How does the fact that point of observation affects the outcome of the experiment fit into this? If there is no consciousness, why does it matter where you observe, as in the case of varying outcomes of the double slit experiment?
Aren’t most philosophers unanimous on this? That the concept of free will can only exist in a world with beings that can act outside the natural world (i.e. god).
Consciousness is a side effect of the structures physics has created in our brains. We have consciousness because of the atoms in our brain that interact with each other in different ways.
That doesn’t sound like someone who believes nothing matters. This would sound more like it:
dfakjdsnhabfkjdhfjksdabckjadsbnvchievfbiq4rjwiofhewnJSABjaksbjakdbjbdahbDHBHabshbSHbhbHSBABHDBSHDBbhba
How does the fact that point of observation affects the outcome of the experiment fit into this? If there is no consciousness, why does it matter where you observe, as in the case of varying outcomes of the double slit experiment?
The “observer” doesn’t have to even be conscious.
I don’t believe in determinism or free will, though. The universe is full of random bullshit and nothing matters 👍
Aren’t most philosophers unanimous on this? That the concept of free will can only exist in a world with beings that can act outside the natural world (i.e. god).
Bruh you really gonna use “most” and “unanimous” side-by-side like that?
Lmao good point. Should have said "most philosophers agree’
Consciousness is a side effect of the structures physics has created in our brains. We have consciousness because of the atoms in our brain that interact with each other in different ways.
That doesn’t sound like someone who believes nothing matters. This would sound more like it:
dfakjdsnhabfkjdhfjksdabckjadsbnvchievfbiq4rjwiofhewnJSABjaksbjakdbjbdahbDHBHabshbSHbhbHSBABHDBSHDBbhba