I believe there is no such thing as free will. I believe that

>>14904218
Well, quantum mechanics is a non-deterministic theory. Take that and decoherence and you'll get a lot of randomness.

>>14904218
Well no shit, now that's it happened of course its the only possible outcome. But there's no way to prove that I didn't choose to come to /x/ myself and read your post.

>>14904218
Your belief in your own beliefs is therefore irrelevant, and you are irrational, as if your beliefs were true, there would be no need to state them, or debate them, at all.

Maybe you just don't want to be personally responsible for what you do. Maybe that.

>>14904218

Just a puppet...

...waiting to die alone...

You will live again as part of me...

>>14904218
God is beyond causality.

>>14904246

The name of the game is confusing us into believing we are free, our world is indeed cause and effect.

The rape of God until now, cycling forever, the most meek raping the first.

Cyclic.

>>14904233
There is no randomness is the point though. Or inability to understand it completely has no effect on outcomes. The past and future of all things is only is it could possibly be.

Your pussy is showing.

Not the poster you replied to, just another educated poster chiming in.

Women joining the work force increased the labor pool significantly. This shifted power further into the hands of the employers. The result is that the wealthy maintain a higher level of control and the rest of us get screwed. On top of that, the government began a process of adapting to their new tax revenue that came from having a larger portion of the population working. This lead to spending increases and a general increase in government involvement in society. We are not at a point where we will never be able to go back to a single-income family model because the economic conditions are so lopsided.

And that's just the economic side of women joining the work force. The social impact of feminism was essentially shaming women out of the home. Women who wanted to remain housewives were viewed as holding back feminism. This lead to severe alienation of women who desired to be stay at home mothers. Naturally that lead to a decay in the family unit, which resulted in children being raised poorly because they had no one at home to actually raise them. Instead they have been raised by the public school system, which has basically started to serve as brainwashing to ensure that children grow up to be good compliant little workers. Media also plays a larger role in raising children because, once again, there simply are no parents around.

Last, but not least, we get to marriage and divorce. Feminism had a consistent hand in changing marriage and divorce laws over the years and have managed to tilt the balance so far in favor of women that it is unlikely that marriage will ever recover. Those that do go through with marriage despite the rigged nature of it are experiencing unprecedented divorce rates. More still are simply avoiding marriage entirely because it is vastly unappealing.

Feminism has many drawbacks, and only a fool would ignore that.

>>14904236

Of course I can't prove it, hence why I said 'believe'.

>>14904246

Pretty close m8

But there is no concept here as a "need to state them" because there is no such thing as free will our choice. I had to state them because it is the only possible outcome.

And I'm not trying to absolve myself of responsibility though that's a rightful assumption and ultimately true. But I'm a good person and have nothing from which I need to sort responsibility.

(though that too is just the way it could only happen)

Ya dig?

File: 8a760c5b-d97a-448d-81a9-876831d1e.png (386KB, 667x670px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 667x670px

>>14904291

Hey bro shame to type so much and post in wrong thread

>>14904218
I think that you are onto something, I believe the future has already happened and we physically just haven't arrived at that point yet, but I am not so sure how we arrive at the future. The past/present/future is all happening simultaneously

Some people think reality branches out like a tree with differing timeline. Fuck I just want to know. HURRY THE FUCK UP SCIENTISTS.

>>14904291
I actually read all of that. I agree, shit is fucked.

>>14904388

Yes all 'happening simultaneously' though I'm not sure what happening means in context. As in i haven't thought it through.

A lot of this thinking is the result of me finding the many worlds interpretation ludicrous.

>>14904334
Oh, wow, a good person! Hey, can I ask you a few questions?

Have you ever told a lie?

Have you ever stolen something, ever? Anything?

Have you ever been mad at someone for no reason?

>>14904433
Oh, hey, I can't stick around for your predestined answers, but I'm pretty sure you'd have to admit that you are a liar, a thief, and a murderer.

And so, not a "good person".

Fun chatting with you!

>>14904218
You're stuck in a thought trap

File: image.jpg (32KB, 346x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 346x346px

>>14904218
Muh entropy, faggot. Entropy is randomness and second law of thermodynamics says it's increasing all the time.
lrn2science

I believe the same thing and scientifically, it's solid thinking. The present is the past of he future and the past cannot be changed.

>>14904433

You got issues m8? i didn't come in here for childish arguments. Fuck off back to /b/ if you're looking for troll practice.

The first part of the post i responded to, assuming that was you, was in track. I just don't need to discuss the part about *therefore i can murder people because it had to happen*. That's not anywhere near the point and my belief isn't a structure built from a need to eschew any responsibility for my personal actions.

2/10 for making me reply tho

Epistemologically unknowable. The belief is irrelevant.

>>14904534

I get that. Wittgenstein would not approve no doubt.

>>14904555
jolly good, then there is little to discuss.

File: c32ee2fb-6a0f-4204-a2b5-2e9824dce.jpg (39KB, 961x720px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 961x720px

>>14904590

Touche

then i have no choice but to believe that i'm free

>>14904218
tldr
wave particle collapse

The fact im about to type

Fuckshitniggershitfuckpissdickass

Has so much deep meaningful insight I might just implode.

Like who would've though OP thinks I'm an idiot for mocking him right now and he's now questioning his reality as to if this is his conciousness fucking with him hey guess what it's me motherfucker I control you.

File: 8f840161-a6ec-4db4-b8de-fa5775ae1.jpg (21KB, 414x352px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 414x352px

>>14904709

File: 90f3059d-084b-4f1c-a4ce-8c6d923d3.gif (496KB, 500x214px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x214px

>>14904709

>The fact im about to type
>Fuckshitniggershitfuckpissdickass

Bruh i think you may have a thing for black male cock in your ass
>fuck
>shit
>nigger
>shit
>fuck
>piss
>dick
>ass

But don't worry, you are that way because it's the only way possible as stayed in this thread

>mfw the universe created you by necessity as a big black cock loving faggot

>>14904660

There is no believe tho

That's implying you have some control over physical reactions, which I'm postulating you don't.

>>14905264
then my perception of myself as free is unavoidable

>>14905283

Your perception of yourself is the result of trillions of physical interactions all governed by individual simplistic physical laws of what *has to happen*

There was no other possible result. The same laws that govern the states govern the neurons in your brain. Your 'perception' not excluded?.

This is a statement of denying the existence of a so-called soul or the like. Existence is what it has to be by physical law.

>>14904218
>all the only possible outcome of the universe.
This particular universe, sure.

>>14905350

And all other possible ones which may or may not exist

>>14904218
Actually QM is inherently random. But everything else you say is true.

Meaning that we're not biological machines reacting in completely predictable ways to a completely predictable universe.

We're biological machine reacting in completely predictable ways to a somewhat predictable universe.

>>14904218
>>14904281

>Lelel, 2 deep 4 u, im still wright

No, faggot, you're wrong. You believe it, it doesn't mean it's the only possibility.

>>14905396
The only thing which doesn't exist is "nothing". We make distinctions between "real" and "fictional", but there can be no question as to what exists: everything.

Existence is bound only by ontological possibility, not by mere "laws of nature" (arbitrary universal constants). Any condition we can imagine, and many more than that, in fact, constitutes the truth of countless worlds.

So you're simply wrong to think that everything revolves around you or any particular moment.

>>14905424

This transcends predictable though. Their is no possibility of B happening instead of A. The result will always and only be A.

In the lab we predict. But the result is what it is going to be. There is no result for B. It doesn't happen.

>>14905347
yea thats been my point all along
>unavoidable

>>14905439
>Existence is bound only by ontological possibility
>Citation needed

>>14905449

... I know the difference between their and there, but autocorrect apparently doesn't

>>14905455
Maybe that's a bit unfair, since we can, theoretically, discuss ontologically impossible concepts such as the "square-circle", but what that statements really means is the tautology that only impossible things are impossible. What cannot happen is dependent on how we define events to be able to happen, so that certain things which we might construct with language cannot exist in reality due to their nature requiring a redefinition of the term which describes them.

That's just a hard and fast rule which cannot be shattered by any amount of force or change.

>>14905449
>In the lab we predict. But the result is what it is going to be. There is no result for B. It doesn't happen.

Well it does happen, just not (probably) to your observers. In a sense, then, IT doesn't happen, since all things exist only momentarily and uniquely, but in the sort of macro-sense that you're describing, it does.

I think you are right. There is no future, and no past.
It is only what it is because that is what it is- if it was something else, it would be that, and that would be the only thing that could be.

>>14905491
>if it was something else, it would be that,
The important part to remember is that "this" and "that" both definitely exist, and it's only our very limited perception which incentivizes us to recognize one outcome.

>>14905485

No I mean no observers see a result that won't occur because it can't. I'm trying hard not to get all timecube schizophrenic here but bare with me.

Take our axis of time out of thought. A result, be it quantum or macro, is all that could have possibly taken place. A reaction between states*always *results* in the only result it possibly, physically can. That's important so I'll repeat it.

A reaction always and only results in the the only result it possibly can.

This governs the stars as well as the smallest interaction of neurons as well as the nuclei of atoms in plants and atoms in planets we've never and will never see.

I'm not saying it's predestined. I'm saying is programmed in nature.

>>14905498

How could they both exist? That would result in infinite possibilities of infinite timescales.

I hope this thread is still alive when i wake up.

>>14905473

>construct with language

And now we're back to Wittgenstein. Earlier in thread you'll find I conceded this.

I still think about it though; it is a problem I consider. I'm willing to admit it may be pointless.

>>14905538
>No I mean no observers see a result that won't occur because it can't.
Well you're kind of conflating the "won't occur" part of that with "natural laws define reality", which is disingenuous. What you're claiming is nothing more than an identity property of reality: what is, is, and what isn't, isn't. Bringing future states into it is just harmful and confusing, since "future states" are only part of the "future" because we perceive time and causality in certain ways.

I won't argue with you that all things are necessary and perfect, but I would dispute your idea that "all things" constitutes nothing more than the "reality" we perceive.
>>14905565
>That would result in infinite possibilities of infinite timescales.
It's not actually infinite, since it's bounded by ontology. There are an unbelievably large number of different worlds representing every possibility, but there are not an infinite number of worlds, since there are not infinite possibilities.

And again, time is just a statement we like to make in order to define things. It's more proper to understand reality as a series of instantaneous bubbles which capture only a single moment in perfect totality. We observe time only because our ego, itself a part of araya-shiki, sits on a branch above the swirl of the root in Akasha, rendering it capable of perceiving a portion of these bubbles in sequence.

The ego is obviously flawed, and derivative, though, since we only perceive one particular stream. Our ability to reason and wonder about events outside of this perception stems from the fact that we are observed by Akasha itself, and the record of our ego is written into the swirl along with the "events" the "multitudinous we" witness.

>>14904218
>everything occurs exactly and only as it is possible to occur

Do you have any idea how asinine this statement is

>>14904233
QM randomness has no impact at the macro scale.

>>14904218
>I believe there is no such thing as free will.

There isn't, but not for the reasons you imagine.

These are all golden dreams. Oh, tell me, who was it first announced, who was it first proclaimed, that man only does nasty things because he does not know his own interests; and that if he were enlightened, if his eyes were opened to his real normal interests, man would at once cease to do nasty things, would at once become good and noble because, being enlightened and understanding his real advantage, he would see his own advantage in the good and nothing else, and we all know that not one man can, consciously, act against his own interests, consequently, so to say, through necessity, he would begin doing good? Oh, the babe! Oh, the pure, innocent child! Why, in the first place, when in all these thousands of years has there been a time when man has acted only from his own interest? What is to be done with the millions of facts that bear witness that men, CONSCIOUSLY, that is fully understanding their real interests, have left them in the background and have rushed headlong on another path, to meet peril and danger, compelled to this course by nobody and by nothing, but, as it were, simply disliking the beaten track, and have obstinately, wilfully, struck out another difficult, absurd way, seeking it almost in the darkness. So, I suppose, this obstinacy and perversity were pleasanter to them than any advantage.... Advantage! What is advantage? And will you take it upon yourself to define with perfect accuracy in what the advantage of man consists? And what if it so happens that a man's advantage, SOMETIMES, not only may, but even must, consist in his desiring in certain cases what is harmful to himself and not advantageous. And if so, if there can be such a case, the whole principle falls into dust. What do you think--are there such cases?

>>14908103
You laugh; laugh away, gentlemen, but only answer me: have man's advantages been reckoned up with perfect certainty? Are there not some which not only have not been included but cannot possibly be included under any classification? You see, you gentlemen have, to the best of my knowledge, taken your whole register of human advantages from the averages of statistical figures and politico-economical formulas. Your advantages are prosperity, wealth, freedom, peace--and so on, and so on. So that the man who should, for instance, go openly and knowingly in opposition to all that list would to your thinking, and indeed mine, too, of course, be an obscurantist or an absolute madman: would not he? But, you know, this is what is surprising: why does it so happen that all these statisticians, sages and lovers of humanity, when they reckon up human advantages invariably leave out one? They don't even take it into their reckoning in the form in which it should be taken, and the whole reckoning depends upon that. It would be no greater matter, they would simply have to take it, this advantage, and add it to the list. But the trouble is, that this strange advantage does not fall under any classification and is not in place in any list. I have a friend for instance ... Ech! gentlemen, but of course he is your friend, too; and indeed there is no one, no one to whom he is not a friend! When he prepares for any undertaking this gentleman immediately explains to you, elegantly and clearly, exactly how he must act in accordance with the laws of reason and truth. What is more, he will talk to you with excitement and passion of the true normal interests of man;

>>14908111
with irony he will upbraid the short-sighted fools who do not understand their own interests, nor the true significance of virtue; and, within a quarter of an hour, without any sudden outside provocation, but simply through something inside him which is stronger than all his interests, he will go off on quite a different tack--that is, act in direct opposition to what he has just been saying about himself, in opposition to the laws of reason, in opposition to his own advantage, in fact in opposition to everything ... I warn you that my friend is a compound personality and therefore it is difficult to blame him as an individual. The fact is, gentlemen, it seems there must really exist something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages, or (not to be illogical) there is a most advantageous advantage (the very one omitted of which we spoke just now) which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for the sake of which a man if necessary is ready to act in opposition to all laws; that is, in opposition to reason, honour, peace, prosperity--in fact, in opposition to all those excellent and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all. "Yes, but it's advantage all the same," you will retort. But excuse me, I'll make the point clear, and it is not a case of playing upon words. What matters is, that this advantage is remarkable from the very fact that it breaks down all our classifications, and continually shatters every system constructed by lovers of mankind for the benefit of mankind. In fact, it upsets everything.

>>14908112
But before I mention this advantage to you, I want to compromise myself personally, and therefore I boldly declare that all these fine systems, all these theories for explaining to mankind their real normal interests, in order that inevitably striving to pursue these interests they may at once become good and noble--are, in my opinion, so far, mere logical exercises! Yes, logical exercises. Why, to maintain this theory of the regeneration of mankind by means of the pursuit of his own advantage is to my mind almost the same thing ... as to affirm, for instance, following Buckle, that through civilisation mankind becomes softer, and consequently less bloodthirsty and less fitted for warfare. Logically it does seem to follow from his arguments. But man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic. I take this example because it is the most glaring instance of it. Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century in which Buckle lived. Take Napoleon--the Great and also the present one. Take North America--the eternal union. Take the farce of Schleswig-Holstein.... And what is it that civilisation softens in us? The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations--and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us.

TL;DR OP chooses to believe he didn't choose.

yawnapalooza 2014

>>14908115
In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever. Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves. They say that Cleopatra (excuse an instance from Roman history) was fond of sticking gold pins into her slave-girls' breasts and derived gratification from their screams and writhings. You will say that that was in the comparatively barbarous times; that these are barbarous times too, because also, comparatively speaking, pins are stuck in even now; that though man has now learned to see more clearly than in barbarous ages, he is still far from having learnt to act as reason and science would dictate. But yet you are fully convinced that he will be sure to learn when he gets rid of certain old bad habits, and when common sense and science have completely re-educated human nature and turned it in a normal direction. You are confident that then man will cease from INTENTIONAL error and will, so to say, be compelled not to want to set his will against his normal interests. That is not all; then, you say, science itself will teach man (though to my mind it's a superfluous luxury) that he never has really had any caprice or will of his own, and that he himself is something of the nature of a piano-key or the stop of an organ, and that there are, besides, things called the laws of nature; so that everything he does is not done by his willing it, but is done of itself, by the laws of nature. Consequently we have only to discover these laws of nature, and man will no longer have to answer for his actions and life will become exceedingly easy for him.

>>14908122
All human actions will then, of course, be tabulated according to these laws, mathematically, like tables of logarithms up to 108,000, and entered in an index; or, better still, there would be published certain edifying works of the nature of encyclopaedic lexicons, in which everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world.

Then--this is all what you say--new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided. Then the "Palace of Crystal" will be built. Then ... In fact, those will be halcyon days. Of course there is no guaranteeing (this is my comment) that it will not be, for instance, frightfully dull then (for what will one have to do when everything will be calculated and tabulated), but on the other hand everything will be extraordinarily rational. Of course boredom may lead you to anything. It is boredom sets one sticking golden pins into people, but all that would not matter. What is bad (this is my comment again) is that I dare say people will be thankful for the gold pins then.

>>14908126
Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, A PROPOS of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: "I say, gentleman, hadn't we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will!" That again would not matter, but what is annoying is that he would be sure to find followers--such is the nature of man. And all that for the most foolish reason, which, one would think, was hardly worth mentioning: that is, that man everywhere and at all times, whoever he may be, has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated. And one may choose what is contrary to one's own interests, and sometimes one POSITIVELY OUGHT (that is my idea). One's own free unfettered choice, one's own caprice, however wild it may be, one's own fancy worked up at times to frenzy--is that very "most advantageous advantage" which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms. And how do these wiseacres know that man wants a normal, a virtuous choice? What has made them conceive that man must want a rationally advantageous choice? What man wants is simply INDEPENDENT choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead. And choice, of course, the devil only knows what choice.

>>14908133
STEM go home

>>14905635

>Bringing future states into it is just harmful and confusing, since "future states" are only part of the "future" because we perceive time and causality in certain ways.

Well put. The future as such is already set. I'm admittedly having trouble articulating this unfortunately - hard to talk about an abstract "no time" while using time heavy language. But yes, I'm suggesting there is no possible outcome other than the one which will happen.

>It's not actually infinite, since it's bounded by ontology. There are an unbelievably large number of different worlds representing every possibility, but there are not an infinite number of worlds, since there are not infinite possibilities.
Well its semantics at that point really trillions of micro events occurred (that pesky time language again) just in me typing this sentence. Multiply that for all the universe and all events

Considering the many worlds scenario in that scale just seems ridiculous?

>>14908728
>Well its semantics at that point really trillions of micro events occurred (that pesky time language again) just in me typing this sentence. Multiply that for all the universe and all events
Yes, of course, the number of worlds is astronomically large, but entirely finite.

>Considering the many worlds scenario in that scale just seems ridiculous?

Not entirely sure what you mean by this. MWI is rather limited in describing or accepting the cosmology I'm talking about. Generally it proposes binary divergence and most proponents refuse to accept micro-events as divergent in the first place. Time is also a staple of MWI and, as I've said, that's really just harmful to any cosmology.

I guess I would think most MWI supporters fall into a sort of triage-theory position, where they only accept the logical result of their ideas if rejecting them would discredit the whole framework.

>>14908119

not the point as has been stated repeatedly

see
>>14904500
>my belief isn't a structure built from a need to eschew any responsibility for my personal actions

>>14908775

I'm confused as to whether we are agreeing or not. I may be reading incorrectly but you seem to be playing both sides somehow?

>There are an unbelievably large number of different worlds representing every possibility

This is many worlds as I read it. THough earlier you said
>Bringing future states into it is just harmful and confusing, since "future states" are only part of the "future" because we perceive time and causality in certain ways.

Which seems to be in agreement with me, at least generally.

As for the Buddhism, I'm sorry to say I can't speak intelligently on that. I'm guessing my confusion with your view is the result. And if that's the case, anything you could suggest for reading would be welcome.

>>14908838
>This is many worlds as I read it.
No, MWI is more specific than that. As I said, it is a very poor approximation of the cosmology I've presented here.
>THough earlier you said "(time stuff)"
Observer qualities like "perceived time" are just as divergent as physical qualities. However, the reality is that there are no connections between any existential moment outside of the ones we observers assign to them. So it would be more appropriate to understand the sum total of all worlds arranged randomly along a grid in a flat plane than as separate "timelines" branching at divergent points.

MWI favors a limited view of the latter, in that it sees divergence as needing to meet a certain "macro-threshold" before splitting to create a new "branch" along a timeline.

This understanding is disingenuous even if we only account for their own theory, though, since there is no reason given for divergence requiring a macro-threshold, and no actual definition as to what would cross or fail to cross it.

File: Varg Vikernes.jpg (22KB, 248x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 248x288px

>>14904218
ITT: /x/ tries to talk about science and philosophy, but reveals it doesn't know shit about either of those things.

Stay classy /x/

File: time.png (17KB, 781x396px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 781x396px

>>14908838
>>14908898
Here is a graphic I just made to illustrate the differences.

Traditional MWI insists that worlds are created when divergence in a binary condition occurs, which translates to a new "branch" on the timeline.

Some MWI proponents discredit the notion that they are created in the instance of divergence, which results in separate, numberless timelines which are viewed parallel to each other.

The cosmology I've described here is the final graphic, in which each existential moment constitutes its own permanent and total world, where observer qualities such as "perceived time" do not actually arrange these moments in any particular order.

>>14908987

ok

after considering, i believe we are describing the same idea generally.

There is no causal relationship between your so called "moments", except that which is arranged by observation, and said arrangement is not a necessity.

Correct me if that is a misunderstanding.

i am having trouble though with your 'unorthodox mwi' in that i don't see how a relates to b to c etc. I see what you've drawn as a description of superposition but without regard to time.

>>14904218
damn, varg was a qt 3.14 back in his murderin days

now he's a plump hitler youth lookin motherfucker

File: 1401447709823.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>>14909307
They don't have a direct relationship, since the division between timelines isn't initiated by the divergence. Timeline A might represent a world in which an electron is at position X at moment Y, where B represents a world in which all else is equal except that the electron is in position Z at moment Y. Orthodox MWI would explain this as a branch divergence (creation of timeline B at moment Y), but this model explains it as a natural result of the progression of events in Timeline B.

The primary difference, then, is whether or not a timeline is created at divergence or if divergent timelines have existed and will exist independently of the "base" timeline.

>>14909370

Got it, thanks. I appreciate your explanations.

>>14904218
The argument has no meaning. If I am allowed to wake up each morning and decide what I want to do, then do it, what do I care if I was "predetermined" to do it or not?

It's like arguing that we all don't exist. We might not, but the illusion is convincing enough for it not to matter either way, so who gives a flying fuck?

>>14910076

I get that. I'm not saying it matters anyway, am just saying it is.

Obviously I can't know what will happen tomorrow so it's not that I'm saying existence is irrelevant. I just mean to say that what does happen is the only thing that could possibly happen.

What I'm getting at is to me a truly simple idea.

>>14910076
>who gives a flying fuck?
idk bro something in me just wants to know...can't help it

>>14904218

That's nice dear.