Is there an escape from physicalsim? I know there are supposed criticisms but it does seem like the world is mechanistic and deterministic. Things happen accroding to certain rules we can predict. People react in predicatable ways..
If you suddenly see a car about to drive over you you jump out of the way etc...Not only are we predictable in our culturally dependant reactions but also on an instictive level.
Could this all be a result of a severly entranched physicalist set of physicalist related world views?
Can I rethink certain fundamentals about How i view reality and life to escape this seemingly inescapable physicalist deterministic world view?
Things like the value we assign to predictability would need to shift. Why is predictabiltiy important to us? Because through things that predict behaviour of phenomena we can solve certain problems.
We however define the problems ourselves.
We define the problems, we define the standards for what a good solution to them is and we find those solutions ourselves, all in parallel.
Is there an escape?
>inb4 jesus
Please no shitposting.
>but it does seem like the world is mechanistic and deterministic.
Where the fuck did you get that from? For the last 100 years western science and philosophy have both pretty much reached an agreement on how analytical thinking is pretty much wrong and the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts
>>584221
In what sense?
>>584221
>the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts
Many mathematicians would say that is deficient.
>>584229
In what sense is reality not deterministic? Sure the smallest of parts are fuzzy but they average out once and become predictable when there is enough of them interacting.
In any case, compared to the now considered incoherent idea of free will of the past we do not have room in our world view for descision making that is our own. We are part of the physical world and we cannot but interact with it in set ways. We cannot fully predict those interactions but we are the sum of smaller parts interacting according to certain rules.
>>584234
Mathematics is entirely abstract, and whilst it is useful as a tool it is not real in any sense.
I shouldn't be explaining this at this point (TWENTEE SIXTEEN) but you can't show me "One", as in a "pure one". You need to show me one thing, which means mathematics removes a whole dimension out of reality in order to examine it in a abstract model.
What it does is pretty much turning a cube into a square, because it is easier to understand the properties of squares. In real life there is only a cube however.
>>584244
Also, it should be noted that squares do not exist in real life as well, since it is impossible to exist a bi-dimensional object in a tri-dimensional reality.
i.e.: Even if you draw me a square, the ink has some molecules of depth so what you made is actually a three dimensional object, like a weird prism or a doughnut that has points
>>584243
I mean, never before were people put in such a mechanicstic world of which they are only a cog being simply turned by other wheels.
Am I the only one who feels there is a need to create space for freedom from this?
>>584250
It would have to be something related to the fundamentals of the way we think and see the world and reality. If any such alternative exists it would probably do the the contemporary scientific mechanicstic world view what the current world view did to the religious world and ways of thinking of the pre heliocentric world.
No it would not stop samefagging and being a retard. There are infinite ways of seeing the universe that do not see it as a clockwork machine because not even we see it as a clockwork machine. Google or wikisearch "self-regulating system", "systems theory, "cybernetics" or "living systems"
And stop samefagging. And being a faggot
>>584286
That was just an example.
For what im talking about it does not matter of reality is a self regulating system or a clockwork machine.
I mean a thousand years ago, god was real. God was real because the standards of what real is were different and had room for their conception of god and this absolute free will.
And no, they were not wrong in any sense since there is no absolute standard of what is wrong or right. In 500 years they will say we and our conceptions were completely off as well, and so on.
In every age there are different calls for freedom of different sorts it seems to me that in our time there is a need for a yet another freedom.
We need room for a freedom from the contemporary binding physicalist world view.
I read that we are reaching the limits of what can be comprehended by our science, in the sense that some things are so huge or minuscule in scale that there's no way to understand them or test any theories about them.
I don't think there's any real escape from this -esotericism and religion are only desperate tries to find "something else", but if that "something else" exists it may be unknowable at least for as long as we are humans trapped in linear time and 3D space
>>584286
Regardless of how you codify the universe it ends up being predictable or understandable by some sort of mathematics. There's really no space for "magick"
>>584362
Obviously something so radical would have to be something not currently existing in our world view. So not realigion or esotericism. Some completely radical way of looking at the world and reality.
>>584395
Thats why i said that the importance of predictability or understandability in the way we know it would have to change. The very standards by which we judge reality or our own needs and role.
>>584395
Again, this sort of claim only shows you know nothing of mathematics, it does not work that way, the universe is not "mathematical", go study more and then come back, and stop bumping yourself and jerking your own theories in a chinese cartoon image board
>>584434
He is not the op, stop shitposting.
>>584234
The set of all possible pairings in a group of 3 entities is greater than the set of all possible pairings in a group of two entities.
However these possible pairings do not exist at the time of inspection, and reconfiguration of the entities necessarily destroys the status quo pairing.
EX: Set {A,B,C}
Possible Pairings:
ABC
ACB
BAC
BCA
CAB
CBA
6 pairings. Which is far greater than set {A,B}
AB
BA
2 pairings.
If we treat these entities as causes and effects, the above universe size 3 is far more interesting than size 2 universe.
However, each of these pairs can be constrained or liberated by the rules governing their ordering.
EX: Time is linear rule. Causes always precede effects, and greater letter rank alphabetically is synonymous with temporal precedence.
Group of 3
ABC
Group of 2
AB
Each is a pairing size 1 universe despite their different lengths.
So to "escape" physicallism without breaking "the rules" with the unexplainable/inexpressible (introduction of a non-rule) either new objects must be found from outside the set and introduced.
ABCD
or
the rules of ordering must be expanded to permit a more liberal reorganization of past present and future.
>>584447
Or maybe the idea of dividing reality the way math does given an incomplete picture?
I mean your analysis has almost nothing to do with reality except in a very taneous way.
>>584211
>>584447
We know that we possess the means to be dead wrong about the world.
We can imagine a falsehood, we can believe a falsehood.
We know that a mind/brain can only hold a finite and definite amount of bits of information.
The universe in total as the box that contains all brains and all matter, is necessarily capable of far greater information storage than even the best engineered brain contained inside of it. (A box cannot be large enough to contain itself)
Therefore all ontologies are necessarily incomplete and or inaccurate and will never reach total accuracy save perhaps the universe as brain but it could not inspect this information at the same time it represented it. There cannot be universal meta-cognition.
But there is individual meta-cognition. We can inspect and pair data to other data in an arbitrary and random way without positing magic or free will.
If we also affirm that this pairing rule can produce behaviour that does not and cannot follow from ordinary pairings of raw matter that cannot engage in meta-cognition. We may affirm a kind of holographic super-reality that sits atop the wrong-headed ideas, and the imaginings of thinking-kind. The shadow cast by thought into a noplace rather than the affirmation of a real place or substance where thoughts "live".
Further we may say that all such ideas or conscious thoughts are necessarily of this kind insofar as they are necessarily incomplete and or wrong.
Then all ontologies are mistaken and all brain driven behaviour insofar as it is manifested by meta-cognition derived ontologies influences the shape of reality without obeying strictly speaking, entirely physical laws. This may break determinism, but it is fuzzy logic at best.
Sry mate you're only refuge is in mistake far as I can see for better or worse.
>>584211
>I know there are supposed criticisms but it does seem like the world is mechanistic and deterministic.
That doesn't mean idealism is false.
>>584425
>>584434
You may be getting at what may happen should humanity evolve beyond the first 4-5 brain circuits described by Tymothy Leary, when we add something on top of the symbolic-logical brain where human mathematics reside. If I understand that theory well I think our understanding of the universe beyond physicalism will be like some sort of understanding of how humans make part of a whole, both in the Gaia sense and in the sense that we share a universal subconscious. The last circuit allows for an escape of space-time locality. This seems like a bunch of new age nonsense, but then again, it probably only seems "mystical" or "crazy" to us precisely because we are still immature to grasp it.
>>584447
>tries to argue mathematically that "a thing depends on how it's put together"
>uses an entirely irrelevant example
This is the pitfall of children who has just skimmed the first paragraphs of Wikipedia pages. A set doesn't give a fuck how you permute its elements, and in addition the structures arising from an ordered set also doesn't give a fuck about how specifically you order them, just that the fact that there is an order on them.
You get an F. See me after class.
There's also the concept of synchronicity, which may or may not be real or meaningful but in any case is outside of the reach of science
Maybe we can't escape it because we are physical this it will be rooted in the physical? Bumping cause interested
>>584322
God is real. God should be real for the benefit of society, and he is.
>>584883
In the context of determinism, I'm certainly glad the subject of God was brought up. If you read Kierkegaard at all, he uses the complete absence of possibility to define determinism.
>>584295
>>584322
>>584362
Samefag.
THE UNIVERSE IS NOT DETERMENISTIC.
No matter how much you post your popsci it won't be
>>586005
I don't see why not. Complexity and unintelligibility of vast statistical systems from a human point of view do not preclude determinism. You mean in quantum physics?
>>587900
Correct interpretations of quantum mechanics doesn't say shit about whether the world is deterministic or not. It's a popular meme amongst underaged stupid teens to posit that it does.
>>588098
There are no "correct" interpretations of quantum physics. They all predict the same results. And they do, in fact, have something to say about whether the world is really deterministic so eat shit my dude
>>588409
Correct meaning widely accepted. And if you argue with experts that QM somehow proves that the world is indeterministic they'll laugh at your stupid face.
No shit they predict the same results, since interpretation is metaphysics, which has to adhere to physical observations.
>>588426
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are desperately trying to salvage your enormously misinformed post. The "experts" either subscribe to a minimalist interpretation or are partial to any of the numerous substantial interpretations that exist. Interpretations, mind you, that are either deterministic or not. Many Worlds, for example, is deterministic.
As the guy said above before, no thing inside a universe can contain the entire universe.
Considering that all the universe is involved in every interaction inside itself - every process inside our universe basically influences the entire universe always, even if only slightly, then no being inside that universe can ever grasp all the variables involved in any given process.
That means that, whilst the universe is indeed deterministic, and any consequence can be predicted by knowing all the variables involved in it, no being inside the universe can ever really understand all those variables, so nothing inside the universe can ever predict with 100% certainty any outcome.
>>588470
That is an argument against a complete predictability or everything that goes on in the universe (let's call it an argument against ultimate knowledge), but not against its ultimately mechanistic nature. Can the universe or the sentient beings that populate it pull out a wild card and alter this? Even free will seems to be an illusion. I don't know
>>588444
Fucking hilarious. The Copenhagen is also deterministic. Decoherence and uncertainty does not imply determinism you fucking idiot.
>>588534
Are you retarded? Copenhagen is indeterministic.
>Decoherence and uncertainty does not imply determinism you fucking idiot.
I did not imply any such thing. You probably shouldn't argue about something you know literally nothing about.
>>588545
>retard thinks he knows what he's talking about after watching documentaries on QM
>doesn't know that the motivation of MW is to do away with the decoherence that Copenhagen leaves behind
>literally the only interpretational difference between the two
>one's deterministic while the other isn't
Fucking dumbass
>>588509
You are using "mechanistic" wrong then. For something to be mechanistic, you should be able to predict outcomes based on its mechanics. You can not know the mechanics as it is physically impossible.
What you seem to be saying is that "yeah, I have no free will, since all I do is determined". I'm saying basically "yeah man, if you want to see it that way, yeah, it is determined, but no one can ever predict with 100% certainty anything until it happens."
And that is considering time to be something continuous or meaningful because I honestly know nothing of physics
>>588554
I'm amazed at how absolutely stupid you are. I didn't think it was even possible. Advances in decoherence were made because of Many Worlds emerges due to decoherence, not in spite of it, and there is certainly more than one difference between that and Copenhagen. Keep talking though.
>>588574
*many worlds is a consequence of decoherence
>>588574
>still fails to give reasons why MW is deterministic while Copenhagen isn't
>still talking out of his ass
>"Advances in decoherence"
>still spouting popsci concepts
Holy shit this is gold.
>>588595
Many Worlds is deterministic because any potential outcome of an experiment has a 100% chance of occurring, as the wavefunction is applied to the universe and splits into branches in which each outcome happens. Therefore it's deterministic. This is a decoherent approach, this is also common knowledge. Not that you would know, considering you've been consistently wrong about every single thing you've said thus far.
>>588615
>thinks the parallel universes that we have no way of interacting with has any bearing on how we formulate our metaphysics
>thinks that just because the observables are measured in terms of probabilities the theory is non-deterministic
>literally implying uncertainty = indeterminism
Classic dumbass teen. Keep going, let's see how many seasons of Cosmos you've watched.
>>588635
>thinks the parallel universes that we have no way of interacting with has any bearing on how we formulate our metaphysics
Many Worlds IS a metaphysical formulation.
>thinks that just because the observables are measured in terms of probabilities the theory is non-deterministic
I just explained to you why it's deterministic. Probability does not play a role, each outcome of an experiment occurs. Can you even read?
>literally implying uncertainty = indeterminism
Something I "literally" didn't do
I'm just assume you realized a long time ago that you've been thoroughly assblasted and are just playing devils advocate at this point. In which case, I'm happy to continue meme arrowing with you
>>588656
>Many Worlds IS a metaphysical formulation.
Are you serious? It's a mathematical theory which operates with different metaphysics from the other interpretations. It's not a metaphysical theory in itself.
>I just explained to you why it's deterministic. each outcome of an experiment occurs. Can you even read?
>something occurs with 100% while in other interpretations it doesn't, therefore the former is deterministic while the other isn't
>"Probability does not play a role"
Fucking grade A dumbass
>Something I "literally" didn't do
>even clueless about what he himself has done
>hasn't passed a course on introductory QM
This is why I love failing fedora-tipping kids like this in my class.
MW is an interpretation of a theory, not a theory itself. Every single potential outcome of an experiment occurs, therefore probability becomes superfluous as everything is guaranteed to occur on some "branch". This has nothing to do with "uncertainty", as in this case each outcome certainly occurs. Copenhagen on the other hand, is indeterministic because it takes the wavefunction as a tool that is used to calculate probabilities. Do I really need to explain this to you?
>>588571
Ok, so the universe can't be considered a mechanistic. So how does that rule out physicalism?
>>588687
>thinks a theory is indeterministic just because it makes probabilistic predictions
>the probabilistic nature of QM arises literally from uncertainty
>"This has nothing to do with 'uncertainty'"
Am I being memed? Or is this just as hilarious as I first thought?
>>588695
I don't know what you mean by that mate. But OP goes like this:
>Things happen accroding to certain rules we can predict. People react in predicatable ways..
That is not correct. Yes, you can reasonably assume things, based on other things, but you can't really "know" or "predict" the future, not as a humans, or as a god, or as anything smaller than this whole universe. Not even if this Universe was a sentient being it would be able to know.
>>588706
fucking hell man. The epistemic indeterminism in Copenhagen is taken as an essential feature of the quantum state. It isn't ontological because Bohr rejected out of hand the notion of an ontology for quantum mechanics, which is one of the many reasons why it's a shit interpretation. The "uncertainty" here is not a feature of the world.
>>588738
So you're basically arguing that indeterminism is assumed for Copenhagen? While I couldn't care less about what Bohr thinks, QM, as interpreted by Born and other pioneers of the field, is far from indeterministic
>>588745
The Copenhagen interpretation is indeterministic. You should care what Bohr thinks, as he was also a pioneer and he formulated the interpretation as it stands today and it is accepted as the orthodox interpretation by the physics community. Born's approach is minimalist, and while it's claimed that MW can be derived from his rule, that is far from the consensus view.
