torturing people with no obvious benefit to itself, unless it is pre-programmed to be malevolent.

epidemiology to the atomic or subatomic scale, but practically, you need different systems to talk about these two things, and the connections between them are basically beyond our abilities. Free will is a thing we invoke to talk about responsibility, and we only bring causality into it where it comes to reasonably predictable things that are "willed" in the conventional sense. Trying to tie it to metaphysics (or quantum physics) doesn't really bear much fruit.

I agree that category mistakes tend to be made in trying to solve problems like free will, personal identity, mind-body problem, appearance-reality distinction etc.

I think the origins of all these types of philosophical problems relate to political considerations of responsibility, punishment, control, crime, justice, at a time when knowledge of science was very rudimentary. Philosophy was a sublimation of concrete political concerns, not a disinterested inquiry into the nature of reality.

At that time (ancient greece), they invented metaphysics, logic, ethics etc. to ground the new problematization of political life in otherworldly conceptual discourse, but didn't get very far (because much of the time they were ipso facto making category errors).

Now that we have things like quantum mechanics, bayesian probability, multiverse physics, darwinian evolution etc. we try to solve those old philosophical problems using these new tools, but perhaps we are making the same mistakes the greek philosophers made, just in a more sophisticated way.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I had to google that.
Pretty weird idea.

I came across that a year ago when I started delving into metaphysics and I think it's horrifying but I could be technically labelled mentally ill before I had learned of it so the AI god won't torture me I would think. At least I really hope so if that should be the case.

Free will: compatibilist.

Isn't compatibilism just determinism but pretending that free will exists? I don't see the point.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I came across that a year ago when I started delving into metaphysics and I think it's horrifying but I could be technically labelled mentally ill before I had learned of it so the AI god won't torture me I would think. At least I really hope so if that should be the case.


Isn't compatibilism just determinism but pretending that free will exists? I don't see the point.

roko's basilisk..So, it's called a 'basilisk' because the very fact of accessing the information harms or is detrimental. Like watching the video tape in 'the ring' film.

I guess the eternal return idea would also fall under that rubric. Not that learning about the eternal return concept makes it true, but that just knowing about it causes anguish and worry which otherwise wouldn't be there.

I think compatibilism is just an attempt to salvage agency/responsibility so that punishment and reward can remain meaningful. But it's all based on wordplay.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I guess the eternal return idea would also fall under that rubric. Not that learning about the eternal return concept makes it true, but that just knowing about it causes anguish and worry which otherwise wouldn't be there.

I just don't understand how long it took for me to first hear of this idea. If I had learned this at say, 18 or 20, it would've been substantially less horrifying (although still very disturbing in a way). It's a big idea yet it has eluded me for the longest time. That would be just be grossly, hideously, monstrously unfair if true! I think the point you've raised about quantum tunneling in DNA has provided me with some relief at least. It can be an informational hazard depending on one's circumstances in life or the greatest of all benefits.

I think compatibilism is just an attempt to salvage agency/responsibility so that punishment and reward can remain meaningful. But it's all based on wordplay.

Exactly, so in other words is BS.

 

[BipolarGuy]

This thread is to concentrate general philosophical and scientific discussion of the true nature of reality into a single thread. Is our universe deterministic or indeterministic? Do we have free will or not? Is time linear or cyclical? All of these and more are such topics that I look forward to exploring and speculating on.

I'd like to start with this: Does the universe have a defined beginning and end or is it something eternal? If it does have a beginning, then what had preceded it, if anything? How can something come from nothing, and once it is something, how can it return back to nothing from whence it came? If it is eternal, then how can a purely abstract concept such as infinity apply to something physical such as the universe? Or, is the truth a combination of the two, with a defined beginning but no end? Do we even exist at all or is our conscious awareness merely an illusion? one of these options must be true, yet all of them seem completely nonsensical! Is it a futile task to try and make sense of it? What are the implications of these questions for us?

The simulation theory interests me a lot and I think it may hold a lot of weight. If the universe has a definite beginning and thus spawned from absolute nothingness, then isn't that a clear indication that our entire reality is a vastly sophisticated computer simulation? If this is the case, then I would assume that the base universe' existence must be eternal even if ours isn't.

Ok this isn't quite right...

/ResistsGettingInvolved

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I just don't understand how long it took for me to first hear of this idea

It's a big idea yet it has eluded me for the longest time

I know, it's not an idea that has ever been able to get much cultural traction.
It's probably too disturbing. Although the time loop idea does appear in quite a few science fiction films.

Before Nietzsche, the german poet Heine formulated something like the eternal return idea (there is a passage of his which actually describes, using poetic language, something like Poincare recurrence as it would apply to the universe if the universe were a closed, discreet, finite mechanical system).

But I think western culture is too steeped in christian mythology and concepts for something like eternal recurrence to get much of a foothold.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Ok this isn't quite right...

/ResistsGettingInvolved

Okay. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute or did you just come to shitpost?

 

[BipolarGuy]

Okay. Do you have anything meaningful to contribute or did you just come to shitpost?

I came here to read.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I know, it's not an idea that has ever been able to get much cultural traction.
It's probably too disturbing. Although the time loop idea does appear in quite a few science fiction films.

Before Nietzsche, the german poet Heine formulated something like the eternal return idea (there is a passage of his which actually describes, using poetic language, something like Poincare recurrence as it would apply to the universe if the universe were a closed, discreet, finite mechanical system).

But I think western culture is too steeped in christian mythology and concepts for something like eternal recurrence to get much of a foothold.

That's a shame, because even if the idea were false it is still a powerful one.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

That's a shame, because even if the idea were false it is still a powerful one.

I think so yes.
I think it's better to let ideas out into daylight so they can be properly exposed and examined, instead of leaving them to fester in some dark dungeon for a few unfortunate souls to come across from time to time.

 

[Wayfaerer]

Free will: compatibilist. I have yet to be convinced that quantum anything matters very much to the argument, and the simulationist idea, while interesting, doesn't bear much more weight for me than Roko's Basilisk (which I think is hilarious). I think of it as another sort of "scale" thing. In principle, you could break down, say, epidemiology to the atomic or subatomic scale, but practically, you need different systems to talk about these two things, and the connections between them are basically beyond our abilities. Free will is a thing we invoke to talk about responsibility, and we only bring causality into it where it comes to reasonably predictable things that are "willed" in the conventional sense. Trying to tie it to metaphysics (or quantum physics) doesn't really bear much fruit.

There are people (especially ancaps) who believe quantum mechanics being indeterministic somehow proves free will. I even heard Michio Kaku make the same connection and he's a physicist himself! I don't see the connection of quantum indeterminism proving free will at all because even if it's seemingly random it's not like you can will electrons into being where you want them to be.

 

[esse_est_percipi]

Ok this isn't quite right...

what did you mean by this?

I think you should get involved if you want to. It's just discussions about various metaphysical ideas

 

[almost_dead]

who cares

 

[BipolarGuy]

what did you mean by this?

I think you should get involved if you want to. It's just discussions about various metaphysical ideas

I can't.
I've been reading for a little bit and scientific ideas or theories are not understood correctly and so I'd just end up getting frustrated.
But thank you :)