I agree that determinsing is not proven with certainty, although my position is not that determinism is beyond doubt, but rather that it atleast appears to me as way more plausible than libertarian free will given what we know about causation, physics, and neuroscience. A lack of proof does not automatically create a tie between two competing theories.
It is fair enough to say that I cannot prove nihilism although I do not think that it logically follows that non-nihilistic views are just as justified. I do not claim that nihilism is proven, I claim that I havenât seen a convincing argument for objective meaning. The burden of proof is not on me to prove nihilism with certainty. It is on anyone claiming objective meaning to justify that claim.
Finally, Just because someone in the 1300 couldnât understand quantum mechanincs, that doesnât make quantum mechanics less true, actually that would be a ridiculous claim. You could say the same thing for almost every other modern belief. If I had been born centuries ago, I likely would not have understood evolution, germ theory, relativity, etc. The fact that a belief depends on how it develops historically just does not tell us whether it is true or not.
That is a much stronger argument to be fair, although that does not refute my original point.
I believe you are conflating epistemic norms with objective meaning. When i say that there is no objective meaning, I am just talking about purpose, value, or significance fundamental in the universe. That is different from what we use to evaluate truth. even if I grant that reasoning requires epistemic norms like consistency, evidence, and valid inference, it doesnât follow that the universe has objective meaning. At most, it shows that there are some standards that are necessary if we want to distinguish truth from false.
In other words, âthe Earth orbits the Sunâ being true doesnât depend on the universe having a purpose. It just depends on reality being a certain way and us having reliable methods to describe it.
In conclusion, I do not see how the existence of epistemic standards gets us from âtruth existsâ to âobjective meaning exists.â
My openness is itself a deterministic trait. There is no contradiction in what i am saying. Being open-minded does not mean that im uncaused or free from external influences. It means being disposed to seriously consider evidence and revise beliefs when presented with compelling reasons.
If determinism was true, then my willingness to change my mind would just be a part of the causal chain, in the same way how someone elseâs stubbornness would be a part of theirs.
An example could be that: a calculator is determined, yet it still produces different outputs depending on what inputs are given. And in the same way I can just update my beliefs when given new information.
The two are simple not mutually exclusive, and I have heard many similar arguments from my friends, but I believe that you are just misunderstanding Hard Determinism.
Perhaps. What sort of meaning do you have in mind? If it is subjective meaning, then I pretty much already agree with you given the standard definition of meaning. I agree that people experience âmeaningâ. Although, if you are talking about objective meaning, then I would be interested in hearing why you think it exists, because that is the part that I am quite skeptical of.
Shifting away from philosophy into meta-commentary about the discussion itself. Pretty funny ngl. But to be fair I agree with you I just made the post in like 5 minutes in between games and I was hoping people understood what I was going for. I just wanted some quick responses that might challenge these beliefs nothing more.
True â but notice what youâve just agreed to: reality being a certain way. Thereâs a criterion for reliability. Thatâs not a trivial concession. It means reality has determinate structure â that some descriptions answer to it correctly and others donât. Thatâs already an ontological, not simply an epistemic, judgement. Reliable is better than unreliable. True is better than false. But better is an evaluative term. Youâve introduced a norm â and a norm that isnât itself a fact about orbital mechanics or any other physical state of affairs. If you found that a purported authority was lying about the orbit of the earth around the sun, that would matter to you.
What youâre actually denying isnât meaning as such â itâs cosmic purpose, a âgrand designâ reminiscent of the traditional belief in the âdivine architect. But that doesnât undermine the implicit normativity assumed by rational discussion.
Which is why, I think, that Nietszche said âI am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.â
Then you might say that Iâve cast doubt on nihilism â but what about determiinism? I think of determinism represented by LaPlaceâs famous daemon:
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which knew all the forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, would be able to embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, just like the past, would be present before its eyes.
I think itâs established beyond reasonable doubt that this idea has been demolished by the discovery of the âuncertainty principleâ in modern physics: at a fundamental level, reality is indeterminate.
Yeah, I am not just going to dox myself buddy XD. Im just kidding. I am 15, I live in Norway and I havenât really read much on any of the topics. I just searched up the ideas i though of myself and found the ones that matched it the closest. I didnât pick up a book and read it and found the ideas, I though of them then I found them after. My position is often moved on many things, but strangely on this topic quite rarely as people are not able to create any good arguments seemingly.
The first thing to say of course, is that the reason to take a position is when there is good grounds for doing so. IOW, it should not be âprove me wrongâ but finding arguments to prove these positions.
Nonetheless, my quick 2c:
Our best understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that there are events that are truly random. Indeed it has been proved that such events cannot be determined by local hidden variables.
Now, it remains possible that there are non-local hidden variables, but in the meantime hard determinism doesnât seem the rational position to take. It seems to require making the claim that we will discover a specific physical phenomenon. Occam is reaching for a blade.
If weâre defining nihilism as the belief that there is no inherent, objective value, then this is fair enough. Though Iâd still say the agnostic position is the most rational.
The definition of what is âmaterialâ has had to be stretched multiple times as our physical models have advanced far beyond our intuitions of matter. Into gravitational waves, Higgs fields, virtual particles (depending on which physicist you ask). If dark matter turns out to be some kind of fundamentally âsmearedâ thing that cannot be isolated into particles, weâd still file it under âmaterialâ.
So whatâs even the point of this position now? Clearly whatever we ever find weâll call material.
You are strawmanning me quite a bit bro Iâm ngl but I appreciate the effort. Hard determinsim does not equal reductionism, Materialis does not equal naive atomism, Determinism does not equal epiphenomenalism, and Nihilism does not equal "everything is meaningless in every possible sense. Hard determinism is about causal necessity, not âsmall parts explain everythingâ. Determinsim does not imply that conciousness is causally inert. You are also proposing metaphysics without showing how they outperform mine.
Hard determinism does not require reductionsim. It only requires that events including mental events are fully caused by prior states plus laws of nature. That could be true in a holistic or âbig systemâ ontology just as much as a micro-reductionist one. So objections to reductionism donât automaticall affect determinism itself, they mainly affect a particular style of explaining determinsim.
On materialism, I also dont think that the argument depends on naive atomism. Most contemporary physicalist views are already compatible with field thoery, process-based ontology, or structural realism. So pointing out that physics isnt just tiny bulliard balls does not really refute materialism. It just refines what physical even means.
On conciousness and epiphenomenalism, I think that the inference âdeterminism means that counsciousness is causally inert, undermining knowledgeâ doesnât follow. determinism only implies that mental states have causes, it doesnt remove their causal role. If my reasoning is part of the causal chain producing my conclusion, then it literally is still plying and explanatory role within that chain.
So I dont think these are even arguments against determinsim or materialism rather it is an argument against a simplified version fo them. If you are going to reject determinism or materialism, then what positive alternative are you endorsing? How does it aboid similar or stronger explanatory problems?
And there is that damn discourse on objective/subjective again; perhaps the worst mistake in pop philosophy. On a par with claiming meaning must be either custard or yoghurt.
My suggestion would be that, when you feel tempted to talk of meaning, look instead at what is being done with the words involved. But thatâs a long story about a fellow named Wittgenstein. You are right to begin to look beyond the questions you asked, and at the language in which they are framed. Welcome to philosophy.
Anyway, youâve managed to get quite a good number of responses, and no doubt that will continue.
First off, that is an argument I get all the time. That in quantum physics the result of an interaction is fundamentally unpredictable. Although, I believe this is just a case of âbrownian motionâ all over again. I just do not think we have advanced far enough in science yet to see that it is actually predictable it is just very complex.
Now for your question about materialism. I believe that conciousness is an emergent property of complex neuroogical networks. Emergence can still happen withing a materialistic framework.
Now for your nihilism point. The societal morality is not objective, it is just intersubjective. It does not disprove Full Nihilism and it is yet again a very common, not thought through argument.
On the point about practical systems, i think there is a category error. Full nihilism does not mean that people cant build structure or ethics, it just means that those structures are not objectivelly grounded in the universe. in practice, societies still develop intersubjective morals systems because they are necessary for coordination and survival. In the same way, materialism and determinsim doesnt prevent planning or decision making they just describe that those processes as part of a causal system rather than something that is outside of it. So i do not think that the ability to construct ethics or institutions depends on rejecting nihilism it just depends on humans being social and goal driven organisms within a deterministic frame work thank you very much.
I believe that how we frame questions matter and that language can mislead us if we treat it too rigidly. But i dont think that this removes the distinction i was making. Whether we describe it in âobjective vs subjectiveâ terms or in terms of how language is used, the underlying point still seems to be wheteher meaning is something inherent in reality or something produced withing human practices.
Reframing the language doesnt settle that question it just changes how we talk abt it. So i am happy to look at meaning in terms of use and practice, but i do not see how tat alone gets us to objetive meaning existing.
Your saying and thinking youâre open minded is determined. Whether your opinions are valid isnât dependant upon your having chosen the most reasonable choice, but upon whether you were determined to believe as you do.
That is, you believe you are open minded. You cannot think otherwise because that is determined.
You believe in hard determinism. Assuming youâre right, you canât believe otherwise. You can give me your arguments for why you believe as you do, and Iâll believe whatever I am required to and you will too.
You posit yourself as an agent here, but youâre not. Your beliefs will change however they do, or not.
So itâs not logic that convinces you. Itâs more to do with science. You arenât dogmatic about it, so I canât fault that. Youâre allowing that the opposing views may be true, you just havenât found a reason to lean in that direction. Sounds good.
Back to sculpting more tiny hands for a disturbing art thing.
Pretty much, yes. Im not treating any of these positions as absolute certainty. Its not just science in isolation, but also how well the ideas cohere with what we observe and how useful the are as explanations. Im open to alternatives if they come with stronger reasoning, but i havenât seen anything that forces me away from these views yet.
Have fun with your disturbing art thing lmao.
I think âbothâ is fine in one sense: language is something we use in the world, and meaning merges through that use within shared practices.
So no, meaning is not floating outside of reality, But it also is not just an arbitrary mental invention either. It depends on the agents interacting with the world.
But that still does not give use objective meaning in the strong sense i was originally denying. It explains how meanin is generated and stabilised, not that the universe itself contains purpose or value independently of those practices. So i dont think this bridges the gap sadly. It just describes the mechanism bu which meaning arises within beings like us.
Apologies for the poor grammar, I am just speedrunning responses lol.
Reasoning is itself a causal mechanism that produces belief updates. Determinism does not remove reasoning it just explains why reasoning works the way it does.
By saying âyou cant believe otherwiseâ doesnt remove the fact that beliefs still track inputs like evidence and argument. It just describes how that tracking even happens.
So to conclude, when i say that i am open minded, that isnt claiming that i freely choose my beliefs outside of causation. It is describing a stable disposition. I tend to revise beliefs when presented with stronger reasons. dunked on