Reducing Workday hours

[Jam]

Dude don't you know you're talking to the next Bill Gates!

[Goodspeed]

So, essentially, your fate in life is predetermined. Nobody should bother to make any effort to change their circumstances.

The amount of effort you'll make is also predetermined.
Everything is, after all.

[Gendarme]

Being asked to pay to help support the system that helps you build and maintain wealth is not theft.

First of all, you are forced, not asked. Secondly, this is not what I was referring to (I thought I made it quite clear). My point was not that taxation, as it is described in theory, is what makes people poor - because in theory taxation is just redistribution of wealth among the people. But today, the taxed money is not redistributed to the people, neither directly nor indirectly - it is being put into the pockets of people in power.

In other words, the system we have today is plain and simple theft, just disguised as taxation. Personally, I dislike taxation in general, but that is not what I am getting at when I call it theft. Even if I had been in favor of taxing the people, I would have called out the system we have today as theft.

[Gendarme]

The amount of effort you'll make is also predetermined.
Everything is, after all.

Considering the fact that the mainstream belief in physics is that the universe has inherent randomness, it is remarkable that you are so, shall I say, determined.

[Goodspeed]

No argument against determinism has been even remotely satisfactory to me so far. And it would take a very strong argument because I strongly believe that randomness cannot possibly exist. It makes no logical sense to me that an event could take place without any cause. Besides, the observations support determinism. So far every phenomenon in history that we have thought was random at some point has turned out perfectly deterministic.

Important to note is the difference between perceived randomness (inability to measure the state of a system accurately, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and actual randomness (shit happening for no reason). When you talk about the mainstream belief in physics, you are probably talking about the former. I'm talking about the latter and don't understand why people consider the former relevant to it.

[Laurence Drake]

No argument against determinism has been even remotely satisfactory to me so far. And it would take a very strong argument because I strongly believe that randomness cannot possibly exist. It makes no logical sense to me that an event could take place without any cause. Besides, the observations support determinism. So far every phenomenon in history that we have thought was random at some point has turned out perfectly deterministic.

Important to note is the difference between perceived randomness (inability to measure the state of a system accurately, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and actual randomness (shit happening for no reason). When you talk about the mainstream belief in physics, you are probably talking about the former. I'm talking about the latter and don't understand why people consider the former relevant to it.

The problem with you thesis is that it can't be proven wrong. You hold that observed randomness has an underlying deterministic explanation that we haven't discovered yet. But it's not possible to prove that this underlying explanation doesn't exist. Your stance on this matter is mere ideology.

[Goodspeed]

No argument against determinism has been even remotely satisfactory to me so far. And it would take a very strong argument because I strongly believe that randomness cannot possibly exist. It makes no logical sense to me that an event could take place without any cause. Besides, the observations support determinism. So far every phenomenon in history that we have thought was random at some point has turned out perfectly deterministic.

Important to note is the difference between perceived randomness (inability to measure the state of a system accurately, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and actual randomness (shit happening for no reason). When you talk about the mainstream belief in physics, you are probably talking about the former. I'm talking about the latter and don't understand why people consider the former relevant to it.

The problem with you thesis is that it can't be proven wrong.

Problem, you say?

You hold that observed randomness has an underlying deterministic explanation that we haven't discovered yet. But it's not possible to prove that this underlying explanation doesn't exist.

Indeed, it is only possible to prove that it does exist. And we will, in due time. Will that prove that the universe is deterministic? Not quite, at least not in the eyes of the people who believe that it isn't. There will always be things that we can't explain. You see, my thesis can't be proven wrong but neither can yours.

Your stance on this matter is mere ideology.

I suppose so. That doesn't make me any less convinced that it is impossible for something to happen without a cause.

[Laurence Drake]

No argument against determinism has been even remotely satisfactory to me so far. And it would take a very strong argument because I strongly believe that randomness cannot possibly exist. It makes no logical sense to me that an event could take place without any cause. Besides, the observations support determinism. So far every phenomenon in history that we have thought was random at some point has turned out perfectly deterministic.

Important to note is the difference between perceived randomness (inability to measure the state of a system accurately, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and actual randomness (shit happening for no reason). When you talk about the mainstream belief in physics, you are probably talking about the former. I'm talking about the latter and don't understand why people consider the former relevant to it.

The problem with you thesis is that it can't be proven wrong.

Problem, you say?

You hold that observed randomness has an underlying deterministic explanation that we haven't discovered yet. But it's not possible to prove that this underlying explanation doesn't exist.

Indeed, it is only possible to prove that it does exist. And we will, in due time. Will that prove that the universe is deterministic? Not quite, at least not in the eyes of the people who believe that it isn't. There will always be things that we can't explain. You see, my thesis can't be proven wrong but neither can yours.

My thesis would turn out to be wrong if you could identify the underlying explanation for observed randomness. But your thesis doesn't have this property. It's not more scientific than a belief in God.

[Goodspeed]

My thesis would turn out to be wrong if you could identify the underlying explanation for observed randomness.

My point was that when we do there will be another phenomenon we can't explain, something else that seems random. Do you think the smallest particles we are currently observing are the actual smallest particles in existence? The deeper you dig, the harder it gets to properly measure what's going on. No doubt any discoveries will raise more questions than answers.
I find it fascinating that humans so easily drop the idea of a deterministic universe, which makes so much sense, at the very first glance of randomness, apparently forgetting about the fact that there was a time we thought atoms were the smallest bits in existence. Before that, molecules.

Maybe it's because the idea of determinism makes people feel trapped in a life that is completely predetermined, a life they have no control over. Silly, but understandable.

[Laurence Drake]

My thesis would turn out to be wrong if you could identify the underlying explanation for observed randomness.

My point was that when we do there will be another phenomenon we can't explain, something else that seems random. Do you think the smallest particles we are currently observing are the actual smallest particles in existence? The deeper you dig, the harder it gets to properly measure what's going on. No doubt any discoveries will raise more questions than answers.
I find it fascinating that humans so easily drop the idea of a deterministic universe, which makes so much sense, at the very first glance of randomness, apparently forgetting about the fact that there was a time we thought atoms were the smallest bits in existence. Before that, molecules.

Maybe it's because the idea of determinism makes people feel trapped in a life that is completely predetermined, a life they have no control over. Silly, but understandable.

Every time we discover a new theory, some previous theory gets rejected or overhauled. Do you think our current scientific theories are the best theories in existence? The deeper you dig, the harder it becomes to be certain about anything. No doubt the same is true for your theory as well.
I find it fascinating that humans so easily drop the idea of an uncertain universe, which makes so much sense, at the very first glance of certainty, apparently forgetting about the fact that there was a time we thought atoms were the smallest bits in existence. Before that, molecules.

Maybe it's because the idea of non-determinism makes people feel trapped in a life that is completely chaotic, a life they have no control over. Silly, but understandable.

[Goodspeed]

Well as long as we're both fascinated

Who said anything about certainty? What's the connection to determinism?

Every time we discover a new theory, some previous theory gets rejected or overhauled. Do you think our current scientific theories are the best theories in existence? The deeper you dig, the harder it becomes to be certain about anything. No doubt the same is true for your theory as well.

My conviction that things cannot happen for no reason is not based on science. Actually science is based on it. Science has always assumed determinism. No, the reason I think everything is cause and effect is that the opposite makes no logical sense to me. We've been over that. The A = B thing, remember? You have a system in state A, nothing changes but randomly it becomes B. A + 0 = B, hence A = B which is a fallacy. Logically both systems should be identical yet they are not.

Out of curiosity, would you have "subscribed" to determinism if there was currently no perceived randomness in science?

[Gendarme]

@Goodspeed I am not referring to perceived randomness (I wouldn't use the word "inherent" if I were); I am talking about quantum indeterminacy.

Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt.

(Translation: "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.")

This is one of the most famous quotes of Einstein. Here, he takes the same stance as you, being convinced that inherent randomness does not exist despite the mainstream (perhaps not back then) support for quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not say what you think it says. The theory is not that the universe generates a random number, and then shit happens, but rather that every possible outcome is in fact happening, and only when the outcome is measured, one of those possibilities becomes reality. You might be familiar with the wave-particle duality: Every particle is a wave (i.e. a probability-wave - the sum, or superposition, of every possible outcome) until observed, at which point the probability-wave collapses into one of the different outcomes.

You have probably heard of Schrödinger's cat, which illustrates this - but a better, and actually real, depiction is the double-slit experiment (make sure you watch this and get mindfucked).

Most people know that light bends when travelling between air and water, but why? Why does it not travel in a straight line? In highschool the behavior is simplified and it is said that light travels slower in water than in air. I suppose it does not really matter for this discussion, but photons always travel at the speed of light; instead, the distance is longer in water (I think the correct term here is optical path length). However, what happens is that the photon (being a wave), "tries" every possible way, and "chooses" the shortest way, hence not travelling in a straight line. At least this is how I understood it all.

Another example is radioactive decay. We can determine when a bunch or uranium will reduce to half, because we know the probability of decay for every single atom within 4.5 billion years is 50%, and having a lot of these atoms, we can be sure that after 4.5 billion years something very close to 50% of them are gone. However, determining when a single atom will decay is impossible - it happens randomly.

Have you heard of quantum tunnelling? There is a probability that a particle will be in a spot that is classically viewed as impossible - for example a particle of your hand going through the table it is resting on, or a particle (or even all of them, in the same order they are now) of you being on the moon (Teleported to the moon! What a story to tell when if you get back home!). The larger the barrier, the smaller the probability. This is actually one of the main problems with development of computation: transistors are approaching quantum size, where tunnelling will be prevalent enough to cause too big disturbances.

Of course, for all I know physicists could all be wrong (or lying), but my point is that this is in fact an accepted theory in mainstream physics. Quantum mechanics is at the forefront of technology and research, and it is all about inherent randomness. Heisenberg's uncertainty princible (the one you linked) is actually relevant to this, IIRC, although I cannot remember how. I have forgot a lot of the tiny bit of physics I knew.

[Goodspeed]

Quantum mechanics does not say what you think it says. The theory is not that the universe generates a random number, and then shit happens,

I don't think that's what it says, that's why I don't consider it relevant to my belief that every event needs a cause; it doesn't contradict that. Hence my emphasis on the difference between perceived randomness and actual randomness.

but rather that every possible outcome is in fact happening,

Then what about the process is random?

and only when the outcome is measured, one of those possibilities becomes reality. You might be familiar with the wave-particle duality: Every particle is a wave (i.e. a probability-wave - the sum, or superposition, of every possible outcome) until observed, at which point the probability-wave collapses into one of the different outcomes.

It doesn't become reality. You literally just said every possible outcome is reality. What it becomes is our incomplete measurement of a system we clearly don't comprehend fully.

[Gendarme]

phpBB [video]

[musketjr]

i know quantum physics is more the setting of the foregoing discussion about determinism than free will, but let's be real, quantum physics is so beyond the realm of any of our understanding as laypeople that it's a somewhat pointless topic to try and engage with, so i'll discuss determinism in the context of free will instead.

two thoughts. one, the question of the universe being deterministic is irrelevant to the question of 'free will' insofar as there is so much complexity that we live as though we have free will whether or not we really do. (but to truly accept determinism raises interesting questions such as is there really any place for blame or praise - what is it that is being blamed / praised?). and secondly, the question of determinism is so scientific that we should defer a bit to what them science'doers think about it.

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

krauss thinks the universe is deterministic, but that it doesn't matter since complexity means our (determined) lives are lived as though we had free will
dennett thinks whether the universe is deterministic is an open question, but there's a horizon we'll never be able to see past - due to complexity

here's a learned proponent of free will / uncertainty (i'll use the terms synonymously for the purpose of this discussion)

phpBB [video]

chomsky (or as zoi calls him chumpsky) - as i understand - says that it seems we must have free will because it's axiomatic to how we think, and illustrates his belief by asking rhetorically why those who don't believe in free will bother presenting arguments: they must not believe in 'reasons' (and presumably - to make his point coherent - reasons only function to inform choices decided freely. anyone have another interpretation of chomsky's point?).

this argument seems to say that since - according to determinists - there is no free choice and outcomes are predetermined, the determinist contradicts herself by engaging in an activity which presumes free choice (that is, discussion, which he suggests is 'determined', no pun intended, by the exercise of free choice on account of reasons). but he seems to be overlooking the point made above that such activities may be engaged in by people who, due to complexity, behave as though they each have free will, in which case the determinist is not contradicting herself despite her rational stance. or to put the point a bit better: it's rational for the determinist to both (a) not believe in free will and (b) engage in activities which presume the existence of free will.

phpBB [video]

here sam harris addresses chomsky's point in what might be a more rational way. what seems implicit in the video is the approach which treats the very question posed by chomsky as nonsensical since he describes what chomsky would regard as the rational determinist's choice (that is, to not engage with the activity which presumes the existence of free will) as itself determined.

sam also adds another dimension to the discussion by not denigrating the concept of choosing but incorporating it into the overall picture of a deterministic universe. so we do make meaningful choices; although, he doesn't say here whether they're meaningful for the krauss / dennett reason that they appear freely chosen due to complexity or because in some way they really are freely - albeit also deterministically - chosen.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[n0el]

Well, even randomness can be described by math.

[deleted_user0]

Im going to report you all for going off topic. Even the off topic section has limits

[Jam]

What's the best kind of milk? Skim, 1%, 2%, or homo?

[deleted_user0]

whale milk.

[Laurence Drake]

ur mom's milk

[lejend]

Yea that story is alot of bs. There is no poimt in blaming others for your misfortune, but

No buts, sweet cheeks. You keep not getting it. The world doesn't care about "fairness." It is said that to live is to struggle. Everyone has obstacles in their path to success that they wish were not there. It may be "unfair" that some have more difficult obstacles than others, but from a practical point of view that doesn't matter. What is important is how you deal with those obstacles.

phpBB [video]

Do you fight it? Or do you resign to ordinariness, and shake your fists at the world for putting obstacles in your path toward success? Do you refuse to work toward your success, simply because others have an easier path to their success? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. Let me know how that works out.

Life, and certainly financial success, isn't a zero-sum game, where one person succeeding means others losing. This viewpoint is rooted in ignorance of how eovnomics works.

People may well become poor through no fault of their own, but to stay poor, is mainly their fault. It is this mentality of scarcity, envy, laziness, cynicism and ignorance, that causes people to be dependent and poor. It is not 100% by choice. Most people have this mentality drilled into them, usually by people with the same mentality; parents, teachers, TV, etc. There are also some political figures who cynically propagate this mentality, for personal gain.

But a large number of people, would rather sit in the dark, blaming people for removing the lightbulb, instead of getting up and screwing it in themselves.

[deleted_user0]

Life isnt screwing in a light bulb, and the fact that you believe people stay poor only through fault of your their own, indicates that maybe you fmget the economic system on paper, but privilige has shielded you from the reality of how it works out in practice.

There's a guy and a girl growing up, one born dealt a solid hand, the other dealt a poorer one. You sound exactly like that guy

[lejend]

You're just making excuses. Whether I'm "privileged" is irrelevant and doesn't disprove anything I said.

[XeeleeFlower]

Wow, this thread has certainly derailed. Classic ESOC

@umeu and @lejend I see both points of view and I think that both can get along. Here's the thing, I was dealt a fairly shitty hand. I don't care to go into specifics so you'll have to take my word for it. Nonetheless, I worked really hard since I was 16, left home and all that I knew at 18, and eventually went to college, graduated, and am now doing okay. Bias can easily tell me that because I did it, anyone can. In fact, I once believed this. But the truth is, while I wasn't given much of a chance to make it in the real world, I lucked out in other ways. I also work(ed) hard. Someone else may have been given a shitty hand, still work hard, but not have any luck and/or privileges so they can't get anywhere, another person may be given a great hand, work hard, have luck and/or privileges so they get somewhere, etc.

To not place any responsibility on an individual is incorrect, just as to place all responsibility on an individual is also incorrect. That's how I feel anyway.