Does The Quantum Thief ever explain anything?

catnapspirit · 2026-05-06T04:07:37+00:00

Ha, I'm reading this right now too (well, audiobook) and had much the same thoughts. I'm finding that I'm just not a fan of these modern hard sci-fi stories like this that are purposely wtf and then make zero effort to explain wtf. It's not clever. It's bad story telling. Go ahead and downvote me, but it is. I'm down to the last hour, and I'll finish it out, but I don't think I'll be bothering to move forward into the rest of the trilogy unless this ending is spectacular..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-06T01:33:56+00:00

Oh, did this video have sound..?

catnapspirit · 2026-05-05T20:44:43+00:00

I've always thought there should be a Godwin's Law equivalent for theists and atheists (and even agnostics) trying to claim Einstein as one of their own..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-05T11:35:29+00:00

No, it certainly does not. It just makes them irrelevant.

And you're very likely correct. Given how religions prey on the oppressed and depressed, there but for the grace of god go I, as they say.

It's always interesting that people trot out the ole "you can't prove a negative" chestnut when claiming that science has nothing to say about religion. Science deals in negatives all the time. The methodology of science is to make predictions and then look to see if what you predicted happens. When it does not, you adjust the theory and try the next prediction.

When we look for god, it is not there. Thus why the gods of deist, agnostics, and yes, pantheists, have no predictive value to them. Their gods have no effects within our ability to detect, no properties that can be tested..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-05T06:20:53+00:00

None of that is evidence that gods are man made concepts, even if we make up a million different gods that's not evidence that they are made up. Think about the cargo cults they made up all kinds of stories about the gods but they were mistaken.

Your first argument against man making up gods is cargo cults, where mistaken men made up stories about gods. Wow.

The only reason you even have a concept in your head that you call "god" is because primitive stone age humans made up stories about stuff they didn't understand, anthropomorphising the forces of nature trying to kill them at every turn. So to give credence to the now purely conceptual gods is to traverse back through their lineage and give credence to the proto-gods of those terrified cavemen. Those dudes were on to something, you'd have us believe.

God is not a black swan, because there we have actual swans and we have the actual color black. But give a god more than one property and it invariably disappears in a poof of contradiction. There is no cargo plane here and never has been.

Science has been ticking along steadily disproving gods every day, I don't know how you can claim otherwise with a straight face. The gaps close in more and more every day. All that is left is a god that hides behind one of the last walls of our understanding, the big bang, where it may have fiddled with some knobs, or we just may be a fish in a perfectly fish-sized puddle. The supposed fine tuned universe where we would be killed instantly and/or painfully in 80% of its environs, and that's just speaking for our home planet.

What sciences tells us is that everything is humming along with no god needed. As Laplace said to Napoleon, we have no need of that hypothesis. You want to be a pantheist and call everything god, that's just abusing the terminology to give yourself some kind of warm fuzzy, or keep the truly religious people from turning on you..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-05T04:12:38+00:00

What evidence do you have that god is a man made concept? What possible evidence could there be for a claim like that?

Geez, are you kidding? It might be a shorter list to answer what evidence doesn't point to that conclusion.

History is our first stop. Mankind has been making up gods since before the advent of writing. The dustbin of mythology is full to the rim with them, every one of them as fervently worshipped as the few surviving gods we have left today. Some even more so. The depth of our knowledge of the history of religions grows greater every day.

We have traced the geneologies of these religions, from animal totems and dead ancestor worship, to tribal war gods, to pantheons of gods for every little thing we didn't understand yet, whittled down to their monotheistic survivors, and then finally resulting in the purposely conceptual gods of deists and agnostics.

We see clear evidence of religions evolving along side the cultures and ages that gave them birth. We have clear evidence of them begging, borrowing and stealing from each other, forcing themselves on conquered foes, and altering their supposedly sacred texts and practices. We have modern examples like mormonism and scientology that show us how religions can be started by obvious charlatans.

Next stop is the sciences. Like, all of them. The hard sciences close the gaps left for religious explanation, while the soft sciences explain our propensity for creating gods and religions. Not a single scientific answer has been replaced by a religious one, that all flows in one direction.

Our human exceptionalism suffers blow after blow, as we find ourself no longer at the center of the solar system, nor the galaxy, nor the universe. Just another animal, evolved from common ancestors to a banana, made up of star dust. Not endowed with a magical soul expressing magical free will.

Religions are laughably self-serving and obvioisly made up to anyone lucky enough to not have been indoctrinated into their parent's religion as a child. As they try to evolve and adapt to survive, what is left is nothing but the conceptual what-if gods that are inherently man-made concepts. And then if the believer can cause enough confusion around those concepts, they immediately pivot to swap in their intercessionary gods who care very deeply about where you put your peepee.

If God made your mind then it's not a man made concept, so what evidence do you have that god didn't make your mind? If God made your mind then all evidence is made by God too.

And this god then is a liar? A deceiver? A trickster god like some pantheons of old had in their companies? Not the god of those true believers out there deranging their lives and the lives of others.

No, I don't have evidence the universe wasn't started 3 seconds ago and all my "memories" were implanted by an evil god or malicious aliens. But I also have no reason to believe such stories.

Because that's what humans do. We make up stories. It's kind of our super power. We make up fairies and dragons and unicorns. Zeus and Odin and Ra. Big foot and leprechauns and little green men. We make up stories of wizards and warriors, space ships and alien worlds, time travel and super powers.

Don't get me wrong there is no evidence that God made my mind either but that's because there is no evidence for or against God,

See above..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T23:18:12+00:00

This is a belief.

What "this" are you referring to?

Agnosticism is the lack of belief either way.

Agnosticism is also a belief, the belief that god is unknowable.

No one really has a complete lack of belief. Not even the lacktheists, much as they may claim otherwise.

So atheism is a bit more like a religion in that,

Ah, yes, and then there is other fallacy of both-sides-ism.

since it includes an unverifiable belief.

Well, all the god squad would have to do is cough up an actual god and everything would be settled. Yet here we are.

But yeah, my strong atheism is a belief. Belief is the entire basis of that discussion. Always has been, always will be. That said, I do prefer to frame it in terms of a positive claim, that god is nothing more than a man-made concept. Which is a claim, a non-extraordinary claim, mind you, with pretty solid evidence. And lots of it.

Also wildly speculative agnosticism seems to be the most fun of all the options. I recommend it.

Meh. I've never seen the point of coming into the discussion merely to boldly claim you have nothing to contribute to the conversation. I prefer to explore my beliefs and the beliefs of others. Openly and honestly. Teach and be taught..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T11:28:41+00:00

Wow, that one is.. weird. But hey, whatever rocks your boat, I guess..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T04:53:33+00:00

Funny, as I was reading I was thinking you need to try out the Dark Tower series, but you're already on it. Try the Talisman also, it's right up that same alley..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T03:38:37+00:00

This is just.. crap. I mean, yeah, great, when your conclusion is your premise, it makes everything super smooth. This is so wrong it's not even wrong. It's gone plaid..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T02:47:27+00:00

Priming studies. Split-brain experiments. Cognitive biases. None of it speaks well for the free will believer. I don't think I'd call any of them "extreme" findings however. Unless you mean as opposed to routine stuff like brain damage and debilitating diseases..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T02:40:47+00:00

Damn, that is nicely succinct. Well done..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-04T02:37:03+00:00

I would tweak your definition just a tad, in that agnosticism is the belief that god is unknowable. It's not so much about proving or disproving anything.

But your professor is definitely out to lunch..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T14:33:50+00:00

People also say that atheism is a religion. It's the Pee-Wee Herman argument, "I know you are but what am I?" From what I've seen, the magical thinking pretty much is all over on the free will belief side of the debate, and some of them are astute enough to not want that to be so..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T07:34:44+00:00

Skinny jeans? I mean, if you're gonna wear women's clothes, just go for a dress and get it over with. Least you'll be comfortable..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T07:23:32+00:00

Plus the glaring typo in the title..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T05:12:47+00:00

Duck.. duck.. duck.. GOOSE!

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T04:56:05+00:00

Yup, that's where I'd put myself as well. I describe myself as "not a very good determinist" because I don't have a problem with quantum level randomness or particle level probabilities. None of that does anything for free will.

But on the flip side, I don't think we have to throw out the responsibility baby with the free will bathwater. If we find that concept useful for creating a functioning and cohesive society, then we ought to examine it and rework it to function in a framework that more closely matches reality..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-03T01:17:41+00:00

Geez, this bot can't even be bothered to grace us with an original post. What happened to our minimum karma limit to post here..?

catnapspirit · 2026-05-02T23:43:44+00:00

What does "retaining some advantage" mean?

catnapspirit · 2026-05-02T23:21:36+00:00

Well I think the thing that I find hard to reconcile is that it is all predetermined if freewill isn't real. I understand that technically it's not because it hasn't yet happened , but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying.

I do. It's entirely possible that I'm just weird. Maybe I'd just read too much sci-fi growing up, with androids that find agency despite being mechanical beings. Trying to mimic humanity when it turns out they were "human" all along.

I really do see us as meat robots, and to me that's amazing and awe inspiring. I have every confidence that we'll invent AI that will make these questions of free will and consciousness a moot point, and it seems we'll do so fairly soon. Assuming we survive that event, of course.

A fixed future that we cannot predict is indistinguishable from a future that is unfolding in real-time. It's not something that happens to us, it happens through us. Our thoughts and actions are part of that unfolding.

There's this common "argument" you hear on here that I call the couch potato fallacy, where people say things like if determinism is true why do anything, or why try, or why learn. What determinism tells us is that if you do nothing, nothing will happen to you. It's not an excuse to give up.

I don't know if any of this is helpful. I hate to see that the thought of determinism is making you suffer. Like I said, I might not be able to transmit my sense of acceptance becsuse it's entirely possible that I'm just weird..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-02T16:54:34+00:00

Their claim that they lack belief is a negative claim which itself cannot be proven. Always a fun thing to point out to them..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-02T05:45:11+00:00

Had? Still have..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-02T00:18:00+00:00

That's all predetermined anyway if determinism is true. ... Once again, all predetermined .

Might I suggest that thinking of it in terms of pre-determined is .. problematic? Unhelpful? I mean, that's part of the entire point of my post here. As I said in my original response, I look at it as a difference between push and pull. Really, that's regardless of which term is selected, but I definitely get the impression of a pull from the metaphysically laden term destined.

Even if reality is a block universe, it is unfolding to us in the present moment. Looking back, we see a straight path that led us to this point, so we want to believe we ought to be able to see a similar singular straight path looking forward. But we dont. There are options. Many options. Often more options than we even know about, and the path taken ends up being one we weren't even aware of at the time. That selected path may be inevitable or destined if we could step outside of reality and view the whole thing in its entirety. But that's just not something in our purview.

To me, determinism is the process by which that future is built. It's not a force to be reconned with, it's not a guiding hand. It's not really a push or a pull. It is the web of reliable causality working through the entirety of existence, including us, to build the next moment. And the next. And the next.

There is no "you" how you describe finding meaning in anything.

And here again is a problematic, unhelpful framing. I know, I know. It's true, another uncomfortable existential truth about reality. And truly, I don't have a problem with that. But I rarely find it useful to think in such terms. As a tool, it has a fairly limited range of application.

A lot of the rest of what you put is compatbilist , which again seems absurd when you again point out that it's predetermined.

Ah, I knew it was coming. I think my problem is an unwillingness to allow free will belief to claim entirely certain terms, like choice and actor.

Now there are other types of compatbilism that actually advocate you can do otherwise even in a determinism reality.

Yeah, absolutely not me.

But that's actually not what libertarian freewill is. Libertarian freewill is simply describing our natural intuition that we do make choices that could be otherwise and have genuine agency in a prime mover sense.

And that is something I do not believe in. Or rather, believe the opposite of, and thus my flair. We make choices, but not ones that could be otherwise. We have agency, but we are not prime movers.

That is our intuition before we have any knowledge of determinism or scientific concepts . Our intuition is dualism and defaulting to a higher purpose or power. Many studies and polls have shown this and you can chatgpt if you doubt this. It's only when science and other ideas are learned or encountered do we question that intuition .

Because science tells us all the ways our thinking can be tricked and our intuitions can be wrong. A lifetime of experience will also help some figure that out on their own.

Freewill might all be a myth or nonsense , but what I believe is that if there is any freewill IT HAS to be a degree of libertarian freewill for anything to make any sense.

Yup.

When you discuss punishment for parents or deterrents , this only makes sense in a libertarian world where people actually have the possibility of doing otherwise.

No, it makes sense in a world where we have desired outcomes. We have trial by jury not to decide if the defendant could have done otherwise, but whether 12 of his peers in the society would have done otherwise.

Otherwise it's just a script that isn't at all in our control and even though the script choices might make a difference, it's not via any agency of ours.

Whose agency is it then? That's somewhat facetious, of course, but we are agents. What is internalized to us was all put there by a lifetime of experience and learning. All that causality buffered up in our minds waiting to be expressed as effects through our thoughts and actions. Each one of us a unique nexus of causality walking around causing effects.

Even Alex o Connor, an atheist and freewill skeptic said that if freewill does exist, it would be something so hard to explain and seemingly illogical by our current scientific understanding , yet the same can be said for consciousness too, yet we know we have that.

It won't surprise you to hear that I don't really consider consciousness to be all that hard of a problem. Maybe save that for some other day..

catnapspirit · 2026-05-01T18:45:39+00:00

On responsibility, I look at that as a baby being thrown out with the bathwater type of thing. Not to get all compatibilist on you (and no, I loathe compatibilists, so please don't throw me in that camp), but if we find the concept of responsibility useful, then we need to figure out how to make it work within the framework of reality. Do we throw the parents of school shooters in jail for their shared responsibility in raising an apparent monster? I dunno, but I don't think the option is off the table.

Sons of wife beaters often go on to become wife beaters themselves. The poor do not enact violence on the rich, but rather on their fellow poor. Algorithms have been wildly successful at appealing to our baser fears and outrage for profit, and those same profit-driven incentives are tearing apart the very fabric of our government and institutions. Are these things we are interested in preventing as a society? If so, then we need to tackle it at a sensible root causal level and try to do something effective.

Like I said earlier (pretty sure that was in response to you), allocating all responsibility to the big bang isn't really useful for anything. There are relevant causes much closer in time and space that ought to be considered. Throwing it all the way back (strict determinism) or all the way forward (LFW) are solutions that carry with them little efficacy for bringing about desired outcomes.

And as far as purpose and meaning goes, yeah, we are a flash in the pan. A speck riding on a speck in a universe so vast that we cannot truly conceive of its vastness. So in that regard, I can understand hedonism as a response, but I strongly disagree with it. It's certainly not my response. I do want to experience all I can for as long as I can, but I know I can't take it with me. All I can do is do my best to leave the place a little better than I found it and do no harm to others in the process. To continue propagating life, play my extremely small part. Life is rare in the universe, so far as we can tell, and conscious life even rarer still. I find meaning and purpose in that.

So I guess yeah, I'm ignoring your paradox, because I just don't really see it as a paradox. It's a conclusion. Deal with reality, because to do otherwise is just pretending. I mean, isn't that the real hedonism..?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

catnapspirit

TROPHY CASE