@TimothyBragan Indeed, we agree that something cannot come from nothing. I don't think it's possible to prove philosophically that the universe had a beginning, although it does appear from contemporary science that it did indeed have a beginning, which (if true) would mean something else must exist that has no beginning. In any event, the analogy from physical causation does not prove human choice is predetermined by external events. The material world is not intellectual. We are.
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me. If there is "something else", then I would assume that THAT would be "the universe", and not the... I don't know... pea? that we're trapped in right now?
I would believe that in a strict sense all is predetermined, but that since calculation is impossible, it's pretty much semantic nonsense.
I like D. Dennetts take on the issue and don't care that much for it in general any more.
@TimothyBragan Well my problem with regarding either this universe or some other hypothetical universe as the basic, eternal fact is that matter seems to lack certain existential properties which I think it would have to have were it "the basic substance" of reality. For example, all material forms undergo change. The sum total of 'stuff" might be constant, but each and every "this form" and "that form" is constantly going in and out of existence as "this" or "that". Physical bodies are finite
If universe is defined as "everything there is" and matter is "all anything is made out of" then the specifics on those don't matter much and all there can ever be is matter in a universe that could only be finite in the sense that there is empty space. The specifics seem to be a matter of physics, mostly, and not necessarily philosophy. So yeah. w/e
I think his main problem in that video is he objects to free will. I guess he doesn't believe in free will. but if that is true then all economics is moot, so not much of an argument against Austrian school and more of an argument against all economics.
@TotalAnomy Well if that were to happen (and it can't happen) it would simply be the same thing over again, so by definition human choices would be what they were, since that was what they were. That says nothing about the question of whether or not an individual human choice is free.
@tumbleweedjoe I think it says a lot about human choice being free, at least in the sense that people generally understand free will. Based on your answer, if a god were to repeatedly reset the world to 1900, Stalin would keep doing the same things again and again, and in a sense would be cursed to do it from his birth. This is hardly what most people understand by free will.
@TotalAnomy No, it says nothing about free will for 2 reasons. 1) It's a metaphysical impossibility in the first place, you can't make something that happened unhappen, which is turning time back would involve, which makes the thought experiment almost useles. 2) I'm not saying Stalin had to kill people, but obviously, once he chooses to do so, it's a fact that he so chose. In which case, rewinding time would simply bring you back to the same moment when he chooses (which is why its impossible)
@TotalAnomy I didn't say "he was going to do it anyway". In your thought experiment (which I pointed out is less than useful anyway, since it involves a scenario which is probably impossible in principle) we rewind time to the point where Stalin chose X. Well, you see he already chose it and we are just going back to the time when he chose it. That's why it can't be different, because it's not a new event, but the same event.
Determinism: The universe has no beginning.
There has always been space.
And all matter is moving and changing with its movement.
I cannot conceive of or understand something coming from nothing.
Therefore I believe matter to have always been there.
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
@TimothyBragan Indeed, we agree that something cannot come from nothing. I don't think it's possible to prove philosophically that the universe had a beginning, although it does appear from contemporary science that it did indeed have a beginning, which (if true) would mean something else must exist that has no beginning. In any event, the analogy from physical causation does not prove human choice is predetermined by external events. The material world is not intellectual. We are.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me. If there is "something else", then I would assume that THAT would be "the universe", and not the... I don't know... pea? that we're trapped in right now?
I would believe that in a strict sense all is predetermined, but that since calculation is impossible, it's pretty much semantic nonsense.
I like D. Dennetts take on the issue and don't care that much for it in general any more.
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
@TimothyBragan Well my problem with regarding either this universe or some other hypothetical universe as the basic, eternal fact is that matter seems to lack certain existential properties which I think it would have to have were it "the basic substance" of reality. For example, all material forms undergo change. The sum total of 'stuff" might be constant, but each and every "this form" and "that form" is constantly going in and out of existence as "this" or "that". Physical bodies are finite
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe
If universe is defined as "everything there is" and matter is "all anything is made out of" then the specifics on those don't matter much and all there can ever be is matter in a universe that could only be finite in the sense that there is empty space. The specifics seem to be a matter of physics, mostly, and not necessarily philosophy. So yeah. w/e
TimothyBragan 1 year ago
I think his main problem in that video is he objects to free will. I guess he doesn't believe in free will. but if that is true then all economics is moot, so not much of an argument against Austrian school and more of an argument against all economics.
wizkid2000 1 year ago
@wizkid2000 Actually he had just made a video only about a month ago where he rejects determinism, so I'm unsure.
brainpolice2 1 year ago
If time could run back and be let go again, would people make different choices? Would animals? Computers?
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
@TotalAnomy Well if that were to happen (and it can't happen) it would simply be the same thing over again, so by definition human choices would be what they were, since that was what they were. That says nothing about the question of whether or not an individual human choice is free.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe I think it says a lot about human choice being free, at least in the sense that people generally understand free will. Based on your answer, if a god were to repeatedly reset the world to 1900, Stalin would keep doing the same things again and again, and in a sense would be cursed to do it from his birth. This is hardly what most people understand by free will.
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
@TotalAnomy No, it says nothing about free will for 2 reasons. 1) It's a metaphysical impossibility in the first place, you can't make something that happened unhappen, which is turning time back would involve, which makes the thought experiment almost useles. 2) I'm not saying Stalin had to kill people, but obviously, once he chooses to do so, it's a fact that he so chose. In which case, rewinding time would simply bring you back to the same moment when he chooses (which is why its impossible)
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
@tumbleweedjoe If he was gonna do it anyway, what choice did he have? The way you put choice, I'd say computers choose too.
TotalAnomy 1 year ago
@TotalAnomy I didn't say "he was going to do it anyway". In your thought experiment (which I pointed out is less than useful anyway, since it involves a scenario which is probably impossible in principle) we rewind time to the point where Stalin chose X. Well, you see he already chose it and we are just going back to the time when he chose it. That's why it can't be different, because it's not a new event, but the same event.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
What was the song at the beginning?
jcrebel18 1 year ago
@jcrebel18 The Eels I think. Novacaine for the Soul
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago