u/NLOneOfNone

So, I read some comments on Reddit talking about Bazzite being a good Linux distro for gaming so I decided to give it a go. I downloaded the .iso, created a bootable usb-key and installed it besides my existing Windows 11 installations.

I've been hearing so many good stories about how stable Linux is. But I managed to crash it within 2 minutes. All it took was to enable HDR support for my main display. This has always worked under Windows but it doesn't under Bazzite. It does work for the OLED-TV that is also hooked up to the PC.

Ok, no HDR support for my main display, I can live with that. I proceeded to log in to Steam. I thought I'd just add the drives were my Steam games are installed in order to be able to start them from Steam. Nope. NTFS is not supported. I can browse my drives and see the game files but this is not enough for Bazzite.

Apparently, there is NO file-system that is supported on both Windows and Linux. You can run Steam games but, apparently, you'll have to re-format your games-drive and re-download your games in order to play them. If you do that, you can probably no longer play your games under Windows. So, creating a dual boot situation is not that useful if you care about gaming.

At some point I had some errands to run. I went outside but left my computer on. I came back to find the computer had powered off so I powered it back on. Now my keyboard was completely unresponsive. The RGB does not even light up. Turns out my USB-port was destroyed.

I rebooted my machine and booted it into Windows 11. My main screen didn't look to good, as if someone had washed it with bleach. Went into the display settings and turned off HDR support. Now my screen looks alright. Turned it back on and the screen went bad again. Conclusion: HDR on main display: destroyed.

All of this after just a couple of hours of Bazzite. What else can I expect? Is it even smart to keep using it?

Suppose I give you two options:

1. I give you $6000, no consequences, free to spend as you like.
2. I give you $4000, no consequences, free to spend as you like.

Now, what is the reality:

1. There is a 60% chance of you choosing 1 and a 40% chance of you choosing 2.
2. There is a 100% chance of you choosing 1 and a 0% chance of you choosing 2.

A while ago, I wrote a post saying metaphysical libertarianism is the ultimate self-defeating position but I didn’t go into much detail explaining why. I think it should’ve been obvious from the first paragraph but I will go into it in more depth here.

Metaphysical libertarianism is based on the idea that, under the exact same conditions, we are able to do different things. This means that, if we were to ‘rewind the universe’, an agent could make a different decision. This, by itself, already means that the behavior of the agent is not consistent with itself. If the agent came to the conclusion that one option was preferable over the other, what does it say about the agent’s ability to determine the most desirable outcome if they just as easily could have come to a different conclusion under the exact same conditions?

A decision like this, weighing different reasons and cost/benefit to determine the most desirable outcome, is like solving an equation. No matter how many times we solve an equation, the results are always going to be the same. When you argue that we ‘could have done otherwise’, that’s like saying 2+2 sometimes equals 4, sometimes it equals 5, sometimes it equals 9, it can be anything and, whatever it is, it is so for no reason at all. Or it’s like saying 1 is sometimes greater than 2, for no reason at all.

Why for no reason at all? If anyone thinks 2+2 should be equal to 5 for a reason, then that 5 was also calculated. If we were to run all the calculations again, the results would still be the same each and every time. The results wouldn’t be consistent with reality, but they would, at the very least, be consistent with themselves. So, that would still result in an agent always doing the exact same thing under the exact same conditions. This why, for metaphysical libertarianism to be true, we would have to be able to do things for no reason at all.

So, it seems that, for metaphysical libertarianism to “work”, the libertarian would be able to arbitrarily assign values to numbers. With this, calculation (and, essentially, reason and logic) goes out the window. How do you even do calculation if numbers do not have a fixed value? Why even do calculations if you can just make up a result? What is the point of doing reasoning and logic if you are free to come up with any conclusion? What kind of rational argument can you expect from someone who thinks like this? How does anyone reason themselves into a position like this?

Of course, there is no way to explain metaphysical libertarianism. If you understand that 2+2=4, you also understand that it is never anything else, under any circumstance. The only way to fully understand anything, is when there is only one possible result. So, the only rational conclusion would be that even libertarians do not understand their own view, even though they claim they do. Metaphysical libertarianism directly goes into the very essence of what it means to understand. This is why it's completely self-defeating.

Metaphysical libertarianism revolves around this ability to have done otherwise under the exact same conditions. If, somehow, it makes MORE sense to anyone to be able to do multiple things under the exact same conditions than it does to just be able to do the one thing, then there is no point in even arguing with them. The libertarian argues that this ability is completely rational and that it makes sense. But if this isn't completely irrational, then what is? And do they even know what making sense looks like? What does making sense mean to you if an ability to have done otherwise makes sense?

Libertarians want you to provide rational arguments and explanations when arguing against their position. Wait, what? If they care so much about rational arguments and explanations, how the hell did they arrive at metaphysical libertarianism in the first place?

When debating free will with a libertarian, you can always expect skewered reasoning and logic. There will not ever be a rational explanation. They will not engage with any rational arguments. They will not answer your reasonable questions. They will try their hardest to always avoid the point you are making against their view. They will actively refuse to understand anything you say. They will try to invalidate your arguments with pseudo-arguments. It's more productive to talk to a wall.

Intelligence is about solving problems. Instead of solving problems, libertarians have invented a problem that cannot be solved (free will). Intelligence is about understanding and explaining. Libertarian free will does not explain anything and it cannot be explained itself. Libertarianism goes in into everything intelligence is supposed to be and that is exactly what their version of free will would do. So, we might be inclined to think that libertarians actually do have that kind of free will but still no.

The libertarian view is based entirely on a lack of understanding and the libertarian will always have to avoid any meaningful insight to maintain their view. The libertarian is mostly concerned with believing rather than understanding. They are not concerned with making sense, they are concerned with causing and sustaining confusion. They do not want to understand reality and they do not want others to understand it either. If it were up to them, we would stop researching Quantum Mechanics and just accept that randomness governs our fundamental reality.

The moment anyone subscribes to metaphysical libertarianism is the moment they depart from logic and reason. From that point on, they will try to create a reality that fits with they want to believe and that leads them to see things backwards. "Life only has meaning when we have free will", for example. Or, "we need free will to do logic and reasoning". Libertarian Backwards Reasoning®.

But I actually feel bad for them because they are so hopelessly locked in with their delusion. They are determined to be libertarians.