/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.11061115]

I don't know if you think this is a joke. Perhaps you are one of the 99% of the population that has not thought deeply enough of what the implication of no free will is.

Free will is impossible. Everything is cause and effect. Your thoughts are not your own. You don't control them. You don't control anything.

Think of life as a movie. A movie with very convincing graphics, very convincing haptic feedback, very convincing scents that stimulates your senses. You are not in control of the movie, it simply plays from start to finish. You are watching a movie. It seems real, it seems like you can control it. That is because the illusion is so convincing.

If you can't grasp this, I don't blame you. You have been brainwashed by the proponents of free will. But take some time to think about it, do you really control your thoughts? What made you do what you just did right now? Was it you? Or are you just watching a movie?

[Anonymous No.11061125]

free will obeying natural law, be smart you are a mortal not a god

[Anonymous No.11061128]

>>11061115
Cheer up buddy
We bull now

[Anonymous No.11061137]

>>11061125
that's what I want NPCs to believe

[Anonymous No.11061165]

This normie guy is ruining biz with his forced memes. Kys pleeeaseee

[Anonymous No.11061186]

>>11061115
You're full of shit, because there is no way to prove either way.

[Anonymous No.11061188]

>>11061115
“everything is cause and effect” muh physics. Cause and effect are archaic frameworks that only describe the phenomenological dimension, and even that only partly so, besides cause and effect are in no way deterministic, they are probabilistic.

[Anonymous No.11061200]

yes i have free will. i run my own show all day everyday.

[Anonymous No.11061207]

>>11061115
Fuck up, idiot. The pages of the book are written in advance, but the reader experiences the characters' free will.

[Anonymous No.11061236]

>>11061188
what other dimensions are there? doesn't matter if they are probabilistic or deterministic, still no free will.

[Anonymous No.11061255]

>>11061207
you mean the reader experiences the characters illusion of free will?

[Anonymous No.11061262]

>>11061186
there is you just haven't looked into it

[Anonymous No.11061277]

>>11061255
The reader's experience of reading the book doesn't feel predetermined to the reader. Maybe we should ask the reader's reader to clarify this.

[Anonymous No.11061286]

>>11061236
when you reduce phenomena to binary options a deterministic framework states with absolute certainty A follows B, but probability considers things as having a ‘chance’ of happening, ie not being deterministic.

[Anonymous No.11061328]

>>11061286
yes but non-determinism is not the same as non-free will. free will implies you are responsible for the choices you make. but the responsibility can always be tracked further and further back in the chain of effects, therefore no free will exists

the way your brain computes information depends on the input signals it gets, it simply reacts to the environment

[Anonymous No.11061341]

>>11061277
this topic is not about determinism, it is about whether agents have free will or not. they don't, they simply respond to the environment, i.e. life is the same as watching a very convincing movie

[Anonymous No.11061367]

>>11061115
That's Eve's fault.

[Anonymous No.11061394]

>>11061262

Have you looked into it? Have you really?

[Anonymous No.11061413]

>>11061394
I am convinced free will is impossible. I cannot imagine a reality with free will. What would that even look like?

[Anonymous No.11061468]

>>11061341
I understand. We obviously experience what feels like free will, but scientists have also observed the drive to act in the human brain before the subject is conscious of that drive. It's a paradox. I tend to approach it like this - if there's any question that can't be answered due to a paradox, I consider there may be an incorrect and restrictive assumption built into the question. In this case, our definition and understanding of "free will" may be spurious, but that doesn't mean our experience of agency is invalid.

Putting it a different way, the act of reading the book is like a wave function collapse in quantum mechanics. It's not so much the characters' futures are predetermined, but that all their possible futures exist while the book's pages remain unread. If there's no reader, there's no narrative. The characters' agency is experienced by the reader as they read the pages and evoke an actual narrative from infinite potential narratives. Whatever it is that characters experience and identify as free will is emergent from this process.

[Anonymous No.11061479]

:)

[Anonymous No.11061515]

>>11061328
>>11061328
>>11061328
free will simply implies that their is a choice to make. Culpability is how one assigns responsibility of the effects of that choice to a particular agent. As Beings endowed with the ability to reason and rationalise things we are held accountable for our actions, or the choices we make. You might be able to say certain phenomena influenced your ability to make a free choice by diminishing your faculties of reason, thereby diminishing your level of culpability, but you cant say you have no culpability in a probabilistic framework because a probabilistic framework states that no one agent has complete control or sovereignty over any other agent. As a human is able to reason they are the sole determinant of truth, as such they are sovereign over their own beliefs and their own autonomy and can be held accountable or culpable based upon such.

[Anonymous No.11061549]

If free will doesn’t exist how come I can suicide at any moment when on the path of life? And if you say that it was pre determined I was going to suicide, how come I can stop my suicide right before I take the final step off the step ladder or the final breath of a suicide bag?

[Anonymous No.11061567]

>>11061115
>that has not thought deeply enough of what the implication of no free will is.
There are zero implications.

[Anonymous No.11061589]

>Free will is impossible.
HAHAHAHHA. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.11061601]

>>11061115
> Doesn’t know anything about quantum mechanics.
Rtfm.

[Anonymous No.11061610]

>>11061115
If everything is subject to cause and effect, why does anything exist at all?

[Anonymous No.11061618]

>>11061610
This.
Answer: Quantum Mechanics

[Anonymous No.11061619]

>>11061549
> implying that you wont instantly wake up in eternal hellfire because ur an edgy faggot atheist who never came to Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.11061628]

>>11061601
I would argue that you're the one who doesn't have a clue about quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.11061636]

>>11061115
>fedora tier cope on top of a forced meme

[Anonymous No.11061643]

The big meme I see here is normies vs NEETs.

Normies call NEETs incels.
NEETs call normies NPCs.

It's effectively two different values systems challenging one another.

[Anonymous No.11061650]

>>11061643
>NEETs
>value systems

[Anonymous No.11061655]

>>11061115
>faggot doesnt understand the duality of existence and how everything both is and isnt at the same time
>faggot doesnt understand how man is both god and beast simultaneously and can literally create the world he desires for himself by imprinting thought into physical reality trough will and faith, action

[Anonymous No.11061661]

>>11061618
>>11061328
>>11061341

This thread reminds me of my high school days. Quantum Mechanics just introduces true randomness, which doesn't solve the problem of existence. There either needs to be a prime mover (i.e. god) or infinite regress. If a prime mover exists, it could be possible that we posses free will and are such prime movers ourselves to a limited degree.

[Anonymous No.11061684]

>>11061628
I’ll admit that my understanding is limited to a few classes and a graduate text worth of self-study. Nonetheless, QM shows that physics is non-deterministic.

A lot of people learn some basic physical science, then convince themselve that everything has been predetermined. Newton has been extremely useful, but Newton was wrong.

[Anonymous No.11061696]

>>11061650
>refusing to take part in clawing the most insignificant scraps of profit from fellow wagecucks for the amusement of schlomo

I call that a value system.

[Anonymous No.11061707]

>>11061661
Uh oh, here comes Mr. Philosophy. Willigg to bet that there’s very little agreement on what a “prime mover” is. Your argument is degenerate.

[Anonymous No.11061726]

>>11061707
>Willigg to bet that there’s very little agreement on what a “prime mover” is.
No shit, sherlock. Just saying that it is likely for a prime mover to exist. What such a prime mover would be like is a whole different topic.

[Anonymous No.11061742]

>>11061684
Right, and how exactly does Quantum Mechanics come to the understanding of complete indeterminism?

[Anonymous No.11061758]

>>11061742
Uncertainty principle.

[Anonymous No.11061762]

>>11061726
Tell me please, so that you can be understandable, wtf is a “prime mover”?

[Anonymous No.11061772]

>>11061762
>when your lack of mental ability prevents you from typing 2 words into google search engine

[Anonymous No.11061782]

>>11061762
Here was my example earlier in the thread: >>11061468

[Anonymous No.11061789]

>>11061742
Effectively this:
>>11061758

When we measure the very small things that make up matter and energy, we must resort to probabilities. And, this isn’t for a lack of proper tools.

[Anonymous No.11061790]

>>11061758
Are you just not going to answer the question then? I'm struggling to actually begin the discussion.

[Anonymous No.11061793]

>>11061758
We don't know whether it's true randomness. There may be some mechanism that determines the outcome which we just can't observe. Not that it matters in practice, it's just a philosophical matter.

[Anonymous No.11061798]

>>11061115
Buy btc or be a npc

[Anonymous No.11061800]

>>11061115
you are unironically, 100% correct.
but that doesn't make us NPCs. it means that we are the universe experiencing itself.
now just make sure you don't let this intellectual revelation creep into your subconscious because then your days are numbered.

[Anonymous No.11061810]

>>11061793
this

[Anonymous No.11061816]

>>11061772
>>11061782
You guys are missing my point. I’m saying that there is zero consensus on what a “prime mover” is, so then how can we use it in an argument? Replace “prime mover” with “essential matter”, or “trancendental object” and your argument is just as effective. Philosophers do this all the time and it’s not helpful to anyone.

[Anonymous No.11061817]

>>11061762
Even if you introduce true randomness with quantum mechanics, that still leaves the question of how something can come from nothing unanswered. Why does anything exist at all? There is two possibilities:

1. Infinite Regress
There has always been something. Every event is preceded by a different event, in an infinite causal chain.

2. Prime mover
There is an entity outside of the laws of cause and effect, which is capable of effect without a cause, or rather a effect which is its own cause. A sort of bootstrap process of existence itself. Call it God, the big bang or whatever.

>>11061793
It matters, because BTFOing nihilistic fedora tippers matters.

[Anonymous No.11061822]

>>11061782
Spurious is a good word. I'll borrow that if I remember.

[Anonymous No.11061837]

>>11061817
No. Read ‘Something from Nothing” by Krauss. Nothing can come from nothing, infact, nothingness is sort of an unstable state which tends to become something. Like a ball at the top of a hill. This is do to quantum fluctuations.

[Anonymous No.11061859]

>>11061810
>>11061793
John Bell proved as much as it's provable that it's true randomness. Do some reading

on prime mover:
you guys assume that the default state is 'nothing exists' and thus need something to set matter and energy into motion.
when actually the default state is everything exists. Because patterns and information cannot not exist and patterns and information is all there is

[Anonymous No.11061872]

the fractal is endless, it goes on and on in every direction

[Anonymous No.11061884]

>>11061837
>nothingness is sort of an unstable state which tends to become something.
Then "nothingness" is not nothingness. Where does nothingness come from? All you're doing is pushing the argument back one level.

You better be an actual physicist. If not, get your positivist pop science bullshit out of this philosophical discussion.

[Anonymous No.11061897]

>>11061817
>It matters, because BTFOing nihilistic fedora tippers matters.
Except you literally can't do that. Also explain how random/deterministic universe has any bearing on nihilism.

[Anonymous No.11061920]

>>11061884
We can swap credentials some other time.

By nothingness I mean: No energy or matter of any kind. (A useful definition)

What do you mean by nothing?

[Anonymous No.11061940]

>>11061837
The word you're looking for is "metastable", but I have a feeling you're just throwing around loosely connected concepts, without remotely understanding them.
>>11061920
>by nothingness I mean: No energy or matter of any kind.
It's not useful at all, because there is no such thing, which is why no physicist uses the word.

[Anonymous No.11061953]

>>11061920
>What do you mean by nothing?
What the word means. Nothing. Nada. No laws of physics, nothing.

[Anonymous No.11061975]

>>11061413
Try the Garden of Eden nigga

[Anonymous No.11062062]

Physics as we currently know it leaves no room for free will. Even quantum randomness shown by the Bell experiments do not solve the issue as randomness cannot allow us to have influence.

BUT physics is not complete. And there is one galring omission that physics is unable to explain. That IS consciousness and our ability to be aware. Whether or not there is free will it is very hard to deny that we do not experience things (qualia). There is only one thing that I can be sure of and that is my experiences (even if they are false I still experience something).

This is know as the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Even if we know everything about the brain down to the subatomic level we are still unable to explain how this gives rise to an experience (pain etc). The brain is after all made of matter. Matter as we know does not have the ability to experiance as a prime property. Yet lots of them together can do (brains). This is hand waved away as "emergence". Yet this explains nothing. SImple fact is we live in a universe were the laws allow for consciousness. Yet all the "laws" we know have nothing to do with it. We are missing the most crucial aspect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

When we solve it we will realise most likely that consciousness is at the root of all existence. Matter cannot exist without it. When we understand this property we may well find ample room for free will.

[Anonymous No.11062079]

>>11061115
>Spouting Sam Harris baby's first philosophy

[Anonymous No.11062090]

>>11061115
It has been reported that some victims of torture, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not wake up. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren’t being tortured. The only way that they realized they needed to wake up was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to wake up. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and please wake up.

[Anonymous No.11062097]

>>11061115
irrelevant, offtopic

[Anonymous No.11062171]

>>11061115
A lot of people who aren’t brainlets have thought about this. You’re not special just because you’ve thought a bit about one of the biggest philosophical questions in life.

[Anonymous No.11062184]

>>11061115
True altruism might exist. You are only correct if you can prove it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11062200]

>>11061115
Does this seem like the best board to post this shit on?

[Anonymous No.11062213]

>>11061188
Statistical Determinism is still determinism.

[Anonymous No.11062218]

>>11061115
read gurdjieff
he talks about NPCs over 100 years ago

[Anonymous No.11062220]

>>11061200
You literally only wrote that message because of OPs message which basically means OP forced you to post to 4chan. Is that “running your own show”? 4chan neets with half developed arguments over why free will doesn’t exist controlling your actions? Kek. Anyone who thinks they have choice is fucking deluded.

[Anonymous No.11062233]

>>11062218
to add to this:
if you read gurdjieff and don't understand what he's talking about; congrats, you're an NPC.

[Anonymous No.11062334]

if free will exist how come you don't even control your own breath? checkmate

[Anonymous No.11062350]

Yeah but this movies sucks I wanna watch a better one

[Anonymous No.11062379]

>>11061115
Just because the factors that drive the end result are far too complex for us to possibly fathom/calculate said result, doesn't mean a result isn't already determined. Free will is an illusion (a very strong one) masking the underlying complexity of everything that has led to the determined future.

> but i'm special
surefire way to spot a unaware npc

[Anonymous No.11062391]

>>11062334
>he can't control his own breath
kek

[Anonymous No.11062410]

>>11062334
NPC spotted. I can control my breathe

[Anonymous No.11062411]

>>11062391
try to kill yourself by stopping your breath, you can't

[Anonymous No.11062428]

>>11061859
my nigga, if these things are truly random, as so is proposed and proved, that means they have no underlying governing principle, is that not to say they are things in and of themselves and therefore unknowable by reason alone? Fren, how can randomness ‘be’ ? If we know with certainty that when their superposition collapses the outcome is random, is that not us predicting they will always be random, meaning they are not random. In order to be true randomness would it not need to accomodate for the chance that they will also exist in a state of order ? Anon, to me, this seems paradoxical, but thanks for switching me on to this.

[Anonymous No.11062440]

>>11062411
>try to kill yourself
NPC spotted. real humans don't die, we transition.

[Anonymous No.11062447]

>>11061115
What is the difference between an illusion and the real thing if they are exactly the same? We are not capable of understanding or feeling the illusion in more than a very arbitrary and abstract way. As far as we can perceive, we are in control. Yet we logically know we are not

What is the implication? Nothing at all.
It's just the way things are. DEAL WITH IT.

[Anonymous No.11062458]

>>11061115

What really fucks them up, is that even thoughts & sensations are part of the movie.

>>11061515

Except your ability to reason is itself constrained by the knowledge available, the physical brain, and ton of other factors outside individual control. So no, there's no responsibility for anything. But it doesn't matter, we need to fake that there is, beacsie that's just also part of the game.

[Anonymous No.11062462]

>>11062213
its hardly the hard determinism that the OP is talking about, and even so statistical determinism necessarily accounts for the epistemological problem of certainty and so always leaves a remainder, even if it is orders of magnitude smaller than the proposed outcome.

[Anonymous No.11062475]

>>11062440
>we transition

What, you become a trap?

[Anonymous No.11062481]

>>11061549
If you really can, do it
You see? You cant.

[Anonymous No.11062493]

>>11062447
iq 10000

[Anonymous No.11062516]

>>11062475
lulz, i guess i should've chosen a different word, considering the audience here

[Anonymous No.11062530]

>>11062458
>>11062458
those factors obviously influence your level of culpability, but simply because things are outside of your control does not mean you do not have free will, thats a slippery slope, fag.

[Anonymous No.11062542]

>>11062447
>DEAL WITH IT.
That, atleast, is how i cope. Funny how even that is predetermined. Our insight of predetermination is predetermined to put us on a predetermined path in life predetermined to lead a person, depending on their predetermined virtues, either to nihilism or stoicism. Of course the realization of predetermination is not predetermined for everyone.

Most actually protect themselves by much earlier putting up a multi-layer defense of coping-mechanisms that will make sure that they never reach the end of the logic circuit in their life - thus also efficiently avoiding the problem of having to choose between nihilism and stoicism.

These early-on coping-mechanisms come in a wide variety, some seen in this very thread
>>11061125
>>11061186
>>11061188
>>11061207

[Anonymous No.11062547]

>>11062428
first off, there is not much that can be truly known.
'something exists and perceives itself' and 'patterns exist independently of matter' are just about the only things we can be certain of.
Your perceived paradox is a result of you throwing together what we can prove through science & reason with the omnipresent and everlasting metaphysical doubt. Those are two different levels of thought. One questions everything while the other one takes at least this (somewhat) quali- and quantifiable universe for granted.
Careful with this.
In our universe quantum mechanical state is truly random. Whether there is a level below that we cannot possibly access is unknown. But if you make the (initially tempting) case that there might be - it's just as believable that there is an unaccessible level of green gummy bears that determines things.
Differentiate between your thought systems, anon

[Anonymous No.11062552]

>>11061115
You watch too much Rick and morty dude

[Anonymous No.11062559]

>>11062090
also anon i just wanted to add my own little note in your dream world that you’re a fag.

[Anonymous No.11062570]

>>11062559
topkek

[Anonymous No.11062610]

>>11062552

[Anonymous No.11062633]

>>11061115
Here’s the reality:
Nobody knows if we have free will.
But, as others have said:
What difference does that make? None.

Beware of spinning wheels in a philosophical debate. In the end, nothing happens. No better understanding.

Focus on things you can affect. Spend your time usefully. Look into mathematical logic. It’s insightful on the level you wish philosophy was.

[Anonymous No.11062677]

>>11062547
thanks anon, i’m an epistemological skeptic, particularly influenced by Kants critique of pure reason so it just seems irrational to say randomness can be known through reason as it cannot be based upon any axiomatic proofs.

[cryptofag from 20usd per btc No.11062724]

these fokin memes destroying biz

fkin chaos

not telling this board was any good well it actually was before crypto and it turned fullcrypto shit

now what do we have? fit sux, b sux, pol sux

fokin' Mood

[Anonymous No.11063684]

Yes you highschool philosophy student it doesn't take a genius to figure out there's no free will, only determinism

[Anonymous No.11063767]

>>11061115
One I came out of my Atheistic stupor I stopped believing in predeterminism. Now I let my dreams and my soul dictate my future.