Do you think everything in the universe is the result of an ongoing chain reaction, including our decisions, thoughts and behaviours.
Or are we not bound by any previous causes and are completely free to think and behave as isolated individuals.
Let's find out which side /sci/ is weighting in on this subject. Take your vote.
http://strawpoll.me/6563113
>>7789989
there's already a shitty thread about this
lrn2catalog
fag
>>7789994
This is a voting thread to find out what the majority of /sci/ thinks about it.
>No nondeterminism/free-will is incoherent option
> implying free will is an actual option
only religiousfags believe free will
>>7789989
It is illogical to think that if determinism is false, then free will is true.
The universe can be indeterministic (ex: probabilistic/chaotic), but we can have no free will. It's called hard indeterminism.
>>7790017
Chaotic doesn't mean indeterministic. It just means too much shit is happening at the same time for us to figure out what triggers what.
Free will is false independent of determinism. With determinism, all of our actions are only going to turn out one way, and without determinism, all our actions are to some extent random. The problem is, randomness doesn't magically create free will as the randomness still isn't dependent on us.
You can't think thoughts before they pop into your head, and you don't make decisions because your subconscious already made them before you were aware of it. That's the long and short of it.
>>7790027
This basically. Thinking that because the universe is indeterministic doesn't somehow magically imply that we have free will.
It isn't just as black and white like that. Determinism and free will don't necessarily contradict each other. You should add a third option for both...
>>7790060
You should define what you mean by free will if you don't think they contradict each other.
>>7790071
I kinda defined it above. Claiming free will is to say that we are unbounded by the restrains of physical action-reaction chain so that your decisions and actions are infact not triggered by anything prior, but we as individuals have complete freedom on our decisions and actions.
Granted I don't believe in free will. I even had a very hard time just now, trying to explain it in a frame where our actions somehow are not dependant on the previous actions that triggered it.
>>7790074
> implying randomness exists
yeah, so does magic.
>>7790019
>>7790019
The movement of electrons is inherently non-deterministic, i.e. probabilistic. They behave in a way that obeys the laws of electrostatic attraction & repulsion, but we cannot predict their position & momentum with certainty. This is a fundamental law of physics which is independent of human observation, called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>>7790071
By free will I mean the process of being able to decide our own actions. Our decisions however might still be influenced by some underlying effect. My point is that determinism and free will can coexist.
>>7790074
>the universe is nondeterministic because we can't figure it out.
So you're saying that chaos and determinism are relative?
>>7790091
Actually they are. lmao
>>7790091
> flip a coin
> you can't calculate which side is gonna be
> so it's indeterministic
:^)
>>7790087
>we cannot predict their position & momentum with certainty
>therefor, as we, the universe's only perfect knowers of all phenomena, can claim that they are, in fact and without doubt, impossible for any other sentient being in the universe to predict - now and forever into the future
>this totally isn't a limitation of our inability to measure their behavior, as our tools are perfect, as they always have been
Hubris, anon.
>>7790096
>indeterministic = nondeterministic
>>7790117
what is the difference ?
>>7790088
Okay then, if simple decision-making is free will, then computers have had free will since their inception.
>>7790124
addition : explain with examples please
>>7790124
One is absolute, the other is relative.
>>7790104
Electrons are electrically attracted to the nucleus. Would you like to explain why they don't simply "fall" into the nucleus without using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, anon?
Also, I never said anything about the past or the future, only right now. It might have been different a picosecond after the big bang -- I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't know. However, at this moment, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does indeed hold.
>>7790138
uhh, maybe for the same reason that the moon doesn't simply "fall" into the earth?
Retard.
>>7790147
Actually, moon does fall into earth.
>>7790160
>string theorists actually believe this
>>7790174
I dont believe in string theory. The moon either flings out of earths orbit or crashes into it.
Also, what do you guys think is the source for the underlying order in universe? What is the source information from which all above it act upon? Why does this order need to exist? Since i've started studies in uni, i've turned from complete atheist to complete agnostic. And my thoughts constantly drift to the idea, that this order must be originating somewhere.
The universe is deterministic. It is considered to be non-deterministic because it is difficult to keep track of its states and even more difficult to predict future states based on our limited understanding of the current states.
This is tedious.
>>7790005
This.
Indeterminism is necessary but not sufficient for there to be libertarian free will.
>>7789989
>Do you think everything in the universe is the result of an ongoing chain reaction, including our decisions, thoughts and behaviours.
This is actually not the case.
Quantum interactions are not deterministic, and if you were to repeat the same event an infinite amount of times, you would get many different results, even with all the same precursors.
This universe is not entirely deterministic.
>>7790185
Well, I'm not nearly smart enough to answer this, but I can tell you there's nothing in biology which contradicts the fundamental laws of physics, including the second law of thermodynamics. It's all a downhill (spontaneous) process, and any increase in entropy you see here on Earth comes directly at the expense of decreasing the entropy of the Sun. This applies to everything... DNA replication, DNA repair, protein synthesis, you name it.
>>7790201
I mixed these two up. Increasing entropy should read decreasing and vise versa. Derp.
>>7790174
Did you ever heard of Newton laws motherfucker?
>>7790196
Y electrons no fall into nucleus, anon?
>>7790201
That i am aware of. However what i meant is that, why do these "rules" exist? What giudes these rules? What is the fundamental source for these? They cant just exist out of nowehere. Just like our biological processes is actually chemistry and chemistry is just physics etc. But why do they work this way? Why is there anything rather than nothing? If entropy constantly evolves to heat death, why all of this orderness happened in the beginning? Fuck, we will never know this. All of reality is like one mindfuckery of a acid trip. You want to understand everything deeper and you realize more and more that, this makes no sense, why does this exist, where is the beginning and where is the end.
>>7790204
Newtonian physics are all well and good, but who says the moon is "falling" to Earth?
Orbiting is a different concept altogether, and the moon is actually still drifting outwards and away to its optimum. That's pretty far from "falling".
>>7790198
>if you were to repeat the same event an infinite amount of times
You know as well as the rest of us that there is no such thing as "the same event" in causal reality.
You have the first instance of your event, and then the second instance, and then the third, and so on.
You will never be able to repeat that first instance again. Ever.
>>7790213
>What is the fundamental source for these? They cant just exist out of nowehere.
Become a scientist and help the rest of us figure that one out.
>Just like our biological processes is actually chemistry and chemistry is just physics etc.
Those are groups of observations and discoveries, all subject to change based on new evidence. Don't get too attached.
>But why do they work this way?
>Why
>why
"Why" is a bad inquiry, use the better version: "how".
Things work they way they do, and reverse-engineering it all is really hard. You will find no "why" in doing so, but you might, possibly, find a "how" if you look closely enough with the right tools.
You might also find nothing with those tools and feel compelled to create an "uncertainty principle" to confound the rest of us as some rude consolation prize, which you get to laugh about and take to your inevitable grave.
>>7790205
They do, but they fall back out before anyone notices, and this means the net change is nil.
>>7790253
>Schrodinger's electron
>>7790253
>They do, but they fall back out before anyone notices, and this means the net change is nil.
It's like a perfectly efficient spring.
>>7789989
you're kind of describing Newtonian physics and it's been bullshit for about a century now; like its a pretty great model and whatnot but that's it
>>7790252
>"Why" is a bad inquiry, use the better version: "how".
Fuk u thot polize
But seriously 'why' is just as valid a question as how.
>>7790298
If thought police were sexy females, wou;d you fuck them?
Would you fuck the thought police?
Would you let the thought police fuck you?
Would you engage in mutual fucking with the thought police?
>>7790302
Nah uniforms aren't my fetish
Anyway why is a fine question, many successful scientists have been motivated by 'why' inquiries.
>>7790252
We will never get beyond physical limits if there is anything. Experimental physics may get us somewhere around the scale of 10^-21 but it is both physically and theoretically impossible to go beyond plancks length.
>>7789989
Should have given more options, like liberal free will vs compatibilist free will and determinism vs indeterminism.
I believe most votes for free will are meant for the non-liberal definition of free will.
It was predetermined that 347 people vote for free will.
If someone be held accountable for what it does in the current situation, it should be responsible for his own mental state. But this is impossible, because in order to be responsible for the state of S, you must also be responsible and for the state of S-1 and, therefore, need to be responsible and for the state of S-2 and so on. At some point in this chain must be a moment of generation of a new causal chain, but man can not create himself and his fortune from nothing.
The truth about of determinism of Universe is irrelevant in question of free will. Free will just impossible. We fall through space end time.
you're not fooling anyone OP. This is clearly leddit voting.
Universe is clearly predeterministic. Only normies would claim otherwise in spite of all available evidence.
>>7790074
>basic physics
Exactly. Those with advanced physics and ahead of the curve know that QM is hocum. Its results are easily explained in ways other than pure randomness.
I voted with my penis.
Slapped it right on mouse, grabbed the whole stack, and went right on over to determinism. My member quickly stiffened as the cursor hovered over the proper box, and I managed a solid click. My penis quickly exceeding the hardness of even diamond I spun around looped it under the cord, pulling the mouse into the air and allowing it to track using my penis itself coming to rest directly over the button.
I jump and kick off the wall, my phallus of theoretically impossible rigidity slams down the left click. My vote is cast, and the time has come. My determasm ejects into the net itself, proliferating to parts unknown. I sit down, fully satisfied, knowing that from the birth of the universe, I was destined to do this. The universe will loop infinitely, and every time, I will be here to do this.
>>7790087
And how exactly this inherent randomness explains or gives rise to free will?
>>7790087
>but we cannot predict their position & momentum with certainty.
This is really just a limitation imposed by the fact that we and everything else are also part of the universe.
Like, things still have definite position and momentum but because of the laws of physics it's physically impossible to build a machine which will do the task. Much as the fact that it's physically impossible to build a machine to go to the past doesn't imply that the past doesn't exist.
>>7790392
> randomness
Can you prove that true randomness exists ?
>>7790405
Proving Indeterminism would do the job.
False dichotomy: the thread
>>7790409
No it doesn't. So I'm guessing your answer is : no, you can't prove the existence of true randomness
>>7790414
Indeterminism is by definition proving true randomness.
Care to elaborate why that is not true?
>>7790405
>Exac
I'm not the one saying free will exists. If the universe is deterministic, then there's no free will. But even if there's true randomness you still have to show HOW does free will follow from that.
>>7790535
Every time I make a decision I can feel how I freely choice.
Hence, free will exists. □
>>7790461
Because it hasn't proven. First establish the existence of randomness with evidence so we can talk about it in specific terms.
>>7790535
Oh yeah. Well randomness by definition opposes to free will. It means it has to be random and not bound by any outside force including the input of ourselves. Which means you possibly can't have any control over randomness; thus no free will.
>>7790627
I know you feel like you've been choosing what to wear this morning for five minutes, but your subconscious had chosen it for you a little while before you were aware of it. Now tell me, if you're not aware of the choices you make and when you do it, how much of a choice really is there?
>>7790627
> I can choose
> I
the factors that made you and your decisions are your memories and experiences, which you had zero control from the very beginning even before you were a sperm.
>>7790644
>but your subconscious
But MY subconscious belongs to ME, its a part of Me, so I did the choice.
Until you specify what "I" is, free will doesn't make any sense.
>>7790651
Really? Are you making the choice of how much serotonin to secrete? How about your heart rate? Are you choosing that?
>>7790147
I really hope you don't actually believe the moon's gravitational orbit around the Earth is comparable to electrons "orbiting" a nucleus
>>7790662
Since all those mechanism are controlled by body parts which I consist of, yes. I do.
>>7790651
define "me" Did you magically come into existence as an isolated individual or are you simply the sum of the prior actions that shaped you into what you are now, like your parents, your genes, the year you were born, the friends you had in highschool, the idology and religion of the people around you, the shows you've watched on tv and stuff...
>>7790667
Fascinating. Are you aware of your choices at any point before, during or after making them?
>>7790668
I define all the mechanisms and biological matter that my body is made of as "Me" or "I". Why shouldn't it be "me"?
>>7790672
I read that most information that flows into your brain is discarded right away, because it has a limited amount of how much information it can process at a time. So no, I cannot be conscious of EVERY decision I make.
>>7790673
> i define me as me
I ask you what a computer is made of, and you say its made out of computer parts...
>>7790681
>and you say its made out of computer parts...
Isn't that a logical definition? A computer is not an apple, so why would I say otherwise?
In the end "I" am all the parts that make my body.
What is wrong about this statement?
>>7790677
So basically your idea of making choices is whatever happens in the brain, regardless of awareness. 'Kay, then computers have had free will since their inception.
>>7790687
Because you can't define something by itself if the purpose is to explain what it is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052770/
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912009822
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7279280&fileId=S0140525X00068321
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7279280&fileId=S0140525X00068321
>>7790309
Theoretically impossible within the scope of modern theory, which is far from perfect and could be totally wrong. The main problem I see isn't the physical limits we believe to be true but rather the inability to verify if these limits are correct. The technology required to test our mathematical conclusions is becoming asymptotically more difficult to create, to the point where the knowledge needed to create such technology can only come from the discoveries of the technology itself. It's a catch 22 situation
>>7790351
Care to elaborate on these easy explanations?
>>7790696
I said you must define your body by its causes.
Did you magically created or had any control of the biological matter that makes up your body way before you were born ?
>>7790668
Does the past actually exist? The mind gives raise to perception, to say things in their native form move is one quality dependent upon the faculties of thought we may claim that corporeal substance does not posses. My issue with determinism is that it necessarily claims causation exists. When in fact causation is required to have the ability to inference. Substance may simply said to be active, instead of reactive.
>>7790696
>No computers don't have free will, they just do what they are programmed to do. They are certainly more limited in their existence than we humans do.
I got bad news for you. You just do what you're programmed to do too, the limitations of the "choices" you get to make are completely irrelevant.
>>7790702
> does the past actually exist
...
>>7790701
Its obvious that I am the biological matter, so how am I not in control of these?
If I wasn't the biological matter then how come my consciousness arises from within my body? If I wasn't then my consciousness would have arise from somewhere else, which doesn't make sense.
>>7790703
But I can argue that programs don't have consciousness and therefor are not capable of critical thinking. These are only some of the differences between me and a computer.
Free will is actually a confusion of counterfactual reasoning. An example of such is "If I had done X, Y would have happened instead." The impossibility of defining free will without using counterfactuals shows that it is absolutely central to the concept.
The illusion of free will occurs when someone mistakes counterfactual reasoning for being a literal existent thing and not merely a mental shortcut for making sense of causality. Because we can imagine past scenarios playing out differently than they actually had, we mistake this for being in some sense a reality. However, the very nature of counterfactual reasoning is contrary to the facts: it is a useful fiction.
This seemingly small error is the source of many ills. It is the cause of regret, the desire that one performed a different action than they actually did, or that something happened differently, which can be absolutely toxic and result in an endless loop of insanity as the mind tries to change the past. This is different than remorse, which is the realization that a bad thing happened. Remorse leads to change.
The bad habit of using counterfactual reasoning in a way that supplants causal prescriptions can be rectified through practice. For example, the conditional "If I had watched where I was going, I wouldn't have tripped on that rock" which gives no prescription can be changed to "I wasn't watching where I was going, therefore I tripped on a rock. I regret doing so. In the future, I should watch where I am going in order to lessen the possibility of tripping."
>>7790709
So you actually claim that you magically had control over what your body was going to be like before you were born and even grown a consciousness ?...And I underline the word "magically" to express how physically impossible and unscientific your claims are.
>>7790722
> How can something that doesn't exist yet be in control of anything?
what ?
>>7790730
That's what you said, don't blame me for formulating something confusing when I am just rephrasing your post.
>>7790731
You're rephrasing it with bad grammar. can you ask it again more clearly ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBxaOcZnGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQxJi0COTBo
“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?
Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” “
— Stephen Hawking
meme science thread))))
>>7790705
To clarify, the past is a something of the brain. Matter may not actually posses memory in the sense of how we do, or employ it. You can press a stylus into clay and have it convey a thought, but the clay does not posses thought, it is deformed by it's presumed earlier state. It exists, but not temporally as the brain is capable of. This incidence of thought is not reality in it's native form, that is, the time in which the clay was imprinted on. It is an imaginative presumption on our part.
It's quite evident you are made out of gypsy magic.
>>7790746
> To clarify, the past is a something of the brain
> the past is a something of the brain
That clarified it perfectly...
>>7790709
>But I can argue that programs don't have consciousness and therefor are not capable of critical thinking. These are only some of the differences between me and a computer.
You just argued that consciousness and critical thinking are not necessary for free will. You said you are deciding things when YOU ARE NOT CONSCIOUSLY EVEN AWARE OF DOING IT. Pick one.
>>7790741
based sam harris pre-determinantly buttblasting free wilies
Suppose that (i) p is true or p is false and (ii) not-p is true or not-p is false.
Then p is true or not-p is true.
Now suppose that in 1900 one person says that a sea-battle will take place on 1/1/2100, and another says that a sea-battle will not take place on 1/1/2100.
Then either what the first person says is true or what the second person says is true.
But, in that case, either it is necessary in 1900 that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or it is necessary in 1900 that one does not take place.
But the date of the predictions is irrelevant, and it is irrelevant whether any prediction is actually made at all.
So it is necessary at all times that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or that a sea-battle does not take place on 1/1/2100.
But the argument can evidently be generalised.
So, everything that happens, happens of necessity.
>>7790761
wat chu talkin bout fgt :v
>>7790766
The excluded middle.
I predicted completely random incomprehensible outcomes of my life a few years ago.
>talking with my neighbor about his hvac buisness
>say i want to join the military, learn hvac and get a college degree So I have a trade and college education in soumething else under my belt
>say I want to get my first base on the east coast then maybe explore europe later on and a couple other states as bases
>when I join I can only choose mechanical general and get a random trade... but i happened to get hvac which was a comepletley computer generated choice
>get my first base on the east coast, which was also a computer generated random choice seeong how many bases there are in the world
>now I got randomly picked to go to europe and im chilling out here scared to think anything or talk to anyone about my future because it might come true
So did I know my future determinantly or did my free will cause the story to unfold like I wanted it to. Or maybe an unfathomable paradox.
Anyways, explain lucid dreams. Theyre pure conciousness unbound to physical laws. Thats the problem, conciouss interaction with the laws of the universe. Nobody knows how it really works and once we do, we may be able to answer this question.
>over 100 posts by 27 anons
>not a single one of you bothered to define free will
>>7790778
> Anyways, explain lucid dreams. They Are pure consciousness unbound to physical laws.
Events in Video games is to unbound to physical laws. It because the picture in your head is just a model of reality, it is an illusion.
>>7790778
>I predicted completely random
>completely random
>like coin fleep
Please.
>>7790778
> consciousness unbound to physical bounds
> my brain is made of pnon-hysical things that are not governed by physical laws
:^)
>>7790788
so the images in your minds eye are located where?
like visualizing myself fucking your mother
>>7790802
In you are brain.
>>7790802
Your temporal lobe
>>7790819
Attached to his mother obviously.
>>7790819
i told you already, in your temporal lobe AKA in your dreams :^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain
>>7790778
When you're dreaming, the images you see are generated by the neurons in your brain. These are physical objects that behave according to the laws of physics.
Entropy is always increasing.
That is all
>>7790784
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD THIS!!
When you're talking about "DETERMINISM VS FREE WILL" what you're really talking about is decision making processes. Weather "you" as an individual are making decisions or if you're just following the logical sequence of events. But to answer this question you must define the word "you." What are you? Are you an individual? A system of logic and thought processes in a closed system or box uninfluenced by outside forces. Or are you just a biological component of the universe? A small cog in the larger clockwork mind of the universe which is trying to observe itself and understand itself logically.
Quantum mechanics proves free will. Einstein was wrong when he said god doesn't throw dice.
>> 7791073
> Quantum mechanics prove free will.
How? If you doing something casually how it can be free will?
>>7791119
If you doing something randomly how it can be free will?***
>>7791059
never :^) all the questions directed at free will are going to be deflected back because they know they can't define free will in terms of completely isolated non-physical boundaries.
>>7791130
The problem here is that we need to establish a definition of free will. There are so many definitions that it's easy to pick one that fits any argument. So, what should we define free will?
>>7791241
And what determinism because there are multiple types of determinism. These determinism vs free will are always so inane.
>http://strawpoll.me/6563113
>368
368 normies on /sci, fuck.
>>7791465
strawpoll was hijacked 5 minutes after I made the thread. There was 345 instant votes for free willy
>>7791465
Free will is normie-tier, especially considering the original definition of normie as "has never experienced a mental illness." Nothing undermines the concept of free will like mental illness, especially experiencing it.
>>7790104
You're the one who's showing hubris actually. It's been proven that the values in question not only can't be measured but DO NOT EVEN EXIST in the same way we can say "This ball is four meters away from that ball."
>>7791508
>Free will is normie-tier
And your ideas are headstrong, edgy, and downright stupid-tier. See, I can say mean things too.
>>7790973
this
Determinism follows from the law of identity.
x=x
If we reset the universe (as a closed system) to its first moment, it would turn out the exact same way.
>>7791542
You were determined to say those :^)
>>7790699
it'll be mainstream soon enough, don't worry
QMs days are numbered
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22469.abstract
>People believe they have more free will than others
Lol.
We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice.
Isaac Bashevis Singer
)))
>>7791917
thus proving determinism, since just because we believe in something it doesn't guarantee its the truth
>>7791564
Wow you're dumb. How delusional does one have to be to make arguments like this and think they make sense?
I almost forgot to post this gem here. The perfect argument for compatibilism.
>>7791944
Because they were determined to look both ways :^)
BOOM in your face wheelie
>>7791944
LOL, whatever behavior you notice is predetermined, including the believing in free will. That's not a gem, it's a turd of an argument.
Niggas seriously talking about quantum randomness here? How does that relate to free will in any way? It would just mean we couldn't predict the future not that we have free will.
>>7790085
what evidence do you have that suggest quantum phenomenon is not random?
>>7791951
>Because they were determined to look both ways :^)
From this does not follow they didn't do it out of free will.
>>7791966
Third anon not trying to take a side here, but why is randomness so accepted? Doesn't it seem like an egregiously unscientific concept and just a lack of capable measuring equipment?
>>7791965
It true, but living in a world with a completely unpredictable events more fun.
But with all this randomness we still can build up computers, lasers...... many another shit based on calculation of quantum mechanics, that work predictably. So i don't understand how all this "randomness" can unpredictable change our predictions of macroworld?
>>7791969
They didn't, because they were determined. Simple
Assuming that spacetime actually follows the Minkowski spacetime model, which it most likely does due to the mathematical proof behind it, then there's no free will. All of reality as we know it exists without a timeline. There is no such thing as evolution of time, your future already exists. Thus no free will.
The Minkowski spacetime model is closely linked with Einstein's theory of special relativity. You can't decide between determinism and free-will without understanding how causality works.
>>7792034
Is spacetime a different way of saying 4d? (4D in the sense of 3D + time axis)
>>7792056
Yeah. Euclidean geometry has spacetime set as 3D + time axis. This means that there's a progression of time and thus an evolution of time.
However, Minkowski spacetime suggests that there is no axis for 3D + time. Reality as we know it isn't a continual progression, rather it's already determined sequences of event. The continuation of causality. Your future exists already. However, I actually have no idea if that means that your "determined" future was caused out of your free will, or whether it was decided before you were even born. I don't know shit, just the basics.
>>7791983
experiments can and have been conducted to test for "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics. all experiments show that "hidden variables" most likely don't exist, and if they do they are tied with the measuring devices as well as the quantum entities.
to put it shortly, quantum entities do not behave in any manner than can be described without probability distributions, and all experiments conducted suggesting otherwise have not had supporting evidence for "not randomness."
>>7790320
Actually that's not quite true. There is the possibility of a causal loop which can't be traced back to any other event and doesn't interact with anything else; the acausal isolated causal loop.
>>7791939
Nice argument. Calling me dumb has surely convinced me!
>>7792148
How reliable are experiments that we can really conduct that observe that level of the universe?
There could be any number of things we can't measure and just have no idea about. And that question mark seems far and away more likely than randomness. Seriously, there are strange things and we are settling for random because it's all we can manage to discern? It's like angel pushing the planets around in their orbits again.
>implying it matters.
There is absolutely no way to prove or disprove
>>7792458
>It's like angel pushing the planets around in their orbits again.
Basically. Better not question the orthodoxy faggot, or they'll burn you[r reputation] at the stake.
>>7792464
>or are we not bound by previous causes
What you think and do is based on neural activity and environmental causes out of your control so that's pretty much dead in the water
>>7792481
You can say it that way, but putting it that way makes it nothing more than an oxymoron. There truly is no way of telling, because if you look at it from your point of view then yes, everything is predetermined, however of you look at it from a conscious point of view then its free will
The discussion of whether there is or isn't Free Will seems like an unresolvable philosophical wankfest. How would life change if the notion of free will were proved or disproved?
>> 7792584
> free will
> Proved or disproved
You can not prove or disprove anything you did not give definition))))
Libertarian free will cant be exist. Many people think that the lack of free will destroys the concept of morality. Yes it true, but our moral concept based on shitly religious concept about good and evil as a really existing things and that evil must be PUNISHED, people want PUNISH other people. People who believe in free will afraid of losing ability to punish other people. We just need to reconsider our notions of morality.
>>7792792
> free will
> got anything to do with morality
What the fuck are you talking about retard ? This is purely a physical problem.
Пepeвecти
>>7792796
> physical problem
No. It not a physical problem. Determinism is a physical problem, free will a not. Universe can be determinated or with some kind of randomness. But for us it not matter, whole thrade about it........you're always in the past, behind the brain. You can not affect the brain, your are just a puppet with illusion of control. No matter how accidental brain mechanisms. You are in any case just a derivative of them. As the steam from the steam engine. Understand?
>>7792847
> understand ?
No I don't. Get a speed course on grammar and try again.
>>7792847
>As the steam from the steam engine
not the one who sets it in motion, that which is thrown out.
>>7792850
Ok. No matter how good my grammar is, it just problem of your understand of evolution theory and your logical thinking.
try this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052770/
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811912009822
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7279280&fileId=S0140525X00068321
>>7792853
Are you saying that the brain, an entity made completely out of physical matter, is somehow capable of metaphysical abilities that it does not abide the pre-deterministic action-reaction laws that apply to everything else in the universe ?
Keep in mind that it's a Yes/No question.
>>7792859
No. Brain and self-consciousness are fully predetermined by action-reaction laws.
Material brain> your identity.
No matter how hard predetermination chemistry reaction in the brain, we are predetermined by this reaction.
I don't know what is the randomness in quantum physics end how it can broke pre-deterministic action-reaction laws that apply to everything else in the universe, but some one says it can, at last i said that it doesn't matter for question on free will, we are always behind brain.
So, I think my grammar is not good for dialogue, sorry, I will not answer any more.
>>7792853
Are there any of these where subjects are asked to make meaningful decisions? When it's just "when should I press this button" things where the decision could be delegated to a random number generator, one wonders if the conscious mind doesn't do just that internally.
>>7792881
Oh yeah I agree that the brain is not above the rules of predetermination and is governed by the action-reaction laws. The point I disagreed was that free will was related to morals and shit.
There is no free will, and determinism is false.
>>7789989
I believe the ability to 'will' and the answer to how it works can be found once we can research dreams via empirical evidence. As someones who's been lucid dreaming since head injury at young age i have found that it's very definable in dream-space.
You can interact with your sub conscious and at times you can have free will over it. While other times it can over ride your ability to will it.
example from last night:
in house. all of a sudden a baby appears except it is trying to rip my stomach open. It talks to me methodically. I talk with it to distract it as i devise a plan to escape. I go out a door and use my 'will power' to give me the ability to bounce over houses and out of a neighbourhood. I stop after i think i've covered a large distance. It is literally a meter behind me. I can feel it ripping at my stomach and it isn't touching me. I try to rip it into two as logically if its dead that way it won't hurt me. However it was able to give me that horrible feeling without making contact in dreams-space.
tl;dr; sub conscious in dreams can over ride your will power and force your neurons to fire in a way that affects what your conscious is feeling.
>>7792889
>determinism is false
and your proof is ?
> sub conscious in dreams can over ride your will power and force your neurons to fire in a way that affects what your conscious is feeling.
this is related to free will how ?
>>7789989
Yes but some things behave differently to our understanding of determinism (quantum level shit) on larger scales the universe is deterministic and free will cannot exist if it wasnt deterministic.
>>7792886
Isn't free will an important consideration in ethics? Do you really make your own decisions? Are you responsible?
I personally think this is otterly irrelephant, but I'm no ethicist.
>>7792910
What does the quantum randomness shit anyway ? And why is there no proof of it ?
>>7792917
does it matter if you make your decisions or not ? If you're committing a crime out of free will, its your responsibility and you go to jail. If it's pre-determined, then we are pre-determined to put you in jail to stop you from committing crimes.
Makes no difference.
>>7789989
Free Will is not rigorously defined, and if you rigorously define it you run the risk of defining it as something which will be rejected at a common sense level because you definition may and probably will contradict our intuition. as such this is a stupid question.
>>7790232
and this is why the proposition that free will exists is not really decidable, to say that free will doesn't exist is to say that whatever happens it can't be otherwise.
but since we've only ever experienced one continuous flow of time we don't know if it could be otherwise and to insist that it couldn't be otherwise is a baseless assertion. thus free will is not a decidable question.
>>7792967
This.
>>7792978
> whatever happens it can't be otherwise.
if it could happen otherwise, how does it remotely prove free will ?
>>7792978
Suppose that (i) p is true or p is false and (ii) not-p is true or not-p is false.
Then p is true or not-p is true.
Now suppose that in 1900 one person says that a sea-battle will take place on 1/1/2100, and another says that a sea-battle will not take place on 1/1/2100.
Then either what the first person says is true or what the second person says is true.
But, in that case, either it is necessary in 1900 that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or it is necessary in 1900 that one does not take place.
But the date of the predictions is irrelevant, and it is irrelevant whether any prediction is actually made at all.
So it is necessary at all times that a sea-battle takes place on 1/1/2100, or that a sea-battle does not take place on 1/1/2100.
But the argument can evidently be generalised.
So, everything that happens, happens of necessity.
All you need to read.
>>7793021
which relates to determinism or free will how ?
>>7792904
>and your proof is ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
>>7793049
> quantum autism
Both of the things you posted are retarded hypothesis' that are way too childish and improbable to be taken seriously by any respected scientist. Second of all, the fact that you we don't have the technology to understand what causes this hypothetical uncertainty, does not even relate to determinism. Until you prove and put something solid on the table that shows this effect, you've got no arguments.
>>7793021
>description of determinism
"P cannot be in an indeterminate state" is the assumption you make when you take on that worldview.
>I made a thread proving free will, it was deleted, even though it was very active
>someone makes a thread crying because many mathematicians are theists, the thread died of old age with many posts
>now someone polls on free will: posters are only interested in shitposting with sam harris' shit book and thoughts, without even defining free will in the first place
Free will: the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
I can walk to the kitchen and eat a donut right now, I can go take a piss, hell I can even stick a knife on my leg. The act also starts at any moment I want. The simple fact that I can choose between these courses of action, gives me free will. There. Proved. Refute this.
>>7793125
your decisions are a chemical and electrical response to stimulus so while all of these are possible only one of them will actually happen, which is probably continue shitposting on 4chan wasting away as much time as possible in a world without social pressures so you dont have to face your own dissapointment
>>7793125
>The simple fact that I can choose between these courses of action, gives me free will.
What courses of action. There's only one.
Time is linear.
>>7793133
Only one of them would Always happen, this comes from Simple logic not from decisions being chemical-electrical responses. But the fact is, free will is defined as the ability to choose between different possible courses of action. If I have this ability, then I have free will. So you need to refute this simple argument.
>>7793138
What the fuck did you just say, you dumb shit? Is space three dimensional too? What is the relation, I am choosing between courses of action, therefore of all options I choose one logicaly. Why dont you censor your own retardation
>>7793125
> free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
You just defined making a decision, not free will you fucking idiot. Otherwise programs have free will as well, since they can make decisions.
>>7793150
Since when do programs make a decision?
>>7793125
>I can even stick a knife on my leg
Do you know that you can if you don't do it? If you did it, would you know you could have refrained from doing it? What does can mean in this case?
>>7793157
Ever heard of AI ?
>>7793150
>Otherwise programs have free will as well, since they can make decisions
Your mom should have made the decision to swallow instead of get inseminated. Had this happened, we wouldn't have to deal with your stupidity.
>>7793159
I can physically grab a knife and stick it on my leg, I can then physically apply alcohol to the wound, or do you think this is impossible
>>7793164
> resorting to ad-hominems
well, that was easy.
next
>>7793161
Did you just say we have invented AGI?
>>7793159
You could flip a coin on whether or not you are going to stick a knife in your leg, and let the random nature of the coin toss determine the outcome. In that case, you know that you could have either done it or refrained from doing it with 50% likelihood for both. This is tedious.
>>7793165
I can physically smash the back of your neck with my elbow, and physically carve up your body whether you're dying or unconscious.
>>7793125
>I want
All what you are want is already pre-deterministic by the law of Causality, it is already predetermined before you were born, your every thought is predetermined . That is determinism. LOL
>>7793169
AGI ?
>>7793167
>resorting to ad-hominems
You started it, asshole.
Eat shit and die.
>>7793181
I asked you since the programs have the ability to decide as well, do they have free will too. Then you sperged out, started smashing your keyboard to your head and shitted out another post like you've been doing since you came into this thread.
>>7793183
>Then you sperged out,
I'm not the one attempting to prove a point by "smashing peoples necks in", or calling other people stupid, fuckface.
>like you've been doing since you came into this thread
Project much? Of course you do.
In case you're too stupid to understand complex words, I'll dumb it down here for you:
>Fuck off and die
>>7793196
> smashing peoples necks in
thats someone else you dumb fuck. multiple people are adressing how much of an imbecile you are.
The fact that you keep ignoring my question about AI for the 3rd time means you didn't come into the thread for a discussion. You're just here to shitpost relentlessly, like you've been doing since you came into this thread.
Please go back to >>>/b/. This is a science board not the kindergarden.
>>7793196
>I'm not the one attempting to prove a point by "smashing peoples necks in"
That was me. Sever or crush your vertebral arteries, damage the spine at the cervical level, damage brainstem, etc.
>>7793201
>thats someone else you dumb fuck. multiple people are adressing how much of an imbecile you are.
Bullshit.
>The fact that you keep ignoring my question about AI for the 3rd time means you didn't come into the thread for a discussion. You're just here to shitpost relentlessly, like you've been doing since you came into this thread.
How can I argue against superior minds like yourself?
Just kidding, I only jest.
>Please go back to >>>/b/. This is a science board not the kindergarden.
I didn't realize you're capable of generating healthy ideas. Why don't you take a dose of your own medicine and fuck off with your furry friends there?
>Multiple people are adressing how much of an imbecile you are
>Multiple people
Just how many personalities do you really have, asshole?
>>7793172
I can flip a coin 100 times, and thus stab my leg 50. I though choose to not stab my leg 8000+ days of my life. Are you fucking retarded, or trying to convince some retard out there
>>7793173
>the retard tries his ultimate tactics
This is how retarded the "no free will" schizos are, everyone
Earth has a theoretical possibility to change the orbit in any time, I can imagine it clearly - Earth just wanting fly away and earth doing -. Does this mean that the earth has free will? Earth just don't wanting doing it? Maybe Earth just a material object which obeys to the laws of physics as we do?
>>7793216
Fine. I won't hack you up while you're unconscious, I'll burn you instead. I will return you to the greater machine.
You win.
>>7793225
>I will return you to the greater machine.
You couldn't lift a butter knife, let alone return anyone to "the greater machine".
>>7793175
It doesnt matter if it is predetermined, I can still choose one course of action out of many.
>>7793229
I could lift all the butter knives. I'll return you to ALL of the machines.
>>7793232
>I could lift all the butter knives.
Maybe if you eat your Wheaties (or if you're British, your porridge--or whatever you fuckers eat across the pond for breakfast).
>I'll return you to ALL of the machines.
The power of the mind is awesome. Too bad you can't translate that to real action, you 100 lb weakling. lolz
>>7793235
I'm 100 + 30 libs, and I'll lift your mind right out the door. I'll lift you out of so many doors you won't know how out you are, much less how to get back in.
>>7793242
>I'm 100 + 30 libs, and I'll lift your mind right out the door.
Unless you're three apples high, you're gonna need more than just your "able body" to lift my mind out the door.
>I'll lift you out of so many doors you won't know how out you are, much less how to get back in.
An infinite amount of doors?
>>7793245
I never eat more than 2 apples, but I can be plenty high. Highness is quantized, so I know how high to not be.
No, however the doors are a maze. Stepping through a door, then turning around and stepping through it again, will leave you somewhere other than you started. Going through some doors also changes your size. You will be too tall to fit in the next room, or too short to reach the knob.
>>7793255
>I never eat more than 2 apples, but I can be plenty high. Highness is quantized, so I know how high to not be.
Kek
>No, however the doors are a maze. Stepping through a door, then turning around and stepping through it again, will leave you somewhere other than you started. Going through some doors also changes your size. You will be too tall to fit in the next room, or too short to reach the knob.
Someone once told me that entering infinite amount of doors is like being in a Mobius Loop.
Every door, he explained, is in every position known. And the combination of the doors are endless. Yet our minds cannot think outside of so many dimensions (commonly 3, uncommonly 4----5 if you're gifted).
Could you imagine sending someone through that many doors and plotting the path via a 4 dimension plane?
Did a single free will claiming jesus freak answered any questions ? Why are these people here ?
>>7793338
>Did a single free will claiming jesus freak answered any questions ?
No
>Why are these people here ?
They are here to simply confound you.
>>7793341
mission accomplished
>>7793410
No.
>>7793425
>doesn't lie very well
>>7792027
Still a non-sequitur, anon-san.
Take your free will crap elsewhere. This isn't a religion board.
>>7793498
There's not a single definition of free will in this thread so how do you know it has anything to do with religion?
Checkmate athiests
![200[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/tSKhrXx.gif "200[1].gif")
>>7793528
> I am non-deterministic and have free will because I am not bound by the rules of physics, even though every single bit of me is made up of physical matter.
sounds like religious blabbering to me :^)
Determinism is not opposed to free will. Shit thread.
>>7793638
They are not compatible either. You don't have free will if all your decisions are already made, you only have the illusion of it.
>>7793660
Whatever I decide to do, doesnt matter, but the fact that I can right nw open the fridge or paint, study or slack, is what accounts for free will. The fact that my cognition, which I inherit from determinism, allows me to hold all these possibilities at the same time is what accounts for free will. The simple fact that I can do all these things accounts for free will, what I actually do doesn't matter in this question. It is a definition of potentiality: "oh this man didnt work today, but he could had done it: he wasnt sick, he wasnt in some kind of jail" etc It is a simple definition that considers human cognition and physical potentialities.
>>7793545
>ctrl-f
> I am non-deterministic and have free will because I am not bound by the rules of physics, even though every single bit of me is made up of physical matter.
>1 of 1 match
I didn't say that nor did anyone else.
>>7793660
>You don't have free will if all your decisions are already made, you only have the illusion of it.
>free will
What do you mean by this?
>>7793681
Determinism is the state of your actions being determined by their prior causes which you had no control. Free will is the state where your actions are not being determined by their prior causes.
>>7793709
Not really the definition of free will if you are refering causes in the sense of Physics. This sentence comes from the notion that past settis are irrelevant, as in you can sign in for a STEM course and then drop it, you can be dirty for awhile and then clean yourself. It was used against the sense that you dont have to stay the way you are, you dont have "to not take a shower today because you don't take a shower ever", "you don't have to be shitty because you are always shitty", "you don't have to be a criminal because you were always a criminal". It was used in this sense.
The actual definition of Free will in science is: "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action" which comes simply from cognition. Do you have basic human cognition? Well, then you have free will. Even an ape might have it. Responsibility is proportionally the price of intelligence.
>>7793733
>"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action"
I agree that this seems to be the definition of free will that makes most sense. Everyone has free will to some extent. Everyone has choices they can make every single day. The culmination of thousands of these choices can lead to very different paths.
I'm not sure what determinism is trying to prove, the arguments don't seem to make sense and seem to ignore the fact that all people do have limited choices available to them to varying degrees.
>>7793030
good goy, shill shill shill
protip: I won't be giving my hard earned cash to a lesser mind. Why should I?
>>7790973
Exactly. The smart ones here will realize that time only has a past present bias for organisms because evolution could not occur any other way. One must collect energy when it is available, not when it is disordered.
>>7793733
> The actual definition of Free will in science is: "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action"
Show me your source where this is the official universally accepted definition.
>>7793157
If A do X
If B do Y
>>7793783
Welp, then if that is a decision, I guess my mechanic clock right here is making decisions all the time!
>>7793788
yeah. it can make decisions right ? it means its got free will !
Free will proven everybody :D
>>7793788
Yes of course it is. Turing machines are essentially just machines that make decisions. But I doubt you think such simple machines have "free will".
>>7793791
Nope, it means they have free will. It's what the free will people claimed in this thread, that the fact that you are able to make decisions, means that you've got free will.
this poll is severely biased as it only takes answers from people who think they know the answer
>>7793803
That just seems like a way to define free will in order to win the argument rather than meaningfully describe free will. Would someone really do that?
>>7793806
forget the voting. someone hacked it and put 345 votes 5 minutes after I made the thread. I can brute force it back but people didn't give a shit about it anyway
>>7793791
Gödel himself,[175] John Lucas (in 1961) and Roger Penrose (in a more detailed argument from 1989 onwards) argued that humans are not reducible to Turing machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence#The_limits_of_artificial_general_intelligence
Read the Gödelian argument, that explains why AGI isnt here yet.
This is the problem, you have no depth in what you are talking about, you are just a bored kid on the internet with a small vocabulary of 5000 words.
>>7793808
Then please, read the thread and find me one free willy poster that gave a sensible description of free will. I'm anxious to see what their definition is.
>>7793813
ooh, so these were the people who had indepth knowledge of humans. Were they neuroscientists or something ? Or someone who has the credentials to be respected as an authority for deciding how cognition works ?
>>7793814
You are free to ignore the valid answer. Please, post this again to prove my point even further. You rather simulate a discussion than actually admit you are retarded :DD
>>7793822
> You are free to ignore the valid answer.
Which is ?
>>7793821
Such rhetorics only prove you are too much of a wild free ape to read and accept it. Please, do it again.
