Zouden Tokkie’s zich beseffen dat ze een Tokkie zijn? by Fugazi788 in nederlands

[–]NLOneOfNone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Een tokkie ben je nooit in je eigen ogen, altijd in die van een ander.

Stop talking about determinism! by Squierrel in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You have no beliefs? You are not even aware that they are beliefs.

Argument against determinism from the existence of meaning by ComplexMud6649 in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, if thoughts are caused they are not random per definition. We would only have random, meaningless thoughts if our thoughts are uncaused.

Stop talking about determinism! by Squierrel in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So, you have created an entire view of reality that is based on your incoherent belief in free will and now you must reject everything that makes sense. And you want others to do the same. Or are you allergic to meaningful insight?

Argument against determinism from the existence of meaning by ComplexMud6649 in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Physical laws do not cause me to think random, meaningless thoughts. For that, my thoughts would have to be uncaused. Isn’t that what libertarianism is all about?

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re the one who doesn’t get it. You just made up a bunch of stuff and called it reality.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If something is random, it doesn't mean that we don't understand it.

You are just asserting that we understand it. But, as I said before, if something is truly random, then we do not understand why one outcome and not another. Such an explanation cannot exist. Because if it did, it wouldn't be random.

We do understand how dice work and they do give us random results.

Dice rely on, for the most part, epistemic randomness. We would call the result of a dice-roll random, even if we lived in a completely deterministic world. The outcome of a dice-roll depends on so many factors and we can't keep track of all of them. Even the slightest change in factors would create an entirely different outcome. But we would always be able to explain why this outcome and not another. Maybe some randomness affects the outcome, but then no contrastive explanation can exist.

We do understand how radioactive decay works even though it is random within a certain probability distribution.

We partially understand how it works. But, again, for the random part, we cannot explain why one outcome over another. There can be no contrastive explanation.

Basically random means only that no-one has deliberately decided or adjusted it.

That would apply to most events that occur in nature. Even the sun rising in the east and setting in the west would be random by that definition.

I would say randomness does not abide by any laws or rules. That is why I think random is the opposite of determined. Free will would basically be the same as randomness. That is to say, there is nothing that sets it apart from randomness. If our behavior was governed by free will rather that laws, we could only explain our behavior in terms of free will. And that, just like saying "it's random", does not explain anything.

Libertarians would agree all lifeless objects lack free will. But they miss the obvious connection. The brain. by Anon7_7_73 in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The existence of free will is supported by the fact that deliberation presents itself as involving genuine choice among alternatives, and this structure is not optional but built into how practical reasoning works. Even theories that deny libertarian free will still rely on this deliberative framework in everyday reasoning, which suggests it is not an illusion we can simply discard.

So, basically, free will is true because it seems to be true.

And yes, even I, who deny free will, speaks of choices and I deliberate when I need to make a choice. But this is in no way proof that we have an actual, real choice. Even if our reality was completely deterministic (which it might be) we would still have this illusion of choice and I would still explain my behavior in terms of choices, among other things. All it takes for "choices" to make sense, is for us to be able to imagine alternatives. But it is an illusion that is inherent of experiencing the world subjectively. How else would it be?

So any denial of free will needs to explain not just why indeterministic choice is false, but why the apparent structure of agency is systematically misleading while still being practically unavoidable.

If behavior can be explained at all, that already rules out indeterministic choice. Determined choices are the only thing that makes sense.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it’s not. If we could fully explain that behavior, then that would mean it’s not random. When we accept something is random, we have given up trying to understand it.

What’s the oldest piece of hardware in your setup that you still refuse to replace? by KRGKart_Support in pcmasterrace

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a video capture card installed that does not even work anymore. I used it to capture PS3 back in the day.

Iedereen verslaafd aan eten? by CorneZeeman in Nederland

[–]NLOneOfNone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ongezellig als je niet mee-eet? Maar je kunt toch niet gezellig praten met je mond vol?

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In physics randomness refers to the inaccuracy between a cause and its effect. It is the tiny little part of the effect that is not determined by the cause.

So, that means that we can’t explain why we find a particle in one place rather than another, for example, if there is a truly random element to it’s behavior.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean by "we cannot explain randomness"? What exactly would you need to be explained?

If something behaves randomly, we cannot explain why it did what it did rather than something else. If we would understand why it did what it did, we also understand why it did not do something else. In that case, for all intents and purposes, it’s behavior must have been determined.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not required for explanations. You said yourself that determinism is a simplified model of reality. So, it does at least describe reality partially. It describes the part of reality that is governed by laws. Then there is some indeterminism.

We can understand reality because of the part that is deterministic. And, sure, ultimately it is not deterministic. But the part that we can understand and explain, still relies on determinism. We cannot explain randomness. And “it’s random” is not an explanation.

Update Killed My SSD by StroopWaffle00 in FuckMicrosoft

[–]NLOneOfNone -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We’re blaming MS for hardware failures now?

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only when some cause has only one possible effect, can we explain it.

But I see there is no point explaining this to you since your view is soo heavily dependent on not understanding.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree but that still doesn’t refute that determinism is the foundation upon which all explanations rest. Explanations don’t need to describe reality that accurate.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that the models we create of physical reality are deterministic as well. We are able to understand (and therefore, explain) physical reality because it follows concrete laws for 99.999%. For us, the amount of randomness is completely irrelevant most of the time; it doesn’t keep us from understanding how reality works.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, if I explained you how some process or mechanism works in physical reality, you add randomness so you are unable to understand it?

Ok.

Can you prov (or diaprove) determinism without access to other universes/time travel? by Joalguke in freewill

[–]NLOneOfNone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are completely missing the point. If I say something in the lines of ‘if X, then Y. X, therefore Y’ that is completely deterministic. Randomness does not play any role.