/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10597857
>>>/his/

>>10597859
What does /his/ have to do with anything? this is a purely scientific question anon

>>10597862
If it can't be proved or disproven it isn't science. This is a topic for philosophy. You must first clearly define free will and clearly define causality

>>10597857
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

>>10597864
>If it can't be proved or disproven

>>10597867
Utterly false. We do not know if everything is predetermined. We just can't determine everything.

>>10597867
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
This, but the opposite

>>10597867
what consensus?
if anything a lot believe in Laplace's demon

>>10597867
.....Can you cite something for that?

>>10597857
No.

>>10597857
Yes. jesusnonsense is worthless

Even IF we have free will. If you have rules and morals or even emotions, if you have any of those then they will effect your judgement and choices. So even you have free will your still "bound" by yourself, you can bullshit away and say you choose those rules and morals yourself but how did you do that and why did you choose what you chose, was it your emotions?

>>10597857
You cannot will your own will, brainlet. "Free will" literally requires the power of a prime mover (influenced by nothing and completely original in all its actions) in any and all subjects that possess said trait.

I don't really get the confusion with this question. You can do what you want, but what you're going to do can be predicted. It's one of those question that just don't matter at all.

>>10597857
Causality is the only way to have meaningful free will. Antique free will that is free from everything is free from yourself too, i.e. it's not your will, that makes no sense irrespective of existence of anything.

>>10597873
Agnosticism is faggotry.

>>10597857
>free will

>>>/x/

>>10598117
Agnosticism is the only way that makes sense. It's simply the acknowledgement that some things, like a universal god would be completely incomprehensible to beings like us.

>>10597857

Neither is randomness.

>>10598760
Randomness doesn't exist.

>>10598117
I completely agree. Nothing else to add.

Free will does exist.

Everyone's "soul" lives in a parallel universe, running at the same time as this simulation.

Hence, when someone makes a decision out of "free will", they are the ultimate master of this decision.

"I chose to prefer the taste of Coke over Pepsi". "I chose that I want to eat pizza". "I chose to be smart".

Everyone can be the master of their decisions, as long as they aren't drunk or influenced by external stimuli.

>>10597867
Scientific consensus is this post is bullshit

>>10598740
And all other things are completely comprehensible? And given that god doesn't exist, do you even agnosticism?

hey I'm reading frankenstein too

>>10598796
>I chose to be smart
is this what schizos actually believe?

>>10597867
y i k e s

Do electrons think, /sci/?

>>10602479
Yes, but there's only one.

>>10598117
Its a belief also held with some multiverse/multiple world theories

>>10598113
This.

>>10597867
Big brained post

>>10597857
yes, because God created both of those things.

>>10597873
>Utterly false.
>>10597878
>This, but the opposite
>>10597925
>what consensus?
>>10597941
>.....Can you cite something for that?
>>10598804
>Scientific consensus is this post is bullshit
>>10600438
>y i k e s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Believing_in_free_will
>Among philosophers
>A recent 2009 survey has shown that compatibilism is quite a popular stance among those who specialize in philosophy (59%). Belief in libertarianism amounted to 14%, while a lack of belief in free will equaled 12%. More than a half of surveyed people were US Americans.[214]

>Among evolutionary biologists
>79 percent of evolutionary biologists said that they believe in free-will according to a survey conducted in 2007, only 14 percent chose no free will, and 7 percent did not answer the question.[215]

The consensus is clear.

>>10603133
Free will is even measurable. Take a bluepilled cuck and a redpilled edgelord, put them in front of a TV and count how many ideas from the TV they take for granted.

>>10604847
The only problem is how free will works.

>>10597857
Yes.
Read Kant.

>>10597857
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

pls read

>>10597873
It is predetermined since we have no control over anything.

>>10597864
Causality is already a known concept in physics.
Free will, I think, is the concept that, given a present "state" or set of preconditions, various outcomes/futures are possible, and that some supposedly delimited entities (humans) are capable of setting such futures.
I like to visualize it as: if we had Laplace's demon (an omniscient, omnipotent being capable of predicting the evolution of any physical system), it could not predict a system where free will exists, because things would not happen deterministically, and not even randomly.
Of course, that makes no sense. To my knowledge we have never observed a system that behaves in such an insane way. Which is why I think free will is bullshit, apart from our subjective perception of course (it is undeniable that human beings "feel" they have free will).

There are other definitions of free will, but most of them are philosophical problems, which do not concern science. What I explained concerns science because its implications affect our ability to model our world (of which we are part)

>>10602759
Those are the dumbest shit. If it was true, then there would just be a bunch of copies of the same universe.

>>10604907
PS: the existence of "free will" implies a reality where arbitrary "out-of-nowhere", patternless, rule-less events are possible.
Again, not even randomness. It would be much more insane than simple randomness. You could not even infere statistics out of it.