You're now changing to goalposts to "meaningful"

What is meaningful?

The fact that the uncertainty exists in the micro properties means it exists in the macro properties, this is very basic error propagation

And the fact that the human psyche is largely emotional and irrational is evidence in itself

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 5 2025 02:18pm

I am not shifting the goalposts, I am just refining the question. The presence of uncertainty on the micro level doesnt automatically imply that it has functional significance at the macro level.

You are right about error propagation in principle, but in practice complex biological systems arent passive channels for quantum noise. They are highly regulated, buffered, and redundant. Molecular scale randomness is often absorbed, averaged out, or rendered irrelevant by the structure of larger systems.

As for human emotion and irrationality, those are psychological traits, not evidence of quantum indeterminacy. Cognitive biases and emotional behavior emerge from evolved neural architectures, not quantum unpredictability. Confusing the two is a category error.

So again: yes, microscopic uncertainty exists, but that doesnt mean macroscopic systems like the brain are non-deterministic.

I don't disagree in principle with what youre saying in general here with respect to things averaging out, but if what you say is true then there wouldn't be any differences between human beings. Everyone would have precisely the same personalities, heights, etc. The underlying randomness is the root cause of why people have different personalities and thoughts. Differences in genetics are fundamentally due to randomness

This post was edited by El1te on Aug 5 2025 02:29pm

Let's be real you don't bring anything substantive to this conversation. You posed one of the most BASED questions of all time and then when I gave you the truth you say shit like, "Your ad hominem crap doesn't impress me or intimidate me at all".

Who are YOU again?

You are the EGO and you identify with the reality around you using symbols, numbers, etc. to try and make sense of the world around you. You are not separate from that existence. That consciousness that permeates all of existence.

When someone like you even THINKS once you are already GONE. When a human being tries to "hold on to a concept/idea" it leads you NOWHERE because you are a NOBODY. The scientist using the micro/macro scopes will dig all the way down to the quartz and dark matter just like the astronomer will stare out into the stars through a telescope.

Who is the observer and who is the observed?

Do you think human beings throwing a bunch of symbols/numbers to simplify life actually encapsulates the true essence of existence itself? FUCK NO.

People like you have all the answers at your fingertips but you can't read a book and there's literally thousands on free will alone.

I'm glad you think I'm trying to impress or intimidate you. I'm trying to educate you.

You've deflected literally every question I ever directed towards you because you don't know how to conversate with someone whose "thought out" the whole "thought process".

My mind is always on God because God is all that exists and we are merely the instrumentation. If you try and hold on to ideas/concepts you will only get lost. God alone exists and there is no separation in existence everything varies by degree and not of kind.

Let me know when you can get passed all the semantics "scientific" types like yourself have.

Vedanta is a philosophy that utilizes intense logic/high science and the wisdom of the ancient scripture to reveal a great truth to you. You are God and yet you go around saying "I can't be that". That's because your definition of God up until I smacked you over the head with a Buddhist hand gesture was, "A magical man in the sky". You didn't know some people don't ascribe or bane their existence on the Abrahamic centric world view.

I don't think you can fathom that you've only studied one side of this discussion. Still can't admit that which is insane to me. Fuckin crack head shit, "I ascribe to this"......."Who are you?" is the question you need to ask yourself. You never have and if you did you wouldn't sound so pretentious and scared.

edit: God forbid you have to do the research yourself to see and experience that truth.

Vedanta literally translates as, "the end of knowledge" because when knowledge ends realization begins. You stop pretending you can understand existence better then existence can understand itself.

What's more likely happening is God having an experience through you or are you having an experience through God?

This post was edited by SwamiVivekananda on Aug 5 2025 07:34pm

when I logically proved 10 times his statement of "the scientific method is the only currently known method for us humans to come to conclusions of truth" is false and internally contradicting

he begrudgingly moved the goalpost to "empirical science is humanity’s most successful method for understanding the world." without even fundamentally understanding why he is wrong


and when he said "Listen: Give me ONE example, just ONE logic example in which knowledge that is not aquired does not equal causation. If you can do that, then I retreat my case."

after giving a clear example of God's statement of "I AM THAT I AM" (God knows who he is and did not cause himself to exist as he is eternal) he replies "Sure, God knows about himself and he always was."

which agrees with my point precisely and fulfills his request, yet he does not "retreat his case" or admit he's wrong.

it doesn't come off as a genuine attempt at learning when you constantly shift goalposts instead of just admitting you were wrong saurod


when using modal logic to prove necessity vs certainty he just replies with the same incoherence and lack of basic understanding, it just all comes off as either complete ignorance or extreme bad faith

This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 6 2025 04:59am

its not his fault though. he has no free will to agree with you

+1

So on point and it's nothing against Saurod I appreciate him for bringing up something other then "politics" but understand that these "topics" have been discussed at length for a few thousand years now and how you perceive existence will different from those around you despite being the "same thing". This is why I tell him to look into Buddhism and other methodologies/thought exercises/philosophies. You have to research outside your cultural, ethnic, national identity and study "god" objectively. Free will and the "existence of God" is a huge body of "data" that most people just ignorantly don't read into. There's bodies of evidence and great arguments on all sides that's why I choose as a Vedantist to only use that which supplements my existing Motus operundi. There are aspects of religions/schools of thought/beliefs that are supplementary to one another and the whole point of them being there is to "try them". That's why "So many faiths So many paths all lead to thee". You don't have to read any scripture and you'll get it. You could also read every scripture known to man and simply "not get it". The point is that the risk of not trying in your one breathe of existence seems foolish as your time as a human is very limited here and in my opinion I'm trying to learn as much and do as much as I can.

"Karma" in Sanskrit simply translates as "to do" or "to act" so when you hear someone say "I'm balancing my karma" it's them saying I'm trying to do more good then bad.

"Ma" in Sanskrit simply translates as "to measure" and "Da" in Sanskrit translates as "that" and so even as a newborn infant knows there is no separation. It looks at a tree and says "Da". It looks at mom or dad and says "Da".

You have to be told, "This is a tree" and "You are John" and "Numbers are how we relate to the physical bodies around us" etc. etc. and it's all an illusion. The Ego itself is an illusion its just damn near impossible for a person to admit that.

This is why Buddha would say "You have no problems". Because "you" don't exist. That's in your head.

or

Someone is frustrated, angry, worrying and goes up to Buddha and says I can do all things but I cannot pacify the mind. No matter what I do it keeps interjecting and....

Buddha then said, "Place your mind in front of me and I will pacify it".

The person stunned said nothing and Buddha said "It is pacified".

These are small "mind tricks" that the East is known for using to "trick you out of your own ego". Like Alan Watts would famously say, "How do you surprise yourself?"

The big thing I'll say and I studied and practiced and continue to practice under a guru is that you can reach a place of total peace and liberation through this body/mind instrument alone. You don't need fancy philosophies or complex religions to do it. When you quiet your mind completely and for HOURS you essentially start to "merge into Brahman" or "become one with God" because the mind is SILENT and therefore if there would ever be communion with the divine or higher intelligence it would happen then not when your out and about discussing worldly matters.

The other big thing is knowing you are God and that God alone acts you STILL take on your name and ACT as that name knowing you are God.

Many people would say once you know your God and you are in complete and total bliss that's it right? Yes. For some. For me it seemed silly and that's because Swami Vivekananda was so hard on Eastern philosophy because they became lazy even thought they were highly intelligent.

They made the excuse. Well I know I'm not this ego, I'm not this body, and that's it's all God so I'm just going to chill here forever in peace.

What use is that? If it only helps YOU. "Oh this ego doesn't exist but YOU want to be happy". See the contradictions even in the language itself.

Just like what you mentioned above. I AM THAT I AM. It is a powerful statement and most don't know the implications of such a profound statement.

It's almost like he has zero interest in listening or advancing his perspective, and just wants to "win" for his own perceived ego. It's almost like he is the evidence that the human psyche is naturally emotional and irrational and consequential of free will aimed in the wrong direction.

Of course you have free will. It doesn’t mean the decisions you make can’t be influenced by genetics, your upbringing, education, religion and other experiences, but in the end YOU are responsible for YOUR actions and outcomes. Though some people tend to "go with the flow" it doesn’t mean there is no free will, just that some people are more strong-willed.

First of all, I REALLY appreciate the conversation with you, because you are the only one here who - at least from time to time - tries to take me seriously. Its a great discussion with you I have to say. When you answer others, you keep mocking me, but what can I do. Just wanted to say that I like your thoughtful answers to me personally at least. You have good arguments and you actually think about the topic without a blind doctrine behind it. Talking to you makes sense. Not really with anyone else for the most part.

Your point about biological variation is not a bad one. I think you are right that processes like genetic recombination and development include elements that are, from our perspective, unpredictable and highly contingent. Thats not something I would dispute.

Where I think we may differ is in how we interpret that unpredictability. From a deterministic standpoint, what we often call “randomness” doesnt imply metaphysical indeterminacy, it reflects complexity, sensitivity to initial conditions, or gaps in our knowledge. So while biological individuality arises through highly intricate and, at times, opaque processes, that doesnt necessarily mean those processes are truly random in a fundamental sense.

Individuality, in other words, is not at odds with determinism imho. Even in fully deterministic systems, small differences in initial conditions can lead to massive divergence over time. Chaos theory is a great example of that. So the fact that people differ in personality, behavior, or physiology doesnt, in my view, require an appeal to true indeterminism.

My original point was more narrowly aimed at the idea that quantum uncertainty implies that macroscopic systems like the brain must operate indeterministically. Im not convinced that follows, especially given how buffered and regulated biological systems tend to be.

Just to clarify: Im not arguing that determinism must be 100% true. Im saying that, so far, I havent seen a compelling reason to reject it, especially not based on quantum uncertainty or the observed variation in human traits.

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 7 2025 05:12am