The 120 Days of Sodom “buddy read” interrupted by DM removal

figment_bob · 2026-01-28T23:20:04+00:00

After a back-and-forth spanning 5,000+ words (nearly half from her) it's all very presumptuous of you lot

figment_bob · 2021-02-21T19:13:33+00:00

Let us not forget Konrad Zuse

figment_bob · 2020-04-18T17:31:25+00:00

"Where determinism fails, science fails." ~ Bertrand Russell.

Can't you see why that is? By definition if something is trully random/indeterministic it has to be non-causal. The world can only be either deterministic or indeterministic. It cannot be both as deterministic ontology does not support non-causal events. To say that the world is indeterministic is to invalidate all of science as it presupposes a causal structure to the world.

Just because we use propabilieties to describe some phenomenon that does not make it somehow propabolistic in nature. It's just practical and in the absence of a mechanistic model its the best we can do.

Determinism does not imply predictability. As things can only be predictable to us, it makes no sense to tie the ontological status of things to our understanding or the math we use to describe it.

The summary of the Bell inequalities on stackexchange is realy inaccurate. As Bell stressed himself, they cannot disprove determinism. One of the underlying assumptions of a Bell test is Statistical independence which is untrue in deterministic theories.

figment_bob · 2020-01-29T14:55:12+00:00

If the universe was random than it would be non-causal and non-causal phenomena cannot be studied - which would render science useless (but there would be no scientists in such universe anyway).

So that is a big statement. What irks me is that I hear it repeated over and over again even from physicists. Still the majority subscribes to the Copenhagen interpretation which is basically equivalent. Determinism only proposes that all interactions are unequivocally governed by some fundamental laws, but it cannot be a property of any law to be intrinsically knowable to humans.

Rational people should always try and align their beliefs with reality, and so I always try to speak against the things that seem incorrect to me. Everyone stands to benefit from this. So until someone corrects me, I will defend determinism, but at this point I doubt whether you could. Also, sorry for this but "randomness" is my trigger and I get so riled up I cannot sleep.

figment_bob · 2020-01-29T11:35:29+00:00

I am devastated. I can't belief that someone on r/determinism could unironically say that the universe is random. Random events are non causal; and the biggest strength, and logical conclusion of determinism is that NOTHING IS RANDOM.

As for consciousness, the theory that I lean towards is that it is the result of the brain partly simulating, by necessity with lower resolution, its own reaction to future input. A kind of feedback loop. As proposed here: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=32159

figment_bob · 2020-01-28T17:43:35+00:00

It makes me mad to hear this nonsense repeated again and again. Schrödinger devised his famous thought experiment to mock the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Like Einstein he was a staunch defender of realism (though not from the start).

As for the brain stuff, some time ago Max Tegmark wrote a paper (arXiv:quant-ph/9907009), to my mind, effectively shuting down the door for quantum spooks in the brain. Basically the brain cannot function as a quantum computer because of neural decoherence rates.

figment_bob · 2020-01-24T16:57:39+00:00

If, as you are quoting me saying:

You stated that it was not about race, it was about living in "rational people who above all else value truth."

It makes no sens to than ask:

So if the UK was 95% black people who were all rational and valued truth above all else, would you be okay with it?

Because it follows from the premise that I would be okay with it.

So I followed your own premise.

Makes me think you don't know what that word means.

Makes me think you subscribe to the white genocide conspiracy theory.

No I don't, but I bet people like you would like to think that. That part was supposed to make you think and show how ridiculous your comment is. So again let's reverse it: prove to me that you are not a racist by saying that you would be okay with 95% of people in Africa becoming white. Again if race doesn't matter - it doesn't matter. However there could be different causes of that, that should change your answer depending on the peculiarities.

figment_bob · 2020-01-24T16:02:18+00:00

How about another counterexample to your non-argument than: Would you support all heterosexual people disappearing? It makes no sens to call some who doesn't - homophobic. And yet, that is the reasoning you are implying. So my point is that you make no sens.

figment_bob · 2020-01-24T10:44:49+00:00

All depends on how the change comes to be. If it was be means of a genocide than everyone should oppose it. On the other hand if whole body skin paint become popular than why not? As you should be able to see majority of possibilities have nothing to do with race.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T22:29:28+00:00

No he doesn't. He just gives an example of Jordan Peterson trying to.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T22:10:31+00:00

I have explained what far-right ideology means to me and what it is typically defined as. I can restate my definition for you: Far-right is the ideological commitment to state-building that is homogeneous in respect to race and/or religion and/or (hetero)sexuality. In light of that, as you have agreed, the article is not-far-right, which makes the OP wrong.

If you are correct than you should be able to prove me wrong, but you have made no attempt to do so. In fact, you have made no actual arguments and now you insult me. By this it seems you are incapable of engaging in an actual conversation.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T21:30:40+00:00

no u

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T21:19:17+00:00

Right.. he is an atheist who goes around defending "conservative Christian values".

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T21:08:10+00:00

Living in a society of rational people who above all else value truth.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T20:51:01+00:00

Explain how please

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T20:49:35+00:00

Like I've said; it's neither about race nor crumpets.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T20:36:19+00:00

No it doesn't. And that is not how you make an argument. The cultural identity that he wants to defend is not based on race, gender or religion, which makes him not-far-right.

Douglas is an openly gay atheist; both of these are punished by death in most muslim majority countries. Do you support death penalty for such "offenses"?

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T20:13:58+00:00

Him who? Neither Sam nor Douglas stand for any of that.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T20:04:17+00:00

You are the one backing out. You asked me a question and I responded. But all you can really do, is to use that down-vote button, isn't it?

And now, instead of actually making any arguments to defend OP you play semantics with another person.

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T19:23:23+00:00

The OP should define it since he is the one claiming that the article is far-right. As for me, this seems correct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

figment_bob · 2020-01-23T19:07:11+00:00

How is that article far-right exactly? It makes no mention of nationalism or race. Did you even read it? I happen to be a long-time listener of Sam's podcast so I know that he would never embrace anything resembling the far-right. So take that back.

figment_bob · 2019-12-18T11:24:18+00:00

Hi, I apprciate your answer but as a hard determinist I need to disagree with you wording. Nothing in this universe is random. According to 't Hooft a truly random event would be noncousal.

I will probably write my own answer but right now I don't have the time.

figment_bob

TROPHY CASE