Star Trek: The Libertarian Edition
" Keeping a dose of humour when talking about these things is a must IMO :) Anyway, since Scrotie called the concept of free will in a deterministic universe 'random' while the whole point of determinism is that nothing is random at all, I assumed we're talking with so different a set of definitions and basic assumptions that it's better to drop the issue :D @Upandatem - thanks for the clarifications, seems we're on more or less the same page, as much as there's a page. About the brain being fundamentally different, I'm not sure TBH. There are some mightily strange people with well-recorded and documented histories doing inexplicable things with their brains. It may very well turn out to be a machine operating on a different level than the rest of reality, or at least most of it. The Wheel of Nerfs turns, and builds come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the build that gave it birth comes again. Last edited by Bars on Oct 4, 2016, 2:26:43 AM
| |
|
@Bars: I guess I'm making a distinction here between psychological determinism (essentially just "there is no free will") and the larger physical determinism (which would mean a universe with zero true randomness).
Even if the "science" of the world was that randomness was an illusion, the "engineering" of it would utilize it. If breaking down the apparent randomness of the world into nonrandom results is beyond one's ability to calculate, then it's pseudorandom by definition. If true RNG doesn't exist, PRNG most certainly does. Perhaps not as a permanent situation, but relative to our current ability to calculate. It's quite clear from simple experiments that either free will is truly free, or it is at least pseudorandom, if not truly random. I don't think it's reasonable to believe the switch from PRNG to determinism will ever occur. Our brains have limits. The computers we design and manufacture have limits. Putting one's faith in determinism is a little like believing that π will eventually be proven to be a rational number... which, by the way, has been mathematically proven cannot happen. If randomness does not truly exist, than at least it is the admission of "I don't know" by which the wise man admits how little he knows. Our minds are clearly built for pattern recognition, but we need to be honest with ourselves enough to admit that the lack of an apparent pattern means our ability to predict results is compromised. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Oct 4, 2016, 9:09:31 AM
|
|
|
I just read this post and I can't say anything but 'I agree completley' on all points. As expected, we were suffering mostly from lack of clarification on definitions.
I also find it absurd to expect to ever pierce the incredible complexity and mind-boggling amount of data in the world and arrive at true understanding. So - yes, the idea of determinism means just putting a pretty bow on one's set of assumptions about the universe without too much of a practical result. Since we can never have all the data, the most constructive approach will be to build layers of assumptions: 0. We don't really know anything and all upper layers are just assumptions 1. The universe is deterministic. If we have all the data and know all the rules at a certain point of time, we can predict what will happen with absolute certainty till infinity. 2. We'll never have all the data and know all the rules. 3. Because of 2, we have to operate under the assumption of free will - even if we suspect it to be false. The same applies to solipsism, it's a neat theory without internal logical contradictions and the only objection can be a practical one: if we decide to accept it as true, we suddenly have an explanation for everything and there's no need to think about anything at all. Every time I talk about this, sooner or later I remember Pratchett and how he managed to express it all in a few sentences with a mischievous smile and a twinkle in the eye. I've already posted this at least once but fuck it, it wouldn't be a waste even if I reposted it every day:
Pratchett on the boundaries of ignorance
“Cutangle: While I'm still confused and uncertain, it's on a much higher plane, d'you see, and at least I know I'm bewildered about the really fundamental and important facts of the universe.
Treatle: I hadn't looked at it like that, but you're absolutely right. He's really pushed back the boundaries of ignorance. They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things.” In all these talks, we invariably arrive at savouring the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people. The Wheel of Nerfs turns, and builds come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the build that gave it birth comes again. Last edited by Bars on Oct 4, 2016, 4:19:41 AM
| |
":) Yep. A philosophy (or anything, really) is not very practical if omnipotence is a prerequisite. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Oct 4, 2016, 9:17:28 AM
|
|
