Terrey West

Virginia Beach, VA, United States

About Terrey

Languages

English, Korean

Comments & conversations

2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
> the former is tricky. because considering the second point, this only matters if this view is false Not necessarily. When one looks at all of history as a chain of causality with a finite beginning, one can know the outcome only if he knows the rules of the system. Much like a single shot in billiards, one only needs to know the velocity vector and the origin to predict the outcome of the single shot. In this way, we can see an effect becoming a cause for a subsequent effect. With or without free will, this view being adopted by the majority of the populace will become a cause instead of merely being an effect. One can't know, for certainty, but I would be interested in speculative interpretation, after all, it is an incredibly speculative question.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
Free will is a notion, of which there is no evidence, merely a lack of complete evidence damning it as well. It is illogical to hold true to a view until you have been proven incorrect. Something is not true because it is useful. Something is not useful because it is true. Don't make the mistake of applying this logic to your preconceived notions.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
I agree that the illusion of free will is necessary for the progress of society, but I don't believe in free will, and I am not suicidal. It is a difficult view to hold, and brings with it a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. I wonder, even if science does manage to prove that the universe is deterministic, if humanity would be willing to accept that as true. I think, to some degree, they would simply ignore it and go on with their lives. I will say, I think that the killing of the self is an illogical response to this view. In the end, those who are religious, hold deterministic viewpoints. They state that "God has a plan", and still hold the view of free will. I think the same cognitive dissonance would apply to this outlook as well.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
This was a delicate answer. What about the second part of the question? What, if any effect on society would a deterministic worldview cause? Do we, if the universe is deterministic, suspend the logical problems introduced, and act as though we are agents with free will, or do we adjust our social norms to line up with this knowledge?
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
This exchange has intrigued me. I think I understand your disagreement. Is it because the uncertainty principle is only uncertain because of our own scientific ignorance? Therefore, we cannot say for certain that quantum mechanics is truly a cast of the die or truly deterministic? My quantum mechanics knowledge is theoretical more than practical, I'm a biology/large-scale physics buff, and haven't had the opportunity to delve into the real guts of quantum mechanics beyond an intermediate primer.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Do the laws of physics necessitate determinism?
Sure, I'll bite. An aspect of the self which is intangible, and not beholden to the natural laws to which we are aware. I.E, the spirit which continues when the body fades, the mind which is filtered through the brain. We know that those who have damaged brains have altered behavior, and are not simply unable to be themselves; They, as we knew them, are no longer there. Their self is not preserved in some intangible vessel which pulls the strings of human consciousness. I count this as legitimate evidence against the concept of the soul as the intangible self, and would daresay that human consciousness is quantifiable, and biological in nature, rather than spiritual. Since this is off topic, the concept of the divine "self", or the eternal "essence" of a person, would violate our body of knowledge and have no place in the discussion. Apologies if my barring of this topic seemed... Odd, but a transcendent mind is the only way I could fathom free will given what we already know about the universe.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
How do you define God?
Again, if God is omnipotent, it is without limit. If it is bound by universal limitations of ANY SORT, it is not omnipotent. Why would the stone have to become infinite size? Could God not create a small stone of infinite weight and density? If he cannot, again, he is not omnipotent. Infinite is always greater than infinite. A single infinite can contain a multitude of infinites. This is required by our known laws of mathematics, a system God supposedly created. What if God is incapable of corporeal actions such as lifting, because it is not a corporeal creature? If it is incapable of taking corporeal form, it is incapable of being defined as omnipotent. If it is incapable of performing an action in its true form, is is not omnipotent. If it cannot defy the laws of logical consistency, it is not omnipotent. An omnipotent being should be able to do logically absurd things, such as smelling colors, seeing sound, creating nothingness, and so on to infinity. This is why omnipotence is absurd. Limited omnipotence, on the other hand, is quite possible. The problem is simply this: What are these limits, and how can we come to know them without being able to test them?
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
Would you eat "in vitro" meat?
I certainly would, however, I worry about the "science fiction" concerns of progress. The only reason that cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens are not endangered, is that they are domesticated, and profitable as sources of food. I worry that removal of our reliance on any major land mammal or marine animal as a staple food source will eventually cause their extinction as our species overpopulates the globe. We will certainly need lab-grown sources of high-protein food once we leave the planet, and lab-grown meat would be an option, but why not soy beans? They are hardy and will grow just about anywhere. In the end, I'm concerned about the collapse of commerce, the collapse of the food web, and our lack of attachment to nature, should something go awry and force us to lean on our skills rather than our technology. The fact that we are talking about in-vitro meat as a viable economic option tells me that something is very wrong with our society, and I think the heart of the problem lies in our population. Human overpopulation is the real elephant in the room. Sure, our planet can support maybe another 8 billion human beings on top of what we have, but at what cost? Is it a cost we are willing to take? To do so might very well destroy the biological diversity of our planet. As for eating it, sure. If it bleeds, I'll eat it.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
As a trilingual or bilingual, what role does language play in the creation of your identity? Which language do you think in?
I speak English as a primary language, and Korean as a second fluently. I definitely think in English except where Korean concepts that do not translate intrude. I instinctively call Korean things Korean names, and have to translate them awkwardly into English. These two languages have helped me to understand the difference in process of thought between these two cultures, and to be keenly aware of the assumptions our formative experiences predispose us to. Language is victim to, and perpetuates a way of thought within a culture. As such, those who speak the language are predisposed to that particular way of thought. Koreans tend to associate objects by color/texture, while an English speaker will associate them by shape. These minor differences play out in every aspect of who we are as a human being, and our very understanding of the universe around us. Learning these differences has assisted in my ability to converse with those of diverse backgrounds, to first try to appreciate their way of thought, and then to identify any potential roadblocks to our agreement on a point so that I may circumvent them. These are very important ideas for a society that will soon be seeking total globalization.
2c08424e7c07e43de239a73fc2916173755ae5ae 50x50
Terrey West
Posted over 2 years ago
How do you define God?
An enigma of the human consciousness, a product of the ego. Impossible to prove, disprove, or even adequately define. This creature seems to inhabit regions of scientific ignorance, and to be closely linked with delusions of grandeur, atrocities, and violations of basic human rights.