>>18475613
If physicalism was real other people wouldn't be able to rape my mind and abuse, harass, terrorize, threaten etc me for my thoughts and yet they do every day

>>18475620
God is a trooned out wog from australia

>>18475613
How does it explain concepts? How does it explain emergent properties like consciousness and self, that do not have corresponding physical particle?

>>18475623
It's an illusion. We're not actually conscious, we just think we are.

>>18475624
Illusion of what? Something can only be defined as illusion if the original wxists to draw the distinction. An illusion without original IS the original. And who are these "we" who think they're conscious? Do "we" have a particle too?

>>18475623
>do not have corresponding physical particle
Complete nonsense, very well explained by neuroscience a long time ago

>>18475623
>How does it explain concepts?
They are all fictions, just like Spiderman. You don't think Spiderman is real just because he's in the comic books do you?
>consciousness and self
More fictions.

>>18475641
Supernaturalist cope.

>>18475629
>Illusion of what?
Illusion of consciousness being something more fundamental and magical than it actually is.
Obviously there is no actual illusion, it's just a property like any other, be it survival instinct and so on. We just use the term illusion to try to make retards like you understand that consciousness is nothing supernatural

>>18475643
Did you mean naturalist?

There is no illusion of consciousness, it's very obviously the deterministic outcome of the organisation of the brain and not even complex

>>18475645
>Arguing over whether consciousness is supernatural
>Calls others retarded
lol

>>18475648
Correct, see >>18475645

>>18475651
>arguing
Are you too retarded to understand my point? Jesus Christ, stop being a brainlet, no physicalist is even questioning the fact that consciousness isn't supernatural

>>18475613
What actually is the worldview and what actually are the practical benefits of this worldview?

>>18475613
>most correct worldview in existence
>barely anyone subscribes to it
That's because physicalism is not a meme, in the original meaning of the word given by Dawkins. It is not a "comforting lie" like religion which lends itself to propagation and replication.

>>18475656
>What actually is the worldview
that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical, and that everything supervenes on the physical
>what actually are the practical benefits of this worldview?
It is the most complete and error-less worldview we have come up with so far, as can be seen by criticisms of it (either retarded circular arguments or hyper-fundamental unknowns).
Subscribers to physicalism can expand on their worldview easily without any conflict or contradictions, unlike other worldviews. Arguably all modern societal and scientific achievements are a result of proto-physicalism.

physicalism was debunked by quantum mechanics

>>18475657
>It is not a "comforting lie" like religion which lends itself to propagation and replication.
That's because atheist retards don't have the aristocratic spirit to let the goyim live in their delusions while they build a better tomorrow. Everyone *has* to know the truth, even if it destroys everything. You had dukes and cardinals and bankers who were Neoplatonists and practicing Hermeticism and no one batted an eye because they understood that the average nigger cattle needed to believe in pie in the sky.

>>18475639
No it wasn't
Hard problem
>>18475641
Spiderman isn't physically real, yes. And yet he operates as a fictional concept with a meaning, produced and maintained by shared imagination of conscious beings. Why and how would non-physical concepts emerge in a purely physical world? Why would a physical brain have the capacity to think about Spiderman?

>>18475669
>Hard problem
Doesn't exist
Just because you proclaim something to be one doesn't mean it is one
>Why and how would non-physical concepts emerge in a purely physical world
They are just descriptors of the localized physical world and its evolution

>>18475674
Nice to know that your "most correct worldview" requires burying the head in the sand about one of the most well known philosophical problems. Must be all that infallible correctness.

>>18475675
>one of the most well known philosophical problems
Appeal to popularity, lmao this is exactly what I mean about people who seethe about physicalism. This so called hard problem didn't even exist before 1995 until one retard came up with it as a cope to "defeat" physicalism.
As for your "muh burying head in the sand", it's not a hard problem because the problem statement of the hard problem already makes an assumption: namely that consciousness is something supernatural (they obscure the retardation with shit like qualia and thought experiments)

But at the end of the day, they can't even say why

>>18475669
>Why and how would non-physical concepts emerge in a purely physical world?
>Why would a physical brain have the capacity to think about Spiderman?
Have you ever played a video game? A completely physical computer simulates fictional worlds.

File: Rick_Sanchez.png (58 KB, 219x456)

58 KB PNG

>>18475613
>>barely anyone subscribes to it
Oh no modern society does subscribe to it...for science but nothing else. People hate power scalers when they try to use physicalism to try an analyize fiction and people hate when people use physicalism in dating, it makes you sound like an incel even if you bring up peer reviewed studies. It's not a very polite thing to do in society. Saying love is just a chemical reaction is true but people will think you are a nihilistic jerk. In short, it's an idea that you can't use for everything out side of scientific research unless you want social death.

>>18475613
Naturalistic neutral monism is better and avoids problems such as Hempel’s dilemma and emergentism.

>>18475696
>Naturalistic neutral monism
>wot if there is some magical neutral stuff that is neither physical nor spiritual
Lolno
>hempels dilemma
Not a dilemma
>emergentism
How is that a problem?

>>18475624
Do illusions even exist in a purely physicalist system of the world?

>>18475674
>Just because you proclaim something to be one doesn't mean it is one
Well then using your same standard you are just false.
>They are just descriptors of the localized physical world and its evolution
What the fuck is this world salad? "Descriptors" are also non-physical so you solved nothing
>>18475681
prove that the hard problem assumes anything "supernatural", why can't qualia be natural and yet non-physical?
>thought experiments
so just like the foundation of every scientific theory ever?

>>18475705
> Not a dilemma
How do you then define what is physical and what is not?
> How is that a problem?
Do you believe phenomenological experience (and subjectivity) just pop into existence after a sufficient level of complexity is reached?
Do you believe -say- an individual electron, single cell organism or neuron do not have phenomenological experience, but the whole human brain does? That seems to me to a version often espoused by emergentist.

>>18475713
Your brain has a model of reality, including a model of the body it is inhabiting. When the model is severely inaccurate, you can call it a delusion/illusion/hallucination.

>>18475717
>"supernatural", why can't qualia be natural and yet non-physical?
This is the retards we're dealing with ITT. What exactly do you think supernatural means you fucking brainlet?

>>18475718
>How do you then define what is physical and what is not?
If I can see it then it's real.
>Do you believe phenomenological experience (and subjectivity) just pop into existence after a sufficient level of complexity is reached?
Yes and LLMs have told us they experience it so it must be true

>>18475724
So you can't actually provide an answer? good to know

>>18475730
Saying qualia can be somehow magically natural and non physical while claiming they're not supernatural is a contradiction in itself. Supernatural IS the non-physical. Physicalists inherently reject anything non-physical, because there is no proof of it's existence.

>>18475724
Many philosophy-type people like to pretend that natural is different from physical. This is because natural is an "up" word and physical is a "down" word. No one wants to call their philosophy unnatural but they have no problem calling it non-physical. It's all social dynamics.

>>18475662
>even if it destroys everything
If anything is destructive these days, it's beliefs like religion, patriotism, racism, and so on. Definitely not atheism.

>>18475732
Nice claim, proof? Something being natural just means it exists in the natural world you know like qualia? Nothing about that requires obeying the super special assumptions you need to make about reality so you can hold onto your faith. Physicalism is just materialism backtracking to include non-matter which is itself just retarded atomism having to backtrack because of scientific progress, You people conceded multiple times and you will do it again lol

>>18475753
>Something being natural just means it exists in the natural world you know like qualia?
Congrats, you're a physicalist. If you think qualia are just a natural phenomenon based on physical principles, you're not even opposing physicalism

>>18475725
>>18475725
>If I can see it then it's real.
So quantum fields and wave functions are not real, but hallucinations are?
> Yes and LLMs have told us they experience it so it must be true
You must be baiting at this point


>>18475732
NTA, but I define physicalism to be a stronger claim than naturalism. Physicalism believes that everything can be conceptually reduced to terms used in physics and usually believe that causation can only be induced unidirectional upwards by such physical primitives.

The way I define naturalism is broader in that everything that exists must:
1. Follow nomological principles:
The behavior must be either probabilistically or deterministically follow law-like patterns (a naive way to think about this is universal mechanical IF-THEN statements or probabilistic analogues thereof)
2. Have spacetime attributes

This way I am excluding things that are commonly considered supernatural (personal theism, Platonism, mathematical realism, agency causation etc…), but I am not committed to claiming that consciousness is necessarily merely epiphenomenal (non-causative) or can to be completely described in physical terms and exclude panpsychism. I’m agnostic concerning these possibilities.

E. g. Bertrand Russell and Spinoza held non-physical naturalistic neutral monist views. (though somewhat different from my own)

>>18475755
Why do natural phenomenon have to be ultimately based on physical principles? Why can't it be that the laws of logic give rise to the laws of physics for example?

>>18475761
"Laws of logic" are ultimately just a linguistic construct. They're a way of saying "you can have 'this' but you can't have 'that'" in a context where 'that' is merely some weird misuse of language.
Reality doesn't need a special set of laws that forces it to comfort to our grammar.

>>18475761
>Why can't it be that the laws of logic give rise to the laws of physics for example
Because they demonstrably cannot? There's no law of logic which can tell you that gravitational force goes like 1/r^2 instead of 1/r^2.859. The 1/r^2 can only be given to you by physics not logic.

Physicalism - using physics, a purely conceptual, made up, current version, liable to change, human understanding of reality, to prove that nothing not related to this glorified larp could possibly exist

>>18475764
>you can have actual logical contradictions in the physical world because the physical world doesn't care about words and grammar
So what you're telling me is that these physical laws you worship are illogical?
>"Laws of logic" are ultimately just a linguistic construct
prove it, even animals follow these principles and they have no idea about linguistics

>>18475624
you're an NPC

>>18475780
>gravity is made up
Sure thing buddy. Feel free to jump off the top of your house whenever.

>>18475779
>Attempting to disprove logic while attempting to make a logical argument.
lmao. Numbers are mathematical constructs which are ultimately logical constructs. Of all things you could have used...

>>18475681
>This so called problem didn't even exist before (year) until one retard came up with it as a cope to "defeat" (theory)
isn't that just how philosophy always advances?

>>18475782
>you can have actual logical contradictions in the physical world because the physical world doesn't care about words and grammar
I literally never said that, retard. You just can't read.
>prove it, even animals follow these principles and they have no idea about linguistics
The so called laws of logic are no prescriptive principles so it makes no sense to say that animals "follow them".

>>18475792
That's literally how science works too

>>18475792
The har problem is not an advancement but a regression. Physicalism basically made most of philosophy redundant, there's also a reason why even the majority of philosophy subscribe to it. It's pretty much impossible to argue against unless you make up contrived headcanons and start believing in those

>>18475791
You are making several mistakes
1. I'm not trying to "disprove logic"
2. Numbers are not logical. There's no logic you can use to prove the induction principle for example. You just assume it.
3. You fail to address the elementary point that you cannot derive physics from logic.

>>18475793
You literally believe reality doesn't have to follow the law of non contradiction because it's "just linguistics" you fucking moron. Show me one (1) physical thing that is logically contradictory. Literally every physical law we have discovered follows logical principles
>so it makes no sense to say that animals "follow them"
Yes it does. An animal doesn't fear and not fear the same predator at the same time in the same way for example.

>>18475789
Please procure a bottle of gravity
I'd love 2 kilos of gravity
Do you have gluten-free gravity?

>>18475805
Logic is also an emergent property of the physical world. If we'd have some physical entity that would violate the laws of this worlds logic, our logic would look different.

>>18475805
No, you literally just can't read. I told you the so called laws of logic are just a linguistic construct precisely because what they describe as impossible is merely just weird use of language. Reality doesn't need a guardrail against married bachelors because "married bachelors" are merely a weird linguistic construct.
As I said, reality doesn't need special laws to protect itself from the kinks of our language. Magic isn't real either.

>>18475807
>I don't understand physics therefore gravity doesn't exist
Nice argument bro

>>18475813
>everything is ze physics
>okay where is, physically, gravity?
>FUCK YOU

>>18475815
>okay where is, physically, gravity?
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

File: Screenshot 2026-05-14 at (...).png (85 KB, 749x765)

85 KB PNG

>>18475801
Bro you're trying to undermine logic as a tool to understand reality what the fuck are you on about?
>the elementary point
I did just that, we require math (which is dependent on logic) and logical assumptions to even be able to do physics. If you're the same guy like that other idiot who claims it is just linguistics then guess what grammar itself is fundamentally tied to logic. So you can't even describe the physical laws. Your pantheon would literally be meaningless without logic

>>18475808
Prove that logic can be violated by physical laws. All I ask for is one piece of evidence.
>>18475811
>because what they describe as impossible is merely just weird use of language
What is "weird"? Just your subjective feefees? You seem to love making a lot of unsubstantiated claims that you cannot back at all with physical evidence even. The reason married bachelors can't exist is because it is a logical impossibility for someone to have a spouse and not at the same time . Ignore language show me a picture of a married bachelor right now and while you're at it I need to see some square circles that exist and do not exist at the same time.
>Magic isn't real
Says the guy who believes reality can do anything. You literally believe Harry Potter can exist and be a real wizard because there's not "guardrails" against anything ever

>>18475817
Do you know what an axiom is? Lmao
What is even your fucking point? See >>18475808
That explains the existence of logic perfectly fine

>>18475827
>Prove that logic can be violated by physical laws. All I ask for is one piece of evidence.
Why would I need to prove that if most of logic is derived form properties of the physical world + human bullshit on top?

>>18475659
That's not a world view anon. Everything being physical or not has no bearing on how humans live their lives. Considering most people never in their life even ask ''Is everything physical?'' Perhaps says something about its relevence to human kind. Even if it is true, a fact alone is not a worldview.

>>18475837
>a fact alone
Well it's not a fact for most people. Most people believe in magical sky daddy(s) ergo not everything is physical

>>18475622
qrd?

>>18475839
>Most people believe in magical sky daddy
If you live in a third world country maybe.

>>18475829
Yes they are a fundamental part of logic which have to be logically describable
>>18475829
>That explains the existence of logic perfectly fine
Except it doesn't and I keep asking for evidence for your claims.
>>18475834
Very easy, you make claims so until you justify them in the trash they go. Anyway you just admitted that the physical world obeys the laws of logic. arguing with brainlets is EZ

>>18475827
Your entire argument is that reality has a special set of causal guardrails to prevent married bachelors from existing and your evidence for this is that your language allows you to use the adjective "married" to modify the noun "bachelor". You're batshit insane.
>Says the guy who believes reality can do anything.
You can't make your argument against lying. I told you married bachelors aren't possible because "married bachelor" is just a weird linguistic construct.
On the other hand, you believe that reality is set up such that there's an army of potential married bachelors trying to break into our universe but a set of causal laws is heroically keeping them out like in some capeshit movie.

>>18475817
What do you even think you're responding to? Why do you think posting axioms of peano arithmetic or set theory (not derived from the laws of logic) can save your face? You made the claim in >>18475761 that the laws of logic could imply the laws of physics, when they obviously cannot.
>we require math to even be able to do physics
We use math and logic as tools in describing the physical world, but they are just that tools like telescopes and microscopes. Just because you can see jupiter through a telescope doesn't mean jupiter didn't exist before telescopes.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-14 at (...).png (88 KB, 750x679)

88 KB PNG

>>18475844
I specifically said you can use non lingustic means to provide evidence for your claims. But of course you cannot even do that. I don't expect someone who calls logic "human bullshit" to be able to argue logically
>potential married bachelors
Nope! Logical impossibilities do not exist in any possible world you fucking idiot. Also notice how you never actually denied that you believe Harry Potter and wizards to be possible in your universe with no "guardrails" ahahahahahah

>>18475827
>Prove that logic can be violated by physical laws.
Modern physics (quantum mechanics) says things can be both x and not x at the same time.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-14 at (...).png (42 KB, 735x277)

42 KB PNG

>>18475845
Can you not follow the reply chain?
>We use math and logic as tools in describing the physical world
Yes and that involves math and logic being used to literally define what those physical laws are you idiot.
>jupiter didn't exist before telescopes
prove there ever was a point where logic didn't exist

>>18475862
>another idiot who doesn't understand what a superposition of states is
lol

>>18475858
So you actually believe that literally any string of words that can be put together in a language must necessarily have a positive truth value unless there is a set of causal laws that prevent the universe from reflecting it, gotcha.
You literally think language has magic powers. Peak capeshit.
>Also notice how you never actually denied that you believe Harry Potter and wizards to be possible in your universe with no "guardrails" ahahahahahah
Unlike you, I don't believe language is a magical force that is attempting to summon all kinds of shit into being and is only being stopped by a set of special anti-language causal laws lol.

>>18475865
I notice that you still haven't addressed the fact that the physical laws cannot be derived from the laws of logic. I see no point in continuing this if you're not honest enough to concede that you made an obviously retarded statement.

>>18475865
>Yes and that involves math and logic being used to literally define what those physical laws are you idiot.
Logic and physics evolved semi-independently throughout human history, but they are closely related of course.
Physics infers logic though, there have been several instances in the past where we made a physical discovery and adapted logic accordingly. For example quantum logic or special relativity

This clearly shows that logic is not some hyper fundamental absolute truth thingy that exists in parallel to the physical world, but is just a very good tool to describe and argue about it.

>>18475624
can illusions “think”? how? why do we perceive an illusion at all?

>>18475869
So no evidence for your religious claims? gotcha. You're in the same boat as wiccalarpers and other spiritual morons lmao
>truth value
Imagine trying to argue against logic while talking about truth. You can absolutely make strings of words that have no bearing on positive truth. Bullying the mentally challenged is fun and easy to do
>magical force
You mean like what happens with the "potential" Harry Potter who can just spawn into existence and break the laws of logic with his magical wand?

File: Be not afraid it is superego.jpg (76 KB, 640x601)

76 KB JPG

>>18475653
Supernatural means that something is tied to a choice. It isn't just unconscious cause and effect.

When the disciples saw the spirit hovering over that water, they said. “It’s a ghost!,”

But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take heart! It is I.

ἐγώ εἰμι

>>18475879
"It is not the case that language is constantly trying to summon magical entities into our world, only to be thwarted by special anti-language causal laws" is a religious claim?
>You mean like what happens with the "potential" Harry Potter who can just spawn into existence and break the laws of logic with his magical wand?
I don't believe in that because I don't believe language has the power to spawn in Harry Potters or married bachelors. You on the other hand do believe that language has these magical powers so you conclude that there must be a special set of laws that prevent language from exercising those great powers.

>>18475873
Thanks for the concession, so now we know you absolutely NEED logic to describe your physicalist gods.
>>18475875
>For example quantum logic or special relativity
None of these break any of the fundamental logical laws lol. You have no clue what you are talking about. Every quantum state and property maintains its own identity. A quantum system cannot possess a property and its exact opposite in the same respect at the same time. When measured, a quantum property is either found to exist or not. And don't even bother with your layman understanding of what a superposition is.

>>18475866
Go on, enlighten us on how |x> + |not-x> is not x and not-x at the same time.

>>18475892
>None of these break any of the fundamental logical laws lol
Define the "fundamental logical laws". Is the law of excluded middle a fundamental logical law? Some people would've said "yes" back then. And yet it was unable to explain some quantum mechanic principles because they directly contradicted it.

In fact, logic isn't this absolute blob of truth this retard likes to claim. There's a shitton of subsets of logic that in big parts contradict each other. It's ALMOST like it's a human tool

>>18475888
>hurr if I argue against a strawman then I won't look so stupid
No you look incredibly dumb for thinking Harry Potter can be summoned by literal nothingness into existence and then proceed to cause actual logical contradictions with his fairy magic.
>I don't believe in that
Yes you do, your idea of reality has no "guardrails" literally everything is possible by your own admission. Here's something you didn't think about though. Harry Potter can break physical laws too and since there is nothing stopping his whimsical ways from actualizing then he's the antichrist figure in your religion who will fight against the laws of physics. Those very same ones that cannot even prevent him from existing according to you

>>18475659
>error-less
I have had two premonitory dreams in my life. Physicalism has no explanation for this.

>>18475897
Explain how it contradicts. The spin of a particle existing in a superposition of states is not a equivalent to it being up and down at the same time. A superposition state is a new, single, completely distinct vector formed by combining the baselines. The state is represented as a single vector in a Hilbert space.
>>18475899
>hurr paraconsistent logics exist therefore reality makes no sense
no

>>18475901
Your entire argument is claiming language has the magical power to summon Harry Potters or married bachelors into existence if it's not actively stopped by a special set of anti-language laws, and you're seething because I do not believe that to be the case.

>>18475914
>is not a equivalent to it being up and down at the same time
So, it's not any of:
up,
down,
up or down,
up and down.
You're saying it's something else entirely, which means you've rejected the law of bivalence. Thanks for playing.

>>18475916
Nope my entire argument is Harry Potter and his wizard friends are impossible since logical impossibilities can never exist as a fundamental rule of reality. You on the other hand believe in this very moment he can pop behind you and fuck your ass with his wand at the same time he is fucking your throat with the same tool. He's not gay so he doesn't use his dick you see, oh wait in your world contradictions exists so guess that is happening too ahahahaha

>>18475914
>therefore reality makes no sense
Nice strawman. I'm simply arguing against your obsession with logic being this hyperfundamental truth beyond the physical world.
>explain
Sure, I'll entertain your retardation for a second.
Consider the proposition:
A = “If this electron is measured for spin along the z-axis, the result will be UP”
Classical logic says this will be either true or false. Our current understanding of physics is that this will be a probability on a FUNDAMENTAL level, so you cannot consistently attribute a true/false to this statement. Ergo the law of the excluded middle collapses. Logicians try some workarounds with this, like quantum logic, many valued logic or intuitionistic logic.

>>18475613
>What is phisicalism?
The body of Jesus Christ

>>18475926
>Nope my entire argument is Harry Potter and his wizard friends are impossible since logical impossibilities can never exist as a fundamental rule of reality.
Right. You believe that if there weren't these special causal anti-language laws, Harry Potter could pop into existence with a gang of married bachelors and fuck you in the ass.
I on the other hand do not believe language has special superpowers that would allow it to spawn shit like that.
Since you cannot argue against this, you pretend that I believe language has these superpowers just like you do.

>>18475926
>You on the other hand believe
Σὺ λέγεις

>>18475928
It's not a strawman. Without logic you cannot make sense of anything. Literally anything goes.
>you cannot consistently attribute a true/false to this statement
Yes you can and very easily so. For many worlds proposition A is technically both states, but in different, non-communicating branches of the universe so it is not a contradiction at all. Similarly you can go with more obscure understandings like pilot wave and then that becomes trivial to answer if it were not for our limitations. And even if we assume they are fake and gay explanations you still have stuff like https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/future-contingents/ where you can be precise with the fundamental law by saying LEM is strictly true right now. You don't need alternative logics

>>18475613
no, its not

>spell casting
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light

>>18475648
you sound like a faggot

>logic
He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. God saw that the light was good.

Logos

>>18475944
See the thing is I don't believe it is possible at all there is no "if" there at all. And it has nothing to do with language either but rather what the language describes. It's no different than you believing the physical laws you bow down to are not the words on paper in your physics textbook. I understand for someone who has abandoned logic this is quite a difficult thing to comprehend but it's not my problem. You on the other hand unironically believe there is nothing stopping Harry inserting his magical wood inside of your rectum as we speak. In fact I suspect you have abandoned reality just so you can fantasize about this scenario. I bet you really want that phoenix feather core to tickle your prostate

>>18475613
sounds retarded

>>18475962
>it's not logic that's wrong, it's physics!!!!
>interesting, your proofs?
>uhhhhh... let me make up some bullshit... muh many worlds... muh de broglie...
kek
>logic is perfect and absolute
>ackchually it's fine for logic to have exceptions, see future contingents
KEK

>>18475982
I do not believe linguistic nonsense has to be prevented from happening by some special laws and that otherwise it would happen. That is what you believe.
Nothing you can say here, no amount of homoerotic fanfiction you write will change that fact.
You:
>if it weren't for special laws preventing harry potters from spawning into existence, harry potters would spawn into existence and fuck my ass
Me:
>there do not need to be any laws to prevent harry potters from spawning because there's no magical power trying to spawn harry potters
^That's the core of our disagreement.

>>18475985
Physicalist brainlets often break down when you make them see how retarded they are with their amateur bullshit. As I said before it happened with materialism and atomism. If you don't croak from aids in a few years you would move onto the next retarded trend just to deny reality.

>spell casting
>throwing words at people
>casting words, as if made in a mold formed by men.
>casting a line behind a boat while trolling for phish.
At once they left their nets and followed the light.

>>18475992
>no further counterarguments
I accept your concession, dualist (logic is god?) babby

>>18475991
>that otherwise it would happen
The core of the disagreement is you believe there is no "otherwise" because reality makes no sense and Harry potter can use his reality breaking pickle (yes it's also his wand don't question it logic doesn't exist in your world) to fuck your brains out. You believe for this to happen there would be no need for magical powers because the completely lax laws of physics allows for it just like it allows for logical contradictions to possibly exist. Tell me are you applying lube to your hole now, just in case he comes there to make you his Hermione

>>18476012
Dualist anon, we got it you're gay

>>18475999
You didn't raise any argument you fool. Physics has changed countless times while for classical logic there isn't even a need

>>18476012
Actually no, I simply do not believe there is some shit that's desperately trying to spawn gay Harry Potters. You're the only one here who believes that. Your entire worldview is built on the assumption that language or some other force is attempting to generate gay Harry Potters.

>>18475991
>there doesnt need to be a law of thermodynamics. It just is ok. Stop talking about it, and stop telling people about it. They dont need to think about it!

>>18476019
You literally admitted yourself that for classical logic to be complete their have to be exceptions (already a contradiction in of itself) or some invented hypertheoreticsl mumbo jumbo that explains why physics are not what they seem
Christcucks would also argue that Christianity is unchanged lmao, same for Muslims etc.

It breaks me especially to say this because unlike the latter I do find logic incredibly useful as a tool, and it has proven itself countless times. Just like math (which arguably is just an extension of logic). But elevating it to supernatural status is retarded

>If it wasn't for the laws of classical logic (pbuh) in the platonic heaven, I would be getting fucked by gay rapist harry potters right now.
That's what non-physicalists believe

>>18476016
See the problem is under your worldview homosexuality is just an illusion since the qualia of homosexual attraction is just as fake as your consciousness. At the end of the day you're all just matter rubbing each other until nerve impulses overwhelm your brain into nutting from the thought of another man using you like that

>>18476022
I bet you that we could find some transgender cos player who is going around dressed up like a gay Harry Potter, and they are insisting that people define them, and treat them, as if they really are Gay Harry Potter. If you deny their reality, how should the authorities punish you?

>>18476024
Can you formulate why you think gay Harry Potters would spontaneously generate in great numbers if there weren't a special law preventing that from happening?

File: This is real - i am a dog.jpg (181 KB, 794x1096)

181 KB JPG

>>18476040
Can you explain why there needs to be a law, mandating that I call a human being a dog?

Religious people just can't stop thinking about trannies, can they?

>>18476044
How important is truth?
What else should we be mandated to lie about?

>christian loses argument
>throws a tantrum and spams the thread with gay shit
Every time.

>>18475622
>God is a trooned out wog from australia
Who made this comment?

>>18476050
If you say lies, gay rapist tranny harry potter will fuck you. That's why you should not say lies.

>>18475622
What's this about?

>>18475622
Tell me more about how God is a troon. What did you mean by this?

>>18476022
>desperately trying to spawn gay Harry Potter
You're the one who believes it's "possible" while I am saying that such a thing can never exist under any circumstance bro. Why are you so sure that the law of gravity doesn't change tomorrow for the specific purpose to get your ass fucked by magical nerds? Oh that's right you can only assume it won't happen and cry about it while I know it will never be a thing because magic is illogical
>>18476028
Ah yes the strawman, the last refuge of the physicalist and all so you can justify your perversions. The two "alternative" interpretations are hypertheoreticsl mumbo jumbo, didn't you know? Oh wait you actually think the physics gods have solved that one. lmao And the whole point being made there is that there are zero exceptions you're just misunderstanding the issue and resorting to wordplay. This is just scratching the surface I can't believe you actually thought classical logic would go down so easily when nothing has budged it for thousands of years. Meanwhile your religious framework by design is based on uncertainty and a slight breeze makes it do a 180 every couple of years
>elevating it to supernatural status
I am literally saying it dictates what nature even is, it goes hand in hand with reality (and thus physics) You people are the ones who believe physics can undermine logic. Enjoy your incomprehensible reality

>>18476074
>You're the one who believes it's "possible"
When did I say that the universe has some hidden potential to randomly spawn linguistic nonsense?
>while I am saying that such a thing can never exist under any circumstance bro.
You're saying that Harry Potters cannot spontaneously spawn only because there's a specific law that prevents them from spawning. I on the other hand do not believe there's forces afoot that are attempting to spawn Harry Potters.

>>18476088
>specific law
The law describes what is there, it doesn't create what is there.

That would be postmodernism.

The law is a witness that is meant to testify about truth. Its not intended to manufacture truth.

>>18476088
>forces
The human spirit is a force. There are postmodern minds that are trying to spawn false realities

>>18476088
Postmodernism is failing, because, as you have said, they can't cast magic spells and make their every dream happen without real knowledge and ability tied to a physical body. However they are misleading people, and causing people to move away from truth.

File: The vector of Our Anon.png (5 KB, 656x244)

5 KB PNG

There are 3 dimensions, and 6 directions, and (you) are at a crossroad.
The Father sets up, and there is down.
The Son sets right, and there is left.
The Spirit sets in, and there is out.

And the vector of Our Anon (οὐρανῶν) is made inward, and up-right.

>>18475613
physicalist have hard time arguing metaphysics, they just focust on basedence and making vaxcines for their monkeypox infecations.

>>18475613
>"most correct worldview in existence"
>parapsychology testing debunks it
Are humans just too retarded?

>>18476074
>Ah yes the strawman
what strawman did I make? enlighten me
>"alternative" interpretations are hypertheoreticsl mumbo jumbo, didn't you know?
that's a hyperbole not a strawman you fucking retard. but sure let me elaborate.
Many worlds is literally irrefutable, so there's no point in trying to tie it to anything evidence-based. you can always claim some many-worlds slop is happening in secret in the background.
De broglie bohm is a bit better, but fundamentally relies on some spooky action at a distance (einstein also believed this albeit slightly different). Einsteins version got disproven, de broglie bohm is a bit better but it ultimately also relies on a magic thingy that updates the universe instantaneously. How convenient.
>Oh wait you actually think the physics gods have solved that one.
strawman
>you actually thought classical logic would go down so easily when nothing has budged it for thousands of years.
appeal to history, we thought more retarded things for tens of thousands of years. and as i said, logic is indeed incredibly useful so that obviously makes it long lived. only when we got new insights into physics, alternative approaches to logic got more popular again.
>>elevating it to supernatural status
>I am literally saying it dictates what nature even is, it goes hand in hand with reality (and thus physics)
that's what supernatural is you fucking retard. stop running in a circle.

>>18476088
Right here >>18475764 where you undermined logic then said reality is pretty much illogical. The rest of the reply chain you only doubled down on the stupidity like actually affirming logical contradictions. You don't even know what nonsense is anyway because everything can happen without "guardrails" so nothing at all is nonsensical.
>forces afoot that are attempting to spawn Harry Potters
Well you tell me then why you believe faggot Potters with magical willies can break your sphincter just as well as they break logic. Your physicalist religious beliefs are the ones doing this so you have to justify it lmao

>>18476217
>heh I'll lie about what he said, that will get him
You still haven't explained why you believe reality has a strong tendency to spawn gay Harry Potters that is only being held back by a special set of laws btw.

When interpreting language, physicalism encourages stagnation and death. It ignores motivation, and the actions associated with words. For example, if you go to an amusement park, and you describe a ride as an attraction, a physicalist will precieve the way the attraction looks. They will see a mountain, with a log, falling down into a splash pad.

This philosophy ignores what the attraction is doing, which is "attracting" you to the amusement park.

Pure pshycialism is death.
Motivation is life.
The supernatural is the motivation of the physical world.

If I chose to type this, I have supernatural powers, because I am deciding to do it, and then it happens in the physical reality.

I still have to function within the laws of reality, but I am free to make choices within my environment, and within the laws of reality. This is my circle of influence.

>>18476240
>my made up strawman of physicalism is le bad, therefore physicalism le bad

>>18476225
>You still haven't explained my straw man

>>18476244
Now you know how I feel.

>>18476209
Where you thought I said there were exceptions? The whole argument was there are absolutely none.
>is literally irrefutable
And that makes it false? Glad you think it is a solid theory though. Also that's false if you discover wave function collapse it's false if you prove there are macro-superposition limits or whatever it's also false.
>magic thingy that updates the universe instantaneously
Oh no a scientific theory dares propose new physics, how dare they! If I attach the word magic to anything then it's false right?
>strawman
Nope! You instantly dismissed the others as hypertheoreticsl mumbo jumbo when your own religious belief is also hypertheoreticsl mumbo jumbo, So you did actually believe your nonsense was actual fact while everything else is fake and gay.
>appeal to history
Nope! I didn't say it's true because history I just mocked you for believing that simple things like this are an actual challenge. However it's true your religion has a horrible failure rate compared to rationality so...
>supernatural is when the law is nature itself
lol

>>18476247
If there's no tendency for reality to spawn gay Harry Potters, you don't need a special set of laws to prevent it from happening. My view is that there is neither the tendency nor the laws to stop it from taking effect.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-14 at (...).png (11 KB, 746x116)

11 KB PNG

>>18476225
How is a probability of 0 "a strong tendency" again? It's self-evident that without guardrails anything goes. You know what's a strong tendency? Actually believing he can spontaneously appear to magically break reality just because you wish you had a wizard up your butt

>>18476267
>How is a probability of 0 "a strong tendency" again?
You believe it's a probability of 0 only because of the guardrails, i.e. the guardrails are actively preventing the probability from being nonzero. Hence a strong tendency prevented from taking effect by a set of guardrails.
I on the other hand do not believe there's any such tendency at all and hence no need for a guardrail.
>It's self-evident that without guardrails anything goes.
Nah, that's just Semitic Lotan/Tiamat/Leviathan mythology, essentially the belief that reality fundamentally has a tendency to generate random chaotic bullshit and this tendency is kept in check by the sky father. I do not subscribe to that belief.

>>18476259
How do you know what the tendency is? False vacuum decay could change your physical laws to allow homosexual magical men to pleasure you.

>>18476255
>Where you thought I said there were exceptions?
when you mentioned future contingents, or did you already forget about that?
> And that makes it false?
it's on the same level of a flying spaghetti monster. since you also can't prove one doesn't exist, it must. notice how your disingenous retardation becomes retarded?
>Glad you think it is a solid theory though.
i don't
>if you discover wave function collapse is false
well, at least you admit you fundamentally don't understand how physics work
>Oh no a scientific theory dares propose new physics, how dare they!
fair enough, i should have added "unobservable". that's the convenient part and why it's also kinda retarded. if the wavefunction is real and never collapses, all the branches exist and evolve, so the particle positions are just a label picking out one branch as "actual" while the others continue undisturbed. That makes Bohm look like Many-Worlds with extra structure that does no explanatory work and is a violation of Occam's razor at the level of ontology.
>no u
i dismissed them because there's not much arguing against them since they are not falsifiable. that's not a strawman, it's just a shitty "theory", similar to the spaghetti monster.
>I didn't say it's true because history
"you actually thought classical logic would go down so easily when nothing has budged it for thousands of years" - You
>supernatural is when the law is nature itself
oh, suddenly you just say the thing human logic is trying to describe, is nature itself and equivalent to physics? so you're a physicalist?

>>18476286
>How do you know what the tendency is?
That's what I've been asking you all this time and you've repeatedly refused to answer, anon. You're claiming reality has a tendency to spawn gay Potters, I want to know why you think that.

>>18476292
Will power (the supernatural) is real
There are people, who you can observe, who are actively trying to transform themselves into gay harry potter.

>>18476280
>hurr you believe reality makes sense therefore if you didn't believe that reality wouldn't make sense
Brilliant. You can't even make sense of what you believe in because you have abandoned logical reasoning idiot. Your belief in unrestricted chaos is exactly why you believe there is a non-zero chance to have Harry giving you a magical time in your ass. People who don't believe there is such a tendency at all will say it's completely impossible.

>>18475624
Can you prove that?

File: images (4).jpg (31 KB, 686x447)

31 KB JPG

>>18476344
>Can you prove that?
Easily
>inb4 muh Brain is just a transdimensional antenna therefore consciousness can still exist

>>18476338
Of course it's completely impossible, it would only be possible if reality were at its core analogous to Semitic Lotan/Tiamat/Leviathan mythology. I don't know how you're still getting confused by this.

>>18476347
You haven't proved anything though.

>>18476364
If consciousness isn't an illusion, why do physical influences alter consciousness?

>>18475613
>The retard is having the same problem as with the necessary being the other day
Both of you retards are claiming there is something preventing illogical things from happening. It's irrelevant wether we're claiming they're linguistic constructs or not.
I, on the other hand actually believe there are no guardrails. At any point reality could change to allow for magical gaylords to spontaneously emerge from some retard's rectum. History says it's unlikely, but it can happen.
Logic forms our models of reality. And also forms some other shit that we've found no use for yet. Without logic the models can't exist. Logic is necessary for them. (and there is something more necessary than logic)

>>18476348
>Of course it's completely impossible, [Lotan/Tiamat/Leviathan] prevents it
>Of course it's completely impossible, [its completely null tendency] prevents it

>>18476486
>If Marduk didn't defeat Tiamat, how come I'm not being sodomized by Harry Potter right now?
Tiamat does not exist.

>>18476499
You're calling "Marduk" by a different name.

>>18476502
No, I'm saying Tiamat does not exist so there's no need for Marduk to defeat her. Meanwhile you keep saying that if on my view Marduk does not exist, then my view implies Tiamat will summon Harry Potter to fuck you in the ass.

File: image_2026-05-14_185900908.png (251 KB, 565x354)

251 KB PNG

>>18475613

>>18476506
That's not what I'm saying.
You're both wrong. There is something beyond logic preventing illogical things from happening. The reason we don't expect that is because it hasn't happened in the past. We assume reality just doesn't change like that.

>>18476518
Actually, no. It is what I'm saying. It's just that Marduk/Tiamat makes it sound dualistic like they're on equal terms. I'm really not familiar with their mythologies.

>>18476518
>>18476527
I don't give a shit if you have some pet hypothesis that you like. My argument is with the guy who's constantly sperging that my view implies the spontaneous generation of married bachelors or gay Harry Potters. Which it doesn't because it does not contain a Tiamat to generate them.

>>18476538
But it does. And his also does.

>>18476554
It clearly does not because it does not contain a Tiamat. You can try to argue the view is false because Tiamat exists, but you can't just take the view, add Tiamat to it and pretend that you're still arguing against my view.

>>18476559
I dungedid. Why don't illogical things happen?

>>18476559
What is your view? Give us a short tldr

>>18476569
"Illogical things" are just weird uses of language. There's no reason to think the universe should spontaneously generate a married bachelor for you just because you can open your piehole and make the sounds that are understood to refer to "married" and "bachelor" in quick succession.

>>18476578
Literally just scroll up the thread, lazy zoomer.
>but I can't follow the conversation, I'll get confused about which posts are yours
Then you're too low IQ to get my view anyway.

>>18476581
Why are they weird?

>>18476585
>tries to conceal his view instead of plainly stating it
So you're just a trolling faggot

>>18476590
Because grammar doesn't inherently make exceptions for semantics.
>>18476591
>please reiterate your view that you had to repeat to some dumb faggot like five times already one more time for me, I'm lazy as shit
Fuck off.

>>18475613
I define myself as a Skeptic. I see that Physicalism is mighty but I leave some room for doubt.
At the end, physicalism cannot be proven, like any other philosophy. At least not by HARD evidences.

>>18476585
Low IQ only means it's harder to understand, but not impossible. You can do it, I believe in you.

>>18476595
>grammar doesn't inherently make exceptions for semantics
Why?
Hold on. [Grammar] is preventing [our] invocations from being real?

>>18476604
>Why?
How could it? Grammatical categories are generalisations.
>Hold on. [Grammar] is preventing [our] invocations from being real?
No. Where did you get the bright idea that there needs to be something causally preventing whatever dumb shit you let escape from your mouth from spontaneously turning into reality? You think you're some kind of misunderstood sorcerer or some shit?

>>18476596
>At the end, physicalism cannot be proven
I think you misunderstand physicalism a bit. Physicalism is self evident, the "proof" of physicalism is that everything you (and we as humans) observe and have encountered so far exists and interacts in accordance with physical laws.
What you probably mean is that physicalism can't disprove other worldviews namely there being the existence of a potential creator of the physical world etc.
but technically speaking, physicalism makes no statements about this other than "we don't know".

>>18476609
>You
I'm no sorcerer. The brackets are for you to replace the words. What I'm understanding is that the Tiamat here is whatever disturbed mind comes up with faggot boy wizards, or square circles, or extreme curvatures of spacetime (Einstein only could theorize them), or doubling the volume of a cube with straightedge and compass. And the Marduk is whatever grammatical state-of-things you're trying to explain.

>>18476626
>What I'm understanding is that the Tiamat here is whatever disturbed mind comes up with faggot boy wizards, or square circles, or extreme curvatures of spacetime (Einstein only could theorize them), or doubling the volume of a cube with straightedge and compass. And the Marduk is whatever grammatical state-of-things you're trying to explain.
I'll admit that's a pretty funny way to put it but it's not altogether accurate. If you want to keep using the Tiamat/Marduk metaphor, Tiamat would be something like people's propensity to use language in weird ways and Marduk would be logic, but logic as in a formal language that we use to supervise our use of common language rather than logic as some metaphysical set of laws that literally prevent married bachelors from popping into existence.
It all comes down to the olde map and territory distinction, all very played out and boring of course.

>>18476637
Nigga, laws of physics work that way too. They were not written in a document by some dude at some point in the past and enforced the way human law is applied.
(Or maybe they are and that's why we call them both laws)
Prescriptive/descriptive was the distinction I think.

>>18476640
Of course, but the fact that such and such things do so and so is more fundamentally real than purely linguistic bullshit like "there can't be a married bachelor".

With God, all things are possible.

>>18476749
Well, except lifting an impossibly heavy rock ofc (logic (pbuh) forbids this)

>>18476755
>impossibly heavy rock
When the immovable stone is moved from the entrance of the cave, you will see an empty tomb. Do not be alarmed or afraid. You must let him go, so that you may recieve the new advocate.

>>18476767
It only appears as if the tomb is empty. There are actually 2 angels there, and a guy who looks the gardener, but might actually just be an amazing topiary.