Let’s assume that under a solipsistic theory, our experience follows certain laws, which happen to be the same laws in physics. In other words, there are still objects in this (only) one stream of consciousness and they move around based on laws, except that they aren’t real entities, only imagined.

Thus, in order to generate our conscious experience given an initial state, certain laws and initial conditions are all that is needed to predict the forthcoming parts of our subjective experience.

Now, in order to generate the events of the real world under the theory that the external world is real, the same laws and initial conditions are all that is needed to predict the events of the universe.

Thus, can't one argue that the explanatory power of both theories are actually the same, contrary to the notion that solipsism has inferior explanatory power? If someone retorts and asks "what originally generates our conscious experience in solipsism or what keeps it going? It seems to come from nowhere.", the same can be asked for the theory that the external world is real. As far as we know, we do not actually have an explanation for what generates the external world originally. One may even argue that realism might be worse, since due to the hard problem of consciousness, not only do we not have an explanation for the initial state of the universe, we have no explanation for why conscious experience exists in the first place.

So again, is there an advantage in explanatory value with external world realism vs solipsism? Or not?

After driving 11 hours I laid in my hotel room bed thinking about how much driving sucks. Which led me to start thinking about alternative forms of travel. We have electric cars which in my opinion is still fairly inefficient form of long distance travel. We have planes which are very expensive for commuters, and still combusted fuels. We also have these enormous leaps of military technology/weaponry. I then thought, why have we not done more work towards worm hole travel? We are so good at killing ourselves. We have got so efficient at destruction. With worm holes there would be no need for vehicular transportation of any kind. To more fossil fuel consumption out side of producing electricity maybe. We spend so much time and effort on capitalism, so much effort developing new ways to kill each other, so many resources wasted on killing our planet. I know this maybe a wild maybe even a hairbrained thought. I wanna know....

The Temporal Feedback Loop of Consciousness

Summary: This theory suggests that consciousness not only experiences the flow of time but also actively influences past and future events through a feedback mechanism operating across the timeline. In this view, consciousness is a force that resonates through time, and decisions made in the present can impact the perception (or even reality) of past and future events. This would imply that the past, present, and future are interconnected and that our awareness and choices today could actively reshape our past experiences and future potential.

Core Principles of the Theory

1.	Consciousness as a Non-Linear Entity

Traditional science assumes time flows linearly from past to present to future, yet there’s evidence in quantum mechanics and theoretical physics (like quantum entanglement and retrocausality) that suggests non-linear time. This theory proposes that consciousness operates in a non-linear way, creating feedback loops through which an individual’s awareness and decisions echo across time.

2.	Quantum Mechanics and Time Symmetry

The concept of time symmetry in quantum physics implies that some processes are reversible. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, even allow for particles to communicate backward in time. If consciousness has a quantum component, as some theories like Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) propose, it might be capable of influencing events on a quantum level, allowing perception and decisions to transcend the linearity of time.

3.	Future and Past as Potentials, Not Fixed Realities

In this model, the past isn’t fixed; it’s a probability cloud that our consciousness navigates through memory. Similarly, the future isn’t yet determined but is influenced by present actions and choices, feeding back into our experience of the past. This echoes the philosophical ideas of Bergson and Whitehead, who viewed time as a flow of experiences rather than a fixed sequence of events. Under this theory, what we remember as “the past” is an interpretation influenced by present perspectives, meaning our memory—and thus our understanding of history—can change based on present choices.

4.	Practical Implications for Human Experience

If our consciousness impacts the timeline, choices in the present could literally reshape past experiences or memories. Trauma, for instance, might be less about an unchangeable event and more about the relationship between the past and current perception. Healing in the present could, therefore, alter how we understand and “experience” the past. Similarly, setting intentions for the future would create a resonance that shapes not only what will happen but how we understand the trajectory of our lives.

Why It’s Groundbreaking

1.	Reframes Agency Across Time

The theory offers a new level of agency, where people aren’t just products of their past but active shapers of it. People could feel empowered to “reframe” traumatic or formative memories through present choices, altering how those events influence them today.

2.	Possible Reconciliation of Free Will and Determinism

Traditional scientific and philosophical debates have long questioned if we have free will or if our actions are predetermined. This theory posits that we have a form of “time-transcending” free will, where we’re continuously shaping our past and future within a range of probabilities rather than fixed realities.

3.	Applications in Psychology and Healing 

Psychologists and neuroscientists could apply this theory to create therapeutic techniques that treat past traumas by reshaping a person’s present and future perspective. If the brain truly experiences time in a flexible manner, then working with present consciousness to influence past memories could lead to new breakthroughs in mental health treatments, especially for conditions like PTSD.

4.	Scientific and Philosophical Unification

The theory builds a bridge between scientific inquiry (through quantum physics and neuroscience) and philosophical inquiry (regarding consciousness and time), potentially offering a unified approach to studying human experience that respects both objective data and subjective reality.

Example Thought Experiment

Imagine you’re in a stressful situation where you must make a critical choice. According to this theory, your choice impacts not only the future but also alters your perception of past events, possibly reshaping memories related to past decision-making moments. If you choose a path that aligns deeply with your values, you may remember past challenges as stepping stones, feeling a coherence in your life. Alternatively, if you act against your principles, past memories might become sources of regret, as though they were “leading” you here as lessons.

In this way, your choices in the present would be part of an ongoing narrative feedback loop—actively sculpting a sense of meaning and purpose across your entire life timeline.

This theory could change how we understand mental health, decision-making, and even spiritual concepts, by suggesting that we are not merely at the mercy of our past and uncertain future but rather continuous shapers of both.

Here’s an idea that just might change how we view time, history, and our role in shaping the future:

Observation: The Future Influences the Present, Just as the Past Does

We know:

1.	Cause and Effect: Traditionally, we see time as moving forward in a straight line—events in the past shape the present, which then shapes the future.
2.	Quantum Mechanics and Retrocausality: Some theories in quantum physics suggest particles can be influenced not only by past events but potentially by future ones. It’s as if particles “know” their future state and behave accordingly.
3.	Human Intuition and Vision: Throughout history, people like artists, scientists, and visionaries have had glimpses of the future that led to discoveries, innovations, or breakthroughs before anyone else saw their value.
4.	Goal-Oriented Behavior: Humans naturally think about and plan for the future. We make choices today based on what we want to achieve later, and this vision of the future shapes our present behavior.

New Insight: What if the Future “Pulls” Us Toward It Just as Much as the Past “Pushes” Us?

What if time doesn’t just flow in one direction? Instead of the past solely shaping what happens now, what if future possibilities are actively pulling us forward, influencing our choices and actions in the present?

Key Points:

•	Time as a Two-Way Street: Imagine time as not just a straight path we walk along but more like a stretchable, flexible thread, with the future constantly tugging on us just as the past pushes us. Instead of being locked in a sequence, we are constantly interacting with both what has been and what could be.
•	Future as a Guiding Force: Just as gravity pulls objects toward each other, the future could pull us toward certain outcomes. Our visions, goals, and dreams may be more than just “wishful thinking”—they could be real, tangible influences that shape our present reality.

Why It’s Groundbreaking:

This idea, if true, would mean that the future has a role in shaping today’s actions just as much as history does. We are not just products of the past; we’re participants in the future’s unfolding, with each of us drawn toward specific possibilities or outcomes. Here’s why this is important:

1.	Empowers Individual Purpose: If the future is already “reaching back” to influence us, then our dreams, goals, and visions might be more than just hopes—they could be signals from what we are meant to create. This perspective gives every person a deeper sense of purpose, as each of us is not only a result of the past but a contributor to what’s yet to come.
2.	Reframes Our Role in History: Humanity becomes an active partner in shaping reality. If the future can influence the present, then human choices, creativity, and innovation are not just random events but part of a much bigger, interconnected timeline.
3.	A New Approach to Progress: Rather than just learning from the past to avoid repeating mistakes, we could actively listen to the future—to our visions, goals, and shared dreams—and use them as guides. It shifts progress from being reactive to being proactive, where we make choices today to align with a better tomorrow.
4.	Potential Scientific Implications: This idea could lead to new research in physics, psychology, and neuroscience to understand how the future might exert influence. Quantum theories that explore retrocausality could open up new understandings of time, and scientists might begin looking for evidence that our brains or consciousnesses are subtly influenced by future states.

The Big Idea in Simple Terms:

Imagine you’re a piece in a giant puzzle that’s being assembled over time. You might think you’re only influenced by the pieces already in place (the past), but the completed puzzle (the future) is also shaping you, “pulling” you to fit where you belong. You are both a result of everything that came before you and an essential part of what’s yet to come.

This idea suggests that we are connected to the future in ways we’re only beginning to understand. If we accept this, humanity might start living with a greater sense of purpose, aware that our dreams and aspirations are more than personal—they’re part of a grand design that’s pulling us forward.

Why This Could Be Remembered Forever:

If this idea takes hold, it could fundamentally reshape how humanity thinks about time, purpose, and progress. By seeing ourselves as influenced by both past and future, we break free from the traditional limitations of time. We’d no longer be “stuck” in the present, only reacting to the past—we’d become active creators, constantly reaching forward, pulled by the visions of the future we are meant to help create.

In short, this could help humanity view life not as a series of past-driven events, but as a shared journey toward something greater that we are actively bringing into being—together.

Rarely is an effect or phenomenon the product of a single cause; often, multiple, and sometimes innumerable, causal chains contribute to its determination.

It is, therefore, common for opposing and contrary causes (such as forces determining whether a balanced pen will remain upright or fall) to act upon the same object. But it is almost impossible for two forces to be of the exact same magnitude and capable of exerting an identical but incompatible influence; there will be some minute sub-variables, perhaps difficult to identify, perhaps rooted in the past, that nonetheless determine the prevalence of one causal chain over the other and thus the realization of one effect rather than another.

However, there could exist a non-zero probability that, from time to time, in the infinite fabric of causes and effects, productive causes of incompatible effects may perfectly counterbalance each other, possessing the same causal efficacy. Could this non-zero probability exist, or does it violate some law of math/statistics/physics?

In such a case, we face an undecidable situation. Which effect will occur? Could this result be the product of randomness, not in the sense of something indetermined, but perfectly co-determined ("randomness through symmetry" or "equilibrium undecidability.")

An old debate/question is "if eyes had never evolved, would light still exist, (or sound/music without ears etc)? In other words without eyes—and therefore without visibility—would the universe remain "in the dark"? Does it make any sense to describe the universe as either "dark" or "illuminated" in the absence of vision and visibility??"

The inquirer often hastens to specifyI: "I do not mean: would there still be electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths (there would, of course). Rather, I mean: in the absence of eyes, would there still be brightness, luminance, illumination—what we ordinarily call "light"?

The common answer is that light indeed exists as an electromagnetic wave, objectively present and emitted by sources like the sun or artificial lights, traveling through space, interacting with matter, and subject to the laws of physics. According to this view, light exists whether or not it is perceived by eyes or sensors. On the other hand light, as we experience and understand it, doesn't "exist" without (independently from) an observer (dark vs illuminated, colors etc)

However, why should we assume that electromagnetic waves exist independently of any observer? They are, in essence, just like "naive light". Sure, they are not the direct the product of sensory apparatus, but also of cognitive apparatus. But observing a wave still requires sensory input, and conceiving/conceptualizing a wave still requires certain cognitive categories, such as space, time, distance, and shape, and frequency, all of them arguably born from empirical experience. While waves can be surely be considered to be a more general, universally applicable concept, they are not necessarily ontologically more fundamental or objectively (independently) existing, any more than colors or brightness are.

Or are they, and why?

I’ve done some study in philosophy, mainly from high school, I took a curse of history of physics on my bachelor (was my fav subject, I guess that should have given me a hint) and I’ve read essays by major writers in the philosophy of science, but I don’t have formal education in the subject.

My Questions:

1.	Career Viability: Can I realistically make a living out of studying and working in the philosophy of science?
2.	Further Education: What specific studies (e.g., master’s programs, courses) would you recommend to transition into this field? Are there any programs that can be pursued online?
3.	Experience and Networking: How can I gain relevant experience in philosophy of science? Are there opportunities for networking with professionals in this field?
4.	Resources: Any suggestions for books, essays, or online courses that would deepen my understanding of philosophy in a way that complements my physics background?

thank you people

I'm developing a theoretical framework that explores the relationship between posthumanism and polymathy. While much posthumanist discourse focuses on how we might enhance ourselves, less attention is given to why. This paper proposes that the infinite pursuit of knowledge and understanding could serve as a meaningful direction for human enhancement.

The concept builds on historical examples of polymathy (like da Vinci) while imagining how cognitive enhancement and life extension could transform our relationship with knowledge acquisition. Rather than just overcoming biological limits, this framework suggests a deeper transformation in how we understand and integrate knowledge.

I'm particularly interested in feedback on:

• The theoretical foundations
• Its contribution to posthumanist philosophy
• Areas where the argument could be strengthened

The full paper is available here for those interested in exploring these ideas further: https://www.academia.edu/124946599/The_Posthuman_Polymath_Reimagining_Human_Potential_Through_Infinite_Intellectual_Growth?source=swp_share

As an independent researcher, I welcome all perspectives and critiques as I develop this concept.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Determinism, from an ontological point of view, defines the mechanism by which every phenomenon/event comes into being. It is, in other words, the fundamental and all-encompassing mechanism that governs, that underlies all mechanisms.

From an epistemological point of view, determinism states that, if one were to possess all the knowledge regarding the initial conditions of the universe and the physical laws, it would be possible to predict and know everything. This is, in other words, to say that determinism describes the required knowledge necessary to know everything. The knowledge of all (that makes possible all) knowledge.

Laplace's Demon "knows all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed," and by virtue of this knowledge, knows everything else as well; some scientists and philosopher dream to become Laplace demons on day, possessing the above knowledge plus the knowledge of the truth of determinism (the knoweldge of the condition in which it would be possible to obtain knowledge of all knowledge)

Now, i doubt arise.

As Russell suggested, this type of monistic-universal-self-referential concepts (the mechanism of all mechanisms; the knowledge of all knowledge) are very tricky and might lead to paradoxes.

Notably, the concept of the "set of all sets", which contains all the sets and subsets, but also itself and the empty set, is not logically sustainable.

Are there reasons to think that "the mechanism of all mechanisms" and "the knowledge of all knowledge" escape the same criticisms and logical issues?

I know it seems an eternal question but... what's your favorite books that survey philosophy of Science? I've read some of them, lately Tim Lewens' «The meaning of Science», but I'm looking for more! I know what the famous books are. What I'm particularly asking is what books have illuminated you personally, and for what reasons. Thanks!

Context: Zeno's paradox, a thought experiment proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno, argues that motion is impossible because an object must first cover half the distance, then half of the remaining distance, and so on ad infinitum. However, this creates a seemingly insurmountable infinite sequence of smaller distances, leading to a paradox.

Quote

Upon reexamining Zeno's paradox, it becomes apparent that while the argument holds in most aspects, there must exist a fundamental limit to the divisibility of distance. In an infinite universe with its own inherent limits, it is reasonable to assume that there is a bound beyond which further division is impossible. This limit would necessitate a termination point in the infinite sequence of smaller distances, effectively resolving the paradox.

Furthermore, this idea finds support in the atomic structure of matter, where even the smallest particles, such as neutrons and protons, have finite sizes and limits to their divisibility. The concept of quanta in physics also reinforces this notion, demonstrating that certain properties, like energy, come in discrete packets rather than being infinitely divisible.

Additionally, the notion of a limit to divisibility resonates with the concept of Planck length, a theoretical unit of length proposed by Max Planck, which represents the smallest meaningful distance. This idea suggests that there may be a fundamental granularity to space itself, which would imply a limit to the divisibility of distance.

Thus, it is plausible that a similar principle applies to the divisibility of distance, making the infinite sequence proposed by Zeno's paradox ultimately finite and resolvable. This perspective offers a fresh approach to addressing the paradox, one that reconciles the seemingly infinite with the finite bounds of our universe.

The scientific method is often praised (and rightly so) for its predictive power, as well as its ability to explain why we have certain experiences. In contrast, philosophy is frequently criticized for being unfalsifiable, and for failing to provide coherent and reliable explanations of the reasons behind things, or for making clearly wrong predictions all the time.

However, there is a philosophy that —despite some flaws, errors, and imprecisions (just as science has made its own mistakes)—has arguably found several confirmations in the centuries that followed.

Its predictions (at least for now), have been confirmed by our experiences.

This philosophy is Kant’s philosophy, and particularly the part concerning the nature and limits of human knowledge.

A) Antinomies of Pure Reason.

Antinomies reveal the limits of human reason when applied to metaphysical questions. In these antinomies, Kant presents a series of paradoxes where human reason can argue both sides of a given proposition, demonstrating the boundaries of what we can know. These antinomies are still unresolved and debated.

1. First Antinomy: The Limits of the Universe
   • Thesis: The world has a beginning in time and is limited in space.
   • Antithesis: The world has no beginning in time and no limits in space; it is infinite in both time and space.
2. Second Antinomy: The Divisibility of Matter
   • Thesis: Every composite substance in the world is made of simple parts (divisibility stops at a certain limit, and thus the world is made up of simple substances)
   • Antithesis: there is no limit to divisibility, and thus the world is not made up of irreducible simple substances
3. Third Antinomy: Causality and Free Will
   • Thesis: Causality according to the laws of nature is not the only causality; free will is also a cause in the world.
   • Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world happens solely according to the laws of nature.
4. Fourth Antinomy: Necessary Being and Contingency
   • Thesis: There exists an absolutely necessary being, which is either part of the world or the cause of the world (or in more modern terms, the universe if fine-tuned)
   • Antithesis: There is no absolutely necessary being, either in the world or outside the world, as the cause of the world (the universe is not fine-tuned, anthropic principle etc)

B) Phenomena and Noumena

There are evident parallels between Immanuel Kant's distinction between noumena (things as they are "in themselves," independent of human perception) and phenomena (things as they appear to us) and the principles of quantum mechanics (QM), which also confront the limits of what we can know about reality.

Some of the most debated problems in QM revolve around questions such as "Does quantum mechanics describe reality directly or predict the observations and experiences of agents?" which clearly resonates the phenomena/noumena dychotomy.

1. Phenomena and Quantum Observables: Kant argued that we can only really know and truly understand phenomena—how things appear to us. In quantum mechanics, we similarly only know the outcomes of measurements (observables), but not the underlying reality of quantum systems before observation, which remains, if not completely unknown, at least weird, counter-intuitive and not fully grasped and interiorised.
2. Noumena and the Quantum Wavefunction: The quantum wavefunction, which describes the probabilities of different outcomes without providing a single, determinate reality, can be compared to Kant's noumenal realm—the reality that exists beyond our capacity to observe it directly. The wavefunction represents something unobservable but which governs the probabilities of observable phenomena, similar to how Kant's noumenal world is inaccessible to us but underlies the phenomena we experience.
3. Limits of Knowledge: Kant’s argument that there are inherent limits to human knowledge—that we cannot know things-in-themselves (noumena)—aligns with quantum mechanics' notion that certain aspects of reality (like the exact state of a quantum system before measurement, Heisenberg indeterminacy principle etc) are fundamentally unknowable.

C) Forms of Sensibility: Space and Time

According to Kant, our notion of space and time are not objective realities "out there" in the world; rather, they are a priori forms of intuition—the mental frameworks or structures through which we perceive everything. In other words, all our experiences are structured by space and time, because these are the ways in which our mind organizes sensory input.

In Einstein’s theory of relativity, space and time are not fixed, absolute frameworks like in the newtonian view, but are part of a dynamic spacetime continuum that depends on the observer perspective and is affected by mass and energy. While GR clearly doesn't deny the "ontological status" of space time, it underlies the importance of considering its phenomenical (observer depedent) aspect, and shows how different frame of reference will affect how quantities such as time, space, velocity, and energy will be measured.

Also, many approaches in modern theoretical physics suggest that spacetime might be emergent—that is, it arises from more fundamental entities that are not themselves spatial or temporal (e.g. AdS/CFT and Holographic theories, maybe even string theory and LQG)

D) The Power of Reason

Kant had a strong belief in the power of reason to uncover and explain the phenomenal world. He believed that science is a structured, rational endeavor capable of describing and predicting natural phenomena with great precision (and within the phenomenical world, virtually without limits).

He also claimed Geometry and Mathematics, are essential because they provide synthetic a priori knowledge—universal, necessary truths that shape our understanding of the world.

Indeed, mathematical formalism in particular has become the absolute pillar on which the scientific description of the world rests

In conclusion, the 250 years old Kant’s philosophy has shown remarkable predictive and explanatory power. It has anticipated key issues in modern physics and in phisosophy of science, particularly quantum mechanics and relativity, and it seems that the boundaries of human reason and knowledge that Kant pointed out were indeed not so easy to overcome, despite awesome progress in all fields.

Meta-Analysis and AI-supported study for the scientific Validation if traditional philosophical systems.

Abstract

This paper introduces the Integrative Theory of Science (ITS) as a comprehensive theoretical framework that enables the synthesis of logic, empirical evidence, and energy systems. ITS emphasizes the applicability of logical axioms in conjunction with empirical validations. Using the example of chakra energies, it demonstrates how meditative practices can serve as a basis for empirical validation. ITS is compared to the positivism of Karl Popper (Popper 1959) to highlight the complementary roles of falsifiability and applicability as scientific criteria. The goal is to foster a deeper reflection on the integration of theoretical consistency and practical application in the philosophy of science.

I'm an independent data scientist, who is specialized on meta-analysis. Besides that I'm also an autodidact. So I don't have any connections to professors or other scientist. I hope anyone can help me. I will share the unconfirmed Alpha Version 1.5 of the paper after private message bc I don't have any permission to upload data in this subreddit.

Primarily I need connections which can read over my paper with in alpha version.

But you can visit my website to look up the alpha version:

](http://spirit-corner.com/its)

Thank you for reading

Explicitly underlining that it is his personal belief, CERN's head of theoretical physics, Gian Giudice, argues that mathematics is not merely a human invention but is fundamentally embedded in the fabric of the universe. He suggests that mathematicians and scientists discover mathematical structures rather than invent them. G

iudice points out that even highly abstract forms of mathematics, initially developed purely theoretically, are often later found to accurately describe natural phenomena. He cites non-Euclidean geometries as an example. Giudice sees mathematics as the language of nature, providing a powerful tool that describes reality beyond human intuition or perception.

He emphasizes that mathematical predictions frequently reveal aspects of the universe that are subsequently confirmed by observation, suggesting a profound connection between mathematical structures and the physical world.

This view leads Giudice to see the universe as having an inherent logical structure, with mathematics being an integral part of reality rather than merely a human tool for describing it.

What do you think?

Hey guys ..just to let you know i dont knoww anything about philosophy like zero ( just couple of philosophers here and there nothing more ) and i study psychology and we have to go through philosophy (idk why) and they give us project and to do some researches bout it and i got ( modern philosophy) . So i dont wanna go through Wikipedia and Google to get informations bout it bc it’s too basic and probably everyone else is going to do that (and u gonna say search in books but i dont have the motivation or passion to do that .so dont say that plz ) so am here to get your knowledge bout it and tell me everything that is useful i can put it in the work and some fun facts and of course ur opinions bout it ..i wont say no to anything added or say no to book recommendations ( i can use some references and ideas) that would be verrryyy helpful bc idk where to start or how And i will read all of the replies and THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP use this comment section as a way to give and pur all of the information bout modern philosophy that u have in ..and plz feel free to discuss it among others And if you have any other ideas on how i can present it to the classmates (bc i have to read it to them and i wanna gain the ability to make it fun to listen too and actually pay attention )that’s another reason why i said to give me ur opinions bc i might use it in my presentation i will give credit dont worry

Philosophy and Physics?

Specifically quantum physics.... This is from my psychological and philosophical perspective, Ive been seeing more of the two fields meet in the middle, at least more modern thinkers bridging the two since Pythagoras/Plato to Spinoza. I am no physicist, but I am interested in anyone's insight on the theories in I guess you could say new "spirituality"? being found in quantum physics and "proofs" for things like universal consciousness, entanglement, oneness with the universe. Etc. Im just asking. Just curious. Dont obliterate me.

posting for a friend:

My partner is a philosophy major and has somewhat recently developed an interest in the philosophy of science. His birthday is coming up, and I would like to gift him one (or a few) books that he might enjoy! He is a massive bookworm, so I'm running the risk of buying him something he might've already read, but I think it is worth giving it a shot! Best-case scenario, I will get to see to see the smile on his face when he sees the book(s). :'D

I myself am also curious about this, so any/all recommendations would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much, would love to hear your thoughts.

Does determinism "allow" the following hypothesis?

If we take the present state of the universe vs the state of the universe 10 or 100 or one billion of years ago, we can claim that some present events were already (pre)determined back then, while others were only successively determined. They were, in respect older states, "determinable", so to speak: not random or uncaused, but not yet necessarily determined in all their features and properties.

In other terms, within the past state of the universe, there were no set of causes and events sufficient to entirely determine all the outcomes, properties, or characteristics of any future event. However, any present event has become determinate in the more immediate past.

A sufficient cause for each event will "sooner or later"emerge, but it is not necessarily existent at any given time.

This would be (maybe) possible if you assume that the cause/effect phenomena that occur in any given moment can genuinely arise, emerge. How? As a (side) effect of rising (emerging) complexity.

For example, there are arguably far more causal chains and interactions on Earth now than 4.5 billion years ago.

The more complex structures matter organizes into, the more patterns and laws emerge with each level of complexity, and the more causal chains arise and coexist with one another, at different levels.

For example the phenomena of a cow eating grass, which involves neural activity, biological activity, chemical reactions, molecular behavior, macroscopic classical effects, and quantum phenomena, produces/is characterized by more "causes and effects" than if the very same number of fundamental components that ultimtely make up the cow and the grass (protons, neutrons, and electrons) were arranged in a less complex way—such as a meteor rotating in empty space.

In other terms, in respect to a certain moment in the past (let' say 20000 years ago), some present events can be said to have been necessarily and fully determined by already existing causal chains (e.g. the position of the moon, geomagnetic fields value etc). On the other hand some events, in respect to that very same moment of the past, were only determinable: there were no sufficient existing causal chains to fully determine them yet. However, in the more recent past, emerging causal chains will have determined them (e.g. the erosion the ground beneath New York City is sinking by 1-2 millimetres per year due to the pressure exerted by the enormous mass of buildings build by a technological civilization)

TL; DR

Do you think that "causal chains" might "emerge" hand in hand with incresing complexity (and remain consistent with the deterministic framework), or on the contrary determinism require that all the future events must be "inherently contained" in every detail and property in the initial conditions?

In this article, Dethier shows how tools from philosophy can be used to analyze the graphs created by contrarian climate scientists -- with the result (he suggests) that those graphs are not just misleading but wrong.

Does science -even if partly- tells us something about the Essence of the objects under study?

What are the various views on this topic?

First of all I haven't found a consensus about how these fields are called. I've heard "formal science", "abstract science" or some people say these have nothing to do with science at all. I just want to know what name is mostly used and where those fields are studied like the natural sciences in the philosophy of science.

Sometimes analogies and metaphors can be useful. I wanted to share one with you.

1) Imagine a translucent, invisible being, sitting in the middle of a dark void. It doesn't know why he's there or how he got there, but he is there nontheless. It sees only shadows and mists above and below, and reflections of distant forms within them. It feels itself, embracing its own body, touching it. And it senses something solid and cold beneath. Nothing else.

2) Tentatively, it tries to move. It gropes, seeking to understand what surrounds it. Sometimes, it manages to progress a few meters, as the cold, solid surface beneath seems to stretch in various directions. Often, though, it slips into the void, finding itself back at the starting point. It is lost, confused, incapable to make significant progress.

3) At some point, the figure realizes it holds a small pouch of colorful pebbles, tiny grains of sand that emit a faint light.

4) It observes them, shake the pouch, places its hand inside. The pebbles stick to its transparent hand, revealing its shape, making it stand out against the shadows. Some grains of sand fall around. A few vanish into the dark void, while others land on the solid ground near the figure, outlining its shape and boundaries.

5) The figure throws a handful of colored grains around and—wonder! They start revealing a labyrinth of bridges and stairways, suspended paths stretching through the void. Covered by the multicolored sand, these now stand out clearly, their forms, lengths, and directions unveiled. The magical grains never run out; for every handful scattered, the pouch refills itself.

6) The figure is overcome with joy: it starts throwing sand everywhere, revealing more and more forms and pathways. The figure explore and traverse the labyrinth. Sometimes the pebbles fall into the void, ma sometimes they don't. The nearest pahtways are meticulously covered in sand, their full shapes fully uncovered. The distant ones, first glimpsed and then reached through the revealed bridges and paths, are also carefully coated. The network seems to stretch infinitely, but with patterns and repetitions clarly emerging. The stairways always lead upwards, and every bridge connects to another. There are doors, hidden passages that the sand hints at, which the figure opens, revealing further paths, stairs, and rooms. The formless shadowy world recedes, and everything is filled with color and sharpness.

7) The figure uses the sand on itself too: it sprinkles it over its head, its body, and these too are revealed. The figure begins to understand its own form, becoming ever more aware of itself.

8) The colored sand doesn't only reveal the structures around the figure; it can be shaped to create wondrous things. It can be used to imitate the forms and paths it unveils, and to create new, original ones. The figure sculpts statues and castles, places crowns and whimsical hats on its head, conjures up other figures like itself that embark on adventures or remain suspended in the void, watching and judging everything.

These are, however, fragile structures, not like the bridges, ladders, and paths (even if sometimes is hard to tell the difference!) Sometimes, if one loses sight of them for too long, they simply disappear. Sometimes, they dissolve as one creates another.

9) Now, the figure stands surrounded by a world covered in colorful sand, of revealed structures and pathways. It has raised castles and other forms made purely of sand. It pauses to look around. shadows and mists are far away, or relegated to a few corners. It's almost overwhelming. Questions arise. It feels confused. It can no longer recall clearly what exactly has happened, nor fully understand it.

“I see only sand… I too am covered in sand. Sand and colorful grains everywhere... could it all that exists be nothing but sand? Am I the one sculpting and shaping the forms I see in this universe of sand?

And the sand, where did it come from? Did I find it somewhere, discover it? Was it given to me? Or did I create it myself? Ot eas it with me all along? And what is the sand exactly?

“Or maybe the sand is not the special, it is just a way to reveal a deeper reality beneath, a reality that would remain invisible and obscure without the sand... yet still exists as I see it now, even if I've hadn't unveil it! But how can I be sure?

"Before I found the sand, I remember knowing a few things, even though I knew little. I knew I was me, and that beneath me there was something hard, cold, and jagged. And I think I still know this…

"The throwing of the sand, and the understanding what it reveals, is neither the sand itself, nor what it unveils, but something else... something I cannot cover with my beloved sand…”

1. The Dasien, being thrown into the world, aware of existence and little else

2. The first attempts to understand the world, to explore the immediate surroudings. Rarely fruitful, often inconclusive.

3. The discovery (or emergence? or creation?) of reason, mathematics, empirical experimentation, language, and ultimately, Science.

4. The earliest uses of reason and primitive empirical Science, allowing the beginnings of exploration, recognizing voids, and intuiting possible paths and connections.

5. Science reveals the world of things. It brings forth their outlines, limits, and structure.

6. The euphoria of discovery: the world becomes comprehensible, directions and paths can be uncovered, explored, regularities are revealed, allowing shortcuts, manipulation. Nearby details emerge clearly, while even very distant, possible forms are unveiled.

7. Reason and science also work to discover the self—one's genetics, biology, mind.

8. Complex, abstract ideas are created: music, art, poetry, justice, society, law, philosophy, the state.

9. The epistemological and ontological doubt about what things are and what it means to know them; the opposing paradoxes of idealism and realism, and the doubt surrounding the original intuitions, and perhaps, the limits

Edit:

If a system such as the Earth's atmosphere can be described deterministically via atomic propositions and the complexity of the atmosphere is such to the small insignificant changes to the atomosphere can be magnified to significant changes over time due to the butterfly efect, then the atmosphere is subject to the rules of chaos theory.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/#2

Bayes' Theorem can be expressed in a variety of forms that are useful for different purposes. One version employs what Rudolf Carnap called the relevance quotient or probability ratio (Carnap 1962, 466). This is the factor PR(H, E) = PE(H)/P(H) by which H's unconditional probability must be multiplied to get its probability conditional on E. Bayes' Theorem is equivalent to a simple symmetry principle for probability ratios.

(1.4) Probability Ratio Rule.

PR(H, E) = PR(E, H)

The term on the right provides one measure of the degree to which H predicts E. If we think of P(E) as expressing the "baseline" predictability of E given the background information codified in P, and of PH(E) as E's predictability when H is added to this background, then PR(E, H) captures the degree to which knowing H makes E more or less predictable relative to the baseline: PR(E, H) = 0 means that H categorically predicts ~E; PR(E, H) = 1 means that adding H does not alter the baseline prediction at all; PR(E, H) = 1/P(E) means that H categorically predicts E. Since P(E)) = PT(E)) where T is any truth of logic, we can think of (1.4) as telling us that

The probability of a hypothesis conditional on a body of data is equal to the unconditional probability of the hypothesis multiplied by the degree to which the hypothesis surpasses a tautology as a predictor of the data.

In other words if "H" is the unconditional prediction based on a deterministic model, isn't the accuracy of the prediction inversely proportional to elapsed time between the time the predition is made vs the time the prediction is for? That is to say the farther into the future the preditcon is for the less likely it is to be determined.

I'm starting to get interested in metaphysics and am in need of some book recommendations. I've noticed most of them just discuss various theories. The recommendations I'm interested in are novels and stories. Any rec?

We like to think of science as an objective pursuit of truth, but how much of it is influenced by the culture and biases of the time?

I’ve been thinking about how scientific "facts" have evolved throughout history, often reflecting the values or limitations of the society in which they emerged. Is true objectivity even possible in science,

or is it always shaped by the human lens?

It’s fascinating to consider how future generations might view the things we accept as fact today.

If you could predict it, you would have invented it already.

True or false?

I see the non-materialism of Christianity and of a lot of philosophers and philosophies as poison and want a cold hard realism rooted in physical matter. Heisenberg and Schrödinger give me a solid base in physics; who’s a philosopher that follows in this line of thought?

There’s logical positivism and physicalism, then there’s psychology and neurology, but who’s a philosopher that puts it all together?

Apologies if this is fairly basic but where should I start to research this topic?

Any easy(ish) intro essays on the topic which are essential? Or key thinkers surrounding this debate that are of particular importance in this area?

Thank you

Forgive me pls, if you feel this is the wrong place to ask such a question. I wasn't sure whether to go with r/theoreticalphysics, here, or somewhere else. Cards on the table. I am NOT a scientist, I am a layman. I am, however, curious as to the answer to my question. So;

Does the perception of depth depend upon mass?

A cube drawn on a piece of paper is only a 2-D representation of a 3-D object. Yet both the piece of paper and lead/ink with which the cube is drawn/printed have their own mass.

You can see the cube without touching the paper, but could you perceive the depth of the cube without the mass of the physical representation of it on the paper?

To mainfest that cube in 3 dimensions, it would have to be constructed of something; with mass.

If Block Universe Theory is valid, does it mean all moments are predestined? Meaning every meeting, every action and every reaction are predestined? I mean if Matilda is supposed to have a daughter with Sam in 5 years from now, doesn't that mean they have to meet first, then a date, then a marriage and then a daughter! So nothing is luck or chance or hard work or coincidence and everything is destiny?