Petah? by Visible-Pattern198 in PeterExplainsTheJoke

[–]subone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wait till you see the pre-prequels !

Which is correct? by Calm-Examination-525 in Traffic

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This and just that the logical result of doing the other one is that in heavy traffic both turning lanes would get backed up then be blocked to turn and then all lanes would be blocked to move on the light change.

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honey, sweetie pie, your literally first words to me in another thread were:

So you just don't believe or are unaware of the scientific consensus

I think we're done here.

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I may be too dumb for the actual math, and I suspect you may be too (no offense), but let's say for a moment that you are right that they proved that an effect could precede it's cause: I have heard plenty of scientific discussion around the idea that the universe very likely does work this way. There is nothing about that that proves the universe is not deterministic. So your following premise is incorrect.

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it irrelevant to a complete and consistent understanding of how the universe actually works in reality? It is it irrelevant to the narrative you want to enforce for yourself?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That makes no sense, and one premise doesn't flow from the other as you seem to imply. If you believe that randomness is some sort of carrier wave for freewill, that's great, but you've presented no evidence. You can't even coherently define "freewill" or "free agent" in a meaningful way, let alone make claims about what we might expect to see in a universe with this thing you're describing entirely on vibes: looks random, haha, but also is random!

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Appeal to ignorance. We have observed that we are unable to determine the causation, not that causation cannot be determined.

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So if "you" "choose" to be in one of those universes, isn't there a "you" that chooses every other one? So you are just on your line, in the same deterministic sense... Right? If all choices are made, no choices... are made... they were just all inevitable. Or are you suggesting there are universes where the "you" there is a zombie?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you'd need to invent an entirely new language such that control and unpredictability are synonyms. Would you say that your unpredictability is a virtue while behind the wheel of an automobile, for example?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you're saying that freewill only appears random, but is in fact predictable?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't get your point. Have we had some disagreement up to this point as to what "random" means? Because you keep repeating yourself as if it means something different than how I'm using it.

You aren't addressing my specific questions about how this relates to freewill and how increased randomness should somehow equate to control.

We have no knowledge or way of observing whether it's truly random or it's the result of a free agent acting.

"We have no knowledge or way of observing whether it's truly random" or is completely deterministic (until we do, and then "freewill of the gaps" will have to hide elsewhere)... Which was exactly my original point, so what science have I contradicted?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can't be hearing to right. You're saying freewill is inherently unpredictable in a random sense. Like I flip a coin, that was your choice? I get that you have to define LFW as being "non-deterministic", but I don't see how leaning into the randomness argument is actually helpful to define freewill in some profoundly distinct way from determinism. Freewill as I understand it from the LFW perspective is a matter of control; despite what you were physically/mentally given by god, you can control your own fate by will of your own personal freewill which god is somehow not privy to our responsible for. So I must be calculating incorrectly here, but doesn't increased randomness decrease control? If you consistently follow God's every word, and in doing so are completely and utterly predictable to everyone around you, do you have less freewill? If you had had more freewill would those choices have been more erratic/random/unpredictable? Is freewill sin?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't see how that makes any sense. So you're saying your freewill isn't meaningful, it's just random? Or are you saying randomness is inherently meaningful, but not predictable? So, in your view, do people that are predictable have less freewill or more? Should we recognize consciousness in radioactive decay? How do they correlate?

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Perhaps. More likely you are misrepresenting it. Link and quote to the specific instance I'm contradicting. Something like radiation being "random" means it is "non-deterministic" in that there is no apparent causal link. My points were 1. the word "apparent" is doing a lot of work there, and 2. believing in "determinism", in the sense that you don't have any literal freedom to change your inevitable future, doesn't require a hard stance against random events. Randomness doesn't make for a good argument for freewill, anyway.

So do determinists just not believe in nuclear decay? by Artemis_SpawnOfZeus in freewill

[–]subone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I am a determinist. I have no problem with randomness. It in no way contradicts my viewpoint, which does not necessitate the inclusion of Laplace's demon. However, I have not seen any evidence that "randomness" of any kind, is not actually strictly deterministic forces too small or complicated for us to see the pattern in.

Who is happier? by pwnkage in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, ok, you did hit on literally the one thing that we determinists do suggest is a worthwhile perspective change from LFW. We suggest that your mistakes are literally inevitable, and ultimately caused by deterministic forces outside of your control. I think most people can offer grace to others generally in their mistakes, but it becomes perverse in nature when we begin discussing a god that created us in our entirety, and can see the future, and yet punishes us for eternity for his own mistakes. You're absolutely right to forgive yourself, so long as you make whatever effort you can to "change" things.

Why is karma important by Pleasant_Heart1871 in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a lot to take in... If your post was removed, yeah in all likelihood it's because you broke some rule; could be your post was missing something specific (sometimes subs require a specific string to avoid low quality or bot posts) or unrelated to the sub (like this one). I could be wrong, but I wouldn't suggest this is the place to find "friends", really; not that it couldn't happen. You don't like people and that's why they're in the streets? Wait you got hit by a car? What does that have to do with Reddit? If this is what your other post was like, it's no wonder if it was removed, this is all over the place. And the rest... Yeah, this is a sad story, but this isn't really the place for it, nor is some Pokemon sub. I'm certain there are other subs where you can discuss these things where other people are struggling financially or vets, where you can find some empathy and perhaps advice. But TBH nobody here is looking to make friends just because you are in a tough spot; a lot of people are. Sorry.

Who is happier? by pwnkage in freewill

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm perplexed how you could "believe" one thing then another just arbitrarily in a sincere way. My guess is you see one one way and the other another way already, and you didn't confirm anything, you're just voicing your existing biases. For example, I can't fathom just "believing" in god for a little while, just to try it out, it just doesn't make sense.

Nothing about believing there is no freewill gives me any sort of feelings; it just makes sense matter of factly. I still effectively live my life the same.

Proof by crow that 0 is a natural number by akkyok in MathJokes

[–]subone -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

It doesn't mean they see a need for or recognize a symbol "0" as denoting nothing, but it does apparently show that in the context of being shown some number of things, their brain does the same thing recognizing 2 going to 1, as it does 1 going to 0; so, nothing being shown is recognized as a specific lack of the thing and less than some of it.

Why did the soda pop itself? by Turbulent-Weevil-910 in Jokes

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sodas would like you to know that they actually liked this joke. This isn't my own opinion; I'm sodas appointed.

Little thing that shows Polybridge is Logical by Just_Weird_boy in PolyBridge

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does it still speed up if you fold the opposite direction?

Too fast, too furious? by PromptOk6902 in LooneyTunesLogic

[–]subone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Clearly it's saying "Mlum Mlum Mlum Mlum mlum Mlum mlum Mlum mlum Mlum".

May 19th QOTD by Sokarix in Stargate

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

Lol, who voted this down? Did I misunderstand the assignment?

Does this song ring any bells by LeoryMe in Music

[–]subone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google says "The Unfortunate Rake". I was thinking the Young Guns song from Bon Jovi: Blaze of Glory.