What is physicalism, if not everything coming from physics? — Patterner

Seems that you and ↪Wayfarer are looking at different parts of the same elephant : equations or experiments. — Gnomon

Uncertainty arises from thinking of waves as particles. — Dfpolis

No, I do not mean physicalism. I'm saying that all behaviour, including language, can be predicted from physics. — GrahamJ

Similarly, if you insist that a pig can fly, you will have difficulty explaining how. — Dfpolis

The ultimate constituents of the world are individual substances (I would prefer 'subjects'), which Leibniz calls monads. These are minds, or mind- like. Each of them represents the world in some way. They include God, you, next-door’s cat, and countless much less sophisticated monads corresponding to various material features of the world. But none of them is itself, strictly speaking, material. […] For neither space nor time is an ultimate feature of reality…rather, space and time are features of how reality appears to certain of these monads. Leibniz is an idealist.” — 3 Concepts from Leibniz

Wayfarer seems dubious about the science. — GrahamJ

this future 'you' will have no conscious connection with the present you whatsoever. — Janus

I cannot make rational sense of the idea — Janus

Kastrup also holds that free will is an illusion. — Janus

the question of free will boils down to one of metaphysics: are our felt volitional states reducible to something outside and independent of consciousness? If so, there cannot be free will, for we can only identify with contents of consciousness. But if, instead, neurophysiology is merely how our felt volitional states present themselves to observation from an outside perspective—that is, if neurophysiology is merely the image of conscious willing, not its cause or source—then we do have free will; for in the latter case, our choices are determined by volitional states we intuitively regard as expressions of ourselves.

Is the determinism replaced, or is it simply the case that you can't know the initial conditions of a system with perfect precision? — wonderer1

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide… . However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impression that uncertainty arises only when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement. As an example, take a look at a particularly simple probability wave for a particle, the analog of a gently rolling ocean wave, shown in Figure 4.6.

Since the peaks are all uniformly moving to the right, you might guess that this wave describes a particle moving with the velocity of the wave peaks; experiments confirm that supposition. But where is the particle? Since the wave is uniformly spread throughout space, there is no way for us to say that the electron is here or there. When measured, it literally could be found anywhere. So while we know precisely how fast the particle is moving, there is huge uncertainty about its position. And as you see, this conclusion does not depend on our disturbing the particle. We never touched it. Instead, it relies on a basic feature of waves: they can be spreak out. — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos

The wave equations of quantum theory are well confirmed, and they are deterministic. — Dfpolis

It is an accepted fact that all unobserved processes are deterministic — Dfpolis

If not, the p-zombie would 'say the things it would have to say to make us think it was conscious' because ... physics. — GrahamJ

What I am curious about is why people care about it, since it obviously cannot be personal survival of death. Is it an irrational fear of annihilation? — Janus

However, Stevenson’s work has been severely critiqued for its methodological flaws. — IEP Immortality

The overarching question of the dialogue is what will happen to Socrates when he dies. — Fooloso4

Reincarnation involves something moving from one body to the next - being clear as to the nature of that something is central. — Banno

I've never even visited the ChatGPT website. — baker

it seems reasonable to ask what it is that is reincarnated — Banno

that waves cannot be described simply by space and time.
— Metaphysician Undercover
I do not say "by," but "in" space and time. — Dfpolis

Your accusations made me feel like shit and made me doubt myself. — baker

I do not find the idea conceivable. — Patterner

Take Janus's recommendation, Wayf, and actually (re)read Spinoza on his own anti-transcendent terms. — 180 Proof

The former is created nature, transient nature and the latter is the eternal active creative power which brings about created nature. — Janus

Carlisle tries to work between the secularist, naturalistic interpretation on one hand in the romantic picture of the "God intoxicated man" on the other. Her chief insight is that readers tend to rely too heavily and uncritically on Spinoza's phrase "God or Nature" in understanding his thought. Relying solely on this phrase "God or Nature" encourages interpretations of Spinoza as a naturalist or as a pantheist. But that phrase needs to be read in light of a more fundamental, developed teaching of Spinoza which Carlisle finds in "Being-in-God" which she describes as "the fundamental tenet of Spinoza's thought". It is found at first in Part One, proposition 15 of the "Ethics", "Whatever is, is in God" and is referred to and expounded upon by Spinoza repeatedly throughout the work. Much of Carlisle's reading of Spinoza is based upon her understanding this proposition and following it through the various parts of the "Ethics".

Expanding upon "Being-in-God, Carlisle argues that Spinoza's thought is more akin to panentheism than to either naturalism or pantheism. Reality, for Spinoza. consists of the single substance and of modes, which are dependent upon substance. The dependent, partial modes, including human beings, do not exhaust substance but are "in" it or "participate in" it. ...

The focus is on an ultimately non-dualistic understanding of the relationship between persons and God. And she rejects what she understands as modernity's and secularism's attempts to objectify religion by defining it in terms of creeds. She argues that Spinoza held to instead a concept of religion more akin to the ancient and medieval concepts of virtue; it is internalized and individual and shows in one's acceptance of oneself and lovingkindness towards others. Carlisle sees religion and philosophy as practiced by Spinoza not as a doctrine but as a way of life. Spinoza devoted his life and his gifts to his search for wisdom and understanding. It is this focus and commitment in living a human life that constitutes the religious search.

What is the point of quoting Maritain? — Janus

Every progress in evolution is dearly paid for; miscarried attempts, merciless struggle everywhere. The more detailed our knowledge of nature becomes, the more we see, together with the element of generosity and progression which radiates from being, the law of degradation, the powers of destruction and death, the implacable voracity which are also inherent in the world of matter. And when it comes to man, surrounded and invaded as he is by a host of warping forces, psychology and anthropology are but an account of the fact that, while being essentially superior to them, he is at the same time the most unfortunate of animals. So it is that when its vision of the world is enlightened by science, the intellect which religious faith perfects realises still better that nature, however good in its own order, does not suffice, and that if the deepest hopes of mankind are not destined to turn to mockery, it is because a God-given energy better than nature is at work in us. — Jacques Maritain

Is nature not eternal? — Janus

I don't know where you got the above passage, — Janus

(1) After experience had taught me that all the usual surroundings of social life are vain and futile; seeing that none of the objects of my fears contained in themselves anything either good or bad, except in so far as the mind is affected by them, I finally resolved to inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else: whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness. ....

...
[10] (1) But love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength. .

Spinoza was a mystic.
— Wayfarer
And this means what? — 180 Proof

If you want to understand Spinoza you need to actually read him. — Janus