/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11538919
What’s free will?

>>11538919
The scientific consensus is that free will exists.

Why would I not believe in free will? Denying free will is the same as saying that you're not the collection of atoms and processes that make up your body and brain. If so, then who are you?

>>11538924
And anthropomorphic climate change, look where that got us.

>>11538921
>What’s free will?
The belief that if you reversed time you could have chosen differently. It's inconsistent with natural laws.
>>11538924
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
Because it's a difficult pill to swallow.

>>11538933
reality is nondeterministic so whether or not you chose differently is not in violation of natural laws

>>11539023
>reality is nondeterministic so whether or not you chose differently is not in violation of natural laws
Quantum mechanics doesn't give you free will.

>>11538919
>Otherwise perfectly intelligent
that's very unlikely if they believe in free will

>>11539023
>reality is nondeterministic so whether or not you chose differently is not in violation of natural laws

Quantum randomness isn’t free will. It’s randomness, which isn’t what anyone means by “free will”.

>>11538933
>The belief that if you reversed time you could have chosen differently. It's inconsistent with natural laws.
It's totally consistent with QM. If that is what belief in free will is then belief in it is not crazy at all - what is crazy is thinking that it has actually anything to do with human freedom, self-control, moral responsibility, the way we talk about choice etc. Those come completely from the deterministic aspects of our universe.

>>11539025
>>11539040
As per definition in >>11538933 QM could give you "free will".
>The belief that if you reversed time you could have chosen differently.
It is a common definition actually. Still a stupid one.

> if you reversed time
Does anyone take shit like this seriously? Its all retarded

>>11538919
If we are robots that have TREE(3) degrees of freedom, then fuck it, it's so close to infinity
that it's just as good as free will.

>>11539046
>QM could give you "free will".
wrong

I've yet to see one (1) good argument for why we don't have free will.
I firmly believe that I am in control of my actions, thoughts and decisions.
>but it's actually your atoms
Atoms are part of me, yes, and I am atoms. Phyiscalism is compatible with the existence of self. The self need not be anything metaphysical. I can decide how I want to influence atoms around me and inside me and atoms in turn influence me.
> If you went back in time and reset everything as it was before, you would behave exactly the same as you did before.
Even admitting the ludicrous, impossible premise of going back in time, sure nothing else could happen. But that in no way means I don't have free will, it merely points out that you can't define free will to mean the potential for anything to happen because of your decisions, regardless of circumstances, and not because of any insightful reason but just because this definition is paradoxical (if it even makes sense).

>>11538924
outstanding argument

I believe in free Hong Kong

>>11538919
>sci posters
>intelligent

Well, the good news is, these imbeciles never had the free will to make the choice whether to believe in free will, so their stupidity can at least be explained.

>>11539100
Let me guess, you believe that 0.999... =/=1 too?

Free will is a spectrum.

>>11538919
Free will is true.
BEFORE you disagree please watch this short clip of a very famous mathematician explaining his reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmx2tpcdKZY&list=PLhsb6tmzSpixUGjmJq6g9iPm73pMWnPnH

>>11539126
>short clip
>6 hours
TL;DW please? What's his main argument?

>>11539069
nice selective quote not to mention complete lack of arguments. I was talking about his definition. If your definition of free will is the possibility of several choices given the same exact state of universe, QM indeterminism can give your free will. You think that regrettably common definition is stupid? So do I. You want to reject it? Great, but remember that then you can't just appeal to this common explicit definition of free will to reject compatibilism.

>>11539129
>What's his main argument?
I wouldn't know, I am like two hours in and he announced that he would briefly summarize his arguments in the last lecture.

>>11539130
>if your definition of free will is the possibility of several choices given the same exact state of universe, QM indeterminism can give your free will
Wrong

>>11539025
>>11539040
Well. Still, it disproves any hard determinism, except super determinism.

>>11539141
h o w

>>11538919
well they don't have a choice, do they?

>>11539161
>h o w
Humans are bound by physical laws. Every action is the consequence of a reaction. Throw randomness anywhere in the picture and nothing changes. You at this moment are the result of an unbroken series of cause and effects since the beginning of space time. Every thought and every action you ever had or did was the result of prior causes. There is nothing else to take into account. unless you think there is a separation of mind and body

>>11539241
>Throw randomness anywhere in the picture and nothing changes.
Randomness does give you several possible choices you might do given the exact state of the universe which was the definition that was in discussion. And for the fkn 1000th time, YES it is a stupid definition. Compatibilist definitions account for every possible aspect of free will any sane person would care for. But the point is that whether you have the retarded libertarian/incompatiblist definition or a compatibilist one, there's no grounds for denying free will.

Who the fuck cares, it's just a matter of fucking definitions.
If free will is define as the ability for someone to choose what to do, then yes it's true.
If it's define as the fact that you could have chosen to do something else differently, then no, it's not true.
The difference is subtle, but not that subtle. Grow the fuck up.

>>11539329
>The difference is subtle, but not that subtle. Grow the fuck up.
The difference is night and day retard

>>11539337
I couldn't give less shit about your hypersensitivity anon

>>11538919
>believing in free will
>2020 years since the death of our lord and savior

>believing in determinism
>61 years since the birth of our guy Neil deGrasse Tyson

>>11539352
>2020 years since the death of our lord and savior
Jesus was born on zero you idiot.

>>11539360
>Jesus
Who?

>>11538919
It's not my choice to believe in it.

>>11538919
>/sci/ posters who deny free will

>>11539374
Explain how it's possible to have free will

>>11539374
What's you'are definition of free will, meme poster

>>11539387
>you'are defintion
damn "your" typos are evolving

>>11539387
The ability of a subject to intend

>>11539392
Whomst'dve thought

Chaos theory tells us, that small seeds can yield huge plants. Weather is deterministic, but you cannot stop it. Even cannnot correctly predict is, because you would have to predict powergrid. Free will means just you make a decision. Practicing free will will mean you breathe manually, you want good results therefore fitting some of your optimistic predictions. We choose good and predictable results out of free will, therefore limiting it. Better safe than free? Even thou, it was a choice. The outcome and choosing one can be fixed boolean dumb, then... Just accept the fact that illusion of freedom is best prison, and leave free will alone.

>>11539432
>Chaos theory tells us, that small seeds can yield huge plants.
nigger that's the dumbest thing I've read today.

>>11539495
give him credit, he could have used the butterfly metaphor

>>11539381

If you were to drop a ball, it enters into a "free" fall. It is free of the normal physical forces that would keep it in place, and it seemingly moved on its own down.

Now, we know there is gravity, and we know that it definitely 100% will fall down. So its not really "free". But this is a kind of straw man point, "free" doesnt mean "free of literally everything" or "disconnected from any causal force". It just means it is free.

People read way too much into "free will". Free will is just like a freely falling ball. It means it is independent and moving on its own, however deterministic and understood its basic nature is.

Also, I think "free will" is such a touchy subject, because people have deeply held moral intuitions that individual people should be held accountable for their own actions, so we have a strong prejudice towards against attributing people's actions to forces outside of their control.

>>11539056
>TREE(3) is a finite number
>precisely 0% of infinity
>this is somehow even remotely close to infinity

>>11539503
>however deterministic
Reality is well known not be deterministic, unless you are talking about superdeterminism.

>>11539509
In reality infinity does not exist (see wildeberger) ,therefore free will does not exist

>>11539125
How can free will be a spectrum? It seems like one of those things that is all or nothing. Arguing otherwise just seems to be a way to try and logically convince yourself one way or the other when you know you are wrong.

>>11539264
He made a food case though
>>11539241
Can you actually disprove his assumptions? You haven’t so far.

>>11539584
>Can you actually disprove his assumptions? You haven’t so far.
Assumption that everything rests on physical laws? I mean, it's an assumption but why believe anything else?

>>11539589
No that there is an uninterrupted sequence of cause and effect that has happened since the universe began and that continuum is held in place by the physical aspects of our universe and can not be changed.

>>11539603
Thus making it seem like free will is bogus. That’s how I’m understanding his argument. What do you say in response? I’m just curious, I haven’t made up my mind.

>>11539577
You can have better or worse ability to imagine and consider different possibilities, be more or less constrained by external factors such as coercion, be overwhelmed by an addiction of various possible degrees that clouds your thinking and overrides your other higher and more long-termed goals etc. Or if you're an incompatibilist retard who thinks freedom is all about acting for no cause or reason at all, the RNG factor can be more or less significant in your decision making.

>>11538919
Sorry, I can't help my belief in free will :^)

>>11539603
>No that there is an uninterrupted sequence of cause and effect that has happened since the universe began and that continuum is held in place by the physical aspects of our universe and can not be changed.
ultimately the point is:

-Humans are a product of the rules that govern the universe, whatever they may be
-Humans are an exception or one of the rules themselves. Then libertarian free will is possible.

Which is more likely? People desperately want option 2 to be the case so they will choose that 9 times out of 10. but is option 2 more likely?

When you have subverted inherited deterministic intent and whole received the world as a vessel for free will. Good luck with your loops

It seems to me that the other anon has a strong argument. And you haven’t be able to provide a strong counter argument. If I’m going to be honest.

This >>11539654
Was meant to be answering this >>11539636
sorrow

>>11539636
Option 1 is more likely, based on our understanding of reality
Option 2 relies on too many exceptional assumptions that need to be proven to be true.

>>11539684
Language and communication make zero sense under the materialist assumption. Physics and neuroscience cannot predict what someone is about to say. Only an understanding of what the person intends to convey will get you anywhere.

>>11539693
>Language and communication make zero sense under the materialist assumption.
What?

>>11538919
>otherwise perfectly intelligent /sci/ poster who belives in man made climatechange

FTFY

>>11539516

Yes. It is. Nothing I said contradicted that.

>>11539636

Your free will point is a straw man.

>>11539731
Dr Shoener shoehorning.

>>11538924
Any sources you have to back this up? I'm curious to read any materials that say so.

>>11538924
>The scientific consensus is that free will exists.
This is such an incredibly illconceived notion.

The aspiring to be a-scientists need to know their ontological place. There is no scientific consensus partially because that's impossible -- science does not and cannot have anything to say whatsoever about whether free will exists. Any designed experiment would need to infer (a logical, a priori, and should-be ascientific concept that can be imitated but not duplicated) the freedom (a metaphysical concept) of intention (also fundamentally a metaphysical concept).

Science can't determine definitively whether any action is intentional without taking someone's word for it at some point, and then perhaps comparing what someone says of their intention with activity in the brain. Science also can't determine definitively whether any action is done freely. It can perhaps disprove things like determinism, but this is possibly not exhaustive of all possible negations to freedom, and therefore, not exhaustive of all possible negations to freedom. Even if science could magically disprove every possible thing that would be a negation to free will, that is a far-cry from proving absolutely anything is done freely, at least without inferring such.

>>11538919
If "free" in free will means "ability to break the physical laws of the universe," which it usually does, only if God exists, then free will exists and exists in us. If He doesn't, then will doesn't even exist.

>>11539949

>which it usually does

It does? Can you prove this? I have only heard this formulation of free will from determinists trying to argue against it.

I tried to find the best source of a genuine pro free will argument, and I came across Erasmus during the reformation. He was arguing for something totally different.

>>11539972
>Can you prove this?
That is what it means when "You can't break the physical laws of the universe," is found in their reasoning. It's just from my experience learning the perspective of people who don't believe in free will. I suppose I can't prove that's what or how most of them actually think.
>I came across this guy arguing for something totally irrelevant
wat

>>11540013

Free will was a big theological question during the reformation, with many protestants like Luther and Calvin claiming it doesnt exist. Erasmus took the other side of that argument.

I am not Christian or anything. Its not irrelevant, even if it is kind of in a theological context.

>>11539509
dumb robot