Another boring, batshitcrazy maths thing (with no equations)

I understood you perfectly, Gross. Strange things happen in the land of Mind, strange enough that I cheerfully dismiss the dreams of control which result from scientific reductionism.

I used to be a left-brained Nazi, too, thinking that if only we had the maths, then we could predict and control the universe and everyone in it. The moment that changed my mind was as I watched the moon rise in a Japanese garden, but of course that's no argument at all, and everyone here can dismiss it as a dream.

 

It wasn't. Determinism was a highly popular enlightment idea that died with the onset of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, advocating that it is not that we cannot know things exactly, but that nature itself is intrinsically uncertain and probabilistic (albeit at a micro-scale), killed determinism in philosophy. At least that's what I know from my philosophy classes.

 

I don't really know how accurate that is. I think that if it was completely true, we could chuck things like cause and effect out the window. Things are uncertain on the subatomic scale; but it gets less and less uncertain as thing get bigger and you add the probabilities together; I don't think Einstein's or Newton's equations just worked out through coincidence all the time.

 

Today's SMBC comic strip

So, which one of of you guys is Zach Weiner in disguise?

 

Yeah, nah. But just look up the maths required to model snooker collisions, they're simple but must be constantly updated to match reality. A tiny error quickly becomes a massive mistake.

Reasonable schmeasonable. The point is that reality is bigger, badder and tricksier than all of us put together.

Seriously, though, I'm certain enough about uncertainty that I'm prepared to accept I may be wrong. Peace.

 

Things do work very predictably in a macro scale. If it didn't, Newtonian Mecahnics would never exist, let alone Einstein's Relativity.

However, the universe itself is still not deterministic. Us having free will or not depends on our brain's condition as a biological computer - if it can truly acts randomly on similar situations, then we do have free will.

YTZK: What you said last does not make any sense. A computer program can definitely arrange precision shots on a billiard table.

 

meh

 

For those who believe in determinism (Gross, Muro), do you reject free will and, so, morality on that account?

 

No. People are to be held accountable for their actions in the present, regardless of the future. Since I don't know I'm viewing the future when I do, I enjoy free will as much as the next guy. Free will is what you do in the present, not what's already occurred in the future, and on that standpoint morality, as much a construct of modern social structure as the next thing, should matter to those who wish to differentiate between right and wrong. Though, if the metaphysics of wholism are taken into account, morality is an abjuration of two counterbalanced forces of nature. One can't exist without the other. How can you say how good you are without considering the evil in the world? And if you consider yourself good, what delineations do you place on others in society?

 

Determinism is quite a new concept for me and I'm still grasping all the aspects of it. Until recently I was only aware of a theological concept of predestination, not knowing that there could be a reasonable and coherent scientific equivalent. One which will prove to carry quite a lot of sense for me, at that.

It would seem that from that point of view, free will is an illusion, since when an action is done - no matter how good or evil, how wise or stupid - the individual responsible for it had no option that to do it, regardless of what he thought he could have done instead. Or, he theoretically could have done something different but would not do it anyway, never, no matter how many times we would "reverse the tape". Edward Theodore Gein had no choice than to be history's Ed Gein, Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu had no choice than to be history's Mother Theresa, Hеllbokos had no choice than to be this forum's Hellbokos.

Does thing mean that morality is non-existent as well? An interesting question. A character has no other choice than to do what the author forces him to do. Does this make Emperor Palpatine's, Sauron's or the Bane of Kree's actions any less evil than they were? When we call the current state of the Universe the author, will that apply to our own actions as well? Is not having a choice enough of a reason to be absolved?

At the moment, I'm not really sure. I already had a different reason to doubt in the existence of good and evil and now I have a new one and a new thing to ponder about. This place is truly intellectually stimulating.

 

Never minding all the drivel about determinism, I think the important point to make about the original post of this topic (rerailing T-A, look out) is that whilst it's theoretically possible to do so good fucking luck prooving it or getting our theoretical maths accurate enough to make it happen..

For example, wayne-scales probably has an equation to suggest that I think he's a relatively intelligent bloke when the fact is that I think he's a moron. Mostly because he's naive and doing something I could never afford to do; namely go to uni and study physics/mathematics. One of these days I'm going to build an A-Bomb and drop it on the local univeristy (of which the dalai lama was meant to receive an honoury degree); take that as an entry application motha-fickers.

Anyway.

 

If events are fixed in time, I don't see how people can be held responsible for them. If I did not actively participate in doing something, I cannot be held accountable for it.

From this point of view, I don't think there is an objective morality. There are just things that happen, and when you ask whether characters are evil when they have been given their role without choice, they are only evil insofar as they reflect apparent life; so, if you believe in determinism, no, they're not evil. When we look at any system of objevtive morality (like a Platonic one or a Kantian one), or even a system of 'do whatever the fuck you feel like' (Nietzsche's Will to Power ), it is all based on the assumption that we can choose what we do; and, where this to prove not the case, there, perhaps, could be no morality, insofar as morality consists in choice; however, in a slightly more deontic approach, we can say that, even if we can't choose our actions, there still exists good and evil in and of themselves, and people are not good or evil, only their actions are.

Engaging you on your own level: you're a wanker.

 

No, Charonte's just drunk and angry, ie, a bastard. You're the one pleasuring your ego at length, ie, a wanker.

And by the way, your oh-so-clever speculations wouldn't even rate a pass in entry level philosophy, ie, wanking 101. Your mind is scattered and your english composition is shit. Happy new year.

 

So what's your excuse?

 

I have no excuse, I made a conscious choice of my own free will and I'm willing to be held accountable.

Therefore nominations for which insult best suits my behaviour are now open.

 

Cunty balls?

 

Nice one! I was hoping for a laugh, thanks old bean.

 

What the hell are cunty balls? Testicles with vaginas?
I think morality needs to be, to keep people in line. What are we without morality? Animals even have a sense of morality among their own. Regardless of future events, the present must be maintained. Of course, with some degree of certainty I can predict the end to my post.

 

He's a curmudgeon.

 

I'm not sure animals do have morality in the strictest sense. They may look like they do but doesn't it all derive from what is evolutionarily convenient. Which is more or less the same with us, we have decided that it would be immoral to kill each other because otherwise there would be more killing and that would be bad because THE RACE MUST CONTINUE. THE RACE MUST CONTINUE. Just as we've come down strongly against incest because it fucks up the genepool.

On an objective level, morality is very fluid, if not demonstrably just a human construct we've invented to make life more comfortable for ourselves. Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so.

Or not, my vaguely recylced existential Sartrenuggets and gratuitous Hamlet quotes aren't exactly worth much..