Nihilism

[Edwardo Piet]

Actions are no less significant in a deterministic universe because our actions are the same regardless of if this universe is deterministic or not. It's not like the universe changes when we figure out which one we live in.

It's not about actions. It's about not pretending that we have choices when we don't. We don't have choices, but once we realize that . . . then it doesn't mean we used to have them before we realized it. It just means we were deluded up until now. We never had any. What we have is actions and rationality that we ultimately have zero control over. But our actions don't matter any more or less than they ever have. They matter subjectively. So there's a reason to be nihilistic if we feel nhilistic: it's our own subjective reasons! It make sense for us to be nihilistic if we feel nihilistic because all our own motives are down to our own subjectivity anyway. If we don't feel nihilistic, if we feel that there is meaning.... then there is. Subjectively? Yes. But that's the only meaning there is anyway. But it's objectively subjective. Our subjectity really does objectively exist. This is not a contradiction. All ontology is ultimately objective, including subjectivity. Subjects are also objects. The mind is part of the brain is part of the body which itself is an object. There is no contradiction because ontology is always ultimately objective. It's epistemology that sometimes isn't. Epistemology is only objective when we can actually objectively know stuff. Existence is always entirely objective. Because hey, it's about objects. It's about stuff. Only stuff exists! Try telling me about something that doesn't exist and tell me that there's a such thing as it.

[GrandizerII]

My view on all this is that determinism is not the same thing as fatalism... that fatalism is a huge misunderstanding of determinism, confusing the notions of fate and destiny with causality. Say for instance I had won the lottery in the past... and it was thus part of the causally determined path of my life... then fatalism would be akin to me hypothetically being informed in the past that I was destined to win the lottery, and with that information concluding 'if I'm destined to win the lottery, I may as well not buy a ticket', which is just silly. The notion of destiny assumes that a person can a) know their future and b) with said 'knowledge' not be able to change it. Neither of which I believe can be true, even hypothetically; ie I believe it is impossible to know, even hypothetically as the result of some sci-fi/woo intervention, your future without then being in a position to influence or change it. So though I am a hard determinist... what was couldn't have been any other way, what is can't be any other way, and what will be can't be any other way... with allowances made for quantum randomness... that does not mean I believe in destiny in the sense described of ever being able to know my future.

I agree with you here. And note your caveat "with allowances made for quantum randomness" ... this is a key point to keep in mind when pondering whether we play a causal role in a universe where quantum randomness occurs, as opposed to just being an observer. And if so, how much do we contribute to the causal chain of events.

Quantum stuff does confuse this view a bit, but not much; it means (to me) that looking forward there is a certain amount of quantum randomness potentially or actually influencing causation going forward... such that going forward it is potentially less predictable... but looking backwards at the past, though things may have been able to have been another way if quantum randomness had gone another way, it went the way it went and therefore from the future looking back vantage point, it was what it was and couldn't have been any other way. So though I class myself as a hard determinist, I would say I am getting softer as it were, because of the unknown influence and unknown extent of that influence of quantum physics. But in all practical terms, I'm a hard determinist.

That's what I mean. Assuming quantum mechanics, the future is unpredictable. As in by nature. If assuming Copenhagen interpretation, more than one future is possible to us, and which future is actualized is actualized randomly. Assuming many worlds, then only one future (selected among many futures) is available to us, but we have no idea which future it is and our actions won't causally lead to whatever future is selected for us. With quantum mechanics, all we can do is go with the flow.

[emjay]

For the record, my post wasn't in response to/aimed at anyone in the thread, it was just a response to the thread in general. And Grandizer, in case it makes any difference, since I seem to have been drawn into your argument, my own views of quantum stuff do not subscribe to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation... as you have talked about, so that was not accounted for in my thoughts. Not saying that from any position of authority on the subject... I'm only casually aquainted with quantum physics... read a book here or there... but just saying that as far as it goes, the Many Worlds theory has never appealed to me.

[GrandizerII]

For the record, my post wasn't in response to/aimed at anyone in the thread, it was just a response to the thread in general. And Grandizer, in case it makes any difference, since I seem to have been drawn into your argument, my own views of quantum stuff do not subscribe to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation... as you have talked about, so that was not accounted for in my thoughts. Not saying that from any position of authority on the subject... I'm only casually aquainted with quantum physics... read a book here or there... but just saying that as far as it goes, the Many Worlds theory has never appealed to me.

That's fine. What about the Copenhagen interpretation? Copenhagen means indeterminism.

Or do you subscribe to something else?

[Edwardo Piet]

My interpretation is that good scientists make correct calculations but often draw incorrect philosophical implications.

[emjay]

My view on all this is that determinism is not the same thing as fatalism... that fatalism is a huge misunderstanding of determinism, confusing the notions of fate and destiny with causality. Say for instance I had won the lottery in the past... and it was thus part of the causally determined path of my life... then fatalism would be akin to me hypothetically being informed in the past that I was destined to win the lottery, and with that information concluding 'if I'm destined to win the lottery, I may as well not buy a ticket', which is just silly. The notion of destiny assumes that a person can a) know their future and b) with said 'knowledge' not be able to change it. Neither of which I believe can be true, even hypothetically; ie I believe it is impossible to know, even hypothetically as the result of some sci-fi/woo intervention, your future without then being in a position to influence or change it. So though I am a hard determinist... what was couldn't have been any other way, what is can't be any other way, and what will be can't be any other way... with allowances made for quantum randomness... that does not mean I believe in destiny in the sense described of ever being able to know my future.

I agree with you here. And note your caveat "with allowances made for quantum randomness" ... this is a key point to keep in mind when pondering whether we play a causal role in a universe where quantum randomness occurs, as opposed to just being an observer. And if so, how much do we contribute to the causal chain of events.

Quantum stuff does confuse this view a bit, but not much; it means (to me) that looking forward there is a certain amount of quantum randomness potentially or actually influencing causation going forward... such that going forward it is potentially less predictable... but looking backwards at the past, though things may have been able to have been another way if quantum randomness had gone another way, it went the way it went and therefore from the future looking back vantage point, it was what it was and couldn't have been any other way. So though I class myself as a hard determinist, I would say I am getting softer as it were, because of the unknown influence and unknown extent of that influence of quantum physics. But in all practical terms, I'm a hard determinist.

That's what I mean. Assuming quantum mechanics, the future is unpredictable. As in by nature. If assuming Copenhagen interpretation, more than one future is possible to us, and which future is actualized is actualized randomly. Assuming many worlds, then only one future (selected among many futures) is available to us, but we have no idea which future it is and our actions won't causally lead to whatever future is selected for us. With quantum mechanics, all we can do is go with the flow.

That's why I'm getting 'softer' as a hard determinist... because of the increasing confusion of quantum physics. But since I am not up to date at all on the latest quantum theories, I just have to accept myself as a hard determinist with quantum reservations

[Edwardo Piet]

My belief is that what looks chaotic to our human intuitions on the quantum level is ultimately non-chaotic when it comes to the big picture.

Complexity on the small level is often simplicity on the big level. Complexity arrives more easily on the small level.

[GrandizerII]

My belief is that what looks chaotic to our human intuitions on the quantum level is ultimately non-chaotic when it comes to the big picture.

Complexity on the small level is often simplicity on the big level. Complexity arrives more easily on the small level.

You could be right, Hammy. We'll see if that turns out to be the case ... in the future ...

And emjay, sorry for dragging you in this whole quantum stuff. Hope I didn't cause you any inconvenience or harm.

[Edwardo Piet]

Maybe we will see that. Or maybe it will never be discovered. What we are capable of knowing is either equal to or less than what exists. IMO it's most likely the latter. But even if it isn't... it's certainly not the case that we can know more than what exists to know.

There are limits to our potential, IMO.

[emjay]

For the record, my post wasn't in response to/aimed at anyone in the thread, it was just a response to the thread in general. And Grandizer, in case it makes any difference, since I seem to have been drawn into your argument, my own views of quantum stuff do not subscribe to the 'Many Worlds' interpretation... as you have talked about, so that was not accounted for in my thoughts. Not saying that from any position of authority on the subject... I'm only casually aquainted with quantum physics... read a book here or there... but just saying that as far as it goes, the Many Worlds theory has never appealed to me.

That's fine. What about the Copenhagen interpretation? Copenhagen means indeterminism.

Or do you subscribe to something else?

I'm sorry, I don't know. I'll have to read up on the subject.

And emjay, sorry for dragging you in this whole quantum stuff. Hope I didn't cause you any inconvenience or harm.

No, just a few more minutes in this thread than expected That just means one less Viper (aoe) youtube video to watch tonight Hammy knows what I mean