Reality is obviously way more complex than free-will or determinism

D

Deleted member 137296

Kraken
Joined
Mar 29, 2025
Posts
3,338
Reputation
4,970
reductionist materialism btfos free will

but determinists are no different to religious people because their logic becomes faith the moment they try to explain anything that happens prior to the big bang
 
  • +1
  • So Sad
Reactions: Eltrē, wishIwasSalludon, Thief and 1 other person
@imontheloose @Mainlander

what determined the first thing that was pre-determined?
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon, SlayerJonas and ethnic subhuman
Oddly rephrased contingency argument.
ill take that as an 'idk neurosis, determinism cannot explain the nature of our choices seeing as it is literally impossible for reality to exist in a perpetual cause and effect linear state'
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Thief and SlayerJonas
Oddly rephrased contingency argument.
You don't exist bro, I reject your existence.

1755896911479
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Fusionxz, wishIwasSalludon, natelma0 and 3 others
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Thief and etulceil
ill take that as an 'idk neurosis, determinism cannot explain the nature of our choices seeing as it is literally impossible for reality to exist in a perpetual cause and effect linear state'
No. You should take it as, if you’re going to ask recycled questions, at least search the typical answer beforehand before making your own mind up about what I believe.

Nonetheless, why should I even grant PSR? There is no need for it; your argument and all contingent points rely entirely upon it. Time began at the Big Bang; there is no before and it isn’t a later event with an earlier cause. You are illiterate in astrophysics however so you totally misfire asking ludicrous questions.

I don’t reject will; I reject its freeness in a libertarian sense. This is not a controversial take.
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Fusionxz, isis_Bleach, Mainlander and 2 others
No. You should take it as, if you’re going to ask recycled questions, at least search the typical answer beforehand before making your own mind up about what I believe.

Nonetheless, why should I even grant PSR? There is no need for it; your argument and all contingent points rely entirely upon it. Time began at the Big Bang; there is no before and it isn’t a later event with an earlier cause. You are illiterate in astrophysics however so you totally misfire asking ludicrous questions.

I don’t reject will; I reject its freeness in a libertarian sense. This is not a controversial take.
are dmt machine elves real?
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: etulceil
philosophy mogs astrophysics

smart people have already realised this

language = base reality and the highest form of intellectualism
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: JasGews69x and etulceil
No. You should take it as, if you’re going to ask recycled questions, at least search the typical answer beforehand before making your own mind up about what I believe.

Nonetheless, why should I even grant PSR? There is no need for it; your argument and all contingent points rely entirely upon it. Time began at the Big Bang; there is no before and it isn’t a later event with an earlier cause. You are illiterate in astrophysics however so you totally misfire asking ludicrous questions.

I don’t reject will; I reject its freeness in a libertarian sense. This is not a controversial take.
what willed the first will then? same thing
 
  • +1
Reactions: JasGews69x
  • JFL
  • Love it
Reactions: Thief and Mainlander
what willed the first will then? same thing
Category error after category error. Will is a process realised by the brain; a control policy implemented in neural dynamics. You don’t do a process. You don’t ask, what digested the first digestion? or what evaporated the first evaporation? because the right question is, what physical conditions produced the first token instance of willing?

The answer is plainly, earlier physical states; not “another will”. You’re treating the type as if it must be caused by a prior token of that very type. The first token of willing is caused by precursor biological/neuronal tokens which hence trace back to earlier physical states.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and SlayerJonas
Life on earth is not complicated

Humans made it complicated
 
  • +1
Reactions: choppedshyt, Thief and Mainlander
You can't start a debate about astrophysics then just say "philosophy mogs".

View attachment 4044591

I think Einstein cared more about physics.
in order to answer op, it's best to debate in terms of whatever the base of reality (that we know of) operates under (language) (not astrophysics)
language = base reality and the highest form of intellectualism
This is a philosophical debate, turned into an 'astrophysics' debate by @imontheloose

The answer is plainly, earlier physical states; not “another will”.
Genuinely cannot see how you don't see the endless paradox here. x created y. Cool. what created x? z created x. Cool. What created z. ad infinitum
 
  • +1
Reactions: Thief and Mainlander
Genuinely cannot see how you don't see the endless paradox here. x created y. Cool. what created x? z created x. Cool. What created z. ad infinitum
How old are you? This is so horrifically structured and reasoned. I have explained that you may do this yet find yourself at the Big Bang and then fail at using before because you’re used to primitive thinking in your uneducated mind hence why you disregard physical constraints when debating; something never done in any field.

Physics doesn’t concern itself with common sense and it doesn’t care whether you find it hard to reason which you plainly do. Your argument may perhaps be the first ever argument the conman used to prove God.

Shall I give you regression 101, seriously?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mainlander and SlayerJonas
You meant y for your second part too, inkwell
I didn't, otherwise that would be a loop. They're just placeholders for whatever
This is so horrifically structured and reasoned. I have explained that you may do this yet find yourself at the Big Bang and then fail at using before because you’re used to primitive thinking in your uneducated mind hence why you disregard physical constraints when debating; something never done in any field.
Using physical constraints to describe the non-physical, is just silly though. Common sense and intuition (language and/or philosophy) are better for navigating meta-physical ideals such as op (emphasis on the meta, just for you)

If the answer for what pre-determined the original determiner (Big Bang) is 'idk' then fine, but it kind of ruins the entire foundation of determinism
 
  • +1
Reactions: JasGews69x and Mainlander
I agree with you believing in hard determinism is in many ways very similar to believing in religion because neither can truly be proven

When it comes to the question of the first cause we can only speak in terms of theories
There are many but the ones that come to my mind are these:


the first theory is that time is infinite estretching endlessly into the past and into the future which would mean that a first cause could never exist

But human beings are usually not satisfied with this because we struggle to imagine infinity



Many others instead that there must be a first cause

At this point, it becomes almost a kind of esoteric belief tbh

For some, that first cause is God for others it might be one or several beings in another dimension who live outside of our physical laws and are therefore completely beyond our understanding

It could be that, in their dimension, they exist beyond cause and effect and for reasons we cannot grasp they were the ones who gave us a first cause


But even if that were true for us in our subjective time, in the here and now it is clear that our will cannot be free, because we live entirely within cause and effect

The mere possibility of a first cause does not give us free will since our daily existence is still bound by necessity

This is why I believe determinism disproves free will. Hard determinism, however, remains ultimately a belief, because it cannot be proven
 
  • +1
Reactions: Thief and Deleted member 137296
Using physical constraints to describe the non-physical, is just silly though. Common sense and intuition (language and/or philosophy) are better for navigating meta-physical ideals such as op (emphasis on the meta, just for you)

If the answer for what pre-determined the original determiner (Big Bang) is 'idk' then fine, but it kind of ruins the entire foundation of determinism
Nice. Just merge three things together out of incredulity and blame determinism theory.

Firstly, determinism is conditional. Given laws, L, and initial boundary, S, the rest is fixed. Nowhere is it conclusive that L and S are caused. Not knowing what S explains, or has a lack thereof, does nothing to the determinism claim. This is identical to not knowing the starting position of a particle and claiming it invalidates Newton’s laws.

Secondly, the Big Bang is a physical boundary in our best physical theories. If you want to discuss what pre-determined it, you either: a) accept that before t=0 is undefined so there is no prior physical cause, b) propose a global law/constraint (no boundary, bounce, whatever) that replaces the boundary, or c) punt to a brute fact. Appealing to non-physical here isn’t deep; it’s a miseducated category error, yet again, since you go on to derive conclusions about physical causation.

Finally, epistemic ignorance ≠ metaphysical indeterminism. Saying, “oh well, I don’t know what fixes S” is personal incredulity and not about whether the world is deterministic given L and S. All chaotic systems prove the point: perfectly deterministic, yet often practically unpredictable.

Laws are mapping; initial data picks a trajectory. Changing F=ma to F=36ma changes L, but saying “I don’t know” keeps L intact. Different issues.

Your style of arguing is very boring and childish. I will urge you to have a serious think before replying, if at all.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon, Mainlander, chadisbeingmade and 1 other person
I agree with you believing in hard determinism is in many ways very similar to believing in religion because neither can truly be proven

When it comes to the question of the first cause we can only speak in terms of theories
There are many but the ones that come to my mind are these:


the first theory is that time is infinite estretching endlessly into the past and into the future which would mean that a first cause could never exist

But human beings are usually not satisfied with this because we struggle to imagine infinity



Many others instead that there must be a first cause

At this point, it becomes almost a kind of esoteric belief tbh

For some, that first cause is God for others it might be one or several beings in another dimension who live outside of our physical laws and are therefore completely beyond our understanding


It could be that, in their dimension, they exist beyond cause and effect and for reasons we cannot grasp they were the ones who gave us a first cause


But even if that were true for us in our subjective time, in the here and now it is clear that our will cannot be free, because we live entirely within cause and effect

The mere possibility of a first cause does not give us free will since our daily existence is still bound by necessity

This is why I believe determinism disproves free will. Hard determinism, however, remains ultimately a belief, because it cannot be proven
Much better answer than @imontheloose (no offence, you tried)
c) punt to a brute fact. Appealing to non-physical here isn’t deep; it’s a miseducated category error, yet again, since you go on to derive conclusions about physical causation.
You're doing the exact same thing, but inversed.

You're appealing to the physical and deriving conclusions about the non-physical.

Finally, epistemic ignorance ≠ metaphysical indeterminism. Saying, “oh well, I don’t know what fixes S” is personal incredulity and not about whether the world is deterministic given L and S. All chaotic systems prove the point: perfectly deterministic, yet often practically unpredictable.
If you can't make a deduction on whether the meta-physical is determined or indetermined (ie you are epistemically ignorant on the matter), then it makes no sense to conclude realities that reside in the meta-physical (the physical) are deterministic.

as @Mainlander said
I agree with you believing in hard determinism is in many ways very similar to believing in religion because neither can truly be proven

When it comes to the question of the first cause we can only speak in terms of theories
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: JasGews69x and Mainlander
reductionist materialism btfos free will

but determinists are no different to religious people because their logic becomes faith the moment they try to explain anything that happens prior to the big bang
Low iq foid doesn't know there are atheist scientific ways of describing what happened before the big bang

Im not even an atheist and I know this
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Fusionxz and wishIwasSalludon
Low iq foid doesn't know there are atheist scientific ways of describing what happened before the big bang

Im not even an atheist and I know this
If I was a foid I would be sucking chads cock rn, not having philosophical debates on an incel forum on a Friday evening
 
  • JFL
Reactions: moggerofhumanity, Orka, sillybilly and 5 others
Accepting that the strong PSR is true seems to almost necessarily entail the existent of God
all PSR does is debunk cause and effect, it doesn't really prove the existence of anything 'supernatural'
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
If I was a foid I would be sucking chads cock rn, not having philosophical debates on an incel forum on a Friday evening
Yea that also came to mind a foid would never actually write this :forcedsmile: I'm trolling you
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Fusionxz, choppedshyt and wishIwasSalludon
all PSR does is debunk cause and effect,
its the opposite the PSR shows cause and effect is true

it doesn't really prove the existence of anything 'supernatural'
depends on the version of the PSR used

the strong PSR necessarily entails "God"(thats just what Im calling it) exists
 
its the opposite the PSR shows cause and effect is true
cause and effect as in the rule of a cause having to precede an effect
Retrocausality, or backwards causation, is a concept of cause and effect in which an effect precedes its cause in time and so a later event affects an earlier one.[1][2] In quantum physics, the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level and so time-symmetric systems can be viewed as causal or retrocausal
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
  • JFL
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
If I was a foid I would be sucking chads cock rn, not having philosophical debates on an incel forum on a Friday evening
Nah if i was a foid i would pretend to be interested in someone ltn htn chad doesn't matter when we get ro his house he'll pull his dick out and I'll laugh and say iam not getting fucked by that little dick and leave
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top