Absolutist Result Theory

[Hysnit]

Absolutist result theory is a new concept, not one that you can Google or do research on. I am interested to hear what the philosophers and debaters of NSG have to think about it. Here it is:

1. Every action has a result
2. This result is absolute and unchangeable unless another action is take upon it.
3. This secondary action may be anything ranging from the physical (i.e. hitting) to the psychological (i.e. telling yourself to calm down) to the abstract (i.e. time) to almost anything else.

Essentially it's almost like Newton's First Law of Motion: "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." In this case, the result of the hypothetical situation is the object within the law, and the secondary action within the hypothetical situation is the external force within the law.

Let me know what you think, and I hope to have a civil and interesting discussion.

It's quite interesting to try and apply it to almost anything you can think of, and you might be able to make it work. However, it's not really relevant for anything life-changing. It's just something interesting to think about for now.

[Xathranaar]

Explain to me how this is at all new.

[The Corparation]

How is this a new concept?

[Ifreann]

"Stuff happens, then doesn't, unless it does".

Mind. Blown.

[Hysnit]

Explain to me how this is at all new.

Show me a source of someone presenting it as a separate theory of action as an abstract concept, please.

[Xathranaar]

Explain to me how this is at all new.

Show me a source of someone presenting it as a separate theory of action as an abstract concept, please.

Determinism?

[Aggicificicerous]

You took Newton's first law, changed a few words, and are now trying to pass it off as a new philosophical school of thought?

[Hysnit]

"Stuff happens, then doesn't, unless it does".

Mind. Blown.

Not exactly.
"Stuff happens, then cannot change, unless other stuff happens."

[Ifreann]

Explain to me how this is at all new.

Show me a source of someone presenting it as a separate theory of action as an abstract concept, please.

It's not a "theory of action", it's a weird restatement of what the words "action" and "result" mean.

[Ifreann]

"Stuff happens, then doesn't, unless it does".

Mind. Blown.

Not exactly.
"Stuff happens, then cannot change, unless other stuff happens."

I believe the appropriate response is "Well duh".

[Hysnit]

You took Newton's first law, changed a few words, and are now trying to pass it off as a new philosophical school of though?

It's not taken from Newton's first law, it's developed separately and then compared to the law. And I'm not trying to pass it off as "a new philosophical school of thought." It's merely an interesting theory to think about.

[Nadkor]

"Stuff happens, then doesn't, unless it does".

Mind. Blown.

Not exactly.
"Stuff happens, then cannot change, unless other stuff happens."

And...you think this is new?!

Fucking hell.

[Aggicificicerous]

You took Newton's first law, changed a few words, and are now trying to pass it off as a new philosophical school of though?

It's not taken from Newton's first law, it's developed separately and then compared to the law. And I'm not trying to pass it off as "a new philosophical school of thought." It's merely an interesting theory to think about.

It would be more interesting if it were actually new or original.

[Grand Britannia]

Hi there zombie Newton.

Hate to break it to ya bud, but we already know your stuff.

[Wikkiwallana]

The Double Slit Experiment would like a word with you.

[Ifreann]

You took Newton's first law, changed a few words, and are now trying to pass it off as a new philosophical school of though?

It's not taken from Newton's first law, it's developed separately and then compared to the law. And I'm not trying to pass it off as "a new philosophical school of thought." It's merely an interesting theory to think about.

You do the word "theory" a great disservice.

[Hysnit]

Show me a source of someone presenting it as a separate theory of action as an abstract concept, please.

It's not a "theory of action", it's a weird restatement of what the words "action" and "result" mean.

Not exactly.
"Stuff happens, then cannot change, unless other stuff happens."

And...you think this is new?!

Fucking hell.

I think the confusion here is that this theory is meant to apply to all action in an abstract sense. Hypothetical motion, etc. It's kind of tough to explain, but it basically boils down to things being in an absolute state unless acted upon. I know it seems pretty damn obvious, and most of it is, but thinking about it in an abstract sense is what makes it interesting in my opinion.

Show me a source of someone presenting it as a separate theory of action as an abstract concept, please.

Determinism?

Close, I suppose, but not exactly. This theory applies to everything, while determinism applies to only certain situations from my understanding of it.

[Wikkiwallana]

Please stop abusing the word "theory" like that.

[Nadkor]

Please stop calling it a theory.

[Nadkor]

Please stop abusing the word "theory" like that.

Damn you.

[Hysnit]

It's not taken from Newton's first law, it's developed separately and then compared to the law. And I'm not trying to pass it off as "a new philosophical school of thought." It's merely an interesting theory to think about.

You do the word "theory" a great disservice.

Please stop abusing the word "theory" like that.

Please stop calling it a theory.

From Merriam Webster, the definition of theory:
"abstract thought : speculation."
That's precisely what this is.

[The Corparation]

You do not have a theory.

[EnragedMaldivians]

"Stuff happens, then doesn't, unless it does".

Mind. Blown.

Not exactly.
"Stuff happens, then cannot change, unless other stuff happens."

I guess this is the kind of redundant nonsense I deserve to read for being awake at 5:17 am.

[Xathranaar]

It's not a "theory of action", it's a weird restatement of what the words "action" and "result" mean.

And...you think this is new?!

Fucking hell.

I think the confusion here is that this theory is meant to apply to all action in an abstract sense. Hypothetical motion, etc. It's kind of tough to explain, but it basically boils down to things being in an absolute state unless acted upon. I know it seems pretty damn obvious, and most of it is, but thinking about it in an abstract sense is what makes it interesting in my opinion.

Determinism?

Close, I suppose, but not exactly. This theory applies to everything, while determinism applies to only certain situations from my understanding of it.

Err... no. Determinism applies to everything, it just happens to be wrong on certain scales. Which is to say that your... umm... theory, is wrong.

[Stuckenburg]

Sounds like the same reason that makes me believe time travel in almost 100% of the cases would destroy the universe.