Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Yours was one of the avatars I thought of when I talked about repelling before.....lol

YUCK!

 

Well I think she's beautiful and her glasses are cool. Lol.

 

Does that make her so

 

Don't know, but I'm not going to change my avatar. Lol.

 

red and green....hmmmm....where i have iI heard that before? hmmmmmmmm
I will have no part of it.....none....
not said with any meanness.....at all.......but polarity......

 

ape pies and oranges

 

No, I tell you, it does not. Evolution comes swiftly, my friend, like a silent hawk in the darkest night. We are the field mice pawing at the sky, as if we could still run across it.

It may take a long time to change your mind. It all depends upon what you have in mind, how much of your mind you want to change.

 

If you really need a reason based on inference, consider that social intercoarse is biologically advantageous.

There is a biological imperative behind speaking to anyone at all which you probably already knew, and it is possible to disregard those reasons.

If you really want to go there though. I guess we could reduce ourselves to apes who are fooling themselves in their attempts at getting laid.

That is something that has never changed. But then you and I have never existed either. Not like we do now.

I am talking about happiness because reinforcing certain behaviors is beneficial to our awareness.

And it is OK to feel insecure. If I'm not describing you then that's cool too, but you are more or less hard wired to feel that way in certain situations.

It becomes a problem when you think there is something wrong with it, and you think that an insecurity is what is wrong with you. I did not teach you how to be offended. Someone else taught you that. Someone persuasive enough to convince you that it is and was an OK strategy.

But forget all of that.

The pleasure centers of your brain are associated more with anticipation than what is seen as the actual pleasurable event.

Doesn't that sound a lot like the difference between the journey and the destination to you? There is more anticipation, and more pleasure if you remain open to all possibilities. If you stop because you understand, you get no more dopamine.

So pass on by and be on your way.

Enjoy your free drugs.

 

But why are we discussing my insecurities? Don't you think that it's weird at all that we were just talking and then suddenly we were discussing my insecurities? I find it highly amusing, being that I have nothing personal invested in these conversations. I am above it all. I have ascended.

I didn't come to this message board looking for a psychiatrist, and I doubt you're qualified. You're just doling out advice to strangers as if it's somehow practice for you just to have the faintest sensation of another person talking to you associated with your own thoughts. You have no real regard for who is actually sitting here on the other end. This is called Internet Dysphoria. In this strangest of cases, however, my identity shall always remain a mystery to you.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJCvRfkHppg

 

is determinism, other then statistically, even a thing?

 

No its not.

It's like big-foot or nessy. But we are on a board that entertains silly things like that.

 

I don't fully understand what you mean but...


From how I am understanding determinism in the scientific context, which was in question in the book, a clear example of the concepts of determinism would be route navigation systems.

 

mmmm yes, those are things we can make, but as a default condition of the universe, my own feeling anyway, is that there is mostly only more and less likely. i mean there can be more and less by numbers so big we can't directly imagine them. i'm not even saying there can't be absolutes. just that they seem to be very much the exception, and even if they were more common, most of what people assume, because so many things are really not intuitive at all, tends to be wrong. even those things we make, you know i don't believe god or nature or however you want to look at, ever lets anything be 100% reliable.

 

I don't see how quantum indeterminacy could be anything but inconsistent with determinism at the subatomic level--by definition. The indeterminacy that QM postulates isn't just some deficiency on our part to predict relationships, but rather a fundamental, structural lack of a predetermined relationship. The best we can do is statistical probabilities--and that's not chopped liver!

 

Your default condition of the universe appears to be statistical, so what is it that you are are saying exactly?

 

Do you think all understanding is tentative then?


Given the scope of the universe in times of size and age, we're definitely climbing an uphill battle with some things but it seems we can ascertain many things with a good deal of certainty.

 

One would think that an entire life of preparing for such an argument (on your behalf, at least) would have at least led to an interesting discussion..

 

Interesting discussion on determinism. No

Like all philosophical constructs vague on purpose so those engaging can appear smarter than they are, upon an argument all participants already know can not be resolved.

No difference between Descartes and Tony Robbins

 

Why post in the philosophy forums then?

No need to diffuse your inability to comprehend the discussion onto everyone here. I felt I was fairly clear in the op and my specific issues regarding the text and thread were resolved in this post.