Philosophy

Slade said:
I'm sure theoretical physicists will be deeply grateful when you publish your paper clearing up this issue once and for all, since they're clearly too dumb to have figured this out for themselves. Who would've thought IAB would be the one to debunk quantum incompleteness?


That's just semantic hodgepodge, though. If indeterminacy exists in the present and the future is just the present that hasn't happened yet, what is your justification for the future being predetermined?
Click to expand...
AT MOST, QUANTUM PHYSICISTS AGREE THAT ELECTRONS *APPEAR* TO BEHAVE RANDOMLY. NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS AREA OF RESEARCH STILL HAS MUCH WE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT WRITING ANY PAPERS "DEBUNKING" DETERMINISM OR FREE WILL. AND THERE IS NO SUCH CONSENSUS ON THIS TOPIC. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS IDEA?
 
But the future and past are just linguistic constructs. By conflating the two you're creating an argument which only has meaning as an abstraction of language but is devoid of epistemological meaning.
 
IAdoreBunnies said:
AT MOST, QUANTUM PHYSICISTS AGREE THAT ELECTRONS *APPEAR* TO BEHAVE RANDOMLY. NOT TO MENTION THAT THIS AREA OF RESEARCH STILL HAS MUCH WE STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT WRITING ANY PAPERS "DEBUNKING" DETERMINISM OR FREE WILL. AND THERE IS NO SUCH CONSENSUS ON THIS TOPIC. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS IDEA?
Click to expand...
Please stop posting until you understand the topic. Thanks in advance.
 
Slade said:
Please stop posting until you understand the topic. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I PROBABLY UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC A LOT BETTER THAN SOMEONE HERE. IF YOU TRULY UNDERSTOOD THE TOPIC, I'M SURE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENTS YOU MADE. OF COURSE YOU CAN ALWAYS SHOW ME THIS "CONSENSUS" WITH SOME SOURCES.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top