How can science prove an action is random or determined? These seem like philosophical categories to me, not related to science and math — Gregory

They aren't really philosophical categories, they're pretty well defined TBH.

The world doesn't seem to be moving in that way or physically in motion. — Corvus

Except it is.

We don't know how large the universe is, how old it is, and even how it began. — Corvus

Yes we do, yes we do, and we have some solid ideas.

The universe will always remain as the deepest mystery in which we are born, live and perish into. Is it real? What is real? — Corvus

Not really. Some parts of it are mysteries but we know quite a bit about it. It's real for sure, as for asking what is real...that's often a useless and dumb question.

Of course, theology has had a lasting impact on scientism here, because the move from the universe as an organic whole to one defined by "laws" that are inscrutable, and some initial efficient cause, is not what you get when you simply "strip away superstition," but is rather Reformation theology, whose influence remains potent even in the hands of avowed atheists centuries later. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well no, not really. We have evidence and studies for this unlike religion. As for what consciousness is, it's an emergent property of the brain. There is no hard problem to solve here.

Stuff like this kinda makes me question the use of philosophy at times, like trying to complicate matters that are already solved while offering nothing useful to act on. Science may have started off as such but clearly has come far and distinguished itself since then.

Maybe in regards to ethics and morality philosophy helps, anywhere else...meh.

Is there a way you'd prefer people to respond to you in the thread? — fdrake

I guess some indication that my replies and posts are being read and engaged with.

The whole "love" thing I covered at the start and yet it just feels like people are simply saying shit without reading how I covered that part.

Love only matters if one has to live and in death there is no concern over any of that stuff, even the pain that would follow from your death. To make a case against it you'd have to engage with why living would be preferable when it's not a requirement to be alive.

Can you give an example(s) of math being used to describe the physical world without using philosophy? That seems impossible to me. The math only measures. What it measures is up to our apparati. Any measurement implies knowledge of space and time, and hence Kant and the whole mess — Gregory

It's pretty much done every day, you don't really need philosophy to do that. The fact it pans out and leads to discoveries that we can manipulate and act on sorta implies it doesn't matter what philosophy thinks about it.

They just mean surreal as not typically compatible with classicality. — Apustimelogist

I still don't really understand it.

True. Quantum Uncertainty is not a practical problem, it's a philosophical problem. For all practical purposes, the physical world still works the same way under 20th century Randomness, as it did under 17th century Determinism. Now that you know the ground under your feet is 99% empty space, are you afraid to take the next step over the quantum abyss? A stoic philosophical response to quantum scale indeterminism might be : "don't sweat the small stuff" — Gnomon

The 99% empty space isn't true, and that's also a misunderstanding of what is at work. The spooky stuff of QM isn't something to worry about since it doesn't happen at our level.

OK, you win, I'm an idiot. I'll just point out though that as long as you're judging it on whether or not it 'works', you're still only thinking about yourself and haven't tried it yet. — unenlightened

You didn't even read the original post I made which addresses why your argument fails.

Never mind that I've done that before and it doesn't lead to meaning or value or anything you mention.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=16295625758829094935&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1#d=gs_qabs&t=1734279682125&u=%23p%3DF6i2K0qxJeIJ

Yeah I couldn’t even understand that much. Like I said you guys overestimate what the knowledge of most people is on this.

What the hell do they mean by surreal there anyway?

It seems to be a positive way to express the uncertainty of quantum physics. A particle can be either located in space (position), or measured for movement (momentum), but not both at the same time. Real things can be measured both ways, so what's wrong with quantum particles? Are they not things? Are they not real? — Gnomon

Well it’s not much of a problem per se because this only applies to very small stuff, not our day to day.

This is something I've wondered about. Is it possible to have a scientific understanding of some aspect of the world without an ontology? Without a story about what is going on? This question comes up in the context of quantum mechanics. Is that the Copenhagen interpretation? Is that enough? If there is no way, even in theory, to verify or falsify the many worlds interpretation, does it even mean anything? — T Clark

The interpretations are just a way to explain the math which is air-tight. The story for science is to assume realism and an external world because otherwise science becomes pointless to perform.

that was a bad answer, definitely not 100.

Let me see if I can use other words that you can accept more. If one considers only oneself, and only from one's own point of view, then it is clear that satisfaction is only ever transitory, suffering and death are inevitable and the sooner life is over the better. — unenlightened

The same applies to your so called love. At the end it’s still about you and feeling better for yourself it just happens to help others. Though that said that doesn’t mean there is value in it. Like I already explained and why your logic still falls short.

Therefore, I posit (but offer no proof) a reason for living that is self-overcoming, or self- transcending. This is illustrated in the film Groundhog Day, in which suicide fails utterly to end life but results in a repeating life that goes nowhere. This repetition only ends when everything is put into the day to make it better for everyone. — unenlightened

That movie is a terrible example because the loop really only breaks when he wins the girl over, didn’t really have much to do with helping others. But again, it’s a movie it’s not reality and obviously the lesson of most films is to reinforce positive social norms. Try again.

As long as you think only of yourself, you will keep coming back to the same miserable thoughts again and again. I wish I could be more clear about this for you, but I cannot disprove the platitudinous nonsense of your "platitudinous nonsense". If you want to understand, you will begin to understand, but if you don't want to, then you will have make do with the thin satisfaction of winning the argument, and you will miss all the richness of life. — unenlightened

Oh I know this doesn’t work because I’ve done this most of my life and it’s just as hollow and empty as the pleasure of the self you seem to place less importance on.

The words and usage here is slippery. What exactly is your issue? You have received answers and are dismissive. — tim wood

They aren't answers thought. Love isn't a reason it's just platitudinous nonsense, same with making meaning. I gave the case at the start why such reasons don't hold water.

Jacob Barandes presents a completely realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its one version of what you would call a stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics. — Apustimelogist

I'm not reading all that, summarize into English. I don't understand why people assume everyone understands this on the level that they do. Do any of my replies indicate that I have the level of understanding to know what the video is talking about let alone you?

This is an inaccurate description of the participatory universe. At any rate, was the problem with Consciousness Causes Collapse that von Neumann and Wigner didn't know math? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's not, that is EXACTLY what he means by the participatory universe and it's pretty much regarded as false.

Also consciousness doesn't cause collapse, that's another one that people keep getting wrong due to a misunderstanding of what observation means in physics.

And if these go a step further into making claims about "free will," that's another place where good philosophical reasoning will be wanted. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And that's when you know philosophers have gone off the deep end on this one.

Quantum physics is one area where philosophy needs to stay out, since the interpretations aren't accurate reflections of what is going on. You're also citing all the weird interpretations that aren't really widely accepted either. You make a very weird case.

A therapist, who just might suggest "euthanasia as a treatment option", as is slowly becoming the new normal in "civilized" societies? — baker

Pretty sure they don't do that.

I don't know how physics couldn't inform philosophical debates or vice versa. It cannot solve them, but empirical examples often play a major role in metaphysics. Physics seems to tell us something about part-whole relations, information transfer, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

From what I see it can’t, especially in this case where the interpretations of quantum physics aren’t even close to the math that is taking place. They’re watered down guesses to explain the math, which is the most solid one ever. But since philosophers commenting on this can’t do the math behind it their works about what it means are effectively useless.

Science may have been a part of Philosophy at one point but science has come quite far since then and made strides that set it apart. Meanwhile philosophy hasn’t really changed much or advanced much of anything and is still hung up on the same old debates.

You’re also not right about science and the particulates. That’s exactly how science advances, that’s why there are all those seemingly random experiments and weird stuff they do all the time, it’s not a straight line. By studying particulars as particulars you get to the unifying stuff.

For instance, Sabine Hossenfelder portrays retro-causality (and so models like the crystalizing block) as a sort of garble created by uniformed hucksters. It isn't. Hucksters might promote it, but the key work in this area was by John Wheeler and Rodger Penrose, two of the biggest names in the field, and people take it seriously. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because it is. It’s also funny that you cited two of the weirdos who back it. Wheeler thinks we manifest the universe with consciousness, which we don’t and as a quantum physicist he should know better. Penrose also has wooed theories about consciousness despite what we know about the brain today.

So you’re not really helping your case by citing the weirdos in the field. I knew I heard those names before and it’s because of their crackpot ideas. At least when it’s not related to black holes.

No one actually takes retro casually seriously in the field, it’s sorta like flat earth there.

As examples, the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations reject realism, and the de Broglie–Bohm theory rejects locality. — Michael

Sorta, I think the Copenhagen is saying that nothing exists unless you look at it, but that’s not true. The particles still exist, just that some things about them aren’t defined. Many worlds isn’t against realistic quite the opposite.

Its actually what the math seems to say (at least to probably most people) but at the same time, this is very strongly interpretation dependent so not everyone sees it that way. — Apustimelogist

Even still you have to posit an external reality with peer review otherwise there isn’t really a point to science.

Even the crazier interpretations don’t say the universe doesn’t exist.

Are you just substituting "local" for quantum and non-local for classical? — Gregory

Not really, more like non local is quantum and classical is local. But the term refers to proximity.

But, don't stop wondering. — kazan

Well the issue with that is we are working with interpretations of extremely high level math, so our wondering is really more like butchering the evidence.

Particles can communicate in sinc with each other faster than light. Some speculate worm holes to explain this, which really means we redefine what space means — Gregory

According to the page on the Nobel Prize site the guy doesn't know how it does that just that it does. But this is only with entangled particles which is odd because entanglement is a local phenomenon

There is still a thriving school of idealist-leaning physicists among other schools of thought. — Wayfarer

Ummm, not really? I've seen a few of them and the only thing they have in common is how they don't understand the science.

Most physicists I've talked to about this said it means nothing. Even on the Nobel Prize website the people who discovered this don't really know how it does it or what's going on.

I think they are saying the noumena is the very small where particles aren't space-bound in the classical sense. The classical is the same classical stuied by humans for thousands of year. As you say, how does this affect the practical realm — Gregory

Well most of the time it leads to people saying shit like "the moon isn't real or doesn't exist if you don't observe it". Bearing in mind that observer and observation don't mean consciousness in QM

that was my initial response to what they said, however after further thought I have no reason to take the person in the Quora answer seriously.

No amount of skepticism changes the fact that I haven’t been failed by “recognizing” there is a behind me. If anything listening to that person actually hurt my ability to remember stuff and almost caused a few accidents

As is obvious to the reader, contrary to what we've been thinking all along, we don't have a definition of existence if perception is our standard/measure. Odd that! — Agent Smith

Except that we do. Also good work showing how useless this sort of thinking is in day to day.

Looking back at the guy in the answer he's obviously wrong. Mirrors aren't an illusion, they show behind us because we can't see it. The part about memory doesn't change that either. Just because we can't remember what was in front or behind doesn't mean there aren't such things. not to mention is there is no behind you a car would never work.

Plus like I said before, there are dire consequences to thinking like the the guy in the quora answer. Break real hard on a busy highway and see how well that holds up.

It's actually kinda interesting how divorced from day to day reality a good deal of philosophy is, at least this topic anyway. I can't believe I took it seriously.

Do you understand Snell's law? If you did you would understand mirages and refraction is just normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner

Again no, those are special instances. And as said before it is playing tricks. Still proving you don’t understand what you cite.

It is clear who doesn't understand what they are talking about, and it is not me. But maybe you can explain your position in detail rather than just repeating that I don't understand? — PhilosophyRunner

Considering all you're doing is parroting one thing it's likely you. Like I said it does deceive in certain instances, like water and mirages, and not others.

There are no tricks in physics, I have no idea what you are talking about. Light changes direction at the boundary of two medium, given by Snell's law. It always behaves correctly according to Snell's law. Always.

There is no trick that happens sometimes. — PhilosophyRunner

Again, it depends on the context, science is more gray than most think. Especially in biology. Like I said you don't understand it as well as you think.

Refraction is never a trick. It is simply the way light behaves when moving from one medium to another where there is a change in wave speed. This is well understood in physics, there is no trick, just the normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner

That’s just not true. Refraction can sometimes be a trick like with water. That is also well understood in physics. I’m thinking you don’t get this as well as you’re making it out

In a sense it can be a trick of the light depending on the where

You mean, how did we invent writing and other means of information exchange? Do you believe that without qualia, the invention and use of writing becomes inexplicable? — goremand

There really isn't a reason to believe qualia exist. It's just another last gasp of dualism.

It is our consciousness (or brain depending on your stance) interpreting the redirected light as a bent stick that is causing the confusion. — PhilosophyRunner

There is no stance, it's really just the brain. That fact is more or less solved at the moment and I am well aware of refraction hence it's not the brain's fault but the light playing tricks, like it sometimes does. It's the same for a mirage.

Ok. — goremand

I mean it's been 5 pages and you haven't really gone anywhere with this.

It seems you are "bundling" concepts together in a (to me) arbitrary way, such that denial of one becomes denial of all. I don't remember ever denying subjectivity, consciousness or meaning as useful concepts, if these can only make sense in relation to qualitative properties you will have to explain why. — goremand

You kinda have to accept other minds otherwise there isn't a reason to take anything you say seriously.

The light traveling from the stick to our retina is behaving as we know it should according to physics, when a stick in the water appears bent. It is not behaving wrongly. It is only our intuitive interpretation of this light that causes confusion. — PhilosophyRunner

No it is behaving wrongly because it appears bent when it isn't. It has nothing to do with the intuitive interpretation of the light, hence why it's an optical illusion.

Sorry, are you being literal here? You think that the water is deceiving you intentionally?

I maintain the water is innocent, it is simply behaving in accordance physics just as everything else. If you are "fooled" by this, the problem is with yourself. — goremand

Doesn't mean that it's not deception. like I said it can fool without intent. It makes the stick appear to bend when it doesn't.

But like I said before this topic is a waste of time.

But I am observing the number 1, right now.

It was not a flaw in reason that these were wrong, but, rather, in one's reasoning. Our faculty of reason is our deployment of logic, modality, etc.: it is not a particular chain of derivation. — Bob Ross

Kinda sounds like a flaw in reason, I mean why should anyone take your word for it? What makes your reasoning better?

You can only ever use reason: you have no choice. How else would you suggest that you can prove something or warrant a belief? — Bob Ross

Allegedly, I get by fine without reason.

I don’t think beliefs can be justified or proven with reason.

Reason is rooted in emotion fundamentally and even then we did make up the rules for it as well. So that sort of blows a few holes in its reliability. I mean just look at flat earth and vaccine denialism.

Your example doesn’t show you know things beyond mere observation, it’s more just assertions like 1=1.

Science was able to show us the holes in our reasoning through the myriad of unconscious biases we employ each day.

No I mean that the phrase itself doesn’t really have a meaning. Like all zen koans there is no conceptual understanding of it, so they say. Hence when people use it they are ignorant of that key fact.

2) Point of view. That is to say, emergence itself has in the background, the fact that there is already an observer of the "emerging". This does get into ideas of "does a tree make a sound if there is no observer", but there is a reason that trope is so well-known. We always take for granted that we have a certain point of view already whereby events are integrated and known. — schopenhauer1

People have to stop with the "does a tree make a sound" line as it doesn't mean what they think it does.

Actually that universe has always existed according to cosmological evidence.

Well that also is only what consciousness is. It is awareness of and recognition of what’s happening.

I also didn’t think they really rebutted the objection that illusion only makes sense if you have a reality to compare it to. If you don’t know what reality is then the term illusion looses all meaning. The same would apply if you said everything is an illusion, the term would be meaningless.

Overall this seems to have been a very pointless conversation. I mean OP even got that bit about the water wrong. But yeah, reading through this gave me the sense the convo went nowhere fast.

The problem I see with viewing pain as only functional is that it is not functional. — Patterner

It is functional, evidence shows that organisms without a pain response don't live long (as do people who have a condition that prevents them from feeling it). But it can be both functional and not functional, though mostly it is functional.

But the thing is the image does not "contradict what we know". To those who understand how light travels through water, the image is a straightforward representation of reality, no-one is getting fooled. — goremand

It actually does contradict what we know, you know need to know how light works to know that's an illusion. This is just wrong and we know the water is fooling us by "bending" the stick.

Something is an illusion only if there is consciousness to be fooled by it. The stick in the water is not an illusion to the stick, or the water, or the stick and the water. It's not an illusion to a camera that captures the image. It is only an illusion to those of us who know the stick is straight, but see the image contradicting what we know.

If consciousness is an illusion, then what is it that knows what's really going on, but perceives a contradiction? The idea that consciousness is, itself, an illusion, but an illusion that perceives itself as real, is like picking yourself up by your own bootstraps. — Patterner

Stuff like this makes my head hurt

nope, but keep denying reality I guess

What is the part of intuition that is 'already known'? Can you give an example of this in action? — Tom Storm

Already known in that you're aware of the result of the intuition not the thought process leading to it.