/lit/ - Literature

as my scientifically minded roommate told a certain philosophically minded person who is certainly not me:
quantum indeterminacy.

or, basically, newtonian physics don't explain all the phenomena of the universe, such as quantum randomness.

>>4080250
This.

Also, OP, determinism eventually runs into the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness is magical, when you really think about it. There's just no earthly way to explain it, yet.

Well, Newtonian physics is just a cool set of rules that nicely describes the behaviour of some parts of reality. It has nothing to do with what reality actually is.

>>4080232
Quote literature to substantiate your opinion and critique the quoted literature or fuck off.

>>4080274
The fun police are occupying /lit/, I see.

>>4080272
this sounds kind of Sartrean.

>>4080287
https://www.4chan.org/rules#lit1

>>4080232
Maxwell's demon. (Side-note: "demon" wants to correct itself to "demone." What the fuck?) It and hard determinism in general run into issues with quantum indeterminacy, as has been said, but free will still seems to not be a thing.

>>4080232
free choice is an illusion.
But that's overstating it, no different that saying "a shadow is an illusion".

>>4080250
Typical pop sci stuff.
It's more complex than that, no physicist really is convinced that the universe is random at it's core, despite the uncertainty principle.

>>4080272
>consciousness is magical
If this was on /sci/ you'd get reported.
It's magical in the same way gravity is magic.

>>4080273
Any kind of theory by anyone in anytime is just an interpretation of reality.
All brains are just simulating an approximation to reality to achieve effective interpretation.


tripfag over and out

>Newtonian physics suggests that all physical occurrences right down to the subatomic level are governed by its laws and thus ultimately predictable.
Covered >>4080250

>While we will likely never be able to predict everything due to the complexity involved, the theory suggests that the universe operates much like an enormous clock, near-infinite in its machinery, yet a giant machine none the less.
It suggests nothing like that, this certainly wasn't Newton's idea of his own framework. You're just imposing your own ideology here.

>Like clockwork, everything in this theory is governed by the rules of physics, and theoretically a god-like entity could instantly know everything that will ever occur from the big bang up to the universe's demise.
Not necessarily, see chaos theory.

>>4080305
Laplace's. Maxwell's is about decreasing entropy..
>>4080295
Have you never been here before? We're basically the unofficial philosophy board, in addition to literature.

Hell, if you really want a "literary" connection: OP, Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise includes a section where he discusses Laplace's Demon.

>>4080309
>Consciousness is objectively deterministic
The top neurologists in the world aren't this arrogant. Are you saying you know better than them?

Here's a different question concerning free choice:

Given a certain set of circumstances, can a specific person truly be expected to choose anything but the one possibility he will choose? To clarify, our choice is determined by who we are, and who we are is determined by the effect our experiences have on us. At any given moment, we are a very specific person molded by our circumstances, and I find it hard to believe that at the same moment, faced with the choice, we could choose differently should we magically get the choice twice (without knowing that we're given the choice twice). If that is the case, can any person really be blamed or considered responsible for any action?

>>4080318
>appeal to authority
>ad hominem
>no other argument
ISHYGDDT

>>4080329
Like for like.

>>4080325
I don't think people can be blamed, but I think that they should be kept away from the rest of the world if they still pose a danger to others.

I think the American justice system is the only system that doesn't do this (no max penalty, etc.), and I think that's because of our privatized prison system.

>>4080337

It certainly has been proven that rehabilitation works a lot better than retribution in prison systems. I'm sure it's hard for the victims and their families to let go and forgive and not need the culprit to get his due, but that's better than torturing (at least mentally) and then releasing a maniac back out.

>>4080340
Foucault ff m8

>>4080340
And people say philosphy isn't practical

Pseudo-intellectualism: The Thread.

>>4080311
Have you never been here before, give a more substantive account of Laplace's demon.

The fact that you've not mentioned Spinoza so far also indicates something.

>>4080318

>aren't this arrogant
>you know better than them
>top neurologists
Being arrogant doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Is this post from like "how to win an argument 101"?
Because it's the lowest form of strawman, you're not posing any real question just bouncing through words.

OP here

>>4080274
It's been a central argument in philosophy for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

If you're unaware of that, you probably have little to nothing of value to contribute. Thanks for stopping by.

>>4080309
>>consciousness is magical
>If this was on /sci/ you'd get reported.
>It's magical in the same way gravity is magic.

10/10

Wonderfully said.

ITT: lrn2determinism

Just read Nietzsche and realize that it's a false problem and such mechanistic thinking can be explained by ressentiment.

Bump

>Newtonian physics
dear god, I understand you people are studying humanities careers, but newtonian physics are a bit out-of-time

>>4080508
Alright, trump it with a contemporary paradigm, then, and articulate how it interacts with OP's premise

>>4080520
>can't answer the question

Bawww give me more 2 work with!!

>>4080232

It is a pseudo problem. In the universal viewpoint: yes we are determined. In the individual viewpoint: we are not, because we don't have all the knowledge necessary to predict all aspects of the universe. Nor will we have it in the future, it is physically impossible.

>tl;dr pseudo problem with no consequences in our lives

quantum fluctuations and the uncertainty principle allow for a degree of true randomness. That's about the only grounded reason I have for not believing in fate.

Bumping

>>4080232
Physicists can't even solve the problem of 3 interacting bodies, how is Newtonian physics in any way predictable? Anyway read Prigogine he will blow your mind if you think our world is deterministic.

>>4081467
Could you elaborate? That sounds interesting.

>>4080232
>Newtonian physics suggests that all physical occurrences right down to the subatomic level are governed by its laws and thus ultimately predictable.

It's like you're posting from 60 years ago. On the subatomic level, nothing adheres to Newtonian physics.

>>4080232
Physics grad student here. Newtonian physics is incorrect and has been replaced by quantum theory, in which true randomness is an axiom. Which means determinism is false.

However, I don't believe this affects the question of free will. The laws of quantum mechanics are still laws, and behave autonomously. Even if the chemicals in your brain behave truly randomly, they all act on their own without any intervention from some sort of consciousness.

>>4081477
You can solve a two body problem exactly by setting up the force equation. If you add another body then shit gets hairy and there's no none mathematical tools to solve it.

When I say solve i mean given some initial conditions, the location and velocity of ball 1 and ball 2, you can say location and velocity they will have at any later time.

Look up 2 body and 3 body on wiki to find all the details.

>>4080520
Nowadays, and for the last 80 years, physicist have been studying Quantum Mechanics. Classical Dynamics or Newtonian physics is a done deal and is taught mainly as an introductory course to physics. All higher level stuff is Quantum.

>>4080232
What does a life with 'free will' even look like? How would it different from one that is 'determined'? These discussions are meaningless.

>>4081514
A life with free will is one where our thoughts and actions are not predetermined by the physical world. Theoretically, a unique thought is capable of being conjured that would not have been predictable to a hypothetical omniscient being.

>Newtonian physics
I am sorry, what year it is now?

>>4081513
>Nowadays, and for the last 80 years, physicist have been studying Quantum Mechanics. Classical Dynamics or Newtonian physics is a done deal and is taught mainly as an introductory course to physics. All higher level stuff is Quantum.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that QM is largely a speculative field that seeks to unify various and at times seemingly-discordant fields of physics, and as such it's still a fluid and theoretical area.

>>4081529
Funny. How about doing the more impressive feat of disproving or showing how the OP is incorrect, rather than implying it with a question.

>>4081535
Maybe just read your own thread first.

>Newtonian physics
>subatomic level

oh_shit_what_are_you_doing.jpg

>>4080309
>It's more complex than that, no physicist really is convinced that the universe is random at it's core, despite the uncertainty principle.

mhm, you're exactly right. It seems as though whoever tries to say the universe is random because of the quantum theory always expresses it bluntly and quickly. This is because they haven't actually studied the implications of quantum mechanics.

>>4080325
>can a specific person truly be expected to choose anything but the one possibility he will choose?

According to quantum physics, you can only calculate probabilities about an outcome. For instance, if you shoot an electron to a screen and its wavefunction spreads, you can't know where it'll hit: you only know the probabilities about it hitting each point. It' random, but you can still make statistic predictions, and they work very well.

Applied to a person, depending on how our brain works perhaps the different quantum possibilities could make you choose one thing or another. If you "repeated" the experiment many times you'd see the statistic probability for each action (we can't do this because you can't put the brain again in the precise state it was before). So, the choice would be random (with one result much more likely than the others).

Newtonian: No free will: we're (complicated) clockwork machinery.
Quantum: No free will: but random will (with probabilistic restrictions).

Still, could a "free will" hide somehow inside the randomness?

And yet, we need the notion of free will if we want Ethics. Or do we? Perhaps we could base responsibility on something else. But how can you demand responsibility to a dice? Meh

>>4081552
In other words: I can't.

Well done.

>>4081535
OP states that Newtonian Physics implies that free will does not exist.

Anon said, Newtonian physics is outdated and incorrect therefore drawing any notion of free will from it is improper.

The correct was to state OP statements is to relate Quantum Mechanics with Free will.

All of this has been debated by Einstein sixty years ago and is sum up in one famous quote: "God not only play dice with the world, he throws them where we can't see them."

>>4081533
You don't understand what physics or science is. You see a phenomenon, you try to explain it using some first principals, and then carry out experiments that your theories predict. If the experiments do not match up to your theory, then you go back and come up with a different one. Quantum Mechanics is not a speculative field, it has numerous experiments to support it.
The only way a theory can "die" in science is if you can come up with a better theory that has the experimental evidence to support it. Quantum dynamics was built upon the corpse of Newtonian mechanics.

>>4081557
You're right, I should have been more clear about that. I gather QM deals with the subatomic.

None the less, does QM provide a different answer? If so, I'm curious what it would be.

>>4081579
>
You don't understand what physics or science is. You see a phenomenon, you try to explain it using some first principals, and then carry out experiments that your theories predict. If the experiments do not match up to your theory, then you go back and come up with a different one. Quantum Mechanics is not a speculative field, it has numerous experiments to support it.
The only way a theory can "die" in science is if you can come up with a better theory that has the experimental evidence to support it. >Quantum dynamics was built upon the corpse of Newtonian mechanics.
well said

inb4 mad anon says *tips fedora* or some other such ignorant whining

>>4081584
lol i can't greentext

>>4081579
>You don't understand what physics or science is.
I know exactly what science is

>Quantum Mechanics is not a speculative field, it has numerous experiments to support it.
That's all you had to say

With that said, how does what's know of quantum mechanics affect whether free will is possible?

>>4081584
>inb4 mad anon says *tips fedora* or some other such ignorant whining

I'm not "mad" at all, I think this is really interesting. Way to presume everyone on 4chan challenging assertions and asking for clarification is an angry troll. Really enjoying this thread.

>>4081583
If you want to an honest answer to free will then you better look at Neuroscience instead of physics. A human being and a piece of rock is the same thing in Quantum mechanics. In fact all electrons are the same, all atoms are the same, there would be no difference.

>>4081604
Neuroscience would only provide info on the mechanisms for how thought comes into being from the physical aspects of our being. The question isn't about that, but rather whether the rules of the universe (I said Newtonian physics incorrectly, I should have said everything we know about physics so far) can allow for human beings to make free choices? Basically, is the universe inherently determined or not?

Maybe /sci/ would be a better place for this, though enjoying the replies. I've got a lot of reading to do thanks to the suggestions of many posters.

>>4081622
1) The universe is not determined.
2) How would you measure free will in the first place?
3) If you believe we have free will than obviously the universe we live in allows it.
4) If you are ignoring Neuroscience than you are making a huge mistake. Sooner or later we will understand the complexity of the human mind and recreate it in electronic form.

>>4081593
>With that said, how does what's know of quantum mechanics affect whether free will is possible?

It makes the question harder, because even though the future can't be predicted due to the different possibilities,those possibilities behave statistically with amazing precision (thus making QM possible). Randomness becomes now the enemy of free will. You need to define better what you mean by "free", what would it exactly imply on people's actions.

I think "free" is a strange concept. It's possibility without randomness. How can you have such a thing? Under this condition: applied to an event that only happens once. You don't say a dice is free because if you throw it lots of times you can make statistics, "taming" its freedom. So yeah, that's what I'd say: we're free in the sense that
1) There are multiple possibilities for what we can do
2) It's impossible to repeat our decision with significant precision, avoiding then the "enslavement" of statistical analysis.

>>4081640
>1) The universe is not determined.
That's the subject of the thread though. If it's not determined, how did you come to that conclusion?

>2) How would you measure free will in the first place?
Good question. I think the answer to 1) would answer that. For example, in a universe where everything is determined, one cannot actually choose to do one thing over another, as the phenomenon of choice would be an illusion. The ultimate course that person (or any physical body) took would be determined from the first moment of the universe's being.

>3) If you believe we have free will than obviously the universe we live in allows it.
Not necessarily, as said in 2. If a universe is determined, then the phenomenon of choice would be illusory.

>4) If you are ignoring Neuroscience than you are making a huge mistake. Sooner or later we will understand the complexity of the human mind and recreate it in electronic form.
I'm sure we will, but the question turns on the physical nature of the universe.

Determinism is a social construct, ergo free will. Take this atheists.

I remember the last time we had this thread (not a long ago) some faggot tried to use shit like the penitenciary system and our laws as some kind of argument supporting the idea of free will. As far as I've seen, only ignorant and/or mentally challenged people have tried defending free will.

>>4081710
Let's hear your argument then

>>4080232
I tend to think we might live in a deterministic reality, but not because of the mechanical nature of physics. The real problem a Newtonian mechanistic universe presents is one for teleology, and for the existence of a creator. The universe largely shifts for "why" to "how."

As for the problem of the creator, see the watchmakers analogy (which is ironically used to try and support a theistic view). However, when we consider this analogy, how can we compare something designed to something not designed if everything is designed? Furthermore, after a watch is made, at least good watches, the watchmaker's role is largely finished. This would seem to fly in the face of any view of an immanent creator. The next step is to apply Occam's Razor, if the universe, mechanistic or not, can be explained without a creator (mechanistically, of course), then why add him in and create yet another assumption?

That said, physics merely describes the way things behave which do not determine their own actions, i.e. do not have a will. While you might be able to make some educated suppositions regarding physical events, you won't be able to judge whether a person is going to go to the supermarket or the library based on the laws of motion.

You would need to add something extra, knowledge which is largely not derived from the hard sciences right now and seems to have problems when treated empirically.

This thread is unforgivably embarrassing. /lit/ is truly composed of high school dropouts and philosophy 101 community college students.

>>4081718 Cont.
That said, reality still might be largely deterministic, simply because it seems to be a large chain of causal relationships. If everything has a cause, then even the perceived phenomena of the will has a cause. Further, if causal relationships only work one way, in other words causes only determine effects and not the other way around, and if effects are absolutely determined by causes, free will would appear to be an illusory phenomena, the specter of control where there actually is none.

>>4081716
My argument is: if you know some basics about science you realize there's no need to believe in such a thing like free will, since EVERYTHING the free will theory was used in the past to explain, now can be explained within the domains of science and physics. This is why I believe the free wsill theory can only be supported by ignorant or retarded people.

>>4081718
>That said, physics merely describes the way things behave which do not determine their own actions, i.e. do not have a will. While you might be able to make some educated suppositions regarding physical events, you won't be able to judge whether a person is going to go to the supermarket or the library based on the laws of motion.

Just because the person "has a will"? How does this "will" work? How is it some stuff have it and other don't? Does a monkey have a will?

Your "will" looks suspiciously like "soul"

>>4081723
>criticizes thread
>doesn't provide any substance to his criticism

Classy, tell us more about your advanced degree in metaphysics.

>inb4 "hurr durr this thread is too stupid to bother replying to," thus avoiding a substantive critique

>>4081738
Did you finish reading my post?

Will can be understood as the reason people use to achieve ends, you know like every major philosopher since Kant has used it.

Science only describes how people made the choices that they make, not why. Also, please read the rest of my post.

>>4081738
His argument is: "there is a complex field where our ignorance makes it extremely difficult to predict with 100% accuracy what will happen, so let's invent a non-existent entity and use it to explain all those difficult things, ta-da!"

>>4081752
You guys are fucking hopeless. Why are you on a literature board if you can't finish a single post.

This is a textbook example of philosophers poking their heads where science already has domain, to the benefit of no one.

There is currently a debate to the true determinism of the universe, especially at a quantum level. It will likely be solved by a few decades.

this thread is the worst of /lit/

>>4081756
Because I don't feel like reading a long-ass comment about determinism vs free will.
The point is : we don't need to add anything to that free will/determinism problem to what science currently knows. If we can use Occam's razor to stop assuming there's a creator we can use it too with the concept of free will. Science explains how physical bodies behave, and we are physical.

>>4081776
And chances are the indeterminism hypothesys will be dissmised as a more complex version of plain determinism.

>>4081777
But it doesn't. Why is the universe expanding at such a rapid rate?

Why do people fight against each other instead of working toward common goals?

Why does science today look nothing like it did in the 18th century?

Where did the scientific method originate?

The determinism and free-will problem has been treated long before modern physics spun off from philosophy, and it will probably continue long after we come up with a coherent theory of quantum mechanics (since you know, science hasn't described that yet).

Science does aim at "why" questions, it aims at describing processes. If you had an even elementary understanding of science, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

>>4081777
Bless Science!

*Tips his fedora*

>>4081777
But it doesn't. Why is the universe expanding at such a rapid rate?

Why do people fight against each other instead of working toward common goals?

Why does science today look nothing like it did in the 18th century?

Where did the scientific method originate?

The determinism and free-will problem has been treated long before modern physics spun off from philosophy, and it will probably continue long after we come up with a coherent theory of quantum mechanics (since you know, science hasn't described that yet).

Science does not aim at "why" questions, it aims at describing processes. If you had an even elementary understanding of science, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

>>4080309
>no physicist really is convinced that the universe is random at it's core, despite the uncertainty principle.

Do you have any knowledge at all about quantum mechanics going beyond reciting idiotic misinterpretations from youtube videos?

>>4081788
>Oh, no! Oh, no! I'm too stupid to find an argument!
>Better spout some buzzword
>Yeah, that will do the trick.

>>4081797
>But it doesn't. Why is the universe expanding at such a rapid rate?
What does this have to do with free will?
>Why do people fight against each other instead of working toward common goals?
We do work toward certain goals. "Common goals" doesn't really exist. Only different goals.
>Why does science today look nothing like it did in the 18th century?
Because we got 200 years to learn a lot of stuff at exponential rate (plus industrial revolution, etc).
>Where did the scientific method originate?
This is a very vague question. Humans have been using their intellect to make complex inferences since forever. Also, scientists don't give a fuck about philosophy of science, they just do thing in the most rigorous and efficient way.

That free will problem has been dismissed as a real problem long ago. We can describe processes like decision making, I'm not talking about "why". And it's pretty obvious that everything we do has a motivation (a motivation tha we can not choose). If you had elementary understanding of biosemàntics i wouldn't have to explain this to you.

>>4081821
quantum mechanics isn't random

>>4080390
You do know we barely understand gravity at the quantum level either?

>>4081825
>What does this have to do with free will?
It has to do with the limitations of science.

>We do work toward certain goals. "Common goals" doesn't really exist. Only different goals.
Maybe you meant something else. Doesn't science work toward a common goal?

>Because we got 200 years to learn a lot of stuff at exponential rate (plus industrial revolution, etc).
Did you use science to provide this answer?

>This is a very vague question. Humans have been using their intellect to make complex inferences since forever. Also, scientists don't give a fuck about philosophy of science, they just do thing in the most rigorous and efficient way.
Actually, it's a very specific question that you dodged.

>That free will problem has been dismissed as a real problem long ago. We can describe processes like decision making, I'm not talking about "why". And it's pretty obvious that everything we do has a motivation (a motivation tha we can not choose). If you had elementary understanding of biosemàntics i wouldn't have to explain this to you.

Perhaps you think psychology and sociology are hard sciences which can be empirically disproven? I think you are in for a bit of a surprise when you come to university and learn a thing or two.

>Newtonian physics suggests that all physical occurrences right down to the subatomic level are governed by its laws and thus ultimately predictable
Jesus Christ, Marie.

>>4081604
>If you want to an honest answer to free will then you better look at Neuroscience

But that's wrong, you fucking retard. Neuroscience is the study of the brain (a physical organ) and its functions. Untestable and ill-defined metaphysics is not part of neuroscience.

/thread

Newtonian physics is only an approximation

Quantum effects are what really govern the universe as far as we can tell but on the classical level they pretty much average out to make Newtonian mechanics a good method.

So yeah, fundamentally stuff seems to be random and indetermined but I still don't think free will fits in here either.

>>4080508
this right here.

>>4081846
>Quantum effects are what really govern the universe

Quantum physics is just an approximation of string theory.

>>4081838
>It has to do with the limitations of science.
I never said we had unlimited knowledge.
>Maybe you meant something else. Doesn't science work toward a common goal?
lol no. What common goal? Science doesn't reallyu have a goal. it's a method. People have goals.
>Actually, it's a very specific question that you dodged.
yes it's so specific that I don't know if you mean where we started wondering about nature and making predictions by observation, where modern science started consolidating or where the demarcation problem was firstly discussed.
>Perhaps you think psychology and sociology are hard sciences which can be empirically disproven? I think you are in for a bit of a surprise when you come to university and learn a thing or two.
Google biosemantics. You may learn something before you go to bed today.

>>4081849
I'm not familiar enough with String Theory to make a response to that.

I suppose the main thing deciding my belief on the matter is that fundamentally, a rock and a brain are made of the same stuff. Why does the brain get to be magic?

>>4081844
Spoken like a true troglodyte.

Sehr gut Komerad.

>>4081852
>Why does the brain get to be magic?

It doesn't and nobody ever claimed it does. There is no free will, there is no consciousness. Get over it, you fucking /x/tards.

>>4081855
>there is no consciousness
Do you dream?

>>4081853
With the invention of the scientific method philosophy became obsolete. Philosophers with their "u cannot know nuthin" anti-intellectualism are just as bad as creationists nowadays.

>>4081855
I know, I agree that there's nothing intrinsically special about it.

The question was posed to people who believe in that sort of thing.

>>4081860
>"u cannot know nuthin" anti-intellectualism

Do you even know what philosophy is?

>>4081852
>I never said we had unlimited knowledge.
Yes, but you are being a reductionist in regards to science.
>lol no. What common goal? Science doesn't reallyu have a goal. it's a method. People have goals.
People have goals
Science is a tool used by people
People use certain tools to achieve certain goals
Therefore people use science in order to achieve common goals, also, the "scientific community" derp.
>yes it's so specific that I don't know if you mean where we started wondering about nature and making predictions by observation, where modern science started consolidating or where the demarcation problem was firstly discussed.
They didn't teach you the scientific method in primary school? Where did you go to school, America?
>Google biosemantics. You may learn something before you go to bed today.
Yeah, semiotics, like its cousin linguistics, also isn't hard science (hurr durr like psychology and sociology) and also doesn't even aim toward what you seem to want it to.

>>4081860
Sounds like you only talk to armchair philosophers.

What you are saying is literally equivalent to,

"With the invention of the toaster, the abacus became obsolete"

>>4081860
Stop using words you don't know the meaning of.

>>4081867
Yep, it's a waste of time. If you're older than 6 and haven't yet realized that questions like "hurr durr is reality really real?" or "what if my blue is the same as your red?" are retarded, pointless and irrelevant, then you must be suffering from severe deficits in your mental and social development.

>>4081860
>With the invention of the scientific method philosophy became obsolete.
because metaphysics it totally the only branch of philosophy, right? and metaphysics totally doesn't deal with anything science couldn't, right?

>>4081875
>Yep, it's a waste of time. If you're older than 6 and haven't yet realized that questions like "hurr durr is ice the same thing as water?" or "what if my humerus is the same as your funny bone?" are retarded, pointless and irrelevant, then you must be suffering from severe deficits in your mental and social development.

>>4081875
> retarded, pointless and irrelevant

0/10

>>4080232
>Philosophical discussion time.
>free choice

>328 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Clikc here to view.

>>4081884
some scientists seriously argued that water was really melted ice (rather than ice being frozen water) not more than sixty years ago, actually
so serious so discipline

>>4080310
but chaos theory was a thought process to show that in what seemingly looked like chaos, appeared order.

it's why we can't predict weather perfectly as of yet, the variables that determine it are so small and indeterminate that it's impossible to consider. i.e. the butterfly effect.

>>4081868
>Yes, but you are being a reductionist in regards to science.
No. You are needlessly introducing a mysterious entity to explain stuff we already explained with science.
>Therefore people use science in order to achieve common goals, also, the "scientific community" derp.
Doesn't follow, idiot. People have goals, some people can associate to find mid term goals. There are no common goals other than the goals of the hegemonic institution/community.
The scientific community doesn't have a specific goal.
>They didn't teach you the scientific method in primary school? Where did you go to school, America?
Are you talking about Popper and falsation? did you know science existed before it? What a tard...
>Yeah, semiotics, like its cousin linguistics, also isn't hard science (hurr durr like psychology and sociology) and also doesn't even aim toward what you seem to want it to.
If you know something about semiotics other than what you've found on the wikipedia page you will see how the bases of the problem of free will were outdated like 50 years ago.

>>4081873
>Sounds like you only talk to armchair philosophers.
Show me one philosopher that isn't armchair. Literally any philosophical argument can be conceived and refuted by a preschooler.

>>4081886
You call me a troll just because you don't like the facts I posted? Or do philosofags actually believe "0/10" constitutes a well thought out argument?

>>4080310
>Not necessarily, see chaos theory.
Have you ever actually read about chaos theory?

It's to do with the fact that some systems are governed by too many variables for us to accurately predict them. It's to do with complexity arising from order, not randomness.

>>4080250
>quantum randomness
Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, not random. They are not the same thing.

>>4081898
Quine, Chomsky, Ted Sider, Millikan and this kind of people aren't exactly what i would call "armchair".

>>4081710
>I remember the last time we had this thread (not a long ago) some faggot tried to use shit like the penitenciary system and our laws as some kind of argument supporting the idea of free will. As far as I've seen, only ignorant and/or mentally challenged people have tried defending free will.
That the world is not deterministic does not mean free will exists. Randomness is no more free will than determinism.

>>4081860
I think your issue is primarily with the philosophy of science.

>>4081898
Do you actually believe your juvenile deadpan ramblings constitute a well thought out argument?

>>4081905

Quantum mechanics ARE probabilistic.

>>4081876
Metaphysics is literally defined as "empty talk without basis in reality".

>>4081916
>argumentum ad hominem

>>4081849
>Quantum physics is just an approximation of string theory holy fuck people this stupid actually exist.

>>4081897
>No. You are needlessly introducing a mysterious entity to explain stuff we already explained with science.
Where?

>The scientific community doesn't have a specific goal.
You can't really be this stupid.

>Are you talking about Popper and falsation? did you know science existed before it?
No, I'm not. I'm talking about the scientific method.

>If you know something about semiotics other than what you've found on the wikipedia page you will see how the bases of the problem of free will were outdated like 50 years ago.
lol

>>4081921
Do you get some kind of fulfilment i life from being a grammar nazi?

Wait, how is gravity not magic?

Science always gets stuck at the "why the fuck is any of this happening at all?" stage.

It's always just "we'll leave that for later".

That's cool and all, I understand we have limits.

But academia could stop being so arrogant.

>>4081937
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>4081921
"Quantum mechanics" is singular noun phrase describing a branch of science, idiot.

>>4081922
>tu quoque

>>4081905
>Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, not random
It's both m8.

>>4081931
>Free will
Here.
>You can't really be this stupid.
The community itself has no goals, retard. People research on different fields but even this isn't a goal. But we could say it's a matter of technicalapplications. Goals are moslt particular, even when a community accept a specific set of goals there are internal discrepances. Your shitty nitpicking over irrelevant shit is making me realize how much of a retard you are.
>No, I'm not. I'm talking about the scientific method.
The scientifica method was already used before the theory existed. Galileo and Copernicus were probably the first ones to make predictions out of hypotheses in a methodologic way as we understand it.

Meh, there's no possible interesting discussion with a moron like you.

Quantum mechanics turns Newtonian physics on its head. There are theories of physics far beyond the standard model that we have absolutely no understanding of, and ones that we will have an understanding of in the future barely scratch the surface. Occam's razor is inapplicable here, because if it was, quantum mechanics wouldn't exist. There is no evidence that any "divine" power doesn't exist, and it is unlikely that we will discover whether or not one does in our lifetimes. I believe science and philosophy (including religion) are reconcilable as long as one accepts clear common sense facts, including the world being over 4 billion years old (young earth creationists) and that there is no evidence that a "higher power" doesn't exist (militant atheists).

>>4081985
>Here.
See, this is really why you should read entire posts before replying to them, genius.
I'll play devil's advocate anyway and point to the fact that you can't present any concrete evidence that has led to a scientific consensus refuting the intuition of free will. If you would like a logical argument in favor of determinism, you can try finishing my original post.

>The community itself has no goals, retard. People research on different fields but even this isn't a goal. But we could say it's a matter of technicalapplications. Goals are moslt particular, even when a community accept a specific set of goals there are internal discrepances. Your shitty nitpicking over irrelevant shit is making me realize how much of a retard you are.
Get as angry as you like, but blame your own reading incomprehension. The scientific community does, in fact, have an overarching aim, which I'm sure even you can figure out if you work those poor little neurons of yours hard enough.

>The scientifica method was already used before the theory existed. Galileo and Copernicus were probably the first ones to make predictions out of hypotheses in a methodologic way as we understand it.
Yay! It can even look up the answer when it admits it doesn't know. By the way, did you use science to find that answer?

>Meh, there's no possible interesting discussion with a moron like you
Well that's not very pleasant. Maybe you could suffer to learn a thing or two if you weren't so dogmatic.

>>4081902
>Have you ever actually read about chaos theory?
>It's to do with the fact that some systems are governed by too many variables for us to accurately predict them. It's to do with complexity arising from order, not randomness.
Certainly that's part of it, but under certain conditions chaotic systems can also be random systems even though the system has order. Since OP is talking about God like omnipotence, I would argue this premise has such a condition, and a particularly straightforward one: You end up dealing with infinitesimal errors building up over an infinite period.

Here is the answer OP. We don't know.
No one knows.

>>4081509
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/a/a_12/a_12_m/a_12_m_con/a_12_m_con.html

>>4080272
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

>>4084201
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
>qt consciousness

lol

>>4080274
Why not think for yourself?

David Hume solved this dilemma pretty well in an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He said that the idea of cause and effect (determinism) is not at odds with the idea of free-will. Even if the consequences of an action are pre-determined, we still have the free-will to choice to do or not to do that action. If you chose not to perform an action, the effects will never occur. If you perform that action, then the effects are pre-determined. For example, I know that if I hit a nail with a hammer then the nail will be embedded in the surface of the object. However, I still have the choice to hit or not to hit the nail. Basically, the idea of free-will and determinism being inherently opposed is a false dichotomy and a problem of terms.

>>4085722
>If you chose not to perform an action, the effects will never occur.

This assumes the human being is not subject to those same deterministic principles, though. For example, if the mind and body are simply composed of matter and governed by the same laws of physics as the rest of the universe, presumably even human thought and decision would ultimately be determined like any other physical actions in the universe.

For example, a hypothetical omniscient being would be able to predict each and every thought we will ever have from the conception of the universe based on the universe's physical rules and the way matter is arranged within it (e.g.: the way it bursts out at the very beginning).

>>4080232

There is no free will.
Seeing that everybody appeals to authority in this thread, allow me to do the same:

Einstein did not believe in a 'free will'.
Spinoza did not believe in a ' free will'.
Goethe did not believe in a 'free will'.
Schopenhauer did not believe in a 'free will'.
Nietzsche did not believe in a 'free will'.
Voltaire did not believe in a 'free will'.

No believed in it, and all did great efforts to explain why the free will is an illusion or a nescessary evil to stupid people who thinks that this somehow means that they should start raping and feel no remorse.

>>4080318

The top neurologists in the world does not believe in a free will.

>>4085767
Spinoza had a good one line description of this whole 'free will' thing:

>So experience itself, no less clearly than reason, teaches that men believe themselves free because they are conscious of their own actions, and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined.

yes welcome to determinism OP

we work with the assumption that certain quantum mechanical properties are random (or can only be described as random), but there are already clear problems with quantum mechanics and I'm of the thought that randomness is just variables we aren't familiar with yet

it's just a model we use, yes it's a good one that's given us a lot, but it's not necessarily true and certainly there is absolutely no way to ever prove that "randomness" exists

>>4085722
but there causes leading to you not make that decision

the fact that you want to believe in free will is the proximate cause in this example

decisions and beliefs are not disproofs of determinism, it's not nearly that brittle