1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
There's a lot of assumptions in saying it's just meaningless chemicals
The decision that your brain's decisions are due to chemical reactions, which itself would be due to chemicals reactions, is self-referential but not circular reasoning.
Brains are electro-chemical btw, not just chemical
And what organ told you that, hmm?
No, Mickey--I will perish like a duck.
I still think Death said it better in Hogfather.
Fight what exactly? Determinism either is or isnt how the universe works, it isnt like some sort of external force of finite capacity that can be resisted by some application of effort. If it is true, then you have no choice but to act the way something like you would act, and the way humans are wired to think is in terms of choices and the possible outcomes of those choices, even if the choice you make and the thinking that leads you to it is inevitable. If it is not true, then the possibility of making different choices exists, but it doesnt look any different to you because you only get to perceive the result of following one set of them.
The thing about determinism is that while it may be an interesting philosophical exercise, beyond being difficult to maybe impossible to prove or disprove, it isnt really relevant to much. A deterministic universe looks, feels, and acts to us exactly like a nondeterministic one would.
The truth of determinism is relevant to the most popular conception of free will. That's why this comes up repeatedly. People seem to want themselves to be free from causality itself, because being bound by it makes you not "free", and just going through the motions.
The problem here is the definition of free will itself . Rather than demanding from the universe that your mind be inexplicably free form causality, why not just accept a more useful definition of free will? Such as the ability to make decisions without undue coercion. Vague as that is, it's at least a workable definition.
I took it to mean fighting against a descent into nihilism.
I never understood the fight against nihilism, as if it's inherently bleak. I came to the conclusion that nothing truly matters a long time ago, but that doesn't keep me from feeling like stuff matters, and doing what matters to me. Subjective meaning can still drive you to pursue and live a good life even while you're aware that objective meaning doesn't exit. Happiness feels good, which is enough for me.
If nothing matters, then it doesnt matter that nothing matters, so while I technically am a nihilist, since I dont see a plausible mechanism for how some kind of objective purpose/meaning could exist, I dont really think much of it. If nothing matters there is no reason for me not to care about whatever I arbitrarily happen to value anyway. Expecting the universe to find those things important too just feels kind of self-centered somehow.
Also: everything matters ☹️ everything matters 🙂
I love nihilism because accepting that nothing inherently matters allows me to focus on the things that I decide matter to me. It also makes it easier for me to accept those things I dislike but am truly powerless to change.
I think I'd be so much unhappier if I was in some constant pursuit of a universal meaning of life, or felt like I had to fulfill some inherent purpose.
Either existence is a empty nothingness devoid of meaning, or existence is a empty blank canvas upon which we can imbue our own meaning.
Holy shit Mickey, what did you do to Pluto!?
This reminds me of that stupid thing in fallout 4 about possibly being a robot essentially and how it was supposed to be some big deal but I never understood what difference it made
In the case of Fallout 4, the big deal is that if you were a synth, that means all your memories and experiences prior to a certain point of your existence are almost assuredly made up. They are a fabrication. Maybe you never actually lived in the pre-war era. You never had a wife. You never had a child.
It would have been better from a story-telling point if that wasn't added in a DLC long after most people played the main game through. It fits better if you do Far Harbour before ever finding Shaun so that you are forced to wonder if Shaun is even real.
Ya but why does it matter if your memory is all fake? not much you can do about it without a true answer one way or the other so just move on and don't worry about it
I guess the only part that’s actually important is whether your memories are “real”, in the sense that they relate to real events. Remembering things that didn’t actually happen could cause a few problems.
Also, if I was functionally immortal and ageless, I’d probably like to know ! But I guess you eventually notice regardless.
And of course, the main problem is how synths get there, which is by murdering the person they were modeled after. That part is definitely a problem 😅
not much you can do if your memories are wrong, they are just as real as they where when you started so why change? this is something that hit me real hard as a kid but i just brushed it off eventually
I don’t mean emotionally wrong, I mean like remembering factually incorrect facts. But I suppose that shouldn’t be a huge problem unless the institute scientist who made your memories in particular was a moron/prankster and made you believe some wild shit 😅
Determinism is an irrelevant theory because of Gödel’s incompleteness and the Halting problem.
Predictions are always made from inside the universe, thus affect their own results. Therefore, perfect predictions are irredeemably impossible.
Now, can the universe be fully predicted from the outside ? Who cares ! What is outside the universe, by definition, cannot affect it, so the question is irrelevant, again by definition.
The only case where that could hypothetically matter is if there is a one-way gate to exit the universe (if you can come back, then it’s just a weird part of the universe, not truly outside, so the first arguments still stand).
And even then, proving the universe deterministic would at best be just one hint that maybe the “outside universe” is itself deterministic, not even a full proof.
Also, observing the universe without affecting it is a pretty weird concept, with what we know about quantum measurements affecting their own results. Not impossible by definition, but it would look quite different from what we do right now.
According to our current model, we would probably observe un-collapsed quantum field waves, which is a concept inaccessible from within the universe, and could very well just be an artifact of the model instead of ground truth.
But again, this is all irrelevant until someone builds the universe an exit door. That door being one-way only by definition also means there would be no way to know what’s on the other side and if it’s worth crossing (or if it instantly kills you) before you do.
So, if we do build such a door, there would be no way to experimentally confirm it is indeed an exit from the universe, and not just a wormhole with a very far exit, or a long lived pocket dimension, or an absolute annihilator that doesn’t lead anywhere.
According to our current model, we would probably observe un-collapsed quantum field waves, which is a concept inaccessible from within the universe, and could very well just be an artifact of the model instead of ground truth.
It so strange to me that this is the popular way people think about quantum mechanics. Without reformulating quantum mechanics in any way or changing any of its postulates, the theory already allows you to recover the intermediate values of all the observables in any system through retrospection, and it evolves locally and deterministically.
The "spreading out as a wave" isn't a physical thing, but an epistemic one. The uncertainty principle makes it such that you can't accurately predict the outcome of certain interactions, and the probability distribution depends upon the phase, which is the relative orientation between your measurement basis and the property you're trying to measure. The wave-like statistical behavior arises from the phase, and the wave function is just a statistical tool to keep track of the phase.
The "collapse" is not a physical process but a measurement update. Measurements aren't fundamental to quantum mechanics. It is just that when you interact with something, you couple it to the environment, and this coupling leads to the effects of the phase spreading out to many particles in the environment. The spreading out of the influence of the phase dilutes its effects and renders it negligible to the statistics, and so the particle then briefly behaves more classically. That is why measurement causes the interference pattern to disappear in the double-slit experiment, not because of some physical "collapsing waves."
People just ignore the fact that you can use weak values to reconstruct the values of the observables through any quantum experiment retrospectively, which is already a feature baked into the theory and not something you need to add, and then instead choose to believe that things are somehow spreading out as waves when you're not looking at them, which leads to a whole host of paradoxes: the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, the Wigner's friend paradox, the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, etc.
Literally every paradox disappears if we stop pretending that systems are literally waves and that the wave-like behavior is just the result of the relationship between the phase and the statistical distribution of the system, and that the waves are ultimately a weakly emergent phenomena. We only see particle waves made up of particles. No one has ever seen a wave made up of nothing. Waves of light are made up of photons of light, and the wave-like behavior of the light is a weakly emergent property of the wave-like statistical distributions you get due to the relationship between the statistical uncertainty and the phase. It in no way implies everything is literally made up waves that are themselves made of nothing.
Now, can the universe be fully predicted from the outside ? Who cares ! What is outside the universe, by definition, cannot affect it, so the question is irrelevant, again by definition.
What if our universe is a simulation?
Perish like a dog it is then. There is no tearing down reality without you inside of it.
Occam's razor defeats Plato's cave. There's no reason to think that the world we experience would be just metaphysical shadows on the wall. The burden of proof is on Mickey's shoulders.
Oh yeah and Cogito Ergo Sum. So there is one bit of definitely provable knowledge.
Occam's razor is a rule of thumb not an absolute rule of the universe.
If you go with Cogito Ergo Sum, I think that's the stance Mickey is taking. You only know for sure of your own consciousness, everything else could be a delusion of the senses. You know, like shadows on a cave wall or whatever.
Yes, and my response to what Mickey said was that why would we think that we're in the cave looking at shadows? Why should I complicate my view of the world with the added baggage of metaphysical idealism when materialism works just fine to explain everything I see? Sure our perception of the world is limited to our senses and measurement techniques, but the scientific framework we've built onto that base appears very consistent and functional with its predictive power. It's definitely not omniscience, but it works.
I only brought up the Cogito argument to point out that Mickey is incorrect in saying that no certain knowledge exists.
I think one of the points Mickey would make is you can't entirely trust the scientific framework because it's still coming from our flawed senses. Even if everything adds up, it could still be a lie. Solipsism and all that.
I don't think anyone is talking about metaphysical idealism, but conceptual things shouldn't be written off because they are inconvenient. Numbers aren't physical, but I doubt you'd say they don't exist and therefore should be ignored, unless you're the most extreme materialist.
Eliminative materialism isn't my thing no. Emergent materialism is what I roll with. So the human mind and culture and numbers are things that exist as emergent properties of other things.
Sure it could all be a lie with us living in the matrix or so on, and it's fun to entertain such thoughts every now and then. But I won't accept it as truth without a better reason than "but technically it's possible".
Now I'm not sure you get what the allegory of the cave is about. It's literally trying to explain that our perception can't be 100% trusted.
I know. The matrix (or any other metaphysical idealism for that matter) is an example of a situation where we cannot trust our perception for knowledge about the true nature of the universe (much like the allegory of the cave), although taken to the extreme. The epistemological and metaphysical aspects of Plato's cave are very much intertwined.
But you're assuming, from what I'm reading through your comments, that these shadows are cast by metaphysical forces, and I'm interpreting the allegory as how our senses are ultimately something we can't trust completely.
As accurate as science may seem, it is ultimately based on these senses. It's the best way we can understand the physical world, but science, wisely, always has a caveat at the end of every law and discovery: "... As far as we know."
This is a good thing, it means that nothing is held sacred and everything can be tested and questioned again.
Our senses and measurements (or are those the same thing, with one merely augmenting the other?) tell us that we live in a purely material universe. I'm not claiming that our senses are perfect or that science is over with every secret revealed, but questioning the validity of our observations on such a foundational level invokes questioning the validity of the worldview (metaphysical materialism) built on top of them. That's what I interpreted Mickey was on about in the meme.
Donald is despairing about the inherent meaninglessness of a purely material universe, so I assume that Mickey, with his radical rejection of all that Donald says, represents at least some sort of metaphysical dualism or idealism which would allow for inherent cosmic meaning.
Those old cartoons really didn't hold back, huh?