Yes, it's another free will thread.
Do you think we will ever understand "free will"? Will we ever be able to say whether or not it exists?
>>7651255
Well I believe time travel to the past is impossible because some events are random, therefor free will (randomness) exists.
>>7651255
Because we cannot predict the future, even if we decide it to be unchanging and predetermined, predetermined fate is not a constructive thought model.
>>7651257
That has nothing to do with traveling to the past.
It would mean that your effects on the past would be as unpredictable as the future was from that pasts present.
Philosophy threads belong on >>>/his/
>>7651711
science needs philosophy
>>7651714
Philosophy is science without proof.
>>7651718
only math deals with proof
>>7651729
I will do what I must
>>7651729
Are you saying the Newton and Einstein's theories were anecdotal?
>>7651255
Because of the fact that the laws of physics work both forward and backward in time, if you believe in free will you also need back-free will, or in other words the ability to determine influence your past states with your current actions. This doesn't make sense though.
>>7651255
>Do you think we will ever understand "free will"?
It is am old and outdated idea that has since been proven false (although retards will say it hasn't). Not much to understand really.
>Will we ever be able to say whether or not it exists?
Yes. We can say it right now. It does not exist.
>>7651733
So good. Sooooo good. I could kiss this post. But I won't.
>>7651714
Actually we get by a lot better without philosophy. Quantum mechanics doesn't need mystical new age-y parallel multiverse bullshit to explain it any better.
>>7651702
>Because we cannot predict the future
I'm pretty sure physics is designed to do that on a regular basis. How can we shoot the moon with a rocket without predicting where it's going to be or how hitting it will require this much fuel? Perturbations you say? Chaotic does not mean random.
>>7651257
Randomness does not imply free will. If your brain only detects stochastic events then acts on a particular outcome you are no more choosing an action because something has to predetermine the outcomes. How are you making a choice if it's all RNG?
>>7651718
If you really hold onto math that much then you will know what you've just said contradicts you
>>7651257
Randomness != free will
i tried to think of any possible way to reply to this thread but all of them sounded like euphoric retard shit
but eh, fuck it. i think from our point of view traveling through time linearly we do have free will relative to time's vector
blah blah quantum mechanics spin blah
Define "free will".
So since free will doesn't exist, can anyone give some advice how to get over this fact?
Not sure if this belongs in /sci/, but the fact that free will doesn't exist can be extremely depressing. Have any of you guys found a way of coping with this fact?
>>7652587
We don't know if it really exists or not but current knowledge suggests that things are either pre determined by the laws of nature or things are fundamentally random. Neither of these things suggest free will but we could be wrong.
That said, how to cope if it isn't real? Idk what can you do? You can't change how things are, don't you still enjoy existing? If so then don't worry about it.
>>7652590
>We don't know if it really exists or not
Speak for yourself.
>>7651255
Define free will.
Really, define it. Say the universe is a deterministic machine, and then "oh my, I don't have free will!" Okay, so what would free will be if you had it, at that point?
It's fairly obvious we don't have free will. Or maybe it's more accurate to say the question itself has little meaning.
>>7651718
Actually, science is a philosophy without proof. Get your shit straight here, anon.
