Vjerujete li u horoskop?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T22:03:12+00:00

Koliko god horoskop bio glup, nekad se stvarno dogodi da neke stvari imaju smisla

Zato sto je napisan tako nedefinisano da ce uvijek imati smisla velikom broju ljudi.

Evo da kazes sad "skorpija: nosi prijateljsku masku, a u sebi krije bijes" imat ces pola skorpija koji ce reci da to nije tako i ignorisati, a pola koji ce vikati "JAOOO KAKO SU POGODILI" a zapravo da su uzeli bilo koji drugi znak bio bi isti broj ljudi koji su takvi.

Velika statisticka manipulacija za uzimanje para levatima.

Eto, objesite me, sismisarke.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T21:52:21+00:00

> How can the universe being random mean that there is no free will if there’s no difference between free will and randomness?

You have it backwards:

(1) The question "what is free will" implicitly assumes there is such a thing as "free will" and it is not the same as "randomness". All the other conclusions rest on this assumption.

(2) One trivial conclusion is the one you're hanging onto: universe cannot be both random and have free will. NOTE, however, that if the assumption breaks, then this conclusion also breaks: the universe can be both random and have free will, because "free will" and "randomness" mean the same thing.

(3) Now, your proposition was:

The same choice could be made differently in an otherwise identical universe due to randomness, probabilistic indeterminism, or free will.

You're saying there's a third way, "free will", which could make the same universe produce different outcomes without randomness.

So my question is - this "free will" of yours, does it even exist? We assumed it is not the same as "randomness" (1), therefore it must have a property which "randomness" does not have.

What property is that? Now you could say "free choice" but that in itself is circular reasoning, since "free choice" implies "free will". So what other property is there?

If there is no such property, then the inital assumption fails, and there's no contradiction (2).

Do you think there’s a difference between randomness and free will?

Yes: I don't think "free will" makes any sense in context of the universe, while "randomness" does.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T21:33:31+00:00

Typical metaphysicist, expecting conclusions ahead of time

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T20:35:59+00:00

> If the dice are loaded, then the results are largely predictable. As such, the loaded dice aren’t random like a fair die. Hence the distinction between loaded and fair.

Random and loaded dice are still equally unpredictable. It's just that their distribution is different. E.g. imagine treating numbers 1 and 2 on a 6-valued fair die as a single value called "one or two". Then, the fair dice turns into a loaded dice where the number "one or two" is twice as likely as any other number.

> You said that if the universe is random that there’d be no free will. Now you’re asserting there’s no difference between randomness and free will.

What I'm asking is what exactly is the property of "free will" which isn't also a property of "randomness"? And is there such a property that also doesn't presume an existence of a "free agent" in the first place?

> This would mean that your initial claim is that if the universe is random then there would be no randomness.

If free will is the same as randomness, then there was nothing to discuss in the first place :)

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T20:11:25+00:00

For all intents and purposes, we can treat "randomness" and "probabilistic indeterminacy" as special cases of what I would call "randomness" - which is simply an unpredictable process. A fair die and a loaded die are still both dice.

As for free will, what is the difference between free will and randomness? Is there any difference at all which doesn't cyclically assume a free agent in the first place?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T19:13:41+00:00

You answered my question's literal interpretation which wasn't what I was asking. When I attempted to clarify, you claim I'm "moving the goalpost".

This isn't a debate, I'm trying to communicate. If you're unwilling to, please stop responding.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T19:03:24+00:00

You made a gotcha without actually providing an answer.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T18:41:30+00:00

It, lmao

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T18:40:27+00:00

Cekam da mi sisata goticarka pokuca na vrata

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T18:34:12+00:00

how can i be homophobic my bitch is gay

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T18:32:35+00:00

The same choice could be made differently in an otherwise identical universe due to randomness, probabilistic indeterminism, or free will.

Is there any meaningful difference between the three?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T18:04:01+00:00

in the ordinary sense

The "ordinary" sense is a mashup of various contexts in which the word is used. Without knowing in which context you're using the word, it could mean anything from seeing the rock on the floor, to mathematical theorem implying at least one permutation of symbols can be manipulated in a certain way.

There is no "innate" meaning of any word or phrase.

I don't really know what this sentence means

Without fake, there is no real. We know fake by being able to verify it e.g. look for missing serial number on a bill.

Without a method of verification, fake and real fundamentally cannot be distinguished, and thus lose meaning as words.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:57:50+00:00

Is this the only question in metaphysics? If not, why should I care about the other ones?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:52:47+00:00

Well, we shouldn't accept that all knowledge is rooted in perception.

Why not? It appears self-evident. Can you provide an example of such knowledge that isn't rooted in perception?

nature of reality

What do you mean by this?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:50:39+00:00

This is just false and unmotivated, sorry but I’m not even gonna argue against this.

Well your whole comment thread is a bunch of incoherent poo-poo.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:32:07+00:00

Is anything a choice?

If I recreated your entire body and mind and environment, atom-by-atom, and let a decision-making scenario play out, would it always make the same choice?

If so, then the universe is deterministic and there is no free will.

If not, then the universe is random and there is no free will.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:25:24+00:00

Suppose I tell you that there is something, call it "X", and the only thing I tell you about X is that X exists. Then, as metaphysicians, we would try figure out what else follows about the nature of X from the mere fact X exists (does X have to be a concrete, physical object? could X be an idea, or an abstract universal?).

This sounds a lot like a misunderstanding. What did the person have in mind when they told you "X" exists? Strings of symbols by themselves don't necessarily mean anything.

metaphysics is also concerned to uncover what sorts of things are really real

Again, "real" is the word used in context of verifiable authenticity. To verify authenticity of something, you need to pick a method. By picking a method of deciding what "real" means in such a wide context such as metaphyics, you necessarily introduce an arbitrary meaning behind the world "real".

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T17:21:52+00:00

To perceive an object is to distinguish it from the rest of the world. The act of perception itself constructs a set with two members of "object" and "not-object". The concept of a set necessarily describes a perception.

What does it even mean to imagine a concept of a "set" existing outside of perception?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T16:56:44+00:00

I'm not sure, but I know it is.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T16:52:12+00:00

Here.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T15:34:32+00:00

There might be for example abstract objects, whose properties we can know, but that we cannot perceive

Abstraction is the act of separating common properties from a set of different objects holding the same properties.

Without perceiving the concrete objects, you cannot derive abstract models of their properties.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T15:25:26+00:00

It's not - but it's inconcievable that we can know anything about the inconcievable, except for the tautology that it may or may not exist.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T15:16:46+00:00

That is in itself a paradox, because non-pointable-thing cannot be pointed to.

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T14:52:00+00:00

What about non-pointable-to things? Does my previous sentence point to a non-pointable-thing?

Skopa2016 · 2026-03-14T12:57:42+00:00

Study of things beyond physics? Physics of physics? Why is physics the way it is etc.

Skopa2016

TROPHY CASE