How to argue with a determinist/physicalist?
>dude its all a chain of events lmao
Seems pretty hard to refute.
Can determinism itself be determined (or even predicted) with perfect accuracy?
Sleep tight OP.
ask them
>ok, its all just a chain of events
>whats your point?
and watch their retarded jaw flap in the breeze
>>882456
FREE WILL IS AN ILLUSION. THAT'S THE POINT
I'M SHITPOSTING BECAUSE I HAVE TO, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
I don't get why people have a problem with determinism at all.
Why should it matter to you if everything is a chain of events don't to the minutest scale?
Are you going to stop jerking off and go to work because of it? Exactly.
you can't argue with determinism because determinism is always right.
if you hadn't made this thread i would not reply to it.
if you didn't know about determinism you wouldn't make this thread.
etc.
"If fate determined for you to steal, fate determined for me to slap you."
t. some roman
>>882444
What's the first link?
>>882476
good point
+1 upboat :)
thanks for the ebin reply, shmahamaladan ;;DD:^^))
>>882486 (You)
time is a durational flow of the past gnawing its way into the future. the present is this process of creation in which certain memories and past experiences colour perception. once this creational process is over then it is in the past. the present then is a constant process of creation but it is never determined which memories will be involved in the process at each moment nor how they will colour our perception. however this is not to say that we have conscious freewill and control of this process. this process is not done by an agent. but the future and present are not predetermined.
>tfw cant remember my bergson
Why would you bother? It's not like free will is a question that actually matters. Whether will is causal or spontaneous, it's still will.
It's true, one thing causes another but it's not like we can't choose which path we should follow.
determinism only holds up if you accept a B-series viewpoint of time.
>t1->t2->t3->t4->t5->t6
>>882444
They assume that everything needed to cause B at T2 will be present in A at T1. There is no reason to think this. Rather we should posit that until an effect arises there is no sufficient cause, because up until the instant the effect actually exists something could come up and block the cause.
If they want to invoke " laws of nature" just point out that no such thing exists. "Laws" are just mathematical abstractions we use to abstract those aspects of phenomena that are quantifiable and predictable from reality in generalizations. The classical physicist only looked for determinate things- hence those aspects of reality that were non-deterministic were left out of the abstractions. This means nothing about reality, it is solely an issue within physics. Not to mention that modern quantum physics posits indeterminism rather than determinism.
Also, events don't exist. When does a battle begin and when does it end ? There is no non-arbitrary way to demarcate it.
One can be a physicalist without being a determinist. Determinism is a metaphysical possibility- but we have no reason to posit it.
>>882615
What if one thing can have two possible outcomes?
>>882456
>whats your point?
there is no point, it's just an observation.
>>882456
fucking retarded copout. That IS the point
>>882444
Wait why are you even arguing against such a position in the first place.
Seems suspicious.
>>882444
Causation is not a physical phenomenon.
>>882444
For determinists:
Tell them they are quite possibly scientifically wrong, and that their philosophical viewpoint does not match current understanding of the universe (see quantum mechanics).
For physicalists:
Ask them whether they consider information or sentience physical. Because if they aren't, that breaks the whole "everything is physical" thing - they are real, definable, demonstrable things (sentience is not universally demonstrable, but internally demonstrable i.e. "cogito ergo sum")
>>882444
"If you were sure determinism is the reality of the universe, you would not argue for it."
>>How do I argue with people who claim water is in a liquid state if the temperature is maintained at 20c at sea level?
You can't. They're correct.
>>883111
>They're correct
Only if the discussion was to determine that water is in a liquid state if the temperature is maintained at 20c at sea level.
>>883107
Do you really think that's a good argument?
