YES

There is NO

"Oh I guess your chemical state had a direct effect on your consciousness"

proof to suggest otherwise

Also YES on that thing

again, there are rationalist critiques of this stuff. David Hume posed epistemological problems for science which have never been overcome

On a side note, it is a rather deep feeling of acknowleding that we're part of a continuation of long past events.

That sense of continuity

dat dooty

The sooner you get over it the better

Yes I am quite happy to meet Schopenhauer.

However, nagarjuna

If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism

You ought to analyze a mentally-handicapped person and observe his "free-will" and consciousness

>If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism
what does this mean, if I want to argue against determinism?

If you want to suggest or imply that the world around us is not deterministic

Does a person intoxicated and doing shit he doesn't usually does

count as free will?

Or would it be within the purview of the brain's chemical's state?

I have no problem with determinism, fatalism is of course similar. to me the difference can even be expressed within science. If time is not a natural kind but rather an emergent property, then there is no determinism because there is really no temporal line in which one thing causes what happens "after" it. there is no after

I obviously cannot prove that time is not "real" but the topic does come up in science. for example there is no time for light i believe

The response to that is that the initial start point of energy-matter and spacetime occurs

So metaphysics is out of the question?

No

oh

why not simply an eternal universe

it's against the laws of physics

How come there would be an eternal universe when big bang says otherwise

Cosmic background radiation and what not

But, in general we reach a paradox

also at that level you're saying that everything is determined by the start of the universe. then the idea that the superstructure is determined by the base is wrong-> both are determined by the big bang

A causeless event

So the question reverts back to what made this start of things?

Which is a given that is assumed by physics

No I dont think we can ever determine that

but we don't really know what happened at the big bang we can only get to within the last split second but its still important. there are competing theories

Should ethics be concerned about this?

It still comes down to a causeless event

Knowing the beginning of everything?

Ehh up to them lol

Right but that just shows science can't explain everything lambo