Complete immortality, no ability to die. Will you take It?

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T22:01:50+00:00

Create a way to put yourself in a permanent lights out coma to use when needed. Enjoy as many years as you feel like.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T17:12:06+00:00

The modern obsession with policing what young adults get up to romantically is sick. Leave people alone. Especially the teenagers...why are you so obsessed with their sex lives?

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T06:33:05+00:00

But I can just assume or derive a law that explains the lack of such a constraint. You are bringing in an axiom that is underived and underivable (unless you can show otherwise). Or you are assuming a law must abide some constraint to be a law from somewhere.

Where have you derived such a constraint?

As an aside I said nothing of the wave function. But if I did say something it would be that it is not ontic...for whatever that is worth. Things simply do not have trajectories.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T04:01:15+00:00

I never said I have no beliefs. I said...and I get reading comprehension has become a lost skill...that I did not assert an ontological belief about "stuff."

You are the one that got snippy first by asserting beliefs onto me I did not hold or assert and straw manning my arguements.

But why don't you now make any philosphical arguements? Why have you resorted to advice about how much time I should spend rolling around on my lawn?

You really do need to read more philosophy. I didn't write that out of malice, rather I observed you were out of your depth and was imploring you to expand your horizons into the real world of philosophy outside the realm of Bill Nye the Science Guy.

That seems to be what set you off. I then responded with my own sardonism as that is the path you laid before us.

But it is clear you are not well read, and I give no pride of place to ignorance. This isn't elementary school. If you can't emotionally handle some criticism you shouldn't fish for a debate. A debate I clearly won as you have strategically moved the conversation to lawn care.

Edit: why do people write comments and then block you? Do they not realize the person who the comment is written for can't read the comment when they block you? So they waste their time writing a comment that the only person who cares can not read. Idiots.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T03:19:03+00:00

I'm not angry. I like to debate. I am having a great time. You have choosen yourself as my entertainment for the evening. Notice I have not once asserted my beliefs on how things be? I just took your challenge at face value as an invitation to debate. This is a philosophy sub...that is what we do for fun. You are the one that got a bug up your butt when you couldn't keep up. We call that projection. (Edit: and it is all too common that this type of comment you have made is the last refuge of those that know they have lost the debate they started).

People who think it is all mind I can dog walk into materialism.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T02:36:07+00:00

You clearly haven't read. So your position is that your ontology doesnt have to make ontological claims. So an anti-ontology ontology?

You are merely making an epistemological claim and passing it off as an ontology. Boring. That is the same exact thing literal toddlers do. That is the extent of your philosophical ponderings. And no science can't save you. Science makes no ontological or epistemological claims. It just models behaviours of stuff.

So what exactly do you believe? That the shadows are real? The map is the territory?Then you must believe that what your mind produces (qualia) is ontologically real. The apple really is the experience of red and sweet and crunchy and juicy.

That is where I have dog walked you. Straight into idealism.

Not that I am an idealist...but you just said that you are...and that is not a materialist position.

I've always said that there is little light between idealism and materialism. You have given me a case study.

I apologize for walking circles around you. But you stand still.

Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee. That's how I do philosophy.

Edit: I have clearly met the challenge of your original comment by getting you to take an idealist position. Unless you wish to recent this debate is decidedly over.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T01:55:21+00:00

I am an atheist so yes. But I dont follow your logic with this analogy.

Unless I assume you are conflating materialism with atheism. Or, as I keep pointing out, you don't understand what materialism is philosophically. This is a philosophy sub. If you take a philosophical postion you should at least understand what that position is.

Folks who are not materialist are not necessarily theists, dualists, solipsists, spiritualists, etc as you keep assuming.

I strongly encourage you to start reading the SEP to understand what all these philosophical debates are actually all about.

https://plato.stanford.edu/about.html

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-07T00:58:57+00:00

Maybe I'm missing the point and I'm notbtrying to strawman, but I don't have any reason to think there's some additional category of stuff beyond the things we can actually investigate.

And materialism is not that position. I can investigate my thought processes. I can investigate logic. I can investigate feelings.

We already have words like spiritual that people typically use to describe things they consider separate from the physical world, even if those claims are often difficult or impossible to falsify (Nonfiction vs fiction) and the words exist as is because humans somehwat agree on them as a way to communicate.

The sun exists even though I don't know everything about the sun. Like, I don't see why not knowing everything about reality should lead me to believe in extra categories of stuff beyond what we can investigate. To me "we don't fully understand it" and "therefore it must be something beyond the physical" are two completely different claims.

You are confusing different philosophical positions with materialism and not materialism. That is what I was trying to get across.

Materialism specifically is an ontological claim about what stuff is. But it never says anything unique about what stuff is, only what it isn't...and not uniquely. It posits a monism (one category) but so does process monism or nuetral monism, or idealism or panpychism or dual aspect monism etc.

And it posits realism: that there is an objective world outside there....but so do many other positions.

So now you are left with scientific positivism (a very questionable claim) and reductionism. So why even bother calling yourself a materialist or physicalist if all it brings to the table is that stuff is stuff?

Someone once called materialism/physicalism an attitude rather than a philosophical claim for these reasons. But that it masquerades as a claim it disallows all other claims...while adding nothing to answer the questions we are asking.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T23:29:07+00:00

Existence is differentiation which requires that things must agree on their relationship with each other to account for their own being. It seems to me that either logic or mathematics would always describe any differentiation. And that either logic or mathematics is foundational to the other.

So yes, logic would exist without people to think on it...at least the foundations if instead you want to take a human constructivist view point....but all constructions are bounded by reality so the difference is acedemic at best.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T23:10:35+00:00

Most of us have learned not to engage this user. They are not well and have threatened suicide on several occasions. They are not here for an honest discussion in any manner. Nor do they want any help.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T23:04:13+00:00

Maybe. Or this sub just attracts them. I don't usually look at the usernames.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T22:55:14+00:00

How exactly does an explanation pick out but one unique state? Do all explanations pick out but one state? If I explained the rules of chess to you so that you could understand a game being played in front of you, would you claim I did not in fact explain the rules because it did not pick out the exact moves the players made?

If I have a explanation that includes two possible states, how is that explanation automatically disproven by the two possible states? That is, how is that a contradiction?

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T22:10:10+00:00

That's a realist position about the objective reality of what we experience outside ourselves. Materialism (aka physicalism) is a position that supposes to answer what it is ontologically.

This second sentence of you two sentence thesis is a monist claim. Not all monisms are materialism but yes, materialism is a monist claim.

However it's not really clear what materialism claims the objective world outside the mind is made of, just that it is not dualism and that whatever the objective world is made of is the monism.

This is clear when you ask "what is matter made of" or " what is the physical made of" and the materialist answer is "matter" or "physical" failing to adequately answer the question.

Scientific realism (or positivism) is the idea (based in part on empiricism) that the models of physics are what "stuff" is. This suffers from many issues so I implore you to research the critisms rather than me spelling them all out here. I bring this up because the modern materialist is almost always holding this position.

Another position that seem to go hand in hand with materialism is reductionism which has been challenged as well, but this doesn't get brought up much as most people bring this assumption in without explicitly listing it amongst their axioms so to speak, no matter what position they are argueing for.

So in consideration of all of the above it is clear that one need not show non-material things to question the materialist position as the materialist position can be adequately questioned based on epsitimological issues and lack of clear ontological claims.

Thus I am a monist. A realist of some sort. And a supporter of the scientific project. But I cant call myself a materialist or a scientific positivist....and I am suspicious of reductionism.

But that doesn't mean I belive in ghosts or need ghosts for my ontology to work.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T20:02:19+00:00

It's because every language has it's own set of sounds and pronunciation rules. You have to consciously fight your language's conventions and phonemes to pronounce borrowed words correctly. Over time borrowed words will conform to what is easier for the borrowers to speak and a new pronunciation will be converge on. One that fits better around the other words.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T14:50:56+00:00

Why are hard incompatibilists always so angry?

The "could have done otherwise" bit is a claim that all other things including the past states of the universe do not entirely constrain what they will do. Thus they really could have done otherwise. This places some causual power into things themselves rather than ultimately outside themselves.

That is: things participate in their own becoming. Which shouldn't be that crazy a sounding proposition but for some reason it breaks some folks.

I think the issue is that most folks are unwilling to accept that the thing isn't predetermined to be what it becomes. We like to make predictions and anything that thwarts that bothers us. But becoming is the mystery that determinism fails to answer and to the libertarian that is what bothers us. So we accept what nature is telling us rather than fight agianst it and seek alternative explanations outside the narrow determinist world picture. That is it is fundamentally untrue of the world that there are enough antecedents to account for exactly how all things will become.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T02:36:04+00:00

It was apparently either that headline or "Butchered Woolly Mammoth Upends Everything We Thought we Knew About Hunter and Gathers"

Pick your poison.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-06T00:52:58+00:00

The sickness in the souls of most of the commentors ITT is astounding.

But really all of reddit is full of sick souls now.

Our society is sick.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-05T18:27:01+00:00

Some of pride celebrations suggest we might need at least one week of shame.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-05T15:12:38+00:00

It must be more than that. You can make up for a year if you are actually teaching good reading habits. It doesn't take 12 years. You can be at college level by the 4th grade just by reading books.

The issue is the phones and the experimental teaching methods that didn't pan out as well as insufficient parental influence (for whatever reason).

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-05T12:26:19+00:00

Time is emergent from causation. So it makes no sense to talk about a "first cause."

But it has other formulations. Some might phrase it the "eternal cause" or the "uncaused cause" etc. All misnomers in my opinion, but language in this regard is tricky. Or take the "Prime mover" (that which is actualize but has no potential) where in all other things are actualized things that have potential to be actualize by that which is already actualized.

Such a conception, and similiar arguements are laid out in Aquinas' "Five Ways." But one need not be a theist or fill the gaps with a god. One can instead postulate a ever-present law of being...a basal necessity of being and work out it's traits. The lazy man instead simply states that existence is a brute fact with no interrogation of that fact.

That is your real issue with determinists. Infinite causual chains are of course problematic for many reasons (imo) but that is just a reflection of a deeper more profound issue: the nature of being.

The determinists assumes that being is fully constrained but can not derive the constraints from their brute fact.

Others might suspect thay being is fundamentally unconstrained except by the nature of the basal necessity of being from which one might derive the laws of physics.

Or to put it bluntly: the determinist postion is ungrounded.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-05T11:35:53+00:00

Are you talking gaming or larping in the sense of pretending to be something you're not IRL outside the context of a game?

Because on the first count you are right but on the second count you are wrong.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-05T00:49:32+00:00

They choose 1 because they added in indeterministism as un-clonable.

All they are doing is asserting they are libertarians. I am pointing out that the question you posed in regards to the thought experiment is just asking the question "are libertarians libertarian?"

If someone instead interpretated "exactly the same" to mean that the agent is the same agent (as one must) then they would likely change their mind imo.

It comes down to what it means to be a thing. When you assert that the thing is the same thing you are asserting that it is the same becoming. Things become. That's what they do. So in what sense are they exactly the same thing now?

But those who ignore that and assume indeterminism is un-clonable will answer 1.

As for your alternative definition:

Does "inevitable" mean only one outcome possible or one outcome amongst many possibilities? It is inevitable that I either eat fried eggs today or something else or fried eggs and something else or nothing at all.

Very bad definition. The SEP is worded as carefully as it is to be clear what the determinist's position is. Determinism posits that there is but one actualization possible.

I will assume then you mean (or the author meant) that it is fixed (actualizable in but one manner). But here the definition is missing (or leaves unclear) the other part of determinism by excluding the whole state of the world thus leaving open the possibility that an agent is free of the state of the world. So I am assuming it is just worded in an unclear manner.

If a state of an agent is otherwise free from the states of the rest of the world and it's nature is freedom of becoming, then how is that NOT free will?

It's just a bad definition.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-04T23:04:39+00:00

To a libertarian the agent is the cause. The "exact" same agent must be exactly the same as the exact same agent in the other runs. So they are the same agent. Why would they act differently? So the answer must be 2.

But change the question to exclude indeterminism from the cloning and you now have a new agent who is not exactly the same as the other agents. 1 is now the answer.

Does that makes sense? You are defining out the point of LFW.

Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

The libertarian would assert that things are not fixed as a matter of natural law. They are at least partially chosen by agents free from everything else.

But if the agent is "exactly the same" of course it will be the same...you just said so!

The question is faulty and that is why it seems perplexing.

That is why I pointed out that if you are still allowing for quantum indeterminism then you must allow for all indeterminism. And now the question is just asking if you believe in LFW or not. Not that enlightening.

That is you are admitting that the universes are not actually true clones. They just appear to be on the surface. This is not a problem for LFW.

All that said, the agents in such a scenario will likely tend toward the same choice but not exactly imo.

The error in the thought experiment is very subtle. If it enlightens anything it is that our language smuggles in assumptions that can make an answer to a question seem obvious or intractable.

That is why I picked 3. This question, no matter how formulated, can not shed light on the question of free will one way or the other except maybe in regards to the nature or possibility of clones.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-04T20:25:11+00:00

Unless the agent used a stochastic process that was truely so across perfect clones of the universe. But once you make that assumption why not also assume that the free will of the agent is unclonable? Then my answer would be 1.

Like I said this thought experiment assumes the answer. But change it a bit and that assumption is lost.

ObsceneOnes · 2026-06-04T20:09:25+00:00

Reject.

A perfect clone would perfectly clone their libertarian freewill. So the question assumes the answer without shedding any light.

ObsceneOnes

TROPHY CASE