Philosophy Now Forum

The non-determinists doesn't have to believe in a definite states. They can accept a box in superposition of states. Are you going to try to pull superpositional stunts then? Determinist interpretations support superposition. You think non-deterministic reasoning is some kind of stunt? Is that beca...

That's not a reply to what I said, that's just repeating yourself. What I said is explicitly an argument for why I can simultaneously believe that. You're just begging the question now. You can claim to simultaneously believe that. Sure. Just like you could claim to simultaneously believe that you ...

Actually, retrocausality is in contradiction with the principle of locality, regardless of whether physics is deterministic or not. You seem to acknowledge at least the latter here: In fact, no common philosophical views or scientific theories allow for genuine retrocausality There you go, so why a...

I gave a good argument, in my reply to noah. You didn't have anything to say about it. Idiot. If you want to one-box - fine. But then you can't hold onto realism/causality in your metaphysic. You can't simultaneously believe: * The boxes have definite contents prior to you choosing * Your choice ca...

Look how fucking stupid these conversations get. Skepdick is a magnet for this low brain bullshit. No ideas, just idiot idiot idiot. What an idiot. You skillfully side-stepped all the ideas. LIke an idiot. That's why these conversations get stupid. Good job! If I am a magnet for low brain bullshit....

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:45 pm Idiot wants to yap without addressing what I said. Keep yapping cry baby idiot.

Are you yapping because you failed to comprehend the address?

Must be. Because you aren an idiot.

k idiot Not much of an insult coming from an empty vessel who can't address the contradiction in their argument. Not much coming from you who literally responded to me with insults instead of talking to me about ideas like a grown up. Cry more idiot. Why are you lying? There's no "instead"...

Anyway, back to chatting with non-idiots: So that's two idiots chatting then? The best argument for one-boxing seems to me to be, that rationality is about *winning* and one-boxers historically win more often (or, 100% of the time). So, in general, --being the kind of person who one-boxes-- gets yo...

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:34 pm k idiot

Not much of an insult coming from an empty vessel who can't address the contradiction in their argument.

But the way you worded the problem suggests that somehow in the future, a million dollars will be inserted or teleported into the opaque box based on the selection you have made. Specifically this phrase ... "If Omega had already predicted you'll take only Box B, they will put $1,000,000 in it...

(can we stop this whole "blind" passive agressive bullshit yet please skepdick? we can maybe just chat about why we think what we think without the childish nonsense, I'll stop when you stop) It's not passive aggressive. You are actually an idiot. This is not true... It's right to one-box...

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 11:20 pm Yeah, you're right. But those who are blind cannot see.

Apparently blindness isn't your only problem.

Can't even tell right and wrong apart.

Agree with all of this. I don't see a paradox at all, and I don't see where it matters if one is a determinist or not. None are so blind as those who cannot see... Take the one box since all that do so have more money than those that choose both. That's the obvious choice regardless of what sort of...

Considering contradiction requires oppositional contrast that allows a distinct identity of things is contradiction necessary in one respect for identity while in another respect self-negating considering contrast is a relationship thus connective? Contradictions are just reified choices. With the ...

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2025 12:57 pm A smart determinist...

Now there's an oxymoron.