Okay.

Purposefully so, since arguments for analytics are to be made inside a certain context and framework only. This limitation to understanding and reasoning is cringe

Update: I just learned about fatalism and I guess the whole Judas question has already been asked. Does this idea say anything about moral character though?

This is a question that’s been weighting on me pretty heavily: supposing all of our fates are predetermined and free will is a mere illusion, is it possible to commit any moral wrong?

Of course we all knew someone at one point or another who uses astrology as an excuse to be a bitch by saying things like “I can’t help being a Pisces” to justify their shitty behavior. This is what raises the question in my mind. If we entertain the notion (and I’m being completely hypothetical here) if our fates are predetermined, and we have limited or no control over who we are or become, then should we be held accountable for our misdeeds?

I’m new to this sub, and philosophy in general, so I don’t know if talking about the Bible is frowned upon, but Christians believe that through Jesus’ crucifixion, all people are forgiven and able to repent of their sins. At the same time they also believe that Judas committed the ultimate mortal sin, and he is in line with the devil for betraying him. Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, as was prophesied, and without his sacrifice (within the faith) no one could be made right with the Lord.

Judas’ fate was predetermined. If this action was predetermined did he have a choice in the matter? So if not, did he sin when he sold out Jesus to the Romans?

many people are perfectly happy with anti-realism with regard to truth and justification. they might even say it is the best picture of the world given philosophy's well documented difficulties in determining these things.

Not an argument

Cringe Analytics...

Then isn't the question what makes a good intuition and a bad intuition? Does it have to do with correctness or correspondence to the external world? This is just a description of the scientific method but for sentiments or for "gut" feelings, which doesn't necessarily encompass the philosophical topic/study of "theory of mind."

A few reading recommendations:

• Two Heads (a graphic novel)
• Fred Dretske, Naturalizing the Mind
• The Norton Anthology on the History of Mind (The edition I read got a black and white cover)

The article linked shows few examples of the purpose of or what specific situations would be applicable to intuitive judgements, and instead is falling into a deductive argument on "Are Intuitions True OR False"* or placing the philosophical function/role/application/method** of honing intuitions into the categories of logic or epistemology. From what I know, applied logic and applied epistemology (like in history of science*** or medical/scientific ethics) almost never relies on sentiments or prizes/utilizes intuition.****

The article is also using number theory for an argument about an idea that is inherently unquantifiable (infinity) in the example after the first quoted text. I think some of the rest of the article goes on to list other mathematical examples and uses a lot of mathematical terminology, but I stopped reading after I read something like "I can extend an intuition through a deduction" or something like that.

*Which kind of defeats the whole point of writing the article. Even though so many philosophers in the Analytic tradition love Kant (me too) it is very taxing and like chorework to read, write, and review papers on a bunch of self-contained mini-experiments and then go around poking holes in Why Or How This Thing Actually Wouldn't Work Or essentially write a manual for How One Ought To Comport Themselves In All Times At All Situations And Be Right Every Time.

**on "the method of honing intuitions," which may sound a bit New Age-y, there is a very nice allegory used in the first recommendation on the list above on how the neurons in your brain and body work to "hone"/"direct" impulses or intuitions/energy to "test" the accuracy of your perceptions

***which is really what a lot of philosophy amounts to

****except as conundrums, unsolvable problems, or other thought experiments/puzzles, you know, things philosophers like

Its kind of a tool of necessity isn't it though? The whole point of Godel's second incompleteness theorem was showing a system can never prove its own consistency. You'd need an "outside" system to analyse logic. Since no one has conceived of a way to do that (and on the face of it is impossible and would anyway just result questioning the consistency of that system), you just have to kind of shrug and get on with it, using what we have. Not very satisfying, but here we are.

Well of course you can't. If you want to make a truth claim then by definition your position must be that truth claims can be made. The best you can do is to make a distinction where you say that some things can be said to be true (which then would include your own position, lucky break I guess), while most other things can't be said to be true.

[deleted]

Different person

I was going to answer elsewhere but I will respond here quickly for now.

>Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time

Ah, not exactly.

The electron isn't in both "A" and "not A" states, it is in one state which is a superposition of "A and not A".

I understand the distinction seems meaningless, but it makes all the difference

Also, the discussion points seem to be veering to interpretation of QM which is a can of worms we shouldn't really open.

QM is a very useful tool, but we have to be very clear when we are discussing QM results versus QM interpretation. The former is agreed upon by all people who study QM, the latter is still up in the air .

Why do you think superposition implies this?

Superposition implies that the electron both exists and doesn’t exist at any point at the same time. Like, that’s the proof of that statement right there. As observed by the double slit experiment…

Unless you’re gonna substantiate your side a bit more, I’m not that into the endless negation. Explain to me why QM is fundamentally misunderstood in this article as it relates to the PNC.

Yeah, but I don't think that you can even make an argument against truth without assuming some truth at least. Argumentation itself relies on Truth as a foundation

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Who says it also goes through none of the slits and only one slit all at once?

Ok I’m trying to read up on it, and other articles explaining the double slit experiment kinda say the same thing. The photon simultaneously takes every possible trajectory. Again, I’m reading things in layman’s terms.

Can you please give me something more substantial than just negation here? Because I still don’t see how the author is wrong…

I don't like the isolationist idea that people shouldn't use memes of each other, or even the mannerisms of each other. We live in a pluralistic society. Some of the greatest riches of my life are explicitly because of cultural exchange - black people consuming white media, interacting with it, reinterpreting it, and spitting something new out, and the reverse as well, and all the permutations of the above with all other racial or sub cultural groups.

Cultural exchange enriches us all. The implications here, though, suggest that cultural exchange should be one-way only.

That's just impossible. It's too much to ask. You can't expect a white child living on a street with black neighbors to not have mutual exchange of ideas, games, dancers, manners of speech.

And if you did expect that, and if you got what you wanted, the end result would be the isolation of the black neighbors. Because who wants to take part in a one sided relationship, where there are strict rules that apply to you but not to the other party? It's too dangerous to be a part of a relationship like that. One party assumes all the risk while the other takes advantage of all the liberty and is able to extract all the value.

And, importantly, it will just never happen. White people will never, ever, stop interacting with black people, exchanging ideas and ways of living and speaking. Why would anybody want them to?

The author.

Okay, when you have one slit open and fire a photon or an electron or whatever, you get a dot on the screen on the other side. When you have the other slit open, you get a dot in a different location. If you have both slits open, you don’t get either dot, but instead a band suggesting a wave.

Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with how Spinoza's writings were received in his times.

>Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.

Yes, maybe it's just where I hang but I've seen so many of these pseudo-deconstructions lately and it's getting pretty boring. If you argue against a framework then don't keep standing on that same framework - just abandon it.

For example, if I make a deconstructive argument against God, or gods, then I'm not gonna end with: "... and hence that it why it is God's will that God does not exist".

In the same vein, don't make truth claims about the nonexistence of truth. If it does not exist then you should not need to rely on it.

Is it the author who’s wrong about the theory, or is the theory wrong?

That’s wrong.

“a particle is going through both slits, none of the slits and only one slit all at once.”

Is this incorrect then?