/lit/ - Literature

>>14144945
>lack of predictive ability implies free will
not quite

>>14144945
>if you can't predict something that means it has free will
I guess storms have free will what a retard

>>14144973
it actually does since by having all necessary data one should be able to predict everything if free will didn't exist

>>14144945
Determinism was blown the fuck out so many times I can't even count the amount of arguments in favour of free will now. Even if the universe is deterministic, physicalism is true, and the pass of time is an illusion (eternalism is true), we STILL have free will.

>>14144999
indeterminism doesn’t necessarily imply free will, and it still hasn’t been shown how it could allow for free will at all.

>>14144945
this is literally retarded

trying to formulate something you aren't even defining in terms of itself - free will
>implausible
>le we're all genetically equal assumption
nice argument!

seriously what the fuck
can you imagine if actually intelligent people were allowed into academia?

let the notion rage within you, and let us kill every jew and every one of their degenerate lackeys

>>14145096
>can you imagine if actually intelligent people were allowed into academia?
they are but they are labelled as racist when they speak out

>x person can do y and possess z
>therefore i possess z even though i can't do y and i'm not x person
>atheist BTFO

you don't have free will even if there's a theoretical situational that it exists. there's a theoretical situational where immortal exists but you're still a buffoon going to die like an ant in the near future.

>>14145038
lol okay sure
>physicalism is true
whatever, let's say it is

go on, define 'free will'
i dare you to even define 'will'

you have no idea of the consequences that actually form will, you have no idea what will is, let alone free will

tell me your formulation and I will describe mine better.

free will is simply will direct from a 'god' or 'nature'/"God" that is not consequent from the will of another sentient, but of course their are degrees of freedom

will is a consequence of survival - a system of dynamics - consistent changes in matter - internalizes principles of reality and notates them in physical language as it evolves
this could be 'the laws of physics' of 'reality' or more obviously DNA in organisms

too good of information for you leftist retards, but hey, I'm generous

>>14145110
and whosoever labels another a 'racist' ought to be labeled 'dead' with a bullet in the brain

Gotta be honest I don't think I quite get what the OP imagine is saying.
>This function can predict your behavior but that same function cannot prove itself to be true. However, you can verify the truth of the prediction so therefore you have free will. Just be yourself bro!
Is this really the best (((math))) has to offer? I'm sticking to the Holy Scriptures.

>>14145038
Spinoza proved free will is an illusion and has not been BTFO.

>>14145051
>indeterminism doesn’t necessarily imply free will

you have things a little bit backwards there pal. everything implies free will, determinism is one of the few coherent arguments against free will. being that determinism has been refuted, it is yet another strike against those that deny free will and given that free will seems self-evident to our senses and experience, it is obvious that the side arguing against it should be the one who provides a coherent argument against it. if determinism is refuted there is nothing tangible there arguing against free will. to refute something as basic and obvious as free will we would then have to engage in highly implausible speculations, even more implausible than determinism at which point we might as well abandon all principles of rational reasoning and argumentation in the first place, rendering all conversation about the topic useless. i for one will remain in the camp that has the senses, the experience of being and rational reason going for it.

>>14145142
you dumb fuck!
what the fuck does that retarded kike book even describe of the matter?
"just listen to me lol surely a good guy who has your interests at heart will be at the top of the hierarchy and explain everything to you exactly right"

everything is subverted, ESPECIALLY your faggot churches, there no real academic work being done at all, except in private perhaps

like the fucking retarded subhuman christcuck you are you just turn tail and run for your hole instead of fighting for what is yours
you'll be harnessed up and forced to do your part before the end

>>14145179
>>14145164
>free will
>free will
>free will
>free will
>free will

>no definition
>no explanation
>only narration

ask me how i know you don't have free will or even a soul

>>14145135
>go on, define 'free will'

>>14144973
Seconded. I believe in free will, but a Godel-based argument only would show that some truths about action are not provable (demonstrable through proofs). But their truth would still obtain (that's how it works in arithmetic). There's a genuine problem if free will is true but statements about what you will do in the future are already true/false, unchangingly so. So a Godel style argument doesn't prove free will, it leaves us off where we're already at.

>>14145192
>a man can do as he wills, but he cannot will what he wills
To truly be free would mean that you purposely cause effects without being caused, which is non-sensical and has yet to be properly explained.

>>14145192
>HOW DARE YOU!?!? HOW DARE YOU ASK US TO DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN!!!!!!! free will is literally magic from god but we can't say that so we try and obfuscate it as much as possible! NOOO you can't point it out!

>>14145224
As I've previously said, physical determinism—a universe governed by laws and causality—does not eliminate the possibility of free will.

>>14145241
it doesn't eliminate the possibility or immortality or even going to another universe. all contrary to your christcuck religion. what does any of this got to do with you though pea brain?

>>14145185
We are slaves to our instinctual desires, but by the prevenient grace of God we can, with his aid, become truly free and follow him.

>>14145241
It depends on how you define free will. We obviously have wills, but how can you cause without being caused, while also doing it purposely? Is not the purpose the cause? And is not the purpose predetermined and caused?

>>14144945
The first premise doesn't hold up, simply because you need not be able to predict physically impossible situations for no free will to be true.

The second conclusion is just false. Given a discrete universe the logical system would be inherently finite, so Gödels first incompletness theorem just doesn't apply.

Three fails totally. L(m) might not be constructible and T(L(m)) might neither be constructable nor determinable (what if T is a physically impossible situation).

4 would follow if 3 were true.

5 would follow if 4 were true.

6 seems intuitively false and he doesn't even give evidence why it would be true.


So, what the fuck was he thinking? This is total nonsense.

>>14145258
Where is the space for freedom? Why not just say that God is the one acting for us through grace?

>>14145266
>5 would follow if 4 were true.
Maybe if you define free will as merely being unpredictable

>>14145258
>slave
what the fuck does that even mean
your instinctual desires are freedom over reality
they are life and possibility
they are the will of your "God" imposed on you to give you life

you are so fucked up you should be put down

>>14145255
>it doesn't eliminate the possibility or immortality or even going to another universe. all contrary to your christcuck religion.
You're a retard. I never said that I was Christian, although I am. And I'm not even arguing that God or a soul is a prerequisite for free will.
>what does any of this got to do with you though pea brain?
You replied to me, idiot.
>>14145264
>but how can you cause without being caused, while also doing it purposely? Is not the purpose the cause? And is not the purpose predetermined and caused?
Physical determinism does not imply agential determinism. I thought determinists and free will skeptics would at least be familiar with compatiblism.

>>14144945
How does this even work when the universe has inherent randomness?

Even if we are free to choose we're still in a sense not really free because our choices are based on our survival. Sure, I'm free to kill myself right now, but I'm not going to do that because I was programmed with an irrational desire to survive. What's so sacred about my personal sovereignty if my choices are always going to be based on whatever is most beneficial to my survival in the moment? It's like an RPG that has an auto battle feature. If I wanted to, I could make the decisions myself, but if I gave up my free will to the AI, which is programmed to maintain the survival of my party, then the end result would still be virtually The same.

>>14145258
>god created everything including making you a "slave" to desires
>now need to beg god to free us or we're punished in hell forever
/lit/ has turned into /x/ tier schizo shit. the christard larpers aren't even pretending they aren't schizo anymore

>>14145280
Yes, I should have said 4 would follow if 1 to 3 were true.

>>14145290
Are you talking about uncertainty being inherent in reality itself?

>>14145288
>Physical determinism does not imply agential determinism. I thought determinists and free will skeptics would at least be familiar with compatibilism
Is this supposed to be an explanation? Just tell me if you think all of our actions are predetermined by causes or not. If not, then explain how we can make causeless, but purposeful choices.

>>14145273
>>14145282
>>14145300
Seething

>>14145321
one of those is not like the others

>>14145337
Fine.
>>14145273
wikipedia dot whatever / Synergism

Time cannot be proven to be linear therefore determinism cannot be proven. (Not to say it's necessarily wrong)

>>14145350
Time might be non linear and determinism might still be true.

>>14145359
But it cannot be proven.

>>14145346
To be truly free is to be perfect, since a free being knows what’s best for him, and will freely conform his will to what is best. So if God grants us freedom, it is no different than God giving us the desire to do what’s best. A free being does not sin.

>>14145366
>since a free being knows what’s best for him
not necessarily true, but at least the being will seek what he thinks is best in the end.

>>14145365
Determinism is impossible to be proven or disproven, independent of time being linear or not.

>>14145310
Yeah our best understanding at the quantum level is that there is pure randomness, right?

>>14145389
>Yeah our best understanding at the quantum level is that there is pure randomness
Superdeterminism might still be true.

>>14145397
I meant the proof in the OP is relying on a non-random universe.

>>14145377
Some people may disagree with that. You can argue it from another perspective if you'd like though.

>>14145312
Okay.

Agential indeterminism: more than one course of action is possible for the agent.

Physical determinism: only one possible future sequence of events is possible.

Agential indeterminism and physical determinism deal with two seperate domains; physical determinism is a thesis at the physical level and agential indeterminism is a thesis at the psychological level. Since they are two seperate domains, physical determinism does not pose a threat to free will, only agential determinism would—if it were proven.
>>14145350
LOL. Eternalism and relativity still don't pose a threat to free will. Besides, the only proponents of of eternalism are crank theoretical physicists. Great philosophers and cosmologists have provided a pretty strong case for a growing block universe.
>>14145389
It depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics you subscribe to. Some interpretations say that it is completely random and uncertain while others say that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not contradict determinism.

>>14145414
Again, super determinism might still be true and there might absolutely be no randomness in the universe.

Free will/determinism being true/false make no difference.

>>14145377
>quantum
and at this point, the conversation has drifted irrecoverably far off into the Pseudific Ocean

>>14145430
Determinism has huge implications; economics, social sciences, ethics, and legal systems would all be affected. The implications of determinism has gone largely undiscussed.

>>14145422
Well, it's definitely impossible to prove no determinism since at any point superdeterminism might be true.


>>14145437
I didn't use the word quantum and quantum mechanics is the best descriptive theory of the universe at small scales we have.

>>14145427
>Since they are two seperate domains
One clearly implies the other.

if determinism was real why are you even alive?

>>14145447
i quoted the wrong post, sorry

>>14145389
>>14145437

>>14145460
Because I pretend it's not when it doesn't suit me

>>14145446
https://vocaroo.com/i/s1IqH4JCbWcQ

:3

>>14145451
The psychological level is the level at which our best theories describe and explain human behaviour and cognition. It's worthless to explain how a computer works at the physical level where millions of electrons flow through chips, just like it's hopeless to describe human behaviour in physical terms. They physical domain does not imply the psychological domain.

>/lit/ discusses free will
I suppose I’ll have to make a thread soon to clear up all this confusion.

>>14145484
>It's worthless to explain how a computer works at the physical level where millions of electrons flow
Exactly that is being done in pretty much every single EE degree though.
It really isn't all that hard.

>They physical domain does not imply the psychological domain.
But clearly it does.
You can not think thoughts that are physically impossible to think.
If an actor posses the ability to choose between to things then clearly that implies that two different physical futures could exist.

>>14145500
No.

The modern problem of free will and agency is pointlessly muddled in trivialities. Human beings are just incredibly complex algorithms. We just think we have free will because our consciousness tells us that we do. “You”, in the proper sense, are just an attention schema monitoring your bodies awareness.

>>14145500
No one wants your input, nerd.

>>14145506
>Human beings are just incredibly complex algorithms
Why is the algorithm deterministic?

> “You”, in the proper sense, are just an attention schema monitoring your bodies awareness.
Evidence?

>>14145480
Hey thanks

From the criticism paragraph on wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

/thread/

Honest question, is there any point considering determinism outside of materialism?

>>14145480
>Triangular vector space
LMAO

You really have zero clue what you are talking about, right?
Your rambling is incoherent, game theory is ENTIRELY unconnected to this discussion.

>>14145502
>Exactly that is being done in pretty much every single EE degree though.
Are you talking about fucking diagrams?
>But clearly it does.
I already explained why we can't speak out agents and their intentional actions at a physical level. The psychological domain and the physical domain are distinct for obvious reasons.
>If an actor posses the ability to choose between to things then clearly that implies that two different physical futures could exist.
This is a completely different discussion about alternative possibilities. If you want to go there, we could.

>>14145526
It's much worse than that >>14145266

>>14145545
>Are you talking about fucking diagrams?
No, I am talking about learning how a transistor works, then learning how basic logic gates work, then building an ALU, some memory and the rest of the components from these logic gates and then seeing how a computer works while being able to describe every single thing happening on the level of electrons.

>The psychological domain and the physical domain are distinct for obvious reasons.
One clearly implies the other.
Again, you can't think physically impossible thoughts.
For an agent to have a choice the world he is acting in MUST have the ability to be different.

>>14145513
>evidence
Michael Graziano, princeton neuroscientist. I don’t feel like linking his papers but the good one is “Cognitive neuroscience.: Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis”

>why is the algorithm deterministic
Why wouldn’t it be? It could deliver a bad result, but that doesn’t mean you have free will, it just means that your algorithm didn’t deliver a maximized output given it’s limited inputs.

>>14145576
>Why wouldn’t it be?
Because mainstream interpretations of QM tell us that reality isn't deterministic so the likelihood of something so complex as our brains being deterministic is basically zero.

>It could deliver a bad result, but that doesn’t mean you have free will, it just means that your algorithm didn’t deliver a maximized output given it’s limited inputs.
Thats trivial and irrelevant.

>Michael Graziano
Fuck off. Make your own arguments, I am not gonna sit here and read a fucking book for a week and then give you a 50 page critique of why it is wrong.
Make your own fucking arguments or go away.

>>14145500
yes, but only if you don't think we have free will

>>14145561
>No, I am talking about learning how a transistor works, then learning how basic logic gates work, then building an ALU, some memory and the rest of the components from these logic gates and then seeing how a computer works while being able to describe every single thing happening on the level of electrons.
You realize logic gates and all the explanations of transistors are using models to simplify it, right? The professors and teachers are not describing it at the physical level.
>One clearly implies the other.
Okay, good luck describing human behaviour on the physical level; it's almost impossible.
>For an agent to have a choice the world he is acting in MUST have the ability to be different.
The agent does end up choosing one of the possibilities in the end.

>>14145514
No problem?
>>14145544
It is literally a sum of two dimensional vectors for a 4-party zero sum game. Buddy, you do realize that I've read the entire book on Game Theory correct? That is exactly how free will is defined for a 4-party zero sum game. If you take away the zero-sum you get some interesting results, but they still can reasonably approximate to the zero sum game provided you have a dummy coalition set to the positive or negative net utility gain/loss by the winning participant, which is what they went over at the end.

Obviously the bulk of the science is in the zero-sum games, so the findings of the zero sum 4-party game are EXTREMELY meaningful. :3

>>14145612
>You realize logic gates and all the explanations of transistors are using models to simplify it
>The professors and teachers are not describing it at the physical level.
Usually you derive some equation from Maxwell's equation and then simplify the result for a better description.
But that really doesn't matter for the argument, you can write down how a computer works on the level of electrons.

>Okay, good luck describing human behaviour on the physical level; it's almost impossible.
You don't need to.
All you need to know is that a human can not perform physically impossible actions.

>The agent does end up choosing one of the possibilities in the end.
If the future was predetermined so was his choice.

>>14145594
You asked for evidence and I linked you to an established academic, you fucking nigger

It’s true that causality doesn’t hold on a quantum level, but it absolutely does on the scale of human beings

>>14145619
>It is literally a sum of two dimensional vectors for a 4-party zero sum game.
The sum of two vectors is again a vector.
Do you mean the span of two vectors? At least that would actually be a vector space.

Also vectors do not have dimensions, the spaces they are from have, so your sentences is incoherent.

>Buddy, you do realize that I've read the entire book on Game Theory correct?
Not closely enough and you clearly didn't get the mathematics.

>That is exactly how free will is defined for a 4-party zero sum game
What?
The sum of two vectors isn't the definition of free will.

The only argument about free will I ever found convincing was Kant's discussion of the third antinomy of pure reason. Determinism will always be true for perception, since causality is a prerequisite of experience, but the things in themselves need not be restrained by causality.

>>14145645
>But that really doesn't matter for the argument, you can write down how a computer works on the level of electrons.
No, that's why we use models.
>All you need to know is that a human can not perform physically impossible actions.
Okay?
>If the future was predetermined so was his choice
But the agent's choice is not; that's what I've been trying to explain.

>>14145650
>but it absolutely does on the scale of human beings
The brain most definitely works at a quantum level.

>You asked for evidence and I linked you to an established academic, you fucking nigger
I asked for evidence. All you have me was a guy and now I can go search a book for the pages where he talks about his fucking evidence.

>>14145650
>appeal to authority
this is your argument, kid
you make it, dumbfuck

>tfw you realize academics are literal retards brainwashed with every word in the dictionary so they couldn't spot a true argument if it put a knife to their throat

>>14145674
>No
Yes you can.

>that's why we use models
We use models because it is a USELESS and unnecessarily complex thing to write down a computer based on electrons.

>Okay?
Yes. That is proof that physics can describe human behavior.

Let’s put this simply for people who don’t get it:

Just because YOU can’t predict the future with certainty has nothing to do with free will. The knowledge of the future could very well exist in a super-intelligent mind beyond our own comprehension. Just because I can’t predict what John will do next due to the extremely complex nature of all the factors influencing his behavior, that doesn’t mean John has free will. Learn to chaos theory.

Really, though, the free will vs determinism debate is incoherent, a false dichotomy. It presupposes the idea of independent “doers” or “persons”. Everything in the universe is the cause of everything in the universe. The person is inextricably intertwined with the observable universe.

>>14145662
>Also vectors do not have dimensions
They have two.
>Not closely enough and you clearly didn't get the mathematics.
Apparently enough to know that vectors are two dimensional
>The sum of two vectors isn't the definition of free will.
It's the space of the triangular vector space within the defined vector space of possible coalition strategies as regards the possible strategies for each set participant.

It's actually hilarious trying to say that I don't know anything about mathematics when I've comprehended Game Theory, and apparently understand what a vector space is better than you. Just stop kid. You're doing this all wrong.

We're supposed to be having a conversation, something meaningful in regards to the material, you aren't being constructive YOU ARE BEING STUPID AND MEAN.

Listen.
https://vocaroo.com/i/basedvpl33w0OL

Grow up and be nice, retard.

>>14145693
Define vector space and dimension for me. You clearly have some strange definitions I haven't heard of.

>>14145693
>They have two.
No, they don't.
A vector space has dimensions.

>Apparently enough to know that vectors are two dimensional
Vectors can come from spaces which have any natural number (or zero) as dimension.
There are vectors with 3, 4 or infinitely many dimensions.

>It's the space of the triangular vector space within the defined vector space
Under which operation? Cartesian product?
There also is no "triangular vector space".

>It's actually hilarious trying to say that I don't know anything about mathematics
You do not posses basic linear algebra 1 knowledge.
This is highschool stuff dude.

>and apparently understand what a vector space is better than you.
Considering I have in-depth knowledge of linear algebra and functional analysis (the fields of mathematics that deal with finite and infinite dimensional vector spaces) that seems highly unlikely.

>>14145691
>Yes you can.
Lol, why do we use models then?
>We use models because it is a USELESS and unnecessarily complex thing to write down a computer based on electrons.
Yes, describe the state of every transistor, the movement of every electron, etc. It's impossible, just like describing human behaviour on a physical level.
>Yes. That is proof that physics can describe human behavior.
How do our own biological and physiological limitations prove physics can describe human behaviour?

>>14145678
Wikipedia “hemi spatial neglect”
Neglect occurs because the attention schema is partially fucked up. Consciousness is your attention schema. It supervenes on all of the information your senses give you.

>>14145729
>>14145725
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0CYpAmAaimS

Please stop fucking posting :3

And be nice

>>14145744
>Lol, why do we use models then?
Because making something a thousand times more complicated for nu fucking reason is a bad idea.

>Yes, describe the state of every transistor, the movement of every electron, etc. It's impossible
No, just very time consuming.

>How do our own biological and physiological limitations prove physics can describe human behaviour?
A human can not do physically impossible things.

>>14145756
>A vector us defined as having a magnitude and a direction
Nope.
A vector is an element of a vector space, that is LITERALLY it's entire definition.

For a vector to have a magnitude it needs to be a NORMED vector space.
And many vectors have no direction, eg. sin(x) is an element of the continuous functions which forms a normed vector space if infinite dimension, it has magnitude 1 under the supremum norm.
But what would be it's "direction"?

>Euclidean
There are many none Euclidian vector spaces. Eg. the above mentioned one.

Also, please define dimension for me and for the degree it's already too late.

>>14145756
What you're describing as the "definition" of vector spaces only describes spaces isomorphic to R^n. How are vectors of function spaces, for example, interpreted as things having magnitude and direction?

>>14145760
>Because making something a thousand times more complicated for nu fucking reason is a bad idea.
Now you're not opposed to models.
>No, just very time consuming.
Do you not understand that at a certain point reductionism fails? Ahigher level phenomenon, such as agents and their actions, can only be captured by higher level descriptions. Thus, higher level phenomenon are not reducible to lower level descriptions such as lower level talk of physical processes in the brain.
>A human can not do physically impossible things.
The "physically impossible" is in no way related to human behaviour.

>>14145843
>Now you're not opposed to models.
I am never opposed to models.
Having a model just doesn't eliminate the existence of ignoring it.

>Do you not understand that at a certain point reductionism fails?
It just becomes infeasible.

>The "physically impossible" is in no way related to human behaviour.
It is. Your psychology will never result in you taking physically impossible actions.

>>14144945
>arguing with determinists
>ever
There's no point. These people have convinced themselves that not only are they intellectually superior for making a massive assumption they have neither the knowledge nor the capacity to reasonably make, they've also recently decided they are morally superior with this whole
>understanding that people can only do what they are compelled to do has made me a graceful personification of empathy
drivel they've imagined up for themselves.

>>14145224
Prove causality even exists and isn't simply a construct the human mind is forced to observe due to a limited capacity to interpret reality. We know now that time doesn't exist as we are forced to perceive it, but you dipshits keep rammering on about how causality is a thing with absolutely no physical evidence to prove it whatsoever.

>>14145799
That's a good point, but unfortunately not true for a Euclidean vector. We would have to say that I was making a mistake for assuming the vector was Euclidean, however we were talking about Game Theory and John Von Neumann used exclusively Euclidean space throughout the book, so it was endemic to the discussion at hand.

>>14145798
Dimensions would be the combination of two different directions acting upon each other to determine the 'direction' of the vector.

This should also show us why instead of studying 'terms' it's better to actually discuss mathematical 'literature' we have read (hence why this is the /lit/ board).

I actually would LOVE to have these threads more often, but unfortunately enough, not enough people actually read mathematical literature. :3

>>14145888
>There's no point.
Especially if your arguments are as garbage as his, but I agree with your sentiment.

>>14145892
Because real life isn't a fucking text book, and in Mathematics sometimes one person can mean one thing and another person can mean another :3

Today you learned, kiddos.

>>14145863
>Having a model just doesn't eliminate the existence of ignoring it.
But reductionism fails, so we need higher level descriptions.
>It just becomes infeasible.
*Impossible.
>Your psychology will never result in you taking physically impossible actions.
Because physiological limitations and the logical possibility of some things.

>>14145896
The terminology of linear algebra is universal among mathematicians. Engineers may have their own weird slang, sure.

>>14145892
>Dimensions would be the combination of two different directions acting upon each other to determine the 'direction' of the vector.
Nope and you still haven't mentioned the most important concept in all of linear algebra.

>mathematical literature
Like what? I only read textbooks and occasionally historical works.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s13K9GYoKe2H

:3

>>14145926
Based

>>14145917
>? I only read textbooks and occasionally historical works.
HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAH

>>14145914
>terminology is universal among mathematicians
>...may have their own slang sure

HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA

This is getting embarrassing guys.

>>14145917
Hahahhahahahaoh hee hee

He wants me to mention his cute little 'terms'.

Bro, listen. Mathematics is not philosophy. If I want to define a vector without using the word 'scalars' I can and I will.

>>14145926
But, I actually got a degree in mathematics?

>>14145937
What is there to laugh about?
I wasn't aware of any mathematical literature, so besides textbooks and historical works I don't know what mathematical books exist I could read.
But I read other books, if you laugh about that, they just aren't mathematical.

>>14145946
LA is pretty much universal.
The bad inconsistencies come later on (everyone who defines Fourier transforms asymmetrically needs to be shot immediately).

>>14145946
Was there a contradiction? Engineers are not mathematicians.

>>14145953
>If I want to define a vector without using the word 'scalars' I can and I will.
That definition is inconsistent with what all other mathematicians use as a definition.

Also the word you should know is "basis".

>>14145946
>>14145937
>>14145917
>>14145798
Great free will thread bros

>>14145981
>Great free will thread bros
If you want someone to blame, blame the person who tried to define free will in terms of vector addition.

>>14145996
Don't insult :3 poster. He's a good guy.

>>14146001
>He's a good guy.
If he wants to talk about mathematics he just use clearly defined terms, if he feels insulted because it is pointed out to him how his language doesn't match mathematical definitions, that is his problem.

>>14145968
>all other mathematicians use as a definition.
Bro, you don't get it. WHO are these OTHER mathematicians?! WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?!

There isn't an 'organization for the terms of all mathematicians'. Doesn't fucking exist, ya dip.

>>14145962
Cute.
>>14145961
Its fine its fine, I'm sure you get the general gist of what I understand. We are on the same wavelength... to a degree. But if you had READ the book I read, then we would be able to discuss it.

Similar to any book on mathematics or logic. It's why you have people on here who discuss Whitehead. Feel free to cross over from side to side, much of what you know about being 'mathematically' or 'grammatically' aligned is probably false anyway, meaning it's just about how much effort you put into understanding the material.

Ahem, some of my favorite mathematical works:

Theory of Games and Economic Behavior - John Von Neumann
Liber Abaci - Fibonacci
The Optics - Ibn Al-Haytham
Spectral Analysis of Economic Time Series - Clive Granger and Michio Hatanaka

The last one is most confusing for me, it uses a lot of electrical engineering jargon, like phase angle and frequency modulation. :3

>>14146015
That's not what is going on, you moron. People should do something else than read textbooks and go on Khan Academy. Maybe they would understand how mathematics is actually applied then. :3

>>14144999
In a deterministic universe the necessary data to predict anything with absolute accuracy is quite literally all of the data in the universe. It follows that it is impossible to make predictions about a universe which one is part of.

>>14146020
>WHO are these OTHER mathematicians?! WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY?!
Everybody who has taken a linear algebra 1 class.

>There isn't an 'organization for the terms of all mathematicians'.
Which doesn't mean that there aren't definitions which are accepted nearly universally.

>>14146030
>People should do something else than read textbooks and go on Khan Academy.
Actually doing mathematics would be a good start.
2 weeks ago I did a fun proof, to prove that the maximum area inside of a curve of given length is reached if the curve is exactly a circle.
The proof was based on Fourier analysis and really cool.

>>14146063
>Actually doing mathematics would be a good start.
I do this, though. Which you should be able to tell.

So, congratulations? I have a proof myself, obtained a couple months back of why natural philosopher Witello completed a false proposition concerning mirrors in the first book of his Perspectivae.

A triangular 'vector space' is maybe the worst thing I said, which should be understood as a collection of three intersecting vectors enclosing a triangle in a vector plane.

You are ridiculous to get that buttmad over it. We were talking about freewill, which is defined through these triangular figures applied to the greater spectrum of possible coalition/strategy formation in a two dimensional area. This is all basic Game Theory. :3

>>14146095
It's applied that way for a zero sum four person game, obviously. It gets more complex if you add more players or make the game non-zero sum.

Honestly, the other issue is such: we could actually apply what you were talking about earlier TO Game Theory, which should show you how sociological/economics-oriented Game Theory is, it's not focused on the little terminological details like you, it's focused on what actually moves people's behavior in a given situation on a macro level. :3

>>14146095
>collection of three intersecting vectors enclosing a triangle in a vector plane
This is commonly refered to as a "triangle" by mathematicians.

>You are ridiculous to get that buttmad over it.
No, just autism.

>>14146110
>>14146095
I mean, the non-Euclidean vectors.

I'm guessing Butters is in the thread.

I can only advise you people who haven't learned your lesson yet to filter him as well.

>>14146111
I don't think you actually have autism, you have to understand that they are vectors however, because they are definitions of when a coalition ceases to have an organized effective function for the different possibilities of the collectivity. The closer you get to the highest 'gamma' (or reward/punishment for winning/losing) for specific players, the more the game becomes determined as to the coalitions and overall strategies.

All of these reasons are why we talk about this area as being a 'triangular vector area' instead of a triangle.

I mean what IS your problem? You can't look down on other people for simply knowing mathematics or practicing it in your spare time. Do you feel comfortable doing this? Maybe that is the problem. Maybe I'm struggling to help you see the USE in knowing these details, which is why you should read actual mathematical literature and their applications instead of arguing over the terminological differences, because honestly that will get you nowhere in life.

Just some tips buddy :3

>>14146131
You don't have a 'team' here buddy. No one will ever unanimously agree with you. You are a coward for not using a name and an effective code to identify yourself.

Your identity is nothing, you are nihil. :3

Just an effective reminder.

>>14146139
>I mean what IS your problem?
Imprecise use of mathematical language.

>You can't look down on other people for simply knowing mathematics or practicing it in your spare time.
No, I do it myself.

>why you should read actual mathematical literature
I do read textbooks and do mathematics. In fact 5 hours ago I proved some basic calculus of variation theorem for the existence of minimizers.

>>14145446
Not really. If there's change, it's determined; if there isn't, it's determined. If there's punishment, it's determined; if there isn't, it's determined. Etc. etc.

It is what it is.

>>14146158
The problem with mathematical textbooks is the same exact problem with philosophical textbooks.

Looks like in the real world, people don't function on 'terms' and there will always be differences. In fact, you have some real life example of how there are differences in mathematical terminology ITT. This is one of the issues with how rampant academic influence has become. I'm all for you getting your Bachelor's degree. But I'm also all for companies not giving a fuck, because I know for sure that's the only reason I WOKE UP from that stupid dreamtime state.

I wasn't being imprecise, just different. And you can do that in mathematics. It's how anything in life works. :3

>>14146175
Absolutely not, though. That's what this whole thread is about. The issue is not black and white. Anyone who says it's 'free will VERSUS determinism' flat out is a moron. They don't know what they are talking about.

Yes, I'm aware this means many philosopher professors are morons. Perhaps they should study Game Theory :3

>>14146176
>I wasn't being imprecise, just different. And you can do that in mathematics.
Don't expect to be understood.

>I'm all for you getting your Bachelor's degree.
Got one already.

>Looks like in the real world, people don't function on 'terms' and there will always be differences
The differences are very miniscule, most definitions are universal. All definitions I am aware of are universal up to constants.

>>14146196
>most definitions are universal
Not true at all, buddy. Just right in this thread we had a difference of opinion because of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean. And don't act like most jobs won't assume you aren't using Euclidean vectors.

>>14146204
>Just right in this thread we had a difference of opinion because of Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean.
That was you using a definition found in no mathematical textbook and held by no mathematician.

>Not true at all, buddy
Show me two textbooks with different definitions for the same things, not including constants.

>And don't act like most jobs won't assume you aren't using Euclidean vectors.
You can say vector and mean euclidean vector, just don't pretend that is the definition of a vector.

>>14144945
free will and not one person has bothered saying what they mean by that. the pic seems to imply it's the opposite of determinism which is laughably and i don't think any philosopher really believes that

if anyone actually bothered to say what they mean by "free will" this discussion would probably be over in 2 seconds. but let's just talk circles

next lets talk about if the sun is "hot" or not without ever saying what "hot" means
after that we can maybe discuss if the earth is really round or if hot dogs are sandwiches

>>14144973
>>14144973
>lack of determination does not mean lack of determination
retard

>>14146231
Like I said, looking down for no reason. You are contradicting yourself in your own posts. This 'debate' is over before it begins. Reanalyze how you think of this world, my friend. It would do us all a little good.

:3

>>14145164
>Spinoza proved free will is an illusion
>also wrote a book called the Ethics and wrote extensively about how you can bring your actions and emotions in line with nature

>>14146261
>You are contradicting yourself in your own posts.
Nope.

>This 'debate'
I am not debating.
You are factually incorrect and I am pointing it out.

>Reanalyze how you think of this world, my friend. It would do us all a little good.
?

Anyway, I am gonna sleep now, bye.

>>14145224
>To truly be free would mean that you purposely cause effects without being caused
you just asserted this with no argument anon. this is the kind of thing that can be literally disproven by someone who believes in free will saying "no it doesn't".

>>14145288
>although I am
kek get btfo'd by an atheist

>>14146277
The contradiction is that you assume everyone speaks the same language all the time 100% of the time, but that's not even how mathematics works bud. That's how nothing works, actually. Sometimes people mean different things by the same word. Go figure :/

>>14144945
1 proposes the existence of a hypothetical perfectly accurate predictive mechanism for human behaviour
which 23 then essentially say would be imperfect despite its hypothetical perfection
to which anyone with a working brain would respond: an actual perfectly predictive system wouldn't have such flaws. we're talking in hypotheticals, so the feasibility of such a system with our limited means is no matter. why is a system which "reliably predicts actions in all circumstances" more limited than a "sufficiently skilled mathematical logician"? this is mere fudging with concepts so that you get the result you want. at no point does this argument rise above the level of playing with words. try scrabble

if you're going to be this silly, have at least the decency to obscure it by burying the argument in walls of text written in ambiguous language, as opposed to making it blatant, like continental philosophers do

56 are non-sequiturs

sage for a shit thread

>>14144999
What about chaotic systems? Well, I'm being disingenuous. You probably don't know enough maths to understand chaotic systems, not that it requires much. So the real question is: how can you pretend to discuss metaphysics when you don't know any maths?

>>14144945
Slightly off topic but isn't "free will" a contradiction of terms? The term free simply means having the ability to do something, and the will is the desire to do something. Saying something is predetermined implies that someone is determining them. Asking question such as "is my choice really mine?" is a stupid question because it is if you made the choice.

>>14145190
>whines that people don't define their terms
>proceeds to not define his terms

>>14147580
my desire to pee is different from the will that eventually makes me get up and go to the bathroom after replying to this post. anyway, free will is best defined as "ability to have done otherwise".

>>14145300
Read St. Augustine's Treatise on Free Will. Might answer some questions for you.

>>14145446
How would you take advantage of a purely deterministic world, assuming that you can somehow figure out/simulate all the possible interactions of everything. Just a question to get some ideas.

Also how would one go about seeing the thread of causality that is being threaded through subsequent slices of space and time following the initial event/ cause?

>>14146264
Yes?