u/AlterTheSilverBird

This is a question I've been meaningt to ask since I asked about the scenario if I resetted my life if my exact life would happen again or if it could be different and someone argued while it's plausible, there's nothing that makes it impossible to happen.

Now I wonder whether it's plausible if we ever did a Rollback Scenario, it's possible another choice could've happened even if the exact conditions before the choice happened and whether our current understanding of physics allow it or not.

From what I've researched and asked from people who work on quantum studies, it depends on what deterministic system. Many World theory would suggest its plausible you could experience a different scenario in a Rollback Scenario because all possibility happened in deviating branches and your branch could be different, but according to Pilot Wave, it shouldn't unless the Pilot Wave dictate the Rollback Scenario or that the prior conditions had hidden variables that changed even if all measurable variables are the same.

So that's what I'm asking, would it be irrational for a Compatibilist to say in a Rollback scenaio, things could be different even if determinism were true?

I'm personally leaning the world works on probability then linearity where even the most linear system seem to accept other scenarios even if we can only ever experience one but I'd like to hear from others.

Panpsychism has been an idea that existed for years, and yet it seems especially in the 2020s the idea has become so common I see it among conferences, debates, and even orientation about consciousness.

Why do you think in the recent years it's gained more popularity and what's it appeal that it still remains convincing to many even with issues like the Combination Problem?

I'm aware in the conscious talk sphere, many influencial figures like Philip Goff and Christof Koch has talked about its strengths while acknowledging its weaknesses and even David Chalmers despite his agnosticism clearly seem to find panpsychism appealing with the way he talks about it. I also heard it does seem to be a better balance for the strengths and problems physicalism and dualism has which kinda make sense to me.

I also seem to find more papers in PhilPaper and ResearchGate discussing the idea with their own concepts on its weaknesses, strengths, and potential answers for its flaws.

https://preview.redd.it/9lzk4e47klzg1.jpg?width=230&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9636e4e275cda95b4b467d8454945a4abd9738e0

I got inspired by someone asking if ONC wrote Amy and Samey, and saw someone point out potential sexualities, with everyone agreeing Samey would be lesbian. So that make ask what would be the rest of the cast orientation if ONC wrote the cast. My personal guess would be:

• Samey (Lesbian)
• Amy (Straigth or closeted bi)
• Shawn (Romantic asexual)
• Jasmine (Bi or Pan)
• Sky (Straigth or bi)
• Dave (Straigth)
• Sugar (Straigth)
• Max (Asexual considering he never reacted to everyone thinking he and Scarlet are together)
• Scarlet (Pan but more focus on ambition then romance)
• Topher (Gay)
• Ella (Straigth or Pan)
• Rodney (Straigth but open, maybe Rodney thought he was dating a non-binary once and was OK with it)
• Leonard (Asexual)
• Beardo (Bi... no clue on him)

Some are hard because we don't have too much character on them.

I'm intrigue with the Ship of Theseus thought puzzle and while there are many ways to look at it, whether you define identity via spatial-temporal continuity, functionality, or the view that the problem is linguistic.

However one interesting view is four-dimensionalism, the idea identity are slices of time that extends beyond stretches of time and my interest in quantum studies via the theories of consciousness involving quantum mechanics does add new depth and reason for me to view it via four-dimensionalism, because the quantum understanding of matter and physics via fields and quarks does add an in-depth view on how we all change, and its claims that both ships in the thought puzzle are the Ship of Theseus since at some point of time there identity was that and that identity doesn't change even if it ceases to be.

Now I'm well aware this view isn't flawless and there's argument for and against four-dimensonalism, but I'm interested in knowing whether in current academia viewing objects that way would be viewed as rational or not?

I feel it captures identity more closely on the nature of what things are really are in a microscopic spatial-temporal level but I understand Endurantism has its own strengths and it captures our intuitive view on identity, although I personally I think one can use both views of identity depending on the context.

I admit one of the biggest issues I had when study philosophy was de-learning everything I learned from subreddits like the ones in the title, so I want to ask why do you think the people seem to know everything about the topic of said sub reddit yet going here it seems so shallow or even misunderstood?

One the example is how confident in for example in the Existelianism thread one of the top answers about free will is the claim that its fake and were hardwired software that is fooled to believe it exist where even the biggest skeptics clearly wouldn't even agree to this conclusions.

So why is there a disconnect between the philosophy discussion here and those thread when they seem so confident about the ideas that seem flawed or misunderstood?