Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jingle-man t1_j20m3p2 wrote

Reply to comment by YuGiOhippie in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024

No: the elements of the universe follow necessarily from each other, can not be anything other than they are. But the very fact that anything is at all is unnecessary in that there might as well be nothing. The drama follows a necessary path, but the drama itself is an unnecessary phenomenon. There doesn't need to be a universe. But there is. And that's beautiful.

3

Polychrist t1_j22f7br wrote

So you believe that the existence of the universe itself is a non-determined random occurrence? Because that’s what it sounds like…

And if it’s possible for that occurrence to be non-determined and unnecessary, then how can you be so sure that there are no other non-determined and unnecessary events?

2

Jingle-man t1_j23amaw wrote

>So you believe that the existence of the universe itself is a non-determined random occurrence? Because that’s what it sounds like…

Language fails. These words don't really mean much when we're talking about an object of which there is no outside. The universe cannot be said to follow from anything else, because there is nothing before it. Nor can it be said to serve any other purpose than itself, because there is nothing beyond it. The universe is not an occurrence; it is occurrence itself, the entire web of causality.

Things that occur occur necessarily – but does occurrence have to occur? It makes no sense for something to necessarily cause causality itself. Thus I do not believe the universe can be called a necessary phenomenon, even though all that is a part of it necessarily follows.

1

Polychrist t1_j23s9ip wrote

How can you know that there is nothing outside of our universe, or nothing beyond it?

And assuming that you’re correct, and there’s nothing else— is it actually possible that the universe would not have been? How could a particular state of affairs ever emerge from a non-state of affairs, except by random occurrence or necessity?

1

Jingle-man t1_j23x5o5 wrote

>How can you know that there is nothing outside of our universe, or nothing beyond it?

Because the word "universe" literally means all that exists. If there's something beyond what we call universe, then what we call universe isn't universe at all.

>is it actually possible that the universe would not have been?

Is it possible that Possibility could not have been? ... is what you mean to ask. As I say, language fails.

>How could a particular state of affairs ever emerge from a non-state of affairs, except by random occurrence or necessity?

That is quite literally the Great Question, that no one is qualified to answer. But how could Occurrence itself be a random occurrence? "Randomness" refers to the interaction of possibilities; so how can randomness exist prior to existence and possibility itself?

1

Polychrist t1_j244foz wrote

Well, that’s just the thing— if it’s nonsense to talk about occurrences not occurring, or possibilities not being possible, then it seems the universe must exist out of necessity. To say that it is possible that possibilities wouldn’t exist, is nonsense— therefore it is a contradiction to say that the universe could’ve not been.

Perhaps the universe only exists because it would’ve been a logical contradiction for it not to have.

Or perhaps the universe (not just the observable universe post big-bang, but the potential multiverse structure beneath it which you would also deem part of the “universe,” or “all that exists,”) has always existed, and is persistent unchanging in some sense, and therefore could not have not been either.

I’m just not sure that it made sense when you said that it’s possible that there would’ve been nothing, and that makes it beautiful that there’s something. I would argue that it’s either not possible that there was nothing, I.e. the existence of the universe itself is necessary, I.e. it’s non-existence would be a contradiction, or else other non-necessary entities may exist.

1

Jingle-man t1_j249jeo wrote

>I’m just not sure that it made sense when you said that it’s possible that there would’ve been nothing, and that makes it beautiful

It didn't make sense at all, because language can't really capture this kind of thing well. But to be fair, I said "the universe might as well not have been" which isn't wrong. There's no reason for the universe to exist, but neither is there any reason for it not to exist. The universe is "unnecessary" in that its existence itself is not a matter of necessity. The universe truly "doesn't need to exist" because "need" implies necessity. But as I've said again and again, Necessity is not necessary. It is (that is, the universe is) unnecessary.

1

Polychrist t1_j249q4x wrote

And I disagree. I think the existence of the universe is necessary.

1

YuGiOhippie t1_j20rwfa wrote

You cannot prove that the elements follow necessarily.

They follow contingently.

That’s my point.

1

Jingle-man t1_j20towl wrote

No one can ever prove that (A) could have led to (C) rather than (B); nor can one, as it stands, prove that it could only lead to (B); because the only reality we have access to is the one in which (A) indeed did lead to (B). In the absence of cold hard proof, I am left with only intuition and faith.

I do not believe that, if we could rewind time and let it proceed again, anything different would occur. That's the long and short of it. That idea doesn't fill me with existential dread, because it quite literally changes nothing about how I inhabit the world – except that it gives me a poetic sense of contentment and soothes some fears.

4

YuGiOhippie t1_j20v2dz wrote

You’re free to have faith in your own lack of freedom sure, if that makes you feel better.

Ironic considering your determinist position.

1

Jingle-man t1_j20vx0j wrote

You have a very narrow idea of fate and belief if you think there's any irony to what I've said. Don't take things so seriously!

2