Message from @nagarjuna

Discord ID: 489455851191533585


2018-09-12 15:18:47 UTC  

Yes I am quite happy to meet Schopenhauer.

2018-09-12 15:18:49 UTC  

However, nagarjuna

2018-09-12 15:18:58 UTC  

If you want to seriously argue against anything but strict determinism

2018-09-12 15:19:15 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:19:55 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:20:14 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:20:22 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:20:25 UTC  

count as free will?

2018-09-12 15:20:51 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:20:56 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:21:24 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:21:42 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:21:42 UTC  

So metaphysics is out of the question?

2018-09-12 15:21:44 UTC  

No

2018-09-12 15:21:49 UTC  

oh

2018-09-12 15:22:09 UTC  

why not simply an eternal universe

2018-09-12 15:22:18 UTC  

it's against the laws of physics

2018-09-12 15:22:26 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:22:37 UTC  

Cosmic background radiation and what not

2018-09-12 15:22:48 UTC  

But, in general we reach a paradox

2018-09-12 15:22:48 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:22:52 UTC  

A causeless event

2018-09-12 15:23:09 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:23:10 UTC  

Which is a given that is assumed by physics

2018-09-12 15:23:17 UTC  

No I dont think we can ever determine that

2018-09-12 15:23:21 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:23:29 UTC  

Should ethics be concerned about this?

2018-09-12 15:23:32 UTC  

It still comes down to a causeless event

2018-09-12 15:23:34 UTC  

Knowing the beginning of everything?

2018-09-12 15:23:40 UTC  

Ehh up to them lol

2018-09-12 15:23:44 UTC  

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

2018-09-12 15:23:46 UTC  

it's rather a hard question

2018-09-12 15:23:53 UTC  

I never stated science could explain everything

2018-09-12 15:24:00 UTC  

That is truthfully sad

2018-09-12 15:24:05 UTC  

I do state that science can explain the material conditions around us

2018-09-12 15:24:10 UTC  

Which still give ways for religion to subjugate others because science can't give enough

2018-09-12 15:24:12 UTC  

including the human condition that we live in every moment

2018-09-12 15:24:19 UTC  

but if it can't exlain everything it can't really explain anything

2018-09-12 15:24:26 UTC  

It can explain everything materialistc

2018-09-12 15:24:30 UTC  

It can explain everything

2018-09-12 15:24:33 UTC  

but it is not probable