/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump, interested as well.
Do I actually take any real decision or is it all automatic? Is my conscious thought just an echo or illusion of the subconscious?

>>12230175
>Okay /sci/, does free will exist or not?
It exists.
>Are the movements and interactions of the smallest units that make up the universe predetermined, random or neither?
Neither.
>If it is random or predetermined then, since my body is inherently made up of these units, I am the one making the decisions am I not?
No. If they're predetermined or random you have no control over them.
>I am made of those units and however they choose to move, through whatever force or lack thereof, is however my body and mind chooses to act.
You seem to be ascribing choice to a place where there is none. The units completely determine what you do, and all "choice" we have is an illusion (if you accept that these units are random or predetermined).
>Therefore "free will" is real, even if the nature of the universe is random or predetermined
Doesn't follow.

>>12230355
>You seem to be ascribing choice to a place where there is none. The units completely determine what you do, and all "choice" we have is an illusion (if you accept that these units are random or predetermined).
How can there be free will if the 'choices' we have are an illusion?

>>12230364
That's exactly my point. In such a case, there cannot be free will.

Determinism is literally the only reasonable thing for adults to believe in.
Anything else is a childish attempt to cling on to the concept of agency.

>>12230457
I too was 14 years old once.

>>12230457
Determinism is false though, the universe does not evolve deterministically.

>>12230502
Refute it.

>>12230506
Prove it.

>>12230510
Refute what? You gave no argument. Cope harder kid.

>>12230512
Seethe.

I'm still waiting for an event that is not random or predetermined. Those seem to be the only options.

>>12230175
Who forced you to post this thread? No one. You have your answer.

>>12230637
Does he? Would he have asked this question if it weren't for his brain chemicals acting the way they did just now?
How come he asked this question now and not at a much earlier age or under any different circumstance?

>>12230772
Because he chose so.

>>12230772
>How come he asked this question now and not at a much earlier age or under any different circumstance?
Random factors. Maybe he decided to study biology and learned about brain chemicals, which proceeded into thinking about free will and then he willingly out of free will, decided to create this thread to discuss with others.

The fact that he decided to study biology might be because the pay is good for example, which is also a free will. He could've also done janitor work if he didn't care about money.

How much you care about money is also free will.

>>12230788
But intelligence and personality traits such as liking money are hereditary, so it's the result of chemicals in his brain not because of his 'free-will'

>>12230778
The subconscious brain already takes choices for us, so it chose to do this, not 'him'!

>>12230799
>liking money are hereditary
I disagree. I think it's more of a phenotype rather than genes only.
Of course if you have a rich daddy and a wealthy home, you'll value money as more important. However, say daddy was an abusive alcoholic, you might value money less and care more about relationships.

Environment matters in the way of shaping your free will.

Provide one (1) example of a truly random event.

>>12230845
9/11

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516071806.htm

Using a combination of automated behavior recording and sophisticated mathematical analyses, the international team of researchers showed for the first time that such variability cannot be due to simple random events but is generated spontaneously and non-randomly by the brain. These results caught computer scientist and lead author Alexander Maye from the University of Hamburg by surprise: "I would have never guessed that simple flies who otherwise keep bouncing off the same window have the capacity for nonrandom spontaneity if given the chance.

Fruit-flies btfo humanoids 90% of time!

>>12230175
Free will does not exist. There is no such thing as an irreducibly mental event causing a physical event. All physical effects have a physical cause -- viz., gravity or electromagnetism (electro-weak-strong interaction).

>>12230506
>the universe does not evolve deterministically
Yes it does.

>>12230901
Prove it.

>>12231299
The Schrödinger equation, which underlies all of reality, evolves deterministically.

None of you seem to understand what OP is asking. He's saying that even if the forces that cause him to act are predetermined or random then since it's his body that follows those forces, he's still choosing it because he is the sum of particles that makes up himself. However those particles act is how he acts. It's not that hard to wrap your mind around it.

>>12230175
Yes.

>>12231334
Irrelevant. There is only one outcome. There does not exist a universal wavefunction or some fantasy multiverse where every outcome takes place.
A single random outcome happens in a single nondeterministic unverse.

>>12230845
You being born

>>12230898
>All physical effects have a physical cause
Causal closure is metaphysical, not a fact.

>>12230175
No.

>>12230845
Collapse of the wavefunction

>>12230355
>You seem to be ascribing choice to a place where there is none. The units completely determine what you do, and all "choice" we have is an illusion (if you accept that these units are random or predetermined).
Do you also call the chair you're sitting on an "illusion" just because it's completely made of atoms and if you remove those atoms, there's no chair left at all?

It does not exist, people who try to make sense of free will in compatibilistic manners usually end up with concepts that already are defined as just "will" calling it free is like randomly beginning to call the color red "free red" starting tomorrow for no reason.
Except in this case "tomorrow" would be thousands of years ago and the reason was to make people feel responsible so that individuals may feel like they actually deserve all the shit they go through because it's 100% their own fault if they couldn't autodetermine themselves to be succesful at life, so true!!!
Yes, this is a rant.

>>12232353
Nope.

>>12232395
Saying "nope" won't convince people that you are not retarded

>>12232358
All facts are metaphysical.

>>12232396
Your post was clearly the most retarded in the thread.

>>12232395
Cope.
There is not a single shred of evidence for determinism. It inherently requires postulating pseudo scientific nonsense that can not be tested.
The universe is not deterministic. If you disagree, you are not intelligent.

>>12232403
The Schrödinger equation, which underlies all of reality, evolves deterministically. QM is science, unlike the horseshit you are spouting in this thread.

>>12232403
>There is not a single shred of evidence for determinism.
prove it

>>12232408
>The Schrödinger equation, which underlies all of reality, evolves deterministically
Irrelevant, as it collapses non-deterministically.
>QM is science, unlike the horseshit you are spouting in this thread.
I am literally saying nothing that isn't exactly what is observed in experiments.
You are postulating non scientific nonsense.
The Schrodinger equation evolving deterministically does not matter when there is no deterministic outcome when it collapses. That is random. There is no deterministic evolution, it is stochastic.

>>12232411
The collapse of the wavefunction is inherently non deterministic, with no "secret underlying determinism" and no universal wavefunction (such a concept is not even coherent. Wavefunctions are relative to observers).

>>12232400
I am not even that guy you said nope to, thanks for trying I guess
kys

>>12232386
>It does not exist, people who try to make sense of free will in compatibilistic manners usually end up with concepts that already are defined as just "will" calling it free is like randomly beginning to call the color red "free red" starting tomorrow for no reason.
No, "free" is a very important part of compatibilist free will. The idea is precisely that there's a difference between just having desires and being actually free from outside coercion, madness or addiction, having the capability to imagine what will happen if you choose one thing over another etc. The more you have these freedoms, the more free your will is. It still might be besides the point when people are obviously talking about something more metaphysically pretentious, but it's still free in an important say. More important the retarded incompatibilist sense of freedom anyway, makes a practical difference actually.

>>12232397
Then if physical effects have physical causes and if we keep going with causality physics was caused and that cause was Consciousness/God. All metaphysics are facts indeed if I impose my own axion.

>>12232441
lol, that's not "free" at all.
That just means your thinking as straight as possible.
In fact I'd say when you are under the influence of those things you said, you are not acting out of your will in the first place.
I stand by my point that "free" is a misleading word, we should just call it "will", and people who are coherced/in an alterated state of mind are not acting out of their actual will.

>>12232427
There is no collapse, random or otherwise. That's what's confusing you. There is only entanglement.

>>12232452
No, causality only links events in spacetime. There is nothing outside spacetime.

>>12232458
>lol, that's not "free" at all.
That corresponds to how we use "free" in everyday life. Imagine somebody asks whether you were free to choose what subject to study in university or whatever. If you lived in a totalitarian society that made the choice for you, you could reasonably say no, or with other kinds of external constraints, but you wouldn't start rambling about determinism or how quantum randomness isn't freedom either.

>In fact I'd say when you are under the influence of those things you said, you are not acting out of your will in the first place.
Well that's kinda the point. You have will, but it's not free so you can't act on it properly. That's why it being free makes a difference.

>>12232494
That's according to the M-W interpretation only, other interpretations say otherwise.

>>12230175
No it doesn't exist. Your choices and decisions are always influenced by your predispositions and are made subconsciously. None of that physics shit is necessary to prove that free will is a myth. It doesn't even make sense logically as a concept.

>>12232501
No, only fringe interpretation says otherwise. The theory of QM itself does not posit collapse. It is fully deterministic.

>>12232498
Not true, the principle of locality is disputed by quantum mechanics. Your newtonian mechanics worldview was refuted over a hundred years ago.

>>12232512
>It doesn't even make sense logically as a concept.
The concept is that certain nonphysical mental states can cause physical events to happen. Physics rules that out.

>>12232515
Then explain why only one outcome is ever actually realized in experiments.

>>12232526
I never even mentioned the principle of locality. QM is understood to be nonlocal.

>>12232534
Nope. QM does not violate locality.

>>12232533
Because that's how entanglement works. Measurement is entanglement.

>>12232515
>only fringe interpretation says otherwise.
You'll have to prove why every other interpretation is wrong and yours correct. Hell, even the most orthodox and popular interpretations (Copenhagen) says collapses does happen.

>>12232537
Experimental violation of Bell's theorem conclusively proves that QM is nonlocal.

>>12232541
No it doesnt, it proves QM is non deterministic

>>12232539
Copenhagen isn't even an interpretation. It's a vague pile of self-contradictory mysticism. What I'm saying is true in any serious interpretation. I am simply reciting what the theory of QM says literally.

>>12232544
Nonsense. QM is inherently deterministic.

>>12232549
There is no violation of locality in QM

>>12232557
Of course there is. Bell's inequalities are violated.

>>12232561
Which does not imply non locality. It proves non determinism.
Locality has never been violated and never will be. Determinism is false.

>>12232545
>What I'm saying is true in any serious interpretation
So are you going to explain why is only the M-W interpretation true and everything else wrong? Or just accuse everyone else of being "mysticism".

>>12232538
Wrong.

>>12232576
Wrong. As defined by Einstein, the Principle of Locality states:

>There can be no cause and effect between space-like separated events

This has been falsified in the Bell tests. What Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", which he correctly derived as a consequence of QM, does indeed exist in reality.

>>12232580
MWI isn't the only serious interpretation. It's not even the main one I'm considering. It is a serious interpretation because it conforms to what the theory of QM literally says.

>>12232600
What you think about Bohm's? Collapsed is not required in his.

>>12232607
I consider it a serious alternative to standard QM. Although it makes the same predictions as QM, it's not quite the same theory, so technically it's not simply an 'interpretation'. But it has a lot going for it and is worth exploring.

I don't really want to know the answer to that question desu. Finding out that I don't have free will would crush me. In this case ignorance truly is bliss.

Bump.

>>12230175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder

>>12232353
>There does not exist a universal wavefunction
Why not? You can compute a wave function of a single particle and a different wave function for a system of many particles, and one for the whole universe.

>>12232441
>The idea is precisely that there's a difference between just having desires and being actually free from outside coercion, madness or addiction, having the capability to imagine what will happen if you choose one thing over another etc.
Seems to me that the only difference is that you can point to the cause, when an addict buys more cigarettes, and can't if they're choosing what's for dinner.

>>12233992
The difference is also that addicts often also have a conflicting desire to *not* desire what they are addicted to. They have this overwhelming desire that enslaves the rest of their self.

>>12233988
Wavefunctions are relative to observers

>>12230175
>>12230343
if free will doesnt exist, arriving at any truth deliberately is impossible as to check if something is true you need dialetics, which is only possible if you can choose what youre evaluating
free will not existing implies then that knowledge and rationality are impossible, and that discussing the existence free will is pointless as everything that will be said was just predetermined to be spouted, no one will change their minds because they have no minds, theyre just puppets of something else

reality though shows this is not the case (logic exists, knowledge exists, etc), therefore free will exists

>>12230457
>Determinism is literally the only reasonable thing for adults to believe in.
>Anything else is a childish attempt to cling on to the concept of agency.

>the concept of self responsibility and self control are childish, real adults act like pampered childs

>>12230529
>I'm still waiting for an event that is not random or predetermined
Human action
Mises spent 1000 pages on this

>>12230772
>Would he have asked this question if it weren't for his brain chemicals acting the way they did just now?
I keep posting this obvious answer in pic but it seems stupidity is endless

>>12230799
>But intelligence and personality traits such as liking money are hereditary
Intelligence is not thinking or logical mathematical ability

>>12230858
>generated spontaneously
By this dont they mean they dont know what generates it? Then, if no mechanism of generation exists, lets suppose, wouldn't that mean its independent? Therefore free will?

>>12232408
>QM is science, unlike the horseshit you are spouting in this thread.
sure buddy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

>>12234520
MAMAAAAA THE GUY ON THE INTERNET IS SAYING I HAVE TO PROVE THAT WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!!
BUT I HAVE NO PROOF FOR FREE WILL!!
HOW DO I SHOW HIM THAT I AM A BIG TOUGH RESPONSIBLE GUY AND HE'S TOTALLY A CHILD??? :'((((

>>12234796
are you ok dude?

>>12235173
I'm gonna ask him if he's okay in a passive-aggressive manner!!! that'll show him! :))))

>>12235497
you have issues buddy
try finding an internet addiction rehabilitation center

>>12234524
>What is genetics and epigenetics
>What is enviromental conditioning

>>12235565
said the guy on the internet who needs to find a retardation rehabilitation center :)

>>12235572
Read the book

>>12235686
No sane person is gonna read a 1k pages book knowing that it's somehow gonna claim thar human actions are free from causality, or even "partially free", or whatever mongoloid compatibilists came up with these days to defend their incoherent shitty view on this matter.

Free will is just being able to model potential future states of reality in your brain
When you successfully model the outcome that occurs you've made a 'decision'.

>>12235703
who should i speak with to have a conversation about it? i mean, who is your puppeteer? since you say to not have a free will, then youre just a puppet, who is making you post those words? i want to talk to him as he is obviously smarter than his puppet

>>12235769
there is no puppeteer retard :)
you assuming there must be one means you're still a newborn when it comes to free will discussions.
Please try to abandon this sense of "someone must be responsible for this state of affairs!!" mindset asap.
Then again, whether you think it's worth trying or not will merely be a result of causality.
And if you will think it will be worth trying reconsidering the idea of FW not being as coherent as you still think it is AND succeed in realizing you always had dumb views about it, again, it will be only the result of causality, not anyone's "merit" or "fault".
I just hope you will think about it.

>>12235703
Do yo even know what compatabilism is or are you just babbling?

>>12235911
You just don't want responsibilities dude, you wanna be told what to do like a little kid your whole life.

ik ben net kankerstronken gaan rijden van bilthiovwen naar amersfoort
iba7esh heeft mij niet gepakt

>>12235979
How can I even begin to accept responsibilities if responsibility is not a thing lol
you're just projecting your uttee retardation on me, I'm not taking any "responsibilty" off myself and blaming anyone else, I'm claiming that nothing even close to a coherent and well constructed argument has ever been made to support FW and everything it implies.
Whatever you said about me is just a meaningless projection that doesn't follow from anything said so far, just your pathetic appeal to emotions ;)

>>12230457
Principle of uncertainty refutes your position since humans are made of matter.
QED.

>be on /sci/
>anon itt trying to explain that he truly is a prima causa, independent and free, just because it feels that way
Some of you are on the wrong board. >>>x is that way

>>12236256
Uncertainty = free will
qefuckingd indeed

Yes. It exists. Because it can be taken away.

>>12236256
principle of uncertainty is all talk and no facts

>>12236247
Yes you are responsible for you actions, because they are adequately determined. And yes, you are little kid, is a fact. You don't want to accept that your actions have consequences because that's what makes a kid become a man. And you are not a man.

>>12236447
All the quantum world is ruled by it, and all exists thanks to the quantum world.

>>12230175
>Are the movements and interactions of the smallest units that make up the universe predetermined, random or neither?
Random, at the smallest level they exist in a state of quantum superposition

>>12236450
Accepting that your actions have consequences and believing you are responsible for your actions are two very different things but I don't expect a brainlet like you to go that far in your reasoning.
Your actions have consequences because it's a necessity for an action to have consequences, it wouldn't be defined as an action otherwise.

>>12236455
principle of uncertainty is a human concept.
The "quantum world" doesn't give a shit about what you think of how it actually works, and it's most definetely not ruled by it.

You guys are just saying what you believe because you have no choice.

>>12236594
>principle of uncertainty is a human concept.
Uh huh, sub atomic particles cannot be measured their position and momentum at the same time and thus the uncertainty, that's based on empirical evidence and that's we call the uncertainty principle. The quantum world ruled by it regardless of whether you accept it or not.

>>12236707
dude it's your ideas (principle of uncertainty) that are governed by your observations (what you see in your "empirical experiment") not the other way around, stop pretending to be smart

>>12230175
No free will doesn't exist. The precise future could be calculated given all information from any point in time. See laplace's demon. That being said, the physics to calculate it are so massive and complex that we can pretend that it does exist without any consequences.

>>12234514
people on /sci/ go the extra mile just to cope with the fact that we aren't actually free

For all we know there are forces even smaller than the quantum scale with radically different properties. Invisible things and extra dimensions. There is no and never will be a definitive answer.

>>12230457
>>12230364
So it's rape everytime you fuck a woman?

>>12237067
ummmmmm, no? Do you have a case of the mental retardation?

Consent exists just not consent based upon free will.

>>12237088
you said:
>it's childish to cling onto the concept of agency
so go ahead and explain what consent is without using the concept of agency
if you can't, then fucking kill yourself for walking into such an obvious deadend.

>>12237115
That was my first post in this thread retard I'm not who you were tarding out on before.

>>12234514
>no one will change their minds because they have no minds, theyre just puppets of something else
What if they were meant to change their minds in the first place? Some people are more or less susceptible to information than others.

>>12238434
That's a BTFO.