4 ms·

My problem with this kind of absolute determinism is that it reduces everything to pointlessness. So much so that you can't really stick with the idea for any l

My problem with this kind of absolute determinism is that it reduces everything to pointlessness. So much so that you can't really stick with the idea for any length of time. For example, from your top post: "You know what I always find so hilarious. How people always seem to qualify luck - even when they show us how lucky they have actually been. ..." What's so funny about it? Their fallacies are predetermined anyway. (Tangent: how can you call it luck, coming from this perspective?) So it seems to me a particularly useless line of thought. I'm not saying you can't indulge in it for kicks, but doesn't provide any useful input to behavior.

confluence 14y ago
> reduces everything to pointlessness Well then - I guess you'd really hate physics then, a field that reduces everything you see around you to a series of equations with a tad of randomness thrown in for good measure. Now then - if you don't believe humans obey the law of physics - well then - that's your problem.
- dror 14y ago
  physics <> determinsm
  - confluence 14y ago
    physics = probabilistic determinism
  - goldfeld 14y ago
    I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. It seems like they don't really want to think it through, so whatever they just accept both conflicting notions. If you come to understand and appreciate high-school level physics, chemistry and the workings of the brain, which most high-schoolers don't, it really strikes me as conflicting how you could not become a determinist. We're just machines fueled by chemistry.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. I'm not a Christian, but I can easily see how someone could be a Christian while not accepting the fundamentalist outlook (i.e. that the world is only 6,000 years old, we're not descended from other species, etc.). Those "other" Christians believe in God, but don't accept the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. To argue that all Christians are fundamentalists would be like arguing the all Muslims want to fly airplanes into buildings. As a viewpoint, it lacks evidence. Even Einstein held something resembling a religious outlook -- but his supreme being couldn't be bothered to deal with us lowly insects: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, remember that, until the end of the 19th century, there was no plausible way for the sun to have been in existence for more than a few million years (in that pre-relativistic era, the sun's energy was thought to arise only from gravitational contraction), which wasn't enough time to support Darwin's timetable. So at that time, even scientists couldn't explain how complex species arose. > We're just machines fueled by chemistry. That's my outlook also, but I can see how religious people might possess different views on the literalness of scripture.
    - confluence 14y ago
      It's called cognitive dissonance. It's how religious people can argue on an internet developed using science or risk their lives to machines made with science. They never join the two logically incompatible worlds.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  I don't have a problem with physics, I just think that applying this level of determinism to human interactions is useless. And as I said, if you have completely internalized that yourself, how is it that you are question other people's behavior? It is, after all, predetermined. To put it another way, it's like trying to fix a watch with a shotgun. And as long as you would like to keep the watch, I'd say save the shotgun for other uses. Pure determinism is fun to play with, and you can believe that it is the ultimate answer, but it has no real use here and now. This is separate to my main point, but I like this quote from E. F. Schumacher: "Relativism and positivism, of course, are purely metaphysical doctrines with the peculiar and ironical distinction that they deny the validity of all metaphysics. including themselves."
  - confluence 14y ago
    I never said absolute determinism (notice the randomness in the line). You took down a straw man.
    - aptwebapps 14y ago
      You didn't have it in the previous post in which you said this: "Finally, physics eliminates the case for free will. So yes - you do what you do because you were set up to do it." Also, for the purposes of my argument randomness doesn't really matter, anyway. It's whether you exclude free will or not.

confluence 14y ago

> reduces everything to pointlessness Well then - I guess you'd really hate physics then, a field that reduces everything you see around you to a series of equations with a tad of randomness thrown in for good measure. Now then - if you don't believe humans obey the law of physics - well then - that's your problem.

dror 14y ago
physics <> determinsm
- confluence 14y ago
  physics = probabilistic determinism
- goldfeld 14y ago
  I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. It seems like they don't really want to think it through, so whatever they just accept both conflicting notions. If you come to understand and appreciate high-school level physics, chemistry and the workings of the brain, which most high-schoolers don't, it really strikes me as conflicting how you could not become a determinist. We're just machines fueled by chemistry.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I'm constantly intrigued by how people can keep such dual world views. Like Christians who also believe in natural selection. I'm not a Christian, but I can easily see how someone could be a Christian while not accepting the fundamentalist outlook (i.e. that the world is only 6,000 years old, we're not descended from other species, etc.). Those "other" Christians believe in God, but don't accept the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. To argue that all Christians are fundamentalists would be like arguing the all Muslims want to fly airplanes into buildings. As a viewpoint, it lacks evidence. Even Einstein held something resembling a religious outlook -- but his supreme being couldn't be bothered to deal with us lowly insects: “I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” Also, remember that, until the end of the 19th century, there was no plausible way for the sun to have been in existence for more than a few million years (in that pre-relativistic era, the sun's energy was thought to arise only from gravitational contraction), which wasn't enough time to support Darwin's timetable. So at that time, even scientists couldn't explain how complex species arose. > We're just machines fueled by chemistry. That's my outlook also, but I can see how religious people might possess different views on the literalness of scripture.
  - confluence 14y ago
    It's called cognitive dissonance. It's how religious people can argue on an internet developed using science or risk their lives to machines made with science. They never join the two logically incompatible worlds.
aptwebapps 14y ago
I don't have a problem with physics, I just think that applying this level of determinism to human interactions is useless. And as I said, if you have completely internalized that yourself, how is it that you are question other people's behavior? It is, after all, predetermined. To put it another way, it's like trying to fix a watch with a shotgun. And as long as you would like to keep the watch, I'd say save the shotgun for other uses. Pure determinism is fun to play with, and you can believe that it is the ultimate answer, but it has no real use here and now. This is separate to my main point, but I like this quote from E. F. Schumacher: "Relativism and positivism, of course, are purely metaphysical doctrines with the peculiar and ironical distinction that they deny the validity of all metaphysics. including themselves."
- confluence 14y ago
  I never said absolute determinism (notice the randomness in the line). You took down a straw man.
  - aptwebapps 14y ago
    You didn't have it in the previous post in which you said this: "Finally, physics eliminates the case for free will. So yes - you do what you do because you were set up to do it." Also, for the purposes of my argument randomness doesn't really matter, anyway. It's whether you exclude free will or not.