The obviousness of this publication not being a serious scientific text deserves to be addressed with either humour, thoughtfulness or artistic intent. The guardians of the science tag, however, who do recognise this, cannot help but mention that the wit (or drama, as the case may be) is based on false information.
This is like telling an artist who exhibits his painting that his work, which makes use of the knowledge of his time, is not one hundred per cent accurate representing physics or you name it. LOL :D
Also, I personally invited lemouth here, so no worries about him showing up just randomly.
Still, I put the fiction tag ahead of the science tag on purpose.
I believe humans have already entered into a dark age, which encompasses art, science, philosophy, culture, and all else. I just find it that much harder to believe anything written with mere words, rather than something I can see in reality itself. And I do mean clearly see, even with the aid of tools. What something like a hadron collider does is nice, but I think there's a lot more to particle physics than just that, and without a clear, concise understanding of what's going on, I will continue to be skeptical regarding even modern science.
Alright, thanks for making that clear :)
I am not sure whether there is a linear age going on.
I think that it is part of the phenomenon of human existence that what people perceived as normality was and is a reflection of what they perceived as such. One can live well in an existence by not constantly being aware that one's own well-being is at the expense of someone else who is not so well off. It is nonsensical, in my opinion, to constantly feel guilty about this. Especially when I, as an average person, am basically just following what I was born into. The question of guilt doesn't arise for me, I can't help it if things are unfair, just as I can't help it if things are fair. But by blaming myself, I allow myself to be gagged and have the notion poured over me that I can do something to "save the world". Which is, of course, sheer nonsense.
Darkness (or light) cannot equally be applied to all people, many would reply that they perceive nothing dramatic, with which they are right for themselves, how could it be otherwise? It is a thing of impossibility to make it clear to another person who finds everything fine and just that it is not so.
Where one walked in a group of quite normal people and then suddenly realises that they are wolves, the wolves will still say that they are not.
This can cause despair and that is, how I oftentimes feel nowadays. For me, the most difficult task is to put trust into those near me, who themselves lost trust in me. The only way to prove that I am trustable is to stay calm and friendly. Without losing myself.
Science lives from doubt, is what I think. If there is no doubt allowed it's not science. Scientific doubts come with delays, and what is presently put into consensus will be questioned in the future. Those premises though, which never have been questioned ever after the consensus, have a life-time of their own, which makes them into doctrine. We know, those are the hardest things to question, those affairs we take as a matter of fact and never even spend the slightest thought about them.
Greetings to you :)
I certainly agree with what you said.
Someone else mentioned "common law" in the sense that it was actually the law of nature and God himself, and the law was "Do not harm other humans or cause loss to them." And right away, despite the fact that it sounded like a nice law on the surface, I felt like it was riddled with severe weaknesses.
It's the sort of concept where if I was to seriously question it, I'd have to dismiss it because it doesn't make sense. For one, it's like you said, where I'm probably having a better life at the expense of someone else in some form, somewhere down the chain, and for two, why are only humans given protection of this law and not animals, plants, and the rest of nature?
It's the sort of law that isn't actually a law, but a mere plea. A wish. But it doesn't correlate to reality, and because of this, I cannot consider it to be valid. So I ignore it and continue living my life using functional, practical ethics and ideas.
I have to live each day, and I won't do it with guilt. None whatsoever. But I also do not serve evil or malice. I just do as I do and I do my best.
Well, truth be told, even despite this, I'd still prefer to really really know the truth about quarks. Hahah, but my previous posts I made, especially ones like "Post-skeptic Paranoiaism" indicate that one hundred years of science and a lot of references in books cause me to see dark parallels to theology, considering that I cannot actually experience a quark in a way that gives me or anyone a definite answer.
I still feel in the dark, no matter what research I do, because the logic doesn't really point strongly in either direction. Otherwise I'd have been much easier convinced.
As it is, quantum physics scientists are still talking about "probability" and "uncertainty," with attached arguments talking about things like 'Free will" vs "Determinism," which I cannot help but see as a weakness.
It is not reality that is infallible in this sense. I simply do not think humans in the year 2022 are such masters of physics.
That's quite a good insight, no?
Why don't you stick to the notion that there always will be uncertainty to a degree? And asked the other way around: What would you gain by attaining absolute certainty in a given matter?
How I see it, there is determinism and free will at the same time.
If I was to gain perfect certainty, I'd be able to make perfect predictions.
The further into the future I can accurately predict, the better my investments will go. And I mean investments in terms of not only finance, but time and energy too.
However, I don't think there is free will and determinism at the same time.
I think that there is only determinism, and free will is simply a wish due to our desire to be free. Free from things like ideologies, political tyrants, and free in the sense of not having so many pointless responsibilities that keep us from running through a beautiful, flower-filled meadow, twirling and dancing and singing freely.
But I don't think "free will" is actually a real or valid concept to the objective universe.
However, if it IS real, then I do not think it has happened yet. What I would dare to suggest is that free will is possible, but has only been achieved a few times throughout life, perhaps only by a few people who did such things. Instead, free will may end up becoming the domain of super-intelligent machines. Machines that can self-program their own mind.
When I see how people behave, I don't really see free beings. I see people who do as they are told, just merely by other people. So to think that they somehow can defy deterministic physics doesn't seem realistic. But if they could, it would not be a common thing. It would have to reach deep into the meaning and purpose of life itself, to the point of sounding metaphysical. And of course, unprovable.
Determinism is the sort of thing where we cannot know if a time/energy path deviated from its path of least resistance, because we cannot go back in time in order to check.
So nothing you do or say is done or said by your will? If so, then you'd be not responsible for what you think and do?
I do not care if the universe is objective, it matters not when I deal with you right now. I hope, that does not sound offensive, it's meant in a light way.
I will read your other comment tomorrow, for now I say good night.
Do causes not have effects? Does not every action have an equal, but opposite reaction?
Does energy not take the path of least resistance? I can see no true reason why free will in the non-deterministic sense exists. It would be nice if it did, but on an objective level, I don't see free will in the philosophical sense to be an actual objective fact.
However, does this change anything regarding thoughts, words, and actions? From my experience, no, because no matter if effects can defy their causes or not, I still do as I do and you do as you do.
What are objective facts?
What we think we know, we can only formulate through language. Language, by its very nature, is influenced by the culture within which each person grows up. Objectivity would involve an observer who is detached from subjective influences. Since there cannot be such an observer, objectivity cannot be practised, only assumed.
Heinz von Förster
I wrote an article about him here. Maybe you are interested to read it. He was quite an interesting personality. I also touch the subject of free will.
Can I take this as a "yes" answer that what you do and think is your responsibility?
I think that the natural state of reality is determinism, and the X factor is life. But I do not have extremely clear evidence that life at this point in time is capable of true free-will. But nonetheless, as individual lifeforms, we should assume free-will, and always take full responsibility for everything we do. And the more responsibility we take for the choices we make, the closer we get to defying determinism.
And yes, I certainly wish to find a way to defy determinism. That would likely be the goal of life, because the final number of reality is Zero. Heat-death of the universe.
But if we could change that number to One or Infinity, by any means, then we should do that. Free-will is something that cannot be "natural" to the universe. It must be FORCED, using something that might make scientists, religious people, philosophers, and everyone else scream in fear and horror if attempted.
I would never assume that it would be easy to establish true free-will. I also do not expect people to desire it, if presented to them on a platter. What I see now is merely "will", or worse, enslaved people who work each day and obey their superiors, exist with very little power, and essentially are bound by the context of their lives, and further bound by their inevitable death.
To modify reality and change what is false, to your own chosen truth, could dismantle determinism. Perhaps you'd need some sort of machine to do that. A very powerful computer? Or maybe your own brain can do that. Maybe your genetic code.
Or maybe not.
I'll just have to see and continue to experience reality. I'm sure I'll figure something out. =p