Does this solve determinism?

Does this solve determinism?

Short answer: no.

No.

1) Philosophers talk about all sorts of inconsequential things. You don't prove anything by saying it's inconsequential except that it is inconsequential.

2a) Determinism is true and determinism dictates we have a discussion about determinism because this is part of the deterministic process trending towards whatever determinism is trending towards. This feedback loop of determinism is part of the deterministic model, discussion of determinism can not merely be excised from the deterministic world.
2b) Determinism is false, and the topic of determinism is important because you still want to prove determinism is false out of your own free will and you want to convince others of the same.

3) Many-worlds interpretation defies typical conception of free will and determinism.

>Determinism is false, and the topic of determinism is important because you still want to prove determinism is false out of your own free will and you want to convince others of the same.
So a topic is important if we can't prove it false? What about the tea cup hypothesis. The grandiose nature of the determinism hypothesis doesn't mean it's not unfalsifiable.

Also you have failed to define "matter" of the conditions required to determine if something "matters." It is as non-sequitur to conclude that things don't "matter" because of the preceding premises which have little to do with something "mattering."

You're projecting your own interpretation of what you think is important on other people. What is important is fundamentally subjective, based on a being's own frame of reference, deterministic universe or not.

>So a topic is important if we can't prove it false? What about the tea cup hypothesis. The grandiose nature of the determinism hypothesis doesn't mean it's not unfalsifiable.
I didn't even say any of that crap. Clearly you're a brainlet incapable of entertaining multiple ideas at once and want an easy answer allowing you to sidestep a dilemma.

>Determinism is false, and the topic of determinism is important because you still want to prove determinism is false out of your own free will and you want to convince others of the same.
Please justify that proving determinism is false out of your own free will and convince others of the same is important. You DID say this, don't revert to brainlet insults after the first refutation of your attempted refutations.

>Please justify that proving determinism is false out of your own free will and convince others of the same is important.
>So a topic is important if we can't prove it false?
Not remotely the same thing you blithering retard. You seriously think there are things that are objectively important? The sun doesn't give a shit about about anything you care about when it turns into a red giant and engulfs the earth in flames. Importance is a subjective matter based on frame of reference. I wasn't saying it was important to you. I was giving a counterexample that it matters to someone. You have fundamentally failed to define how things "don't matter" because you are incapable of defining what matters.

>You DID say this, don't revert to brainlet insults after the first refutation of your attempted refutations.
You didn't refute shit. You made an assertion of what "matters" is somehow derived from your set of premises which it isn't, brainlet.

Are you mentally retarded, or are you not the person who wrote this post?:
You said it's important, YOU said it's important KYS

>topic of determinism is important because you
The "you" implies subjective value. And clearly since it isn't the second person pronoun you because you don't believe it, it is being used in the sense of:
>2. one; anyone; people in general:

Get a little reading comprehension you brainlet, read the context a little.

But the picture in the OP demonstrates that there will NEVER be any satisfying conclusions made regarding the concept of determinism. So if someone subjectively considers it important and therefore worthy of thought then they are in the wrong because no train of thoughts can ever lead to new information regarding the question except this one

Also if that's the case and you're saying that an individual's subjective personal values can define the inherent value of certain philosophical questions, and are also refuting the relevance of the teacup hypothesis to that concept of subjective personal importance, then you're a brainlet for not realizing the obvious linkage

Why am I talking to you, why am I even writing this on this board - you're obviously a fucking brainlet

This is how approach the issue, though I never used such formality. Pretty nice.

>Why am I talking to you, why am I even writing this on this board - you're obviously a fucking brainlet
You're clearly a brainlet STEM major that thinks he solved philosophy because you drop buzzwords like unfalsifiable. You've fundamentally failed to prove why anything matters at all. Gravity existing is a thing. You knowing how gravity works doesn't matter because gravity exists whether you understand it or not.

>But the picture in the OP demonstrates that there will NEVER be any satisfying conclusions made regarding the concept of determinism.
Not only are you a STEM brainlet taking PHIL 101, you're a STEM brainlet that can't even entertain many-worlds interpretation which has at least as much application in STEM fields as it does in philosophy. People orient their lives around beliefs. You could also be a complete pedant and go on about etymology. But you're clearly a STEM brainlet because you think science proves things, you probably don't know the difference between a scientific law and a theory and you probably haven't even touched etymology.

>So if someone subjectively considers it important and therefore worthy of thought then they are in the wrong because no train of thoughts can ever lead to new information regarding the question except this one
How are you determining is value is "wrong" if value is subjective? The scientific method doesn't determine subjective value kiddo.

>Also if that's the case and you're saying that an individual's subjective personal values can define the inherent value of certain philosophical questions
>inherent value
How does it feel to be retarded? I wouldn't know because I can never experience being you.

>Why am I talking to you, why am I even writing this on this board - you're obviously a fucking brainlet
Because you're a STEM kiddie taking PHIL 101 for GE and you think you solved philosophy.

>I've never heard of epistemology: the post

Fucking phone autocorrected to etymology instead of epistemology.

The fact that you're claiming that whether a hypothesis is unfalsifiable or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we should consider it an important question, proves you know nothing about epistemology.

>The fact that you're claiming that whether a hypothesis is unfalsifiable or not
You're the one dropping the unfalsifiable buzzword here

It was just used to point out you're a STEM kiddie which you aren't denying

>or not is irrelevant to the question of whether we should consider it an important question
Moving the goalposts. I never said we should consider it an important question. Most people think most of philosophy especially metaphysics is not important. You never said that either. You posted an argument that things didn't "matter" without defining the criteria for "mattering"

>proves you know nothing about epistemology
Yeah, that was you STEM kiddie.
>The grandiose nature of the determinism hypothesis doesn't mean it's not unfalsifiable.

"STEM kiddie"? Sorry for studying intellectually rigorous objective topics instead of handwaving bullshit like what you're doing

"Some people think the question of determinism matters" followed by "most people think it doesn't matter" followed by misrepresentations of my own posts. You're an utter brainlet and you should be ashamed of yourself. Have fun with your useless non-STEM degree

>"STEM kiddie"? Sorry for studying intellectually rigorous objective topics instead of handwaving bullshit like what you're doing
You say this while trying to handwave.

>"Some people think the question of determinism matters" followed by "most people think it doesn't matter" followed by misrepresentations of my own posts.
Way to try to back off because you think objective inherent meaning exists. You still haven't offered any criteria for determining what matters.

>Have fun with your useless non-STEM degree
I actually have a STEM degree and had just as much contempt for philosophy as you do when I took PHIL 101. Being an edgy STEM kiddy doesn't make you right. It just makes you a cog in the machine that get's paid $100k because some rich guy happens to need a cog for his machine.

>Way to try to back off because you think objective inherent meaning exists. You still haven't offered any criteria for determining what matters.
Why do I have to do that? Lmfao at you retard

wew didnt expect this thread to go into autistic shit-flinging that fast

Why don't STEMfags understand Philosophy has nothing to do with physical reality? Determinism in Philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with spin quarks or whatever.
So physical reality doesn't have to be in accordance with Philosophy and in fact it's better when it's not because it just shows that we're ahead of the natural laws in our understanding of logical structures.

>Does this solve determinism?
No. It is a poorly formed argument.

"Determinism" isn't a proposition. What is he really arguing here? "I claim determinism is false", what does that even mean? Furthermore, what kind of determinism is he talking about? The fact that he doesn't bother to explain what he means by determinism means that he did not consider alternatives to what he thinks of 'determinism' to be and that shows that he didn't read anything on the topic and his knowledge of it doesn't extend beyond his skull.

You still haven't defined what matters, so you haven't proven shit. The thing you are trying to prove with your proof is whether or not something matters, but you haven't created any kind of logical link between mattering and your premises. You mention inherent value then retreat and say you're being misrepresented.

The fact that you drop STEM buzzwords means that you have blind faith in the fact that STEMshit matters, probably because other people told you so. I assure you, once you enter the work place, none of your peers is going to be impressed by your STEM degree and even as a straight A top 10 uni student, you're going to bump into STEM geniuses that make you feel like a retard. You best learn how to deal with that fact you aren't 99.99999% percentile besides being intellectually vapid and thinking you're smart for it.

If your definition of mattering is getting a job for a megacorp that pays 6 digits, then no, this shit doesn't matter. If there's determinism and determinism makes the illusion of choice not matter, it matters even less because you were never going to do anything else anyways.

You made an assertion because you're a retarded STEM kiddie taking philosophy for a GE and think you solved philosophy and anything you do is somehow better because hurr science, so much that you try to present an illogical logical proof and think you don't have to prove the logical rigorousness because it's not STEM. Unfortunately you're not actually one of the smart brilliant minds that comes out with cutting edge ideas, like most edgy retarded STEM kiddies.