Unpopular Opinions Society

[mlp]

I think that although it's true that if Particle A comes into contact with Particle B under conditions 1-5,000 (or whatever the number of the relevant conditions may be), the outcome will inevitably be X. However, IMO, when Particle A and/or Particle B happen to be sentient, there is no longer inevitability as to outcome. IOW, while genetic coding and the prior experiences of A may make it probable, even highly probable, that A will act/react in a certain manner, that probability is less than 100%. I think that might even extend to nonsentient life.

 

[Muggle]

Going back to the whole hormones and PMT thing...

I don't get cranky during PMT, apart from getting annoyed if dogs jump up on me because my boobs always get really tender.

I do turn very cranky when I'm actually on my period because I'm in pain, I hardly get any sleep because I have to be up every couple of hours to change stuff, I spend a lot of time vomiting which also means I'm usually starving hungry because I don't really eat because I know I'll just vomit back up. Also, I know that I've probably got at least 2 weeks of that crap to deal with.
So my patience goes and I will be short and snappy with people but it's not down to hormones. It's down to the actual physical side of my period whenever it does decide to show up.

Spoiler

Actually, saying that, it's been going on since Monday so far and I don't think I've been too bad to people, yet.

 

[FortyTwo]

That's peculiar. You stated earlier that you believed in predestination, as in a deterministic universe? If so, cause and effect seem required for determinism, if not, I don't know what it means to be destiny (or determinism) mean.

Although, even in a predestined or deterministic universe, one can still talk about chance and probability. In other words, chance/probability are not mutually exclusive to a destiny or determinism.

Okay, it was too much to say I don't believe in cause and effect. But probability just doesn't click with me, because if the Universe is in a certain state it's going to progress to the next state exactly according to how its elements are behaving.

I think that although it's true that if Particle A comes into contact with Particle B under conditions 1-5,000 (or whatever the number of the relevant conditions may be), the outcome will inevitably be X. However, IMO, when Particle A and/or Particle B happen to be sentient, there is no longer inevitability as to outcome. IOW, while genetic coding and the prior experiences of A may make it probable, even highly probable, that A will act/react in a certain manner, that probability is less than 100%. I think that might even extend to nonsentient life.

Forgive me if this is rude, because people get angry with me when I say this sometimes (although most of the time it's because they're religious) but I don't think life is special at all. I think life is just the expression of a multitude of complex chemical reactions, all of which are easily comparable to the more mundane things that go on. Simply because it's too complex for us to predict with accuracy what a living organism is going to do next doesn't mean that it's not going to happen a certain, specific way. Everything an organism does is just the result of billions of billions of evolutionary algorithms testing themselves against each other. Brains are essentially supercomputers. Hell, even something like a prokaryote is a supercomputer. It's all just a matter of chemical reaction, or, on the subatomic scale, interaction between the fundamental forces.

 

[Digger]

Forgive me if this is rude, because people get angry with me when I say this sometimes... but I don't think life is special at all... Everything an organism does is just the result of billions of billions of evolutionary algorithms testing themselves against each other... It's all just a matter of chemical reaction, or, on the subatomic scale, interaction between the fundamental forces.

I used to think like you... everything could be explained by a mathematical equation... but I think quite differently now. How do you explain art?

 

[mlp]

Forgive me if this is rude, because people get angry with me when I say this sometimes (although most of the time it's because they're religious) but I don't think life is special at all. I think life is just the expression of a multitude of complex chemical reactions, all of which are easily comparable to the more mundane things that go on. Simply because it's too complex for us to predict with accuracy what a living organism is going to do next doesn't mean that it's not going to happen a certain, specific way. Everything an organism does is just the result of billions of billions of evolutionary algorithms testing themselves against each other. Brains are essentially supercomputers. Hell, even something like a prokaryote is a supercomputer. It's all just a matter of chemical reaction, or, on the subatomic scale, interaction between the fundamental forces.

No, it's not rude, but I've now seen life end too often to believe that.

I think that there's a great need in most humans for a cohesive, coherent explanation for everything - randomness is frightening. Some satisfy that need with religion, others with math or science.

 

[nog]

But probability just doesn't click with me,

Well, one can still discuss probability in a deterministic universe. I think this is fundamental to statistical mechanics. For example, in discussing idealized gas that behaves deterministically, assuming you could know the direction and velocity of every particle you could accurately describe the events for all time. However, another way to describe the system would be to use statistical mechanics and probability.

because if the Universe is in a certain state it's going to progress to the next state exactly according to how its elements are behaving.

Supposition. Although it may not be that unpopular of an opinion.

I don't know on what people really base this belief. We have some evidential support that, in at least some cases, this is true. However, in every day life that point of view is difficult to consistently claim true.

I'd also add that this isn't a fundamental aspect of physics (Newtonian or QM). QM alone squashes that idea and there are a variety of examples in Newtonian physics that calls into question whether Newtonian Physics really is deterministic.

Not that you're claiming anything about physics.

 

[Freesia]

I think probability and determinism occur together. There is the already set up way things happen but there are also all the possibilities that can occur. For example I will probably make something very predictable for lunch because that is how my life pans out, but what if I made something really crazy for lunch? Would I then be exploring the realms of probability, or would that idea be invalid because that is what was going to happen anyway?

It is a strange thing when you start to do things like this. But also amazing how determined the brain is to lock you into routine, safe, repetitive things.

What The Bleep Do we Know is an interesting movie about this.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Oh poo on all of you.

There is a point to Life. Each and every one of us has a purpose we need to strive for to keep life being, well, life. Even all you are able to strive for is just to maintain your person - that's still a point, a purpose. I don't believe we all have a Purpose that we were Born To Do, as I don't buy into the whole predestination thing (kinda nonsense if you ask me); but neither do I think our brains are nothing but supercomputers, as suggested above. There is something unquantifiable about Life - something that science cannot explain, that an equation will never beable to work out. A "soul" if you will (although I find that word - and all the baggage it comes with - problematic), a spark, a desire - a drive deep down in our very being - to make the world wonderful in our own unique way. And I don't think this spark is unique to human life.

And I am neither religious or an optimist - as someone suggested upthread. Neither am I overly romantic, I consider myself a realist - a realist who can still maintain her faith in humanity.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

I don't think there is a point to life.

 

[kibbleforlola]

I don't think there is a point to life.

I think your bunnies would disagree. Clearly the point of you is to make salads and to be grumped at.

 

[Freesia]

Perhaps the purpose of life is to cuddle bunnies.

 

[Danielle]

I'm starting to believe in plant consciousness.
Doesn't mean I'm going to stop being vegan, though.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Plants may be part of a universal conciousness, but I'm not sure that they would have an identity.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Well, one can still discuss probability in a deterministic universe. I think this is fundamental to statistical mechanics. For example, in discussing idealized gas that behaves deterministically, assuming you could know the direction and velocity of every particle you could accurately describe the events for all time.

is that true though?

Isn't there still a problem with three orbiting bodies? Is that the three body problem?

If reality was digital, then you could predict the future, if you knew the present state, but I don't think reality is digital, and positions and velocities of objects would have to be represented with infinity long variables. And the state between points in time wouldn't be worked out by discreet jumps in time like 0.0001seconds, but continuously, ie no jumps.

 

[cornsail]

I find panpsychism interesting.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I have come up with a new term, 'magical scepticism' , whereby people who indulge in this are predetermined in their minds to believe that the world is somehow magically based upon processes that can be examined scientifically, and anything that can't be, doesn't exist.

 

[Muggle]

I get ****** off with people who think that people can't be interested in science and also be religious.

Well, interested isn't the right term, but the thing I see people say is "believe in science" and I don't think you can believe in science. WTF does that even mean? If something has been proven scientifically, it's not a question of belief, it's fact.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I'm not sure that you can ever prove something, only acquire more and more supporting evidence. You then have the choice whether to believe in one hypothesis or another.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Is it existentialist to believe that we can only really know things for ourselves, from our own experience?

 

[Blobbenstein]

I wonder if the media and the government will be reluctant to say that the soldier who was killed in Woolwhich died a soldier's death. If they say he died a soldier's death then they would be admitting that the killing was just an act of war and the soldier just a casualty, which is counter the the narrative that it was an act of terror.