• MotoAsh@lemmy.worldEnglish
    171·
    6 months ago

    You’re just describing the mechanics of a coincidence, which is exactly the entire point.

    I don’t assume intention with Hamlet. There WAS intent there. The entire fucking point of the expression is people add intention when there IS NOT any. By using a situation that DID have intent, it is quite literally missing the entire point.

    It is utterly stupid to try and twist a reality in to a different, incompatible hypothetical. Especially when reality is antithetical to the entire point.

    • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      37·
      6 months ago

      If no free will, no intention. It’s that simple. In strict determinism, every action, thought, feeling, whatever, was predetermined at the moment of the big bang by the starting state and physics.

      I’m absolutely saying that all of humanities creations are “coincidence”. Just because you don’t like what I have to say doesn’t make me stupid. I know what I was describing.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
        7·
        6 months ago

        Why does intention have to be a nondeterministic thing? Can’t people indent to do something, even if they were determined to intend to choose it?

      • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        But given enough humans just faffing about randomly, one will eventually think up and write down “Hamlet”.

        In strict determinism, every action, thought, feeling, whatever, was predetermined at the moment of the big bang by the starting state and physics.

        Determinism and randomness cannot coexist.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        You’re reading the expression totally backwards. It says absolutely nothing about choice, but the illusion of coincidence. If anything, the point backs up a lack of choice and reinforces the point that humans are full of themselves…