Regardless of how much my ego tries to fight it, It seems obvious to me now that Free Will does not really exist.
Many of the greatest scientists and philosophers are either determinists or compatabilists, compatabilism being the idea that free will and determinism are compatible.
We are free in the sense that there's no restraint on our decision making, but our will is pre-determined based on genetics and past experiences which will formulate our decisions in all circumstances.
We have no control over any of our actions. We simply have the illusion of control.
Everything that drives us to make decisions is determined meaning our actions are already determined.
It's kind of been bugging me.
How do I accept this move on? I know that the self doesn't exist and I can't personally decide to accept this, and the only thing that will grant me acceptance is enlightenment and something to set my mind at ease.
>>17182064
Why are you worried about this?
You really shouldn't be bothering yourself with shit like this. Why the fuck do you think people like Wittgenstein constantly tried to tell his students to study something other than philosophy? Accept that life is the way it is and live your fucking life
>>17182064
dont think about it. me and my ex used to talk about this. its depressing to think about but the key is to pretend that free will does exist.
EXACTLLLLY what I was also thinking about. Makes too much sense to be wrong.
You have to accept. We have a hormonal system, subconscious, genetics and all of it works regardless of us. That sucks, but that's we are - human species. The only way to get yourself some freedom is learning how to work with subconscious so as to gain more control over your body, but this control will never be full though.
>>17182064
if you have no free will then dont bother moving on, whatever is going to happen inside your brain is predetermined right? this whole thread was predetermined right?
>>17182064
Well, for starters, naturalism is false. Therefore you can stop worrying.
Aristotle proved the immateriality of the mind and will centuries ago:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/aristotle_on_th093021.html
>>17182064
>Free Will does not really exist
Only if you have an impossible standard of free will.
Free from any outside influences? Of course not, you'd have no personality and no will at all without outside influences.
Free in that you have the ability to cognitively consider between choices and select the one that is most compatible with your individual will? Now that does exist, and that's why we do hold you accountable for your actions. Do outside influences factor into your decision AND help create your will? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that you made a conscious decision.
Again, this concept is only true if you set an unreasonably high standard for "free will."
If you think you can't do shit about it then why care about it? If what happens happen and if you can't affect it then what's the problem?
Thinking is the outcome of billions of microreactions within our brains. This is what is called an organic computer. This computer allows us to think, to feel. We only use a certain percentage of our brain to think and to do (I think, therefore i am). However, we don't use the other parts of our brain such as the subconcious. The subconcious controls our bodily functions (heart etc.) Therefore, there is no free will. Only subconcious guiding our actions.
Fool proof <insert lenny face>
>>17182064
>It seems obvious to me now that Free Will does not really exist.
stop blaming others for being a shitheel you cumrag
Even if free will does not exist (I do not think it does), we are too retarded to understand our own brains and the lack of free will. So why not accept things the way you feel, as if we have free will?
You should read some of Derk Pereboom's stuff. He is a determinist but he paints the lack of free will in a very positive light. Basically, with no free will there can be no true evil, only the conditions that drive people to do evil. If you change those conditions it is possible to achieve a better world. It is an optimistic and naive view, but it counterbalances the "free will is false and nothing matters now" idea.
>>17182064
>Read "De servo Arbitrio/ The bondage of the will".
>Read "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will"
>Realize that an (partially) unfree will is actually better for us than a totally free one, which would force us to fight against mauvaise foi.
>Be happy.
There you go, Anon.
>>17182064
>We are free in the sense that there's no restraint on our decision making, but our will is pre-determined based on genetics and past experiences which will formulate our decisions in all circumstances.
>We have no control over any of our actions.
Not necessarily/ only as long as you do not reflect upon that.
If you once in a while force urself to go against what your instinct "wants" you basically trcik the system.
>>17182064
As a physicist not at all. Since Im educated enough to know that determinism is blatantly false.
Hell its impossible to even predict where an electron will be in the next moment. Theres a shit ton of room for freewill but it depends on how you define free will.
Please dont fall into that pop science trap. It triggers me so much,
>>17182064
A lot of people these days seem to think that "nothing matters" because free will does not exist. But that is a false conclusion. There is no way to logically conclude that from that premise. It's an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
Your brain is being tricked when it hears it "can't decide" or that it "isn't in control". Of course it can decide, it does it all the time and you are very much capable of survival and reproduction (We have a sense of "us" which does not really exist. What exists is our brain). You are having an unwarranted emotional reaction. For a dumb example, you see someone spill a red slushy everywhere and from a distance it seems to your emotional center that they were attacked and blood has splattered everywhere, so you get scared and ready to defend yourself, but your intellect can comprehend the fact that it was a harmless occurrence and that your emotions are unwarranted.
Emotions are deeply wired automatic systems, but you can use your intellect to try to soothe them.
>>17182426
I dont understand how people in general feel like free will doesnt exist.
>>17182444
I do not think it does. There is no indication that your decision making process is causally separate from the rest of nature.
>>17182404
But as this poster said, there may be some room for free will in there, but there is no obvious indication that it is there, or how it works, or why it would be there (evolutionarily speaking).
>>17182404
Inability to predict an outcome does not mean that the outcome is not decided by rules and states.
>>17182470
> there is no obvious indication that it is there
Its probably there. Its an extemely hubris position to say its not. We dont even have a fraction of an understanding of how non deterministic systems work and life is so fucking complex we just guess stuff.
>evolutionarily speaking
lol did you really say that. Theres no reason for life to exist. But it does. evolution doesnt decide as much as you think pal and things dont exist as they are because evolution says its beneficial. I hate how uneducated the mass is about evolution.
I know this sounds corny, but hear me out.
Determinism actually made me feel better about the world. It helped me become a more compassionate and understanding person, and more forgiving of my own mistakes. Before I used to get incredibly angry at anyone who did something wrong, regardless of what circumstances drove them to that. But then I realized that my futile anger solves nothing and started putting my energies to solving the root of the problem instead.
The human brain is wired for retributivism - it feels good when we dish out to someone what they "deserve." But it's just not a logical or reasonable way to run a justice system. The sooner we realize this and accept determinism, the sooner we can move toward a more utilitarian justice system where punishment for punishment's sake is superfluous and actual problems can be solved.
>>17182484
learn about what nondeterministic systems are before you speak
>>17182489
I don't mean to say that free will wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous, in fact I figure it would be because then we wouldn't have to evolve so many damn adaptations. I meant how exactly would it come about physically. Perhaps you could enlighten us, but as you said, we have no idea how nondeterministic systems work, so it appears that no one can.
It's not hubris to claim free will doesn't exist, it's hubris to claim it does. We have no idea how it could be there exactly.
if you want to get even more deep, you should love into the Nietzsche philosophy about the slave and nobility morality.
>>17182509
Do you feel as though your will is not free. If not why do not. I certainly feel as though mine is. do you have some science saying its not there.
And as a tip, the universe is far more complex that what is physically there. Its really stupid to think that way. Its why the fundamental forces are so hard to describe. Because at its heart things just magically interact. What we do know is that the standard model for particles is wrong. It works for macroscopic things but its definitively wrong so please dont try to argue for physicalism based on that. String theory might be right. But its literally impossible to confirm that unless we figure out how to harness gravitons.
Well determinism certainly exists in the universe but it is only half the equation, free will is the random component in our reality. If there was no free will how could we ever imagine something that has no basis in our reality? Also, as another anon has stated earlier in this thread, complete free will does not exist. There is free will but not without consequence; and there is always a choice.
That which is finite cannot imagine or understand the concept of infinite. This separates us from the animals (not saying we're better than them), we can comprehend that there is a past present and future.
Free will can be explained through reason, and it has no quarrel with determinism as they are both just 2 sides of the same coin.
>>17182536
I do not feel as if my will is unfree, I am just making a logical argument which I have already stated.
In fact I think people do feel as if their will is free, and maybe I am included in that. It likely has something to do with the fact that our conscious experience is very much an experience of decision making. We see our decision making process in action, but our subconscious is hidden from us and it is where decision making really starts (and the subconscious is affected by our bodies and our enviroment), so it seems like our decision making process starts in the conscious, when in fact it does not, it just has a vanishing point.
>>17182554
>Well determinism certainly exists in the universe
Bro high probability does not make it determinism.
>>17182507
> nondeterministic systems
> nondeterministic
> systems
Nigga that's an oxymoron
>>17182564
>I do not feel as if my will is unfree
Yet you believe that it is not. Which is weird since theres not evidence for that.
Also do you understand what it means to be selfaware and evaluating. Because the rest of your post makes me believe otherwise.
>>17182064
Used to
Then I realized what our purpose is. And how our leaders go through great lengths to convince you otherwise.
Life isn't meaningless. This world was made for us. If you want to get something done go out and do it.
>>17182565
>What goes up must come down
That's determinism. And it exists, alongside free will.
>>17182573
No you just have a premature concept of how things work.
>>17182591
>using classical physics to argue for determinism
You could teleport to pluto in the next few seconds in all honesty. Theres just a next to none chance of that happening.
Oh and our theory on gravity is completely wrong. Its part of why we know the standard model is wrong. Gravity as we know it and as you are trying to use it only works for macroscopic things. Or instead of saying works I should say models.
>>17182582
What do you mean there is not evidence for that? I have have just argued for that.
About self-awareness and evaluation, I am self-aware that my subconscious controls what I do, it is just that much of the time I am not, and many people are not and some never are, so again, with reference to my previous post, we feel our will to be free, when in fact it is not because our intellect tells us that it is not if we properly consider the matter.
Again, I leave the possibility of free will intact, but in our current understanding, it cannot fit in anywhere in a way that we can understand.
>>17182592
Or you just have an incorrect idea of how things work.
Though I will say that we will never really know the ultimate truths of existence, since we "understand" the rules of the universe using a brain made up of the same stuff we are studying.
>>17182620
Well I have a physics masters. So Id say I understand enough to know you dont know what youre saying. Its a very premature understanding of how things work based on what sounds like classical mechanics.
>>17182599
The point is the same. There are absolutes that exist in nature. Do you know what an absolute is? It means it always is always will be, flawlessly; 100% of the time. And that is part of the deterministic component of reality. And it doesn't matter if you believe in it or not, because it exists OBJECTIVELY of your perceptions, and will exist long after you're gone and there is nothing you can do about it. And with that I am through responding to you.
>>17182609
You didnt argue for it. You just said we dont know how it would work. Which isnt an argument for anything since we dont know how hardly anything works.
>I am self-aware that my subconscious controls what I do
Alright so you dont understand what consciousness and subconsciousness really is. Thats fine since neuroscientist dont either. But as a tip, we do know they are in separate parts of the brain. the subconscious is what we call lower level functions of the brain. The things that still work in invalids. Higher level functions are the parts of the brain responsible for consciousness and what shuts down for invalids.
>our intellect tells us that it is not if we properly consider the matter.
Please make an argument for this.
>it cannot fit in anywhere in a way that we can understand.
>our current understanding
That is laughable. And what do you think our current understanding is and why do you think its right.
>>17182637
>There are absolutes that exist in nature
Name some? then name exactly how its deterministic.
>>17182659
I think it is very obvious at this point that we have conflicting epistemological stances. I am a fallibilist, so I am saying that I am correct based on current understanding, leaving room for the possibility that I may be wrong in the future when our understanding has changed.
By subconscious I mean literally that, that which is below the conscious, or more precisely, that which we do not know about consciously, much of which is the more neurological definition of subconscious.
>our intellect tells us that it is not if we properly consider the matter.
I did, if you look back. Don't pull amnesia on me.
>That is laughable. And what do you think our current understanding is and why do you think its right.
If you read my post I think you could easily deduce what our current understanding of things is. And I am fully aware of the poverty of our current understanding.
Now, are you an agnostic regarding free will or are you really making an argument from ignorance?
>>17182667
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another.
It's deterministic because it works out like this everytime. No exception. The truth is always simple.
>>17182730
>Energy cannot be created or destroyed
>It's deterministic because it works out like this everytime. No exception.
One thats cute because its wrong. Two even if it were true that wouldnt be a deterministic thing. Its not working out like that. You didnt do anything. You might as well have just said I exist.
Protip: as things start moving close to the speed of light, the conservation of energy can be violated but only if its compensated for later.
>>17182740
Protip: if it has to be compensated for later then just proves that there's no way around it.
>>17182726
>so I am saying that I am correct based on current understanding
You are saying you are correct based on an understanding we know is not only incomplete, but wrong. Do you want a cookie for that.
>I did, if you look back. Don't pull amnesia on me.
You didnt.
>If you read my post I think you could easily deduce what our current understanding of things is
But you dont know what that current understanding is.
I personally believe in free will. But Im not going to say that its an absolute belief because it can be wrong. Since the only thing I have to go off of is my own experience which is very fallible. But until I see a reason to believe otherwise Im not going to believe my experience is wrong just because I dont understand.
>>17182751
Stop being stupid. The law of conservation of energy can be violated. Its a well known phenomenon.
You shouldnt try to use things they teach you in fun physics to argue because 90% of it is wrong and very simplied.
If you make energy, then destroy it later, are you really trying to argue the you didnt create or destroy energy.
>>17182760
Now we're are arguing physics which admittedly is not my strong suit. But, it makes no difference because the oriognal argument was wether free will exists or not and the simple answer is yes. Same with determinism. These claims are indisputable and if you did a bit of research on your own you could know that for yourself. What I want to know is why you have the erroneous belief that determinism isn't as much a component of our reality as is free will; or better yet you could explain what your actual beliefs on this are.
>>17182772
>What I want to know is why you have the erroneous belief that determinism isn't as much a component of our reality
because the universe is probabilistic. not deterministic. determinism died with quantum mechanics. If everything is made up of indeterministic particles, what exactly is deterministic.
>>17182599
I don't know why this question keeps coming up in the past few days, but I've posted this several times. The majority opinion amongst physicists and neuroscientists is that the brain isn't deterministic, and that's not even bringing philosophy into the picture. What implication that has for free will exactly is a complex and nuanced question, but none of this is likely to be answered in our lifetimes, if ever.
You must be pretty wise for something to be obvious to you that the greatest minds in the world reserve judgment on.
>>17182790
and where did I say the brain is deterministic. By the fact that its made up of particles its not deterministic.
Psych grad here.
Yes, there is a biological basis for every thought and emotion. There's a basic format thats given to us through our human dna, then more specified through genetic inherentence.. Then this structure (neural network of the brain) is shaped by our very own life experiences.
But thats all the how, not the why. The why is up to you. No matter how you are 'experiencing' this reality, no matter how this perception is brought about, you still have to move and act in it. You CAN CHOOSE to lie on the ground and do nothing, literally starve to death and die. Is this more appealing than than living a life without 'free will'?
My point is that, even our choices are limited by biological, genetic, and learned predispositions, and we are kind of stuck within these 'prisms' of our minds, the experience of it is still worthwhile and offer plenty of room for creativity. Its like how everyone has to eat some kind of food to survive, but look at all the variety and different kinds of meals we have created to be experienced. The simple fact that there is a natural restriction has not caused a restriction in the expression of the thing itself.
>>17182754
>You are saying you are correct based on an understanding we know is not only incomplete, but wrong. Do you want a cookie for that.
We know it is likely wrong because it is incomplete. Is there another understanding?
Here are my points...
>There is no indication that your decision making process is causally separate from the rest of nature.
So we assume that our action is determined by something not ourselves, that is, nature.
Here is the explanation as to why the idea of free will exists:
>It likely has something to do with the fact that our conscious experience is very much an experience of decision making. We see our decision making process in action, but our subconscious is hidden from us and it is where decision making really starts (and the subconscious is affected by our bodies and our enviroment), so it seems like our decision making process starts in the conscious, when in fact it does not, it just has a vanishing point.
>I personally believe in free will. But Im not going to say that its an absolute belief because it can be wrong. Since the only thing I have to go off of is my own experience which is very fallible. But until I see a reason to believe otherwise Im not going to believe my experience is wrong just because I dont understand.
You believe will to be free and account for the possibility that you are wrong. I believe will is unfree and account for the possibility that I am wrong.
So it comes down to who has the better argument. Mine is based on an understanding of some kind and yours is based on an appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy. So I must necessarily win when considering our two arguments alone, though I may be wrong otherwise.
QED
>>17182795
Well, you see, MISTER IDIOT, what you said was
No just kidding, I meant to quote the OP. Absolutely no idea how I managed to quote your post instead, but my bad.
>>17182804
>We know it is likely wrong because it is incomplete. Is there another understanding?
Thats not how it works. We know the standard model is wrong because it cannot account for gravity on microscopic levels. You cannot complete it. It has to be replaced. Currently the only thing to replace it is string theory which is unobservable so we are very hesitant to adopt it. There are some other budding theories but none complete enough to model anything yet.
>So we assume that our action is determined by something not ourselves, that is, nature.
So you dont know what nondeterministic means? Tell me what exactly determines the electrons next position in space. Protip: its not determined by anything else.
>Mine is based on an understanding of some kind
Your understanding is wrong.
And Im not appealing to ignorance. Its a philosophical position that my will is not hindered. To believe it is hindered is like believing in unicorns. Your appeal is based on an incorrect understanding of how things work yet you choose to believe in unicorns for no reason. Which is why you seem crazy to me.
>>17182064
Your entire posts just makes that case that you fail to learn through experience, which just makes you an idiot.
>>17182838
I am trying to make a verbal bridge between our epistemologies. I mean that we could consider our understanding to be wrong and yet still accept it because there is no viable alternative. We can only make an argument from what we know at all.
>So you dont know what nondeterministic means? Tell me what exactly determines the electrons next position in space. Protip: its not determined by anything else.
Are you implying that free will makes perfect sense within that understanding? This is not the doctrine of free will, it is the doctrine of the free electron. My will then must be determined by electrons, not itself. Now maybe you will argue that my will contains those electrons so it is being determined by itself, but this is not exactly what we have in mind by free will.
>Your understanding is wrong.
I believe myself justified in holding to an understanding when there is no other. You best get to work on the next understanding of physics, or else I'm going to sit here believing my will to be unfree.
And your belief in free will is based on exactly nothing. Isn't something better than nothing?
>>17182898
> I mean that we could consider our understanding to be wrong and yet still accept it because there is no viable alternative
This hurts so much to read. You use our understanding to make assumptions about things our understanding work for. Not what it directly doesnt. Its honestly just stupid.
>Are you implying that free will makes perfect sense within that understanding
There is nothing contradicting with it.
>My will then must be determined by electrons, not itself
You dont know what you are talking about here. We know that electrons are probabilistic in how they move. We dont know if anything is effecting that probability. The general agreement amongst physcist its the we do not know and thus cannot make assumptions passed that. Yet here you are trying to.
>I believe myself justified in holding to an understanding when there is no other
No, you dont even understand how nondeterminstic things work. You are very uneducated. Feel free to continue to believe in unicorns because of you misunderstandings.
>>17182915
>You use our understanding to make assumptions about things our understanding work for. Not what it directly doesnt.
>We know that electrons are probabilistic in how they move. We dont know if anything is effecting that probability. The general agreement amongst physcist its the we do not know and thus cannot make assumptions passed that. Yet here you are trying to.
But aren't you doing this? Is your belief in free will based on the hypothesis that electrons are not in fact determined by anything or is it based on nothing?
>No, you dont even understand how nondeterminstic things work.
>We dont even have a fraction of an understanding of how non deterministic systems work and life is so fucking complex we just guess stuff.
Yet you mustn't understand how nondeterministic things work, or are you not included in "we"?
>>17182935
>Is your belief in free will based on the hypothesis that electrons are not in fact determined by anything or is it based on nothing?
No my belief that my will is free is based simply on my experience. I admitted my experience is fallible but Im not about to believe in unicorns because of that. I have a much more complex idea about the what exactly "will" is based on abstract concepts pulled from physics, math, and computerscience that Im not about to get into. But the point is that there is no contradiction.
>Yet you mustn't understand how nondeterministic things work
Yeah seeing as though Ive had to take so many damn classes on quantum mechanics I actually know what it means and how it works to our knowledge. Something you lack.
>>17182946
I fail to see how your belief in free will is any different from my "unicorn" based on your standards.
You just sound like a pretentious crypto-religious twat mastubating to your inflated sense of superiority.
>>17182064
Why would it matter the least? You're either ruled by dice roll or rules. You could term either of them "freedom" from the other and be happy about it.
>>17182960
Well lets see. I experience free will. Nothing contradicts that. I do see a problem there.
You experience free will. Decide its not free because of physics which fundamentally is understood to not work in cases such as this. Might as well believe in unicorns.
>crypto-religious
If you call physics and philosophy crypto-religious have at it. I do feel a little superior to you though since you come off as so uneducated about the physics you attempt to use.
>>17182971
But you say nothing contradicts free will based on a model of physics which you explicitly reject as false.
Or do you say nothing contradicts it because there is in fact nothing that could possibly contradict it? Do you exist in a scientific desert?
Humans do have free will.
You are presented by stimuli everyday, and that is what your free will is. Yet, most of the time people complain about free will because they like to imagine and fantasise complex outcomes of your outputs to those stimuli.
You need to realise that you brain has necessary biological requirements and can process data and make decisions based on mostly intuition. The mind is a depletable source. Its only true goal is to survive and continue, harnessing pleasures and experiences along the way until it dies. Whether you like it or not.
>>17182988
>But you say nothing contradicts free will based on a model of physics which you explicitly reject as false.
No, Im taking what we do know to be true and what works for the topic at hand. You are completely ignoring the boundaries set due to the lack of our understanding. You are taking the fact that we dont know what exactly effects nondeterministic systems to mean that there is nothing when we simply do not know.
>>17183006
Am I not warranted in stopping my ideas where our knowledge stops, that is, at the point where we reach the hole in our full understanding of electrons?
You just want to stick your belief into that hole because you can force it in there and nothing can force it back out because it is precisely nothing in that hole.
I refuse to deduce from nothing.
>>17183025
>Am I not warranted in stopping my ideas where our knowledge stops
Yes actually since you dont actually know where our knowledge stops or what our knowledge even is. We know that theres more and we cant explain it yet. So you saying there isnt more is just stupid.
>>17183048
>So you saying there isnt more is just stupid.
I never said that there isn't more. That is why this whole time I have said that I may be wrong, because I figure something can fit into that hole.
>Yes actually since you dont actually know where our knowledge stops or what our knowledge even is.
Don't I? Don't we both agree that we do not know what determines electrons, if anything?
>>17183064
>Don't I? Don't we both agree that we do not know what determines electrons, if anything?
Quantum mechanics is so much more complicated than that.
And it seems you just dont get it. If physics says WE DONT KNOW and you come and say there isnt free will you are being stupid. If you really wanted to have a scientific opinion youd take the same agnostic position.
>>17183074
>Quantum mechanics is so much more complicated than that.
And now you want to upset the boundary of knowledge we understood prior.
>If you really wanted to have a scientific opinion youd take the same agnostic position.
So why don't you then? Again, you're just shoving your shit into areas where we lack knowledge, which I refuse to do.
You seem unable to decide whether you believe in free will or are an agnostic.
>>17183096
No Science doesnt know. Mine comes from a philosophical standpoint. Science is bound to observation but we as humans are capable of going beyond that. Its why we have math.
>And now you want to upset the boundary of knowledge we understood prior.
Ive been telling you that you are uneducated this entire time. Nothing changed because you still are.
>>17183112
>>17183112
Nothing contradicts your understanding because nothing can. It's like stepping into an empty ring and saying that you won the boxing match.
No match can take place. You can't step into the ring, all you can do is deal with what's around it. That's what I do.
>>17183139
No there are definitely things that can for the way my belief is structured. But even if it was unfalsifiable, if you observe it, and thats all you have to go off of. You go off of your observation. So again, what makes you believe that your will isnt free when you say that your experience of it is. Lets just say that science cant observe it right now instead of you trying to use an uneducated standpoint of physics.
>>17183149
>>17183149
Well I have no other standpoint to go on. That's what I've been trying to drill into your damned head this whole time. My argument rests on that limited understanding of physics that we have.
You just like sticking your dick in that hole because you think it's a glory hole. But there's nothing fucking there to suck your dick; it's empty. There's no justification for sticking your dick in an empty hole.
This is all an epistemological dispute. I refuse to engage with the unknown, period. But you are promiscuous in your belief.
>>17183192
You said you feel like you will is free. Physics says its not at a point to know yet. So you have no reason to believe its not free except for your belief in unicorns. Have feel with them though.
>>17183210
It's not that physics doesn't know about free will, it's that physics doesn't know anything about electrons. Perhaps your only possible conception of free will is based on the properties of electrons?
>>17183226
>It's not that physics doesn't know about free will, it's that physics doesn't know anything about electrons
Please stop. You lack of understanding is so great and youre showing way too much about it. Physics doesnt have a unifying theory to explain things. Electrons are the tip of the ice berg. We dont even have the tools to begin to looking deeply enough into quantum mechanics and say that free will is there. Its like talking to someone still in hs and doesnt know anything about our current scientific understanding.
>>17183237
So you only see free will as being possible within quantum physics?
>>17183250
Im not even sure you understand what youre asking.
As far as my belief in how free will would work if it exist, itd have to be compatible with quantum physics. And from what we have, it is.
>>17183262
It's compatible while we still lack knowledge of if electron's movements are determined by anything?
>>17183275
You dont even understand what you are saying right now. Whether or not electrons are determined is not a critical point. My idea is compatible as long as our knowledge doesnt say that everything in the brain is deterministic. So if you pre-determine an electrons movement, and make predictions and determine a persons will from that then yeah its no longer compatible.
You statement is phrased so incorrectly from a physics standpoint though its hilariously.
We dont lack knowledge of if an electron is determined by something else. We lack knowledge of how exactly it determines its next position. As in we arent 100% certain what the full implications of a nondeterministic system means for that electron. We can predict the results though. Theres no magic force. Please try to educate yourself a little.
>>17182163
I wanna fly
You may or may not have "control" over your actions, but it doesn't actually matter.
Free will and the illusion of free will are effectively the same.
>>17182426
Thank you for not making me post the same thing.
Of course free will exists OP. Your brain, which is you, makes decisions each and every day.
If that's not free will what else do you want?
Whatever the case, just enjoy the ride.
>>17183262
>free will compatible with quantum mechanics
WHAT THE FUCK. SERIOUSLY.
Do you even have any idea of what you mean by "free will?" Go on, give me a definition that can be simplified to a mathematical law. Saying something is compatible with QM which you have no idea what you even mean by is FUcKInG LOoNY
>>17184399
>will is an emotion
kek. were not talking about the same thing.
>>17184392
>free will
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Its not that hard.
>>17183365
Add me on skype detectivejelly
I really wanna hear about your completely loony ideas of free will and QM
Physics senior here
>edgy teen refuses to accept that he is only responsible for his life
>who is jean-paul sartre, who is kierkegaard
H4H4H4H4
>>17184404
How does uncertainty which exists at the quantum level allow a giant organ such as a brain to act according to its "own discretion?"
Uncertainty may very well exist, but it's determined arbitrarily on a moment to moment basis
>>17184406
>physics senior here
sure thing. Explain to me how we predict positions of particles for things like neutrinos which dont interact with matter in the usual way.
>>17184413
>it's determined arbitrarily on a moment to moment basis
You gave away you dont know what you are talking about when you said arbitrary. And if that wasnt enough of a sign you said moment to moment which shows you dont actually understand how unobserved particles act.
>>17184414
You really should add me on skype if you have it.
What is the point you're trying to make with neutrinos? How does that tie into free will? What year are you?
>>17184419
What would you call it if not arbitrary when you measure a particles position and we have no way of prediction it's exact location, just it's distribution if we measure it many times?
>>17184421
my point is that you dont know anything about QM.
grad student. Im about to explain qm to someone who wants to pretend they understand things.
>>17182064
The difference between these greatest scientists and philosophers is you're not even trying. You're just using it as a common ground to associate yourself with remarkable people to feel less miserable about the present circumstances about your life and at the same time as a way to justify your inability to take a proactive instance to change it.
>>17184423
nondeterministic is the correct term. arbitrary just shows you dont know enough yet. Nothing is arbitrarily decided.
>>17184424
You're right I'll come clean. Just a lowly physics junior. 19 yo. Won a math competition in high school. Had 60 college credit hours by the end of 11th grade summer before 12th, but quit.
When I said moment to moment I meant the moment it was measured.
>>17184426
We don't know if the position is determined arbitrarily or not, you're correct. There may be an underlying mechanism we have yet to discover, but I believe that is unlikely.
>>17184428
lol kid thats standard to compete with students nowadays. Dont know what small town you come from but thats not enough to be top 10% back in my highschool.
If you want to prove something what did you score on the putnam?
>>17184432
I've been working with a mathematics graduate from caltech, but I haven't taken the Putnam yet.
Where the fuck did you go because if I kept taking courses I would of broken dual enrollment records in my state by a long shot. Or if I began taking classes before 10th to 11th grade summer.
>>17184433
>havent taken the putnam yet
all accomplishments voided lol. try actually living in a major city where people actually compete.
You probably arent even going for a triple major lol.
>>17184431
>We don't know if the position is determined arbitrarily or not
Yeah you dont know what you are talking about. nonderterministic doesnt mean arbitrary and no physicist thinks anything is arbitrary. Im not about to explain qm to someone wet behind the ears.
>>17184436
>triple major
Okay now you're just fucking with me.
If you want to help a brother out with physics suggest me some books to read.
You are interested in free will? I've been trying to understand qualia scientifically since I was 16.
>>17184441
>Okay now you're just fucking with me.
Im not. Did physics math and cs in college. Now granted both physics and cs borrowed classes from math. But its still you just being an underachiever.
>>17184443
Why triple major when no famous scientist or mathematician has?
>>17184445
Because compared to the error of famous scientist, physics departments now are a joke. Einstein who was considered bad at math was around the level of someone with a math major in high school. Stop underachieving. If you want to be good at physics you need to be good at math. My focus is in field theory which you wont be able to have a dream of entering after college with your weak math background.
>>17184439
>no physicist thinks of anything as arbitrary
Based on what I've read, I know I'm baiting here green text, we have just as much evidence for the claim as we do against it.
>>17184449
So what do you want? A high Putnam score? Me to study specific topics? A double major?
The guy I'm working with from caltech knows a lot of Mathematics and doesn't do much else in his life.
I lived with him for a while.
>>17184454
Nothing from you. You just dont have enough to be taken seriously.
>>17184450
you just dont know what non deterministic means.
>>17184456
When I'm your age I'll blow you out of the water
>>17184456
Give me something to read or I'm going to bed
>>17184460
I published papers on field theory when I was in undergrad. My senior thesis to be exact. Your a junior now right. You have 1 more year. Dont disappoint.
>>17184462
Quining Qualia - Daniel Dennett
The Ego Tunnel - Thomas Metzinger
>>17184462
At your level what you are looking for is a pop science book which I absolutely despise.
You simply dont know enough to talk about QM at the level you want to.
>>17184473
Check the Putnam next year. My first name's Stephen
>>17182064
think of it this way. you made this thread, and i have the will to reply to it. i will try to convince you that free will exists, but no matter what you will still believe what you believe. the only reason im replying is because i believe that you are mistaken because i feel strongly about the reality of free will. i was determined to do it. i could have not replied, but it is my will to share with others the fact that free will is not a fantasy.
the only determinism you need to believe in, is that you will always believe what you believe, and act based upon that, or not. the choice is yours.
hypothetically, 'will i take this job? it makes sense and ill make more money. all evidence points to having a good career...' but on the other hand you want to stay were you are and be with your family.. however you family needs more money with the big raise from the new job. one might be determined to cut back on their budget from day to day, but all options are open because nothing is set in stone, and most of all things that are done can be undone, if one wills it.
i was determined to use that analogy because me and my dad are in a similar situation. but i am very aware of this, and i chose it because it was something that i feel strongly about. we are determined to do the things that we must do, yes. but we are free to do what we can. and sometimes even the things we must do, we often dont.
you can have a good life by your own will, because its easy to blame misfortune on determinism. 'guess my destiny was to just be shit'. no! life is fluid, and a persons disposition changes. i was destined to be a good man, but lately ive been pretty bad. i still strive to be good, but being bad is kinda fun at the moment. im choosing to be bad, becuase i spent my whole life being good. and when im done, i will again choose to be good. perhaps you could use this as evidence of determinism, but i am freely expressing myself in an alternative manner by my own choice.
