4 ms·
For classical physics it's basically true[1]; see Laplace's demon. I recall also independently inventing determinism as a kid after I realized how easily I'd be
by digging 3y ago
For classical physics it's basically true[1]; see Laplace's demon. I recall also independently inventing determinism as a kid after I realized how easily I'd been swayed by external factors into buying one toy over another.
For non-physical things, such as emotions and thought... well, we have no actual proof they're anything but physical. We just don't have proof that they're entirely physical, either. But the simplest explanation is actually that they are completely physical processes and just as deterministic as everything else (which is to say, possibly not at all, depending on how QM is resolved).
[1] "Basically true" here means it's not strictly true (by that I mean it's not true in all possible cases) - but classical physics itself is not strictly true, thus relativity and QM... which are themselves not strictly true. We're still trying to find the theory that accurately describes all of physics.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoWhen you imagine a red ball, where is that red ball physically? Not the atoms of the neuron configuration etc., but the plane of existence where you place the red ball.
- digging 3y agoI don't understand the question or how it relates to my comment, can you elaborate what you mean by "plane of existence"?
- mensetmanusman 3y agoWhen you imagine from your minds eye, that is a plane of some sort. If we understood exactly where or how this plane exists and for whom, we could arbitrarily place objects and ideas in this plane. Eg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing, or pull imagined objects forcefully out of the plane.
- mannykannot 3y agoEg force someone to think of a red ball bouncing... Indeed: put them in a sensory-deprivation tank and show them a video of a (possibly simulated) ball bouncing. Their existing network of neurons will do the rest.
- digging 3y agoYou're asking me to define the physical nature of thought? Of subjective experience? I can't. No one can. As I already said, though, that doesn't mean we should assume there's something metaphysical going on. When I think of a red ball neurons fire. We have no reason to believe there is anything else going on because we have no evidence one way or the other. The experience of thinking of a red ball is not evidence that there's anything supernatural going on.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIf you can't touch the plane of thought, it isn't physical.
- mannykannot 3y agoWhen my computer simulates a red ball bouncing on the floor, where is that red ball physically?
- mensetmanusman 3y agothat's just binary rgb code that is reminding the mind of a red ball :)
- mannykannot 3y agoPrecisely.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoLuckily reality is nothing like this. Probably.
- mannykannot 3y agoI suppose so - but then, if David Chalmers finds that it's conceivable that it is, it must be at least metaphysically possible.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoIt's still physically impossible.
- broscillator 3y agoI disagree that it's the simplest explanation. The starting point is the mind, because it's what asks the question. The physical world may or may not exist out there entirely independent of mind phenomena but the physical laws are a mental model in order to understand the world, the physical laws arise out of the interaction between the physical world and the mind. The operating order is like this: there is mind -> mind perceives world -> mind makes mental model that presupposes the perceive world is independent of mind -> mind tries to determine its own origin within that presupposition. If you simplify to the most extreme degree you're not left with "the physical laws", you're left with "there is mind". As such, the burden of proof is on the side of the presupposition that the external world is entirely independent of the mind that perceives it.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThe observed world looks materialistic, but such appearance is not required by idealism, and you will need to somehow explain this fine tuning.
- broscillator 3y agoThat's if you take an either or approach. One could also take the view that they're interdependent, there's no "mind causes matter" nor is there "matter causes mind" (or alternatively, both are simultaneously true).