Objective truth in a determined universe?
Does objectivity have any meaning in a Universe where everything is pre-determined? Everything is as it is determined to be, even what we observe and report. This, if everything is exactly as it is determined to be, and each observer is exactly correct in n what they are reporting, then what are people like Dennett seeking? Surely they must realize that their efforts are no more worthwhile or interesting than anyone who disagrees with them. Scientists, also, are doing nothing more than reporting as they have been determined to report, and their observations are no more worthwhile than that of a Shaman.
Comments (52)
But our best science at the moment seems to imply that our universe is probabilistic and not determined.
Dennett believes in free will as well. I'm not seeing the problem with truth here.
Science is doing nothing. It is all determined, including your observations that it is more accurate. No one is doing anything except reporting in a determined universe, and they are only reporting what was determined they should report.
I am not speaking of science and its inconsistent views about the universe, e.g. Einstein's block time vs..probabilistic quantum waves. I am more interested in the meaningless of determinism as applied to life.
Dennett believes in determinism and some sort of fabricated ability to choose, which can be classified under the heading, "having a cake and eat it". However, since, he believes in determinism, then I appreciate his opening his mouth and making determined sounds.
Well, I mean I don't know if science has any views per se. People doing science have views, often very different views it seems to me.
But I do agree that determinism doesn't make much sense, as I understand it anyway.
Unfortunately, in the field of medical sciences, science has adopted a mechanistic view of life, not admitting to the mind. This view is being somewhat dismembered by the revelation that the gut had an "enteric brain".
Yes - the mechanistic picture of the world keeps popping back up, even though it was refuted by Newton hundreds of years ago.
It appears that we have a mechanistic out-look built into the way we see the world, we can't help re-postulating it in some manner. Problematizing the mind, that is saying that its not what it seems or that it's folk-theoretic and to be reduced to brain states is one way of not dealing with many hard issues.
professional opinion? do the fuck you want till you can because god help the fucker who created this whole thing, the shier complexity of it is beyond anyones understanding in the universe
Personally I think objectivity for any partially aware being like us is impossible regardless of whether the universe is predetermined.
How can there be a Truth when everything is Determined. You can only have someone uttering that something is true. There is NO independent discovery of anything. It's all just billiard balls colliding into each other and making sounds.
So it's true that the universe is determined, and that hence there can be no truths.
Do you desire a coherent understanding? If so, then you must see that there is something astray int eh way your have set out this problem.
If you do not desire a coherent understanding, then there is no point in our talking to you, since for you anything goes.
In a deterministic context, it was been determined that you said that and I wrote this. Shrug. Just utterances with no meaning or purpose. I can only dispute you, if it was determined. What ever will be, will be.
That tells us about you, not about the universe.
The Universe is what it is. It is me making sounds and you making sounds. Just shuffling along.
OK, so it it true that: The Universe is what it is. It is me making sounds and you making sounds. Just shuffling along on the block time.
Hence, there are true statements.
In a deterministic context, just utterances. Only someone believing in a non-deterministic thinking (i.e. insights) might be able to put more value into utterances. In this case, there is truly independent exploration, observation, and insights. To put it another way, there is no meaning to life unless one allows for it.
And it follows that there are truths.
As a determined utterance. It's all equal.
Determinism is quite egalitarian, bless its soul.
There is room for independent exploration, discovery, insights, and communication emanating from the individual mind. Nothing is determined. Disagreement and agreement is meaningful.
I read your thread introduction now and I am not convinced about your basis, 'Everything is as it is determined to be'. This seems too simplified, and on what basis is that determined? I think that needs to be explored more, before you go on to the wider exploration of objective truth.
If you believe there is meaning to the notion of exploration, then yes. But the moment you apply meaning to exploration, you have disowned determinism.
But (It's true that the universe is determined) is not equal to (It's not true that the universe is determined)...
So it's not all equal...
Everything that happens has been determined to happen. It is the meaningfulness that comes into a
question. You say something. I say something. All is determined. All is equal. You believe it is more than equal. It's determined that you believe it is more than equal. And so it goes.
But surely owning or disowning determinism, or any other system only makes sense in the context of any particular framework of meanings.
That's the beauty of determinism. It doesn't matter. The dominos keep falling as we all await the next utterances with bated breath. It's thrilling.
Of course. Is there meaning in a series of sounds? There is, if it has been determined you believe so. You are not choosing anything, including your beliefs.
So, you are suggesting that all our meanings are determined. I think that I follow your basic argument, but I am not sure that it is any more objectively valid than less determinist viewpoints.
I think that you are really trying to point to the weaknesses in determinism, but it is just a little confusing, because in some ways you are trying to go through the steps of determinist views, in perhaps a slightly caricaturist way.
Non-determinism permits independent, creative thinking, i.e. new insights as a result of intuition. It happens as a spontaneous burst of recognition. This is something wholely new, and undetermined by any previous event. My topic, was MY topic, created by my mind.
It is as the topic suggests. Is there such a thing as objective truth in the context of determinism? It is not a caricature. It is discussing the meaning(less) of truth in a determinastic philosophy.
I just think that you are exaggerating the extremes of determinism or non determinism.
I just think that your point of view would be clearer if you suggested a better view or model, rather than simply looking for weaknesses in the determinist view in the way you are doing.
Again, then it is true that: there is no such thing as truth in a philosophy where everything is determined.
Quoting Banno
There is a distinction. In a deterministic universe, the sentence is merely an utterance without meaning. The word exists. That's all.
There is a performative contradiction in what you are saying that undermines your account.
If you are right, then it is true that in a deterministic universe, the sentence is merely an utterance without meaning; hence "In a deterministic universe, the sentence is merely an utterance without meaning." has meaning.
It all depends upon:
Is the contradiction one of perspective, or
Inherent and inescapable in a determinastic life.
You keep making a pretence to arguing.
But you have made the point that these arguments are all "merely an utterance without meaning".
SO there re no arguments here, on your account.
If you wish to mount an argument, you will first need to recant.
There is no argumentation in a deterministic world. What is interesting, is thst what seems to be arguing even exists given the nature of determinism.
I, do not dwell in this world, but anyone who does, is faced with this conundrum and how to deal with it on a personal level.
So it seems.
Science is not a report. It is a method for understanding the causes of what happens. The method does require being able to repeat experiments and recognize competing explanations of phenomena.
The method has brought powerful tools into the world with both constructive and destructive potential. The matter has progressed far beyond whether to believe a Shaman or not.
There is no method or understanding in determinism. There is only determined events. You may "feel" like there is up understanding and methods, only if the determined event is that feeling within you (don't ask me how these feelings come about). Others may not have that feeling, hence my remarks that that were also determined. So if I disagree with you, it is only because we are involved in different determined events. If we discuss or not discuss, it is all determined. Let's see what events happen. It's exciting isn't it?
There is also entropy in the universe and entropy creates change.
What was determined originally may have changed, that's not to say it's no longer determined; it's one of the beneficent effects of entropy.
What I said here was determined, but was it meaningful?
Did I reset and reorder the local determined system in a beneficent way?
Without education our mind registers probabilities of the determined system and possibilities of entropy as we experience common data- seemingly to us, unregistered.
Objectively speaking, truth evolves through vigorous change. 'What will be may not be' - my own quote.
It sounds like you took the Blue pill and the Red pill simultaneously.
I don't recommend driving or operating heavy equipment.
To you maybe, because it was determined that you have that feeling, but not to me, because it was determined I would respond in this way.
" probabilities of the determined system"
"Probabilities In determined system" may have meaning to you, but it was determined it would have no meaning to you. There is no reasoning, just a feeling of reasoning. We have no choices.