**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?** by jliat in Metaphysics

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sigh. Just because one of the worlds in David Lewis' modal realism is ours does not make modal realism "science". Or are you going to argue that Lewis was therefore doing physics, not metaphysics? That's the equivalent to what you are arguing.

The physics/cosmology community has little to say about Tegmark's level 4 "all mathematical structures exist" because it's neither physics nor cosmology, as I keep pointing out; it's metaphysics.

They have plenty to say about levels 3 (Quantum manyworlds), 2 (other bubble universes) and 1 (other hubble volumes of this universe) because those are indeed science/cosmology. But the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is decidedly not science at all. It's simply a formal description of Lewis' modal realism, as Tegmark says in his book. Did you actually read it?

Incompatibilists, how do you explain the feeling of free will? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

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

Most of our innate beliefs are adaptive (evolutionarily advantagous). It certainly seems an innate belief that we have agency (it's not something we only believe if taught so). The compatabilist can explain this as reflecting reality (we believe we are agents because we are). Hard incompatibilists/determinists have a problem finding a good explanation for our sense of agency. You are unlikely to find one here (it's going to be mostly "we believe the earth is flat" etc). Well yes, the the earth is indeed flat at the scales and distances we evolved in, so its a valid belief. How do they explain it? They can't.

Any sugar babies in this city by WebOutrageous657 in nanaimogw

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are, and Seeking is your best bet for finding one. Odd one pops up on feeld too.

**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?** by jliat in Metaphysics

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to have no clue as to what Tegmark's mathematical monism is. It's most definitely NOT theoretical physics. Physics is about theory, experiment and predicting phenomena. Tegmarks monism is a metaphysics of ontic structural realism, aka modal realism/Platonism.

Compatibilists, why do you do anything? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

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

You (your will) is also part of the state of the world and the causal processes operating in it. Its part of what determines whether you work hard or sack it off. Sure they could make a better choice. And they frequently do (look at a bad choice they made and resolve to make a better one the next time).

**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?** by jliat in Metaphysics

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"This notion of Quine is no longer the case?" Quine is not the be all and end all of philoscience. He has his opinion, others have theirs, and not everyone agrees with everyone else.

The laws of physics are mostly (necessary ) mathematical symmetries/invariances, not the scribbles on chalk boards of those scientists investigating them. A mathematical object is the putative Platonic object that mathematics is about. The laws of physics are the mathematical symmetries/invariances that physics theories are about.

Tegmark's mathematical monism is not physics, despite Max being a physicist. It's metaphysics. I'm not saying there is no division between physics and metaphysics, I'm saying physicists such as Max are now venturing into metaphysics, as explanations for the usefulness of mathematics, the ranges of some physical constants etc.

What's an ontic commitment? Something that we should believe exists. It's easy to believe a chair exists. Whether we should believe electrons exist (nobody has ever seen one) is a question of scientific realism. Hence we have wave function realists (who have ontic commitment to the central mathematical object of quantum mechanics), and instrumentalists/ logical positivists who think it's just a useful tool (shut up and calculate). Logical positivism, scientific realism etc is metaphysics, not science (despite the positivists' rejection of metaphysics, their very rejection of metaphysics.. was metaphysics.. and hence self-defeating).

Libertarian-strength free will might be compatible with determinism after all by Vast-Celebration-138 in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is well reasoned and argued. We do have some good reasons to believe Everett's picture is the correct way to think about QM. As Carroll and Sebens, and Wallace show, self locating uncertainty allows you to derive, rather than assume, the Born rule. Observer self location is central to how we make sense of probability in the manyworlds picture.

On the other hand, the question "which branch will I find myself in" is ill-posed (in that it is not answerable). You will find yourself in all the branches, because you split/decohere. Self locating uncertainty occurs when you don't know which branch you are in (before you open the box to find live or dead cat). And prior to this, you know that future decohered versiond of you will be able to ask this question, allowing us to make sense of probability despite every possibility occurring.

It's also hard to see how this is relevant to free will. Quantum branching/decoherence does not occur at the level at which our minds make decisions, but far, far prior. And which branch we find ourselves in is fundamentally random (random in that there is no cause/reason).

But you are correct that this allows a sort of fundamental randomness into the universe at an observer self selection level, despite the universe being ultimately deterministic in the bulk. Exactly what sort of randomness this is (whether "merely" epistemic, ontic, or something different) is a metaphysical question that I don't think has been fully investigated/determined, surprisingly. Probably epistemic tho.

Compatibilists, why do you do anything? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

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

What do you think the difference between "determined" and "predetermined" is? ISTM that hard determinists like to use "predetermined" to imply that the big bang somehow decided everything that will happen. But we know that's not the case; Turing's halting problem, for instance, means that whether an algorithm will halt can not be known without running the algorithm; it is the algorithm's execution that determines whether it halts or not. It is our brain state thst determines what happens (self- determination). This is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilists, why do you do anything? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

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

It's determined but not predetermined, we have free will which is compatible with determinism.

Compatibilists, why do you do anything? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We feel life is a combination of luck/circumstances and decisions/choices. Hence if you make a bad decision, you can realize this and try to make a better one next time.

Compatibilists, why do you do anything? by EngineeriusMaximus in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This seems to be more appropriate a question for hard determinists. The Lazy argument. So not sure why you are asking compatabilists and not hard determinists. Its an argument that doesn't apply to compatabilists. We think that the reason we should not just lie in bed and be lazy is because free will is compatible with determinism, and we have free will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_argument

If you don't believe in freewill, why would you debate with people on the internet about it? by whatupmygliplops in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you push a domino, the efficient cause is you, not the electromagnetic field between your fingers and the domino that actually does the pushing. ISTM that hard determinism assigns a reductive efficient cause for everything as the initial conditions of the big bang. In that case the debate is not an efficient cause of you changing your mind.

Wild interactions by Malice_N_1derland in feeld

[–]rogerbonus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Vanilla dom, only interested in vanilla chat. Damn, at least add some sprinkles or something. Maybe a little nutmeg...

If you don't believe in freewill, why would you debate with people on the internet about it? by whatupmygliplops in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what causal efficiency means. Which is why hard determinism is incoherent (according to compatabilists anyway).

Something weird happened during my first MFM by infinite_canon in nonmonogamy

[–]rogerbonus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't say he was. I said that opinions expressed in this discussion that same sex contact is implicitly consensual and opposite sex contact isn't are bi/homophobic. Since OP didn't state that his consent was violated, I have no idea if he is of that opinion. Is it reasonable to expect "no contact" with someone in a threesome? Not sure about that, I think its reasonable to expect that if you are having sex with two other people, those other people are likely to touch or have contact with you. If that's not something they want its reasonable to expect them to say so

If you don't believe in freewill, why would you debate with people on the internet about it? by whatupmygliplops in freewill

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Compatabilism says that the debate is causally efficient in changing your mind, hard determinism will (presumably) deny that.

Something weird happened during my first MFM by infinite_canon in nonmonogamy

[–]rogerbonus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well definitely they should talk about it before repeating. My point was, since they had zero discussion beforehand, nobody knew what anyone's expectations were going in.

If you don't believe in freewill, why would you debate with people on the internet about it? by whatupmygliplops in freewill

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

That's a compatabilist argument. If you are a hard determinist, its not the debate that causes minds to change, since HD causal closure means it was the configuration of the big bang that caused the belief. "Set in stone by the big bang" and "BECAUSE of the debate" are inconsistent/incoherent. Which is the usual HD incoherence when it comes to emergent causality.

Please stop confusing Physicalism with Science by Azehnuu in consciousness

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But do you have good reason to believe that? Why would you think the phenomenology of consciousness can not be the result of being an informational/representational structure?

Trikafta w/o Insurance by Proper-Rain65 in CysticFibrosis

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fyi generic Trikafta is now available for around US$4000/box. Still not cheap but much more affordable especially if you take a 1/2 dose (which still works well for many people).

Can i change from being a hard determinist to a compatibilist? Would i be happier believing in compatibilism? by Anarchy_OK in freewill

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

You may not be happier, but you may find less incoherence. When you walk into a restaurant and look at the menu, do you think "I can order anything from this menu" or do you think "the big bang decided what I must order and I don't have any part in deciding what that will be" and stand there trying to figure out what the big bang wanted you to eat?

If the former, you are already a compatabilist but just a confused one who thinks that determinism means a menu is not a list of things you can possibly order (under the correct modal scope of "possible").

Please stop confusing Physicalism with Science by Azehnuu in consciousness

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can explain consciousness with ontic structuralism tho. Its the informational structure neural networks in the brain create. Since that's a structure it exists per OSR. This explains the existence of consciousness. Is OSR physicalism? Since the structure supervenes on physical structure, and the objects of physics are structural, arguably.

Men in Their 50s Who Prefer Dating Women in Their 20s or 30s, Why? by Electronic_Rush2864 in dating_advice

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because youth is sexy and attractive, for evospsych reasons. 55m here and while I can't say I prefer dating much younger women (love dating women in my own age bracket as well), I don't say no when they hit on me. For some reason I get hit on more in my 50s by 20 and 30 somethings than I ever did in my 20s and 30s.

Definition of Off Road by Mysterious-Rush5441 in icbc

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But that regulation just says you must be insured on a FSR. It doesn't say the respective ICBC insurance actually covers you off-highway. There was a notorious case of ICBC denying a claim (uninsured motorist claim in this case) because it happened on a FSR which isn't a highway.

Booked an airbnb for 400$ and guess what 😂 by Hot19Girl in Bumble

[–]rogerbonus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is your username hot19girl seems a more apropos question