The place of rage and hate

[Mudhammam]

Something that can be falsifiable. The deterministic view Schopenhauer proposes outright rejects random events. He provides no justification for this other than claiming there is a hidden variable that we're missing.

I suppose one way that Schopenhauer's determinism could be falsified is if an actual "miracle" occurred and we were to observe a consequent lacking any sufficient ground... which is not even the case at the scale of quantum events. Even then, to quote Brian Greene, "Wave functions--the probability waves of quantum mechanics--evolve in time according to precise mathematical rules, such as the Schrodinger equation... This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism: Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients of the universe at some moment allows a 'vast enough' intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or future time. Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave functions at any time" (italics his). The scientific enterprise rests on the assumption that the same conditions necessitate the same outcome. Of course, Schopenhauer is writing before the revolution in physics at the turn of the twentieth-century so he's only discussing determinism as it relates to the classical image of the world, but even so, if you want to argue that it is appropriate to speak of human thoughts and behaviors in the context of quantum mechanics, 1) probabilities are still determined, and 2) free will cannot be salvaged by suggesting that actions can somehow spring forth from uncaused causes.

[Losty]

(hehehe, about the moral outrage bit Benny, why would it be hard to feel moral outrage? Wouldn't my feelings also be deterministic? Seems it would be just as easy to feel moral outrage either way :wink: )

Yeah, I take it back. I should have said that is is difficult to rationally justify ACTING on moral outrage.

Seems like any who did act on their moral outrage wouldn't be able to help it...

[The Valkyrie]

I hate people who automatically make assumptions about others.

In my first year as a resident I went to see a patient, an arrogant old fart who already had a rep among the staff for being a prick, and the first thing he said to me was, "Nurse! When the hell is my doctor going to be here?"

"Actually, sir, I'm your doctor."

He actually laughed, "No, don't be silly girl. Where's my doctor?"

I ended up having to show him my staff photo ID and then he complained about having a "girl" doctor . . .

[bennyboy]

Yeah, I take it back. I should have said that is is difficult to rationally justify ACTING on moral outrage.

Seems like any who did act on their moral outrage wouldn't be able to help it...

Right. But they would have difficulty rationally justifying it.

[Losty]

People have to be held accountable for their actions. Otherwise it'd be extremely difficult to run a civilized society. Doesn't mean we should hate people for their actions though. Empathy and compassion are admirable traits, especially when they're felt for people who may not be deserving.

[Surgenator]

---

Something that can be falsifiable. The deterministic view Schopenhauer proposes outright rejects random events. He provides no justification for this other than claiming there is a hidden variable that we're missing.

I suppose one way that Schopenhauer's determinism could be falsified is if an actual "miracle" occurred and we were to observe a consequent lacking any sufficient ground... which is not even the case at the scale of quantum events. Even then, to quote Brian Greene, "Wave functions--the probability waves of quantum mechanics--evolve in time according to precise mathematical rules, such as the Schrodinger equation... This informs us that quantum determinism replaces Laplace's classical determinism: Knowledge of the wave functions of all of the fundamental ingredients of the universe at some moment allows a 'vast enough' intelligence to determine the wave functions at any prior or future time. Quantum determinism tells us that the probability that any particular event will occur at some chosen time in the future is fully determined by knowledge of the wave functions at any time" (italics his). The scientific enterprise rests on the assumption that the same conditions necessitate the same outcome. Of course, Schopenhauer is writing before the revolution in physics at the turn of the twentieth-century so he's only discussing determinism as it relates to the classical image of the world, but even so, if you want to argue that it is appropriate to speak of human thoughts and behaviors in the context of quantum mechanics, 1) probabilities are still determined, and 2) free will cannot be salvaged by suggesting that actions can somehow spring forth from uncaused causes.

---

In principle, an event outside a quantum probability would falsify the classic determinism. What happens when the random behavior directly comes from some inherent quantum behavior?

Brian Greene excluded an important piece of information about evolving wave functions, they generally get more broad over time. This means the that the error on your predictions will grow. At some point, you cannot predict anything.

I agree that probabilities are still determined, and random picking doesn't salvage free will.