/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14671473
How does he refute determinsm? I personally have, just curious how he approached it, and find it hard to believe he succesfully did

>>14671486
>How does he refute determinsm?
He doesn't. OP is a retard. Schopenhaur just notes correctly that determinitard arguments are vacuous and irrelevant and circumvents them altogether.

>>14671511
I meant that he refuted the idea, which most forms of determinism seems to believe, that freedom cannot exist at all because of the empirical.

>>14671545
No, he just coined an idea of "freedom" that circumvents determinsim altogether, which determinitards simply refuse to accept, thus it proves nothing to them.

>>14671550
if he demonstrated that freedom is not an empirical concept, how did he not refute them by correctly accusing them of using transcendental terms within an empirical system?

>>14671473
>inb4 not science
and still shit works. Something doesn't fit here OP. Maybe, just maybe, are you a branilet by any chance?

>>14671550
I don't see how a determinist who thinks the universe has a completely set in stone path down to the last atom would need to reject any reasonable definition of freedom.

>>14671630
That's because you're probably still a kid who thinks these discussions are actually intellectual, when in reality it's just people rationalizing their preexisting intuitions.

>>14671550
how is it not a refutation to point out that they cling to the empirical without justification, and do not consider the only realm where freedom may be allowed to exist? By throwing the ability of their system to judge things in themselves into question(harkening back to Kant and his antimonies), how could anyone still cling to it dogmatically? I don't mean that freedom is positively affirmed in that way, but that the empirical basis for rejecting it is refuted because its foundation was judged to be suspect.

>>14671649
What are you trying to say? That they shouldn't trust their own judgment because maybe they're just predetermined to spout dumb arguments and be convinced that they are rational without any say in the matter?

>>14671659
No, the determinists shouldn't trust materialism as an absolute description of reality due to the criticisms Kant levied against it, and therefore the system through which they interpret freedom is incomplete and suspect.

>>14671680
>determinists shouldn't trust materialism as an absolute description of reality due to the criticisms Kant levied against it
Pfff. I think I'm gonna side with determinitards on Kant.

>>14671685
why tho

>>14671694
Because Niezsche was right about him.

>>14671699
And I couldn't even manage to spell Nietzsche's name right. Off to a grea

>>14671701
...t start. Okay. Maybe this is not the right time for philosophical debates.

>>14671699
what about him specifically?
>>14671703
u drunk?

>>14671705
>what about him specifically?
That he was an annoying hypocrite essentially arguing in a circle.

>u drunk?
No, but it's 4 AM and I'm tired.

>>14671712
I think his antimonies were correct and enough to cast justified suspicion on materialism.

>>14671712
>>14671721
also can we maybe continue this tomorrow? very late for me too

>>14671630
They'd have to prove that a system that has a completely set in stone path down to the last atom is correct over one where atoms evolve inherently randomly. Otherwise they're not acting on anything reasonable (neither is the other side unless they prove their position etc)

>>14671721
If you say. I'm not one to defend materialism in any case.

THE PROOF OF FREE WILL.

EVERYTHING IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED EXCEPT MIND LIKE THINGS

THE MIND IS NOT A SINGLE 1D OBJECT.

THE MIND SIMULATES REALITY.

THE MINDS SIMULATION OF REALITY CAN PROJECT MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES OF REALITY

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN SEE MORE THAN 1 1D OBJECT IN THE MIND AT A TIME.

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TO DEGREES GREATER THAN 0, ESCAPE PHYSICS AND TIME THAT DETERMINEDLY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BODY BY FOR SOME AMOUNT OF TIME ONLY PAYING MIND TO THE MIND

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TAKE INTERNAL TIME TO MAKE UP ITS MIND, BY PLAYING WITH MULTIPLE SIMULATIONS IN THE MIND

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND ULTIMATELY FINALLY HAS THE ULTIMATE FINAL CONTROL TO CHOOSE ONE OR MORE IN THE SEQUENCE OF THEIR CHOOSING, WHICH INTERNAL SIMULATION THEY WANT TO TRY TO ENACT ON THE OUTER WORLD.

ULTIMATELY THE OUTER WORLD DOES NOT DETERMINE THIS CHOICE FOR THEM.

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND IS CALLED, A WILL, AND IT HAS THE POWER TO FREELY CHOOSE AMONG MULTIPLE MIND SIMULATIONS IT CAN WORK TOWARDS FORMULATING

>>14671473
>>calmly refutes determinism
>nothing personal Sapolsky and friends lmao
No one (i.e. no real scientist) cares about your retarded philosophical heroes on the science board >>>/lit/
>>inb4 not science
>and yet the IQ and racebaiting threads remain, curious
Not an excuse. Fuck off back to >>>/lit/

>>14671958
This solves the free will debate once and for all. No more books, no more papers, no more internet arguments or discussions, its solved, t's over.

>>14671649
>how is it not a refutation to point out that they cling to the empirical without justification
The justification is the evidence given by the predictions.
>>14671680
>No, the determinists shouldn't trust materialism as an absolute description of reality due to the criticisms Kant levied against it, and therefore the system through which they interpret freedom is incomplete and suspect.
I think you are confusing Kant with Hume. Kant argued against Hume. Either way both are irrelevant to modern epistemology, in that modern epistemology more resembles evidentialism, fallibilism, and so on. You do not need certainty for knowledge, you need justification, and induction is justified by the predictions of the model in proportion to the evidence given by the predictions.

You're about 300-400 years behind modernity.

>>14672285
So when we hook up a brain to a scanner, and detect the choices a person will make roughly 7 seconds before they do, it's free will?

>>14671968
Science is just a particular subfield of philosophy and every scientist I’ve ever met who wasn’t mentally ill reads a lot of philosophy.

>>14672447
>every scientist I've met
So zero?

>>14672461
Quite a few, given that I’m a neuroscience grad student

>>14672400
>So when we hook up a brain to a scanner, and detect the choices a person will make roughly 7 seconds before they do, it's free will?
Provide the example. 7 seconds.... What. Thats such a long time, you are a parrot that does or doesn't know its being dishonest.

Provide the conditions of this experiment, set the scene so I may dismantle the inappropriate interpretation

>>14672503
Metascience, quantitative and qualitative analysis, internal and external validity, theory validity, lots of things like these can fall under philosophy. However, most I know and have met throughout my life are not wasting their time reading Hume or Hegel or Kant for the 50th time.

Yes, science is philosophy, but let's not equivocate between the applied philosophy of science that seeks to demonstrate what it claims and navel gazing ontological/metaphysics theologians and older philosophers tended to engage in. Epistemology yes, navel gazing no.

>>14671649
Justification for empirism is that empirism is a working method of study. Also empirical basis confirms freedom, not rejects it. He refuted a strawman.

>determinitard

>>14672513
>Provide the example. 7 seconds.... What. Thats such a long time, you are a parrot that does or doesn't know its being dishonest.
stealing his thunder here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Notable_experiments

He's referencing the Libet experiment, but there've been many replications without supposed "issues" many philosophy garbage blogs claim totally exist. Many variations on experiments like these, and wikipedia only lists a few. You can google for more if you want more.

>>14672400
So this is like:

I am aware I can possibly have 1 or a few of 100 different things for lunch.

I am imagining in my mind what I want for lunch.

I cycle through them all and weigh the options. I am pretty certain I want to choose tacos, I'm leaning pretty heavy on tacos, in the next 6 seconds I cycle though a few more options to see if I really want tacos or if someone else wins out. The 7th second, nope it's tacos.

Experimenter: "I knew you wanted tacos 7 seconds before you did!"

>>14671730
Atoms move according to mathematical laws of motion, and mathematics is deterministic, that's proof of determinism.

>>14672527
No, because the experiment originally used motor movement to simplify things. Your brain decides you're going to move before you become consciously aware of it.

In general, in modern neuroscience, consciousness is more about self-authoring retroactively. You look at all the experiments on brains and it's pretty clear your awareness narrates what your brain is doing, not "deciding" what to do and commanding basal structures as if separate from a chain of causality. Of course, having accurate self narration of what you've been doing helps you make better decisions too, but it doesn't work like people intuit.

>>14672530
but muh schrodinger's caterino!

>>14672516
You said what I wanted to way say but in a more palatable way :)

>>14672542
The struggle was real trust me.

>>14672539
That's not really a robust test of choice.

And if im aware I can move my body a million different ways, and start believing I am choosing to move my hand arm leg wrist neck this way or that, how are you measuring my personal 1:1 concious awareness of control over my body? How do you not know your pre 7 second measurement isn't the beggining of my aware choice making process. Any way 7 seconds is way to long for the experiment and theory to not be bogus.

I can conciously move my body 30 ways in 5 seconds, and your saying all those decisions were made not by me 7 seconds prior?

>>14672524
Also I think you guys are conflating the fact that the majority of people don't use their free will with the fact that free will is possible for one who knows it and focuses and knows how to use it.

Anyone who believes free will does not exist, is an npc that does not have free will.

Everyone who knows for certain free will exists, has free will

>>14672560
>That's not really a robust test of choice.
There are multiple variations on different experiments. Simplifications into yes/no decisions were required due to limitations of the Libet experiment, but other experiments have been done as well. I linked wikipedia before, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Notable_experiments and there are many more you can search for online. Every single "criticism" you gave is, in fact, a bonus of simplification to clearly demonstrate the simple fact you narrate decisions not "decide" them. Your brain decides them, you narrate those decisions, and yes there is a feedback loop there. You have will, not free will. Adding complications to the experiment doesn't alter this.
>>14672560
>Also I think you guys are conflating the fact that the majority of people don't use their free will with the fact that free will is possible for one who knows it and focuses and knows how to use it.
Burden of proof is on you. Free will is a logical contradiction. "Will" is sufficient, I need not delude myself that it's "free".

>>14672524
Hardly stealing my thunder. Thank you for the assistance, though I'm not sure I'd encourage the entitled, lazy behavior of my responder. Considering roughly 80% of human communication is nonverbal, it's fairly clear ideas are only as important as the actions they create. From a neurological perspective they can be seen as anticipation to stimuli, and fits the idea we're just self diluding animals with an illusion of free will. It really doesn't matter if there's a belief in it, or not.

>>14672530
Mathematics is not deterministic retard
The majority of mathematical functions and objects are not computable.

>muh determinism
Zero intellectual content. By spouting it, you only broadcast your botlike psyche and intuitions.

>>14672530
Also, the universe is not describable to arbitary precision with mathematics/the universe is not describable with a turing machine, so even if mathematics were deterministic (it's not) the universe is not "governed by mathematical laws" either.
Go back to school

>>14673106
>Hardly stealing my thunder. Thank you for the assistance, though I'm not sure I'd encourage the entitled, lazy behavior of my responder.
To be frank if I quit spoonfeeding lazy know-it-all narcissists I would probably end up making one post a week answering a genuine question.

... Sadly that condition does not improve anywhere on the internet in my experience.

>>14672522
christians and other forms of platonists are the determinists you idiot. Materialists are the ones who are not determinists. You can not be a materialist and also a determinist, much like you can't believe in an all knowing god and not be a determinist.
holy shit this board is full of genuine morons

>>14672524
Stunningly low IQ conclusions from an interesting experiment.

>>14673145
>Stunningly low IQ conclusions from an interesting experiment.
Enlighten us with your mastery of the subject, oh wise one. We wait with baited breath.

>>14673153
There's nothing I need to do or say. It's just that your low IQ conclusions are blatant nonsequiturs. Try again.

>>14673136
They're just getting worse, honestly. IQs are objectively dropping. Modern culture encourages that behavior, and multiple chemical factors are affecting hormonal development.

It's worth asking yourself why that decrease in posts would be a bad thing, and genuinely trying to find an answer to the question in your meme. I understand most people on here are hostile for seemingly no reason, but I genuinely think looking at the answers to those two questions will improve your quality of life.

>>14673155
>There's nothing I need to do or say.
The genius doesn't know what "burden of proof" is? For shame. Try harder pal.

this is the question both philosophytards and the adepts of scientism will never have the guts to answer:
suppose the universe is deterministic, how does that knowledge change your actions?
suppose conversely that the universe is truly random, how does that knowledge change your actions?

>>14673165
NTA but you're BTFO here >>14673117 and here >>14673126

>>14673164
>It's worth asking yourself why that decrease in posts would be a bad thing, and genuinely trying to find an answer to the question in your meme.
I know the answer, and the image was a joke. Not an invitation for uninvited attempts at mind reading.

>>14673165
Bruden of proof is 100% on you since you're implying this experiment proves something about free will. LOL. Go ahead and make a concrete argument that isn't full of nonsequiturs. Protip: you can't.

>>14673173
If you say so. Well, thanks anyway for jumping in for me regardless.

>>14673176
>Bruden of proof is 100% on you since you're implying this experiment proves something about free will.
The experiment demonstrates your brain makes the decision before you're aware you have made it. i.e. before will. Burden met.

Your turn. Good luck.

>>14673182
>your brain makes the decision before you're aware you have made it.
First of all, it doesn't. Secondly, prove that this trivial "decision" about something that requires no conscious input is even relevant.

Are we talking about free will or determinism?
The universe is not deterministic, this doesn't answer one way or the other whether or not there's a free will. These are different questions.
You guys are seriously dumb

>>14673185
>First of all, it doesn't.
Source: Your ass.

>>14673189
You're invited to prove that it does. You literally can't. You're so subhuman you can't even wrap your head around the need to prove your claim.

>>14673191
>You're invited to prove that it does.
Read the study. Wiki was linked above. Go fish.

>>14673189
>>14673192
You're genuinely an idiot

>>14673192
>Read the study
That's not an argument. Are you going to show how the results of the study lead to your conclusions? No? Why can't you? :^)

No one has ever beaten my argumentation:
> 1. nature is probabilistic, not deterministic. Therefore, probabilities exist that adhere to some rule.
>2. conscious observers perceive an external world. We take this to really exist. This arrives via sense data.
> 3. there is at minimum an unidirectional flow of information and causality between the external world, sense data, and conscious phenomenon
>4. there is no cause to dispute that that exact channel of information (conceptually speaking) could be bidirectional
>5. therefore, it is possible that some mind states might affect probability distributions of relations inside the external world, "external world" here meaning whatever pertains to moving one's body

>>14673198
>nature is probabilistic, not deterministic
you can't unroll a die :)

>>14673198
>>4. there is no cause to dispute that that exact channel of information (conceptually speaking) could be bidirectional
Things in my mind don't change reality. Also what he said >>14673201

>>14673205
That "4" was meant to be a quote. Forgot to delete the extra symbol.
>4 there is no cause to dispute that that exact channel of information (conceptually speaking) could be bidirectional

>>14673201
Neither the future nor even the past are deterministically defined.
If it were possible to compute the evolution of an N body system to arbitrary precision, it would be possible to solve the halting problem.
Therefor the universe can not even in principle evolve deterministically.

>>14673205
>Things in my mind don't change reality. Also what he said >>14673201
Yes? That's what we are discussing. Whether the mind can affect the reality. Are you really taking the question as the answer? That's begging the question.

>>14673207
You are a genuine moron who has no idea what you're talking about

>>14673211
>Whether the mind can affect the reality.
Doesn't. There's been over 100 years of people attempting to demonstrate that minds do with chronic null findings. You might as well argue Earth is flat at that point.
>That's begging the question.
Clearly not. If you think minds effect reality, again, burden of proof is on you.

>>14673226
What's it like being an idiot?

>>14673192
>>14673197
Funny how the namefagging bot goes silent as soon as it's challenged to prove its claim. Guess that's not part of the NPC dialogue tree.

>"le mind affects the reality because i don't understand quantum mechanics"
It is impossible to argue with these retards because they simply don't learn despite QM being around for about 100 years now. I would advise not to talk to them.

>>14673240
No one thinks the mind affects reality and no one is talking about QM

>>14673234
>Funny how the namefagging bot goes silent as soon as it's challenged to prove its claim.
Your failure to read is not my problem, nor is it a challenge to anyone but yourself. You suck at this.

>>14673240
Reminder that your position has no intellectual substance, and you are simply externalizing your lack of humanity.

>>14673248
Answer >>14673208

>>14673219
At least he makes his retardation trackable across multiple threads.
Honestly, discussing with him feels like beating a kid at the special Olympics.
>>14673226
>Doesn't. There's been over 100 years of people attempting to demonstrate that minds do with chronic null findings. You might as well argue Earth is flat at that point.
You are clearly 17 if you think what you said is poignant. 1. we know less than you think about the brain, you cargo cultist. Humans have achieved the opposite "of the big picture figured out, just needing some small details to fill out the details", especially when it comes to topics like consciousness.
But alright, let's entertain this kid. How do you think this could be verified? Do you think time travel exists? Do I need to finish the train of thought that proving either free will as well as determinism is forever impossible, because time travel into the past does not exist?
>Clearly not. If you think minds effect reality, again, burden of proof is on you.
See above. Besides, you are arguing the non-standard point, so the burden of proof lies on you, you 16 year old. Humans do perceive to not have agency with regards to many things (like digesting), but crucially, equally there are also things for which we perceive to have agency.

Someone please post the Mickey Mouse comic where the IFLS is made aware that his very non-provable consciousness tells him supposed determinist facts about the outside world (not that this wouldn't fly above quoted poster's head, though).

>>14673248
Here's what happens according to your meme study, objectively:
1. A subconscious urge arises in the subject
2. It takes some time to float up into the subject's awareness
3. The subject becomes aware of it
4. No further reflection is necessary so the follows through
5. The subject point to this moment as the moment of decision
Prove that the decision is made at stage 1 rather than 5. Protip: you can't.

>>14672540
Youre a moron

>>14673208
>If it were possible to compute the evolution of an N body system to arbitrary precision, it would be possible to solve the halting problem.
>Therefor the universe can not even in principle evolve deterministically.
Reification fallacy. Your inability to determine something does not mean it is not deterministic.
>>14673253
>Do I need to finish the train of thought that proving either free will as well as determinism is forever impossible
Proof is for math and pseudoscience. Let me know when you want to talk evidence. Which you don't have, hence your running in terror from the challenge.
>you are arguing the non-standard point
The consensus in science is that minds don't alter reality. Try again.
>>14673261
>Prove that the decision is made at stage 1 rather than 5. Protip: you can't.
Your failure to read is not my problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will#Notable_experiments

>>14673275
>Your failure to read is not my problem
I guess that really is the end of your NPC dialogue tree. You lost the debate.

Here's what happens according to your meme study, objectively:
1. A subconscious urge arises in the subject
2. It takes some time to float up into the subject's awareness
3. The subject becomes aware of it
4. No further reflection is necessary so the follows through
5. The subject point to this moment as the moment of decision
Prove that the decision is made at stage 1 rather than 5. Protip: you can't.

>>14673261
Confounding is that this is bullshit about twitchy things. Of course we delegate this mostly to less conscious parts (in a "driving a car" way, not nerve reflex like a hot stove).
Besides, having less than full conscious awareness how you arrived at a decision is a standard scenario of the human mind. If you don't have the self-reflection capability, because you are an NPC, in waking life, you certainly must have felt that way many times in dreams and semi-dream states.

Do people like the namefag never experience dreams which are somewhat in an inbetween state of consciousness and agency? E.g. if you program a lot, you certainly had dreams about programming something. During these, it's very evident some part of you, but not a 100% awake part, is truly is thinking about a problem and making decisions.

>>14673275
>Reification fallacy. Your inability to determine something does not mean it is not deterministic.
I didn't say "our" ability to determine something. The proof is that if ANY mathematical equation exists to do this, it could be used to solve the halting problem, therefor such an algorithm does not exist i.e. there is no deterministic mathematical equation for the universe even in principle.
Go actually learn math dumb dumb

>>14673281
>Confounding is that this is bullshit about twitchy things
Yes, I made that point as well, which invalidates the whole thing, but the moron loses from the get-go even before we get there.

>>14673275
>when you want to talk evidence. Which you don't have, hence your running in terror from the challenge.
Stop flopping around like a fish on land. Define what you would admit as evidence.
Protip: you will not admit anything as evidence. Because you are a dogmatist.

I already told you what my challenge with evidence is, that time travel is impossible. It's futile to try to essentially prove a negative.
But you seem to believe evidence can still exist, so let's hear it.

>>14673280
>I guess that really is the end of your NPC dialogue tree. You lost the debate.
Your failure to read is the forfeit here. Listed among the citations are replications refuting your claim it cannot be done.
>>14673283
>I didn't say "our" ability to determine something.
Your not saying it does not negate my criticism. Our inability to do something is not evidence it can't be the case. It means our epistemology is limited and unable to do it.
>>14673293
>Stop flopping around like a fish on land. Define what you would admit as evidence.
Science. This is /sci/ not /x/.
>Protip: you will not admit anything as evidence. Because you are a dogmatist.
So you have a fetish for being wrong . . . ?

>>14673296
Still no argument.

Here's what happens according to your meme study, objectively:
1. A subconscious urge arises in the subject
2. It takes some time to float up into the subject's awareness
3. The subject becomes aware of it
4. No further reflection is necessary so the follows through
5. The subject point to this moment as the moment of decision
Prove that the decision is made at stage 1 rather than 5. Protip: you can't.

>>14673301
>Still no argument.
Your failure to read is not my problem. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>14673296
>Science. This is /sci/ not /x/.
This was a pretty good Skyrim villager dialogue tree I have to say.

>>14673303
It's okay. I'm not actually discussing anything with you, because you are not human. I just think it's illustrative the way you forfeit the argument the moment you're challenged to demonstrate some kind of a thought process. Again only illustrates the necessity and moral validity of physically removing NPCs.

>>14673296
>Your not saying it does not negate my criticism. Our inability to do something is not evidence it can't be the case. It means our epistemology is limited and unable to do it.
The proof is NOT about whether there exists an equation but we can't find it. It's a proof that if any such equation existed, it could be converted into a solution to the halting problem and therefore such an equation can not exist. It's not a matter of our ignorance/limit of our epistemology.
The only solution to this is if there exists a God like being that can perform uncomputable tasks in constant time. Only then could the universe be deterministic as it would be deterministic in a way that is inherently not mathematical in principle.
Go actually learn math and computer science.

>>14673313
>It's a proof that if any such equation existed, it could be converted into a solution to the halting problem and therefore such an equation can not exist.
It is ironic you mention a God, yet don't see the flaw in your reasoning. Yes, if you knew absolutely everything about a system you could make such a solution. We, however, do not know everything about the universe and cannot.

In other words, it is entirely possible to make such an equation if you knew all states in the system. The bizarre part is some part of you knows this, hence your invoking God, but you won't connect the dots.

>>14673331
No, it's not possible to make an equation even if you know all the states of the system. That's what it means to say "if you could compute the solution at arbitrary time T given any initial state S to arbitary precision, you could solve the halting problem". It is NOT POSSIBLE given the initial states of all the particles to compute the evolution of the system at time t to arbitrary precision, as that would be able to solve the halting problem.

You literally do not know what you're talking about dude. Like, you genuinely don't know what the fuck you're talking about, you don't know math and you don't know the theory of computation.

>>14673340
>It is NOT POSSIBLE given the initial states of all the particles to compute the evolution of the system at time t to arbitrary precision, as that would be able to solve the halting problem.
What part of "If you knew everything about a system" did you not understand? This is like P v NP, where you'd have to know everything already. That is, it is possible retroactively from a given perspective, but not proactively.

In other words, this can easily imply at least one alternative to your claim of impossibility. That on some other scale, relative to our scale, it is possible. One way would be that on some other scale, say infinity, our time does not exist except relative to us. This is just one possibility circumventing your "proof".

Do keep telling me I don't know mathematics. It's really very funny to me.

>>14673351
You're a genuine moron and you clearly do not know mathematics or the theory of computation. It's funny watching you make a fool out of yourself

>>14673360
>You're a genuine moron and you clearly do not know mathematics or the theory of computation. It's funny watching you make a fool out of yourself
Aw, reduced to schizophasia already?

>>14671473
>>calmly refutes determinism
>nothing personal Sapolsky and friends lmao
Fucking subhuman, how the fuck does this translated into le ebin BTFO of determinism?

"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

- Arthur Schopenhauer.

>>14673372
You know it has been so long since I read Schopenhauer I completely forgot about that. You, sir, deserve a /thread.

>>14673367
Buddy, you do not even understand what "a solution to an n body equation can be converted to a solution to the halting problem" means. It has nothing to do with p vs np
Keep making an ass of yourself

>>14673376
>Buddy, you do not even understand what "a solution to an n body equation can be converted to a solution to the halting problem" means. It has nothing to do with p vs np
>Keep making an ass of yourself
I didn't say that it did. I did, however, use it as another example with a similar feature.

You know, once someone spots the narcissist game it's really easy to follow. You went from schizophasia and insults to trying to claim things were said that weren't. Going to start mind reading next?

>>14673240
Forgot to mention the other one
>"le godel incompleteness shows that mind affects reality"
Once again, simply don't talk to these people

>>14673386
>Once again, simply don't talk to these people
Okay fine I was bored but you're right. Back to doing my maths then. It's just too fun to poke the narcissists and watch them scream.

>>14673381
No. If the universe were determined by any mathematical function (whether we knew it or not) then that equation could be used to solve the halting problem. Such an equation can not exist, therefore the universe is not governed by any such algorithm (because such an algorithm doesn't exist). This has nothing to do with out knowledge or the limits of our epistemology. There is no such thing as "having complete knowledge" even in prince for any machine that is not equipped with an oracle (i.e. a god)
I have been completely consistent. You just don't know what you're talking about.
>>14673386
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>14673392
You are the only narcissist here. You don't understand math or computer science but you pretend you do.

>>14673386
>>14673392
It is literally known and well accepted that any solution to an n body system can be converted into a solution to the halting problem.
This has nothing to do with God's incompleteness or free will. It simply means the universe can not be deterministic unless there is a God
You idiots literally do not know what you're talking about and you have no high ground in this conversation. You're not scientists nor mathematicians. I am

>>14673405
>You just don't know what you're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

OOF.

>>14673428
Godels* incompleteness sorry
>>14673431
Yes, as I have said several times now moron, an oracle machine is a God that can perform uncomputable/unsolvable computations and equations instantly

Again you show you don't know what you're talking about

>>14673435
>Yes, as I have said several times now moron, an oracle machine is a God that can perform uncomputable/unsolvable computations and equations instantly
Oh so you agree with me, then? That's funny. >>14673351

Einstein on Schopenhauer's determinism

>He was also an incompatibilist; in 1932 he said:

>I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper.[83][84]

Don't know how the fuck some subhuman reached the conclusion that Schopenhauer argued for free will

>>14673438
Then you believe the universe is governed by a God. I dont

>>14673446
>Then you believe the universe is governed by a God. I dont
I don't either. Unless you want to call the cosmos "God". Somehow I don't know what I'm talking about, but walked you right into oracle machines and admitting I was right in the first place. As I said: OOF.

>>14673450
Then you don't believe the universe is deterministic.
You are not right in the first place because it's known that without a God, the universe is not deterministic. It has been shown at this point in our understanding of Mathematics and computation that determinism is not possible without a God - not "the universe" because the universe can not solve uncomputible things.
You don't understand this because you're a larper

>>14673450
Also you didn't walk me into oracle machines I brought them up with my original argument dumb dumb.
You're a projecting narcissistic brainlet

>>14673456
>Then you don't believe the universe is deterministic.
I believe this universe is. You ain't readin too careful there bud.
>>14673458
>Also you didn't walk me into oracle machines I brought them up with my original argument dumb dumb.
Read my reply to it.
>>14673331
>It is ironic you mention a God, yet don't see the flaw in your reasoning. Yes, if you knew absolutely everything about a system you could make such a solution. We, however, do not know everything about the universe and cannot.
From the start I pointed this out. This universe can be, and by all evidence is, deterministic. The "oracle" can simply be an infinite cosmos. As I said originally, you did not see the flaw in your reasoning in spite of your reference to "a God".

>ITT: midwit spergs getting dopamine-hacked by namefagging bots
They win every time you reply. It doesn't matter how laughably wrong they are.

>>14673456
Hello, this is a joint committee of mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists and philosophers. Please post your address and other details so that we can award you with the Fields medal, Turing award, Nobel prize and a PhD.

>>14673462
No. First of all, no evidence indicates the universe is deterministic. And no evidence indicates that any of the natural laws can be used to solve uncomputable problems. The only way for the universe to be deterministic is if some oracle God were constantly interjecting to guide the evolution of the universe i.e. a theistic God.
This is all well known and proven

>>14673467
>This is all well known and proven
Source: Your ass.

>>14673470
Nope. It's known by all known already.
Inherent randomness is accepted by physicists, and there are not combinations of natural laws that can be used to solve uncomputable problems.
Literally nothing I'm saying is controversial to anyone who isn't a larper

>>14673479
Who taught you physics? Deepak chopra?

>>14673479
>Inherent randomness is accepted by physicists, and there are not combinations of natural laws that can be used to solve uncomputable problems.
Things can appear random locally without being random. Superdeterminism is one example possibility, and there are others. You're kind of just flailing about desperately now.

Anyway, I could not resist when you waltzed right into the trap. Back to work.
>>14673484
Apparently? Fuckin kek

>>14673484
My degree is in pure math and theoretical computer science.

>>14673485
Super determinism is just determinism i.e. the universe is governed by God.
You're not as smart as me, sorry to say

>>14673497
>My degree is in pure math and theoretical computer science.
Sure it is sweetie

>>14673507
Cope and seethe sweetie
I'm not lying about anything, unlike you

>>14673468
I'm not deserving of a Nobel for something that's already known to everyone who isn't a larping brainlet like you and this 'e' fellow.

>>14672447
>Science is just a particular subfield of philosophy
philosophy is just verbal masturbation by those who are not smart enough to become mathematicians.

>>14673598
>t. not a mathematician

>>14673626
No, he's right
>t. mathematician

>>14673668
No, he's wrong
>t. Also a mathematician

>>14673675
I'm actually your PhD supervisor and the time has come to reveal to you that we only gave you the PhD out of pity, so you don't count as a real mathematician.

>>14673681
I am defeated

>>14672516
While I’ll give you that most are not reading Hegel or Kant (for better or worse, depending on how much stock one puts into ethics in particular), most in my field are at least familiar with contemporary work in philosophy of mind and have at the very least read Chalmers. Most scientists would benefit from a better understanding of topics within analytic philosophy. I think that the application of systems of modal logics in particular on a wider scale would do wonders for hypothesis generation. There are also specific problems, e.g. epistemic and ontic vagueness, the problem of induction, and the problem of the many, which should ideally be understood and explored more thoroughly by natural philosophers (scientists).

>>14673710
I'm genuinely not sure what you think isn't being explored? Hasn't been, I should say, as you are absolutely 300 years behind the times. The problem of induction pertains to certainty, but we don't deal with certainty. We deal with evidence and probability, induction, accepted on the evidence of the predictions. Fallibilism. All of science effectively runs on fallibilism from beginning to end.

As for epistemic vagueness, pertaining to things like definitions and so forth, dozens and dozens of papers have been written in various fields on metascience and the need for specificity (and the impossibility thereof at times) with respect to definitions, scope, interpretation, you name it people are vomiting papers on it continuously.

You are claiming these things somehow "need to be better understood" but only reveal, to me, that you don't understand and aren't following modern science AT ALL.

>>14672524
>>14672539
>>14672569
>>14673106
YOU DONT HAVE FREE WILL

I HAVE FREE WILL

>>14673857
I mostly read things related to my field, not sure who out there could possibly be completely “up to date” with all current research in every field, seems like fantasy given the number of articles that come out daily now. But you’ve also mistaken linguistic vagueness for epistemic vagueness.

>>14673911
>I mostly read things related to my field
Which field? I guarantee you there's metascience relating to that field, often within the field and within good publications you have the same. I read a wide variety of research of diverse fields just out of general interest, and half the stuff I read from Nature contains aspects of metascience in them. The good stuff anyway.
>But you’ve also mistaken linguistic vagueness for epistemic vagueness.
Since you're not a troll I took this on good faith, went to double check. It seems to be as I remember, in that it's very similar to linguistic ambiguity (fallacy of the heap and so on, wittgenstein, yada yada). Epistemicism, right? I don't think there's a difference there. Can you explain where you see one and why? So I can better understand what aspect, specifically, you meant to refer to? Perhaps I took you too broadly.

>>14673710
Why are you taking seriously a person who doesn't even know what an oracle machine is

Reading up to this post is proof of either determinism or irrational actors, as no person would voluntarily subject themselves to this retardation.

>>14673462
>The "oracle" can simply be an infinite cosmos
I missed this point before.
It can't just be an infinite cosmos, because an infinite cosmos would just be equivalent to a turing machine i.e. not capable of solving uncomputable problems.
You need the oracle for determinism

>>14674012
that webm is giving me shivers lol

>>14674014
>It can't just be an infinite cosmos, because an infinite cosmos would just be equivalent to a turing machine i.e. not capable of solving uncomputable problems.
The oracle cannot solve itself. And? Are you missing the difference between local universe v cosmos? Our local universe can, and by all evidence is, deterministic.

>>14674030
>Are you missing the difference between local universe v cosmos?
Word salad.
>by all evidence is deterministic
This is wrong

>>14674038
>Word salad.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20734/whats-the-difference-between-the-universe-and-the-cosmos

You need to drop the attitude pal. You don't know that there's a difference. That's a "you" problem. Next time, ask, don't proclaim "word salad" because you lack understanding.

>>14674044
In your link, the term cosmos is basically being used as a synonym for determinism, the opposite of chaos, etc.
The universe (whether our local universe or the entire extant universe) is non-deterministic so this world cosmos doesn't have any meaning, if it's meant to mean the opposite of chaos or something.

>>14674067
You know what, my fault, I should've linked one without potential for ambiguity. Local universe is what's in our observable universe. The cosmos or universe "in total" is everything else. That's the difference I'm referring to. Hence "local universe" (or observable universe) and the standard "cosmos" dichotomy for clarity.

In other words, the laws governing the local universe and conditions in it can be determined by the natural laws of our "oracle" or cosmos (the total of all things). Another term for this would be "supervenience". That does not make it a "God" either.

>>14674081
>>14671958
>THE PROOF OF FREE WILL.
>EVERYTHING IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED EXCEPT MIND LIKE THINGS
>THE MIND IS NOT A SINGLE 1D OBJECT.
>THE MIND SIMULATES REALITY.
>THE MINDS SIMULATION OF REALITY CAN PROJECT MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES OF REALITY
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN SEE MORE THAN 1 1D OBJECT IN THE MIND AT A TIME.
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TO DEGREES GREATER THAN 0, ESCAPE PHYSICS AND TIME THAT DETERMINEDLY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BODY BY FOR SOME AMOUNT OF TIME ONLY PAYING MIND TO THE MIND
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TAKE INTERNAL TIME TO MAKE UP ITS MIND, BY PLAYING WITH MULTIPLE SIMULATIONS IN THE MIND
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND ULTIMATELY FINALLY HAS THE ULTIMATE FINAL CONTROL TO CHOOSE ONE OR MORE IN THE SEQUENCE OF THEIR CHOOSING, WHICH INTERNAL SIMULATION THEY WANT TO TRY TO ENACT ON THE OUTER WORLD.
>ULTIMATELY THE OUTER WORLD DOES NOT DETERMINE THIS CHOICE FOR THEM.
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND IS CALLED, A WILL, AND IT HAS THE POWER TO FREELY CHOOSE AMONG MULTIPLE MIND SIMULATIONS IT CAN WORK TOWARDS FORMULATING

DIRECTLY REFUTE THIS WITHOUT LINKING ME TO QUICKLY CONCLUSION JUMPED ILLUNDERSTOOD ILLINTERPRETED SLOPPY EXPERIMENTS.

I WILL REFUTE THEM AGAIN LATER. FIRST HIGHLIGHT STEP BY STEP, STARTING FROM THE FIRST AND STATE WHY WITH REASON THE STEPS ARE NOT ACCURATE, VALID, SOUND AND/OR TRUE

>>14674081
NEUROSCIENTESTS DONT KNOW A LOT ABOUT NEURONS

WHAT PERCENT OF THE TOTAL BRAIN/MIND SYSTEM IS UNDERSTOOD BY NEUROSCIENTESTS IF YOU HAD TO GEUSS (YOU DO HAVE TO GEUSS)?

AND WITH ALL OF THAT PERCENTAGE UNKNOWN THEY AND YOU ARE QUICK AND CONFIDENT AND EXCITED TO JUMP TO A CONCLUSION?

BECAUSE HEADLINES AND FUNDING AND GLORY? ONE EXPERIMENT HERE AND THERE AND ITS CASE CLOSED CERTAINTY OF WHATS GOING ON?

AN EXPERIMENT THAT ONLY MEASURES A VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE OF TYPES OF POSSIBLE CHOICES OUT OF ALL POSSIBLE SCENARIOS AND ALL TYPES OF CHOICES?

NOONE SAID FREEWILL WAS VAST AND THAT EVERYONE HAD IT EASILY.

THE FREE WILL IS IMPOSSIBLE CAMP NEEDS TO SCORE A TRILLION GOALS

THR FREE WILL IS POSSIBLE CAMP NEEDS TO SCORE .001 GOAL TO PROVE THE OTHER CAMP WRONG.

YOU DONT HAVE FREE WILL IF YOU BELIEVE IT AND SAY SO.

I DO HAVE FREE WILL, YOU DO NOT THINK THIS IS SO OR BELIEVE, YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FREEDOM OF WILL IN MY MIND, I HAVE SEEN AND UNDERSTOOD AND KNOW IT, WE ARE NOT THE SAME, THE EXPERIMENT WAS NOT DONE ON ME

AHHHHHH HOW AM I ONLY NEURONS SEEING IN MY BRAIN AHHHHHHHHHHHHH

That anon tossed this experiment into the thread, uses it as a flawless bible to conclude his world view of not having free will, while entirely being off the mark about time frame being involved (7seconds while all the experiments deal with ramping up and cusps milliseconds)

"Despite the popular interpretation of his findings, Libet himself did not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will — he points out that although the tendency to press a button may be building up for 500 milliseconds, the conscious will retains a right to veto any action at the last moment.[55] According to this model, unconscious impulses to perform a volitional act are open to suppression by the conscious efforts of the subject (sometimes referred to as "free won't")."


It has to do with inner monologue. I know there will be more Now and now and now and now in the future, I can move my hand now or now or now or now or now I am aware I can move my hand 3 or 5 or 6 or 7 now's from now and now and now and now

I am being forced to collapse this probability superposition wave function of which the future is equally composed of me moving my hand at every now and not moving my hand at every now, and entirely me entirely I entirely my awareness is responsible to enact the choice

>>14674830
>Libet himself did not interpret his experiment as evidence of the inefficacy of conscious free will
Do yourself a favor and read the following paragraphs of replications, please. Better still, google subsequent more complex replications. Of which there are numerous. Libet's INTERPRETATION is irrelevant. He did not publish a study demonstrating that alleged "veto". Check citation 55, it's literally just an opinion piece he has never demonstrated.

>>14674830
>That anon tossed this experiment into the thread, uses it as a flawless bible to conclude his world view of not having free will, while entirely being off the mark about time frame being involved (7seconds while all the experiments deal with ramping up and cusps milliseconds)
You mean how I indicated there are a plethora of other experiments affirming the same thing from a bunch of different angles? Weird, if it was biblical I wouldn't have needed to do that. Even more weird, everyone got hung up on a single study in spite of my repeatedly mentioning replications and other experiments they could go read.

Yet you feel the need to assert I don't know something, while in the process not even doing the bare minimum of reading the citation that claim is from. Tell me, what experiment shows that "conscious free will veto"? Do yourself a further favor, read the rest of the wikipedia article. Notice how the "free won't" section is entirely empty? Notice all the other studies on that page you and all the other idiots refuse to read?

>>14674081
I'm not the other two guys who replied to you idk what they're talking about.
Ultimately, youre just claiming that the oracle/supervenience isn't god because... it just isn't okay! Yes, supervienience is god. A rose by any other name etc.
The universe does not evolve deterministically and there is no supervening god/oracle/law/whatever secretly guiding it to be deterministic. Also, there does not exist a unified field theory etc.
Anyway, have a good one

>>14674081
>>14675068
Also, for me, this isn't about free will. It's about determinism. I don't care if we do or don't have free will. I care about whether or not the universe is deterministic (it's not)

>>14675068
>Ultimately, youre just claiming that the oracle/supervenience isn't god because... it just isn't okay!
Did you ask? So *ultimately* I am claiming it isn't a conscious being because all the evidence we have shows laws are observations of unconscious nature. Following that induction the "oracle" is just more of the same thing.

Try being less of a dishonest dumbass.

consider free will not so much as an absolute binary, but as a spectrum scale.

A slave in ancient Rome placed in solitary confinement as a teen for life had less free will than a smart 25 year old billionaire today.

As he would have more free will than most people, trapped stuck locked into a fixed unalterable determined schedule

>>14675944
You're confusing the degrees of freedom with will.
If a particle with Free Will has 2 degrees of freedom in some situation vs 10 degrees of freedom in some other situation, it still has the same amount will, it just doesn't have the same amount of choices to choose from. The will is not the thing restricted the degrees of freedom are.

>>14675075
Backwards, some of us have free will to varying degrees and the universe besides minds with possible free will is 100% determined.

>>14675961
The will is more free the more degrees of freedom and choices it is aware of.

A rock has no free will because it has no will with which it can freely choose to change its position.

A slave in solitary confinement has some free will posibly, but not much bodily free will, because its will does not have the freedom to choose to leave the jail cell.

A billionaires will can freely choose between 9999999 different options in any moment, so they have a will that has more freedom than a rock and an inmate

THE PROOF OF FREE WILL.

EVERYTHING IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED EXCEPT MIND LIKE THINGS

THE MIND IS NOT A SINGLE 1D OBJECT.

THE MIND SIMULATES REALITY.

THE MINDS SIMULATION OF REALITY CAN PROJECT MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES OF REALITY

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN SEE MORE THAN 1 1D OBJECT IN THE MIND AT A TIME.

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TO DEGREES GREATER THAN 0, ESCAPE PHYSICS AND TIME THAT DETERMINEDLY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BODY BY FOR SOME AMOUNT OF TIME ONLY PAYING MIND TO THE MIND

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TAKE INTERNAL TIME TO MAKE UP ITS MIND, BY PLAYING WITH MULTIPLE SIMULATIONS IN THE MIND

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND ULTIMATELY FINALLY HAS THE ULTIMATE FINAL CONTROL TO CHOOSE ONE OR MORE IN THE SEQUENCE OF THEIR CHOOSING, WHICH INTERNAL SIMULATION THEY WANT TO TRY TO ENACT ON THE OUTER WORLD.

ULTIMATELY THE OUTER WORLD DOES NOT DETERMINE THIS CHOICE FOR THEM.

THE VIEWER OF THE MIND IS CALLED, A WILL, AND IT HAS THE POWER TO FREELY CHOOSE AMONG MULTIPLE MIND SIMULATIONS IT CAN WORK TOWARDS FORMULATING

This solves the free will debate once and for all. No more books, no more papers, no more internet arguments or discussions, its solved, t's over.


>>14674655
>DIRECTLY REFUTE THIS WITHOUT LINKING ME TO QUICKLY CONCLUSION JUMPED ILLUNDERSTOOD ILLINTERPRETED SLOPPY EXPERIMENTS.
>I WILL REFUTE THEM AGAIN LATER. FIRST HIGHLIGHT STEP BY STEP, STARTING FROM THE FIRST AND STATE WHY WITH REASON THE STEPS ARE NOT ACCURATE, VALID, SOUND AND/OR TRUE
Attempt this

>>14673340
It's possible to compute the evolution of the system at time t to arbitrary precision, it just doesn't solve the halting problem. In order to solve the halting problem you need to compute the state in infinite future, that computation takes infinite time, so doesn't solve the halting problem, but determinism is still the fact, halting has nothing to do with it.

>>14673598
Mathematics is just pattern recognition masturbation by those who are not smart enough to become logicians.

>>14673860
Your will is not free, it is constrained by your experience.

>>14673126
The universe is described by mathematics, you dumb schizo, go learn science.

>>14676506
You can describe anything, even the imaginary and the impossible with math because it is just a way to synthesize arbitrary patterns from axioms of discrete value.

>>14676259
>The will is more free the more degrees of freedom and choices it is aware of.
>A rock has no free will because it has no will with which it can freely choose to change its position.
>A slave in solitary confinement has some free will posibly, but not much bodily free will, because its will does not have the freedom to choose to leave the jail cell.
>A billionaires will can freely choose between 9999999 different options in any moment, so they have a will that has more freedom than a rock and an inmate

>>14676478
>Your will is not free, it is constrained by your experience.
Free will is not an infinitely dense absolute 0 or 1.

One can have free will without having infinite freewill.

For someone who believes free will at all is impossible in any way at all, in order to be proven wrong would have to only express the possibility of >0 amount of free will being possible.

Me not being able to jump to the moon does not automatically mean my will has 0 freedom. Unless the argument is entirely semantic and we are only arguing using your definitional rule book in which you have chosen to write: free will can only possibly be valid if anon can jump to the moon and fit the entire sun in his mouth.

>>14676800
>>14671958
/Thread

>>14676821
Neither of those numbers, 0 or 1, are infinite or infinitely dense.
You are either free or constrained.
>possibility of >0 amount of free will being possible.
No to be free, you have to prove that constraints are null, but there are not null, there are constraints on your will's freedom,it is not free, it is limited in scope.

>Me not being able to jump to the moon does not automatically mean my will has 0 freedom.
The fact that you are bound in form and identity means your ability to turn thoughts into action is limited by your form and identity among other things.

>free will can only possibly be valid if anon can jump to the moon and fit the entire sun in his mouth.
Yes, will can only be free if there are no constraints to limit it, otherwise it is limited and constrained, not free.

>>14676453
There are plenty of orbital dynamics that can't be solved at arbitrary time t in finite time (i.e. there is no algorithm to compute the evolution to arbitrary precision at time t)

>>14676506
>The universe is described by mathematics, you dumb schizo, go learn science.
I actually do know mathematics and science, and no, the universe is not describable to arbitrary precision with mathematics you coping retard.

>>14676847
The conversation has never in history been if humans had infinite^infinite free will SILLY, it has been whether they can possibly have greater than 0 amount.

You utter grotesquely fail for not even being able to immediately realize this and thus stay clear of a worthless stupid dumb line of discussion.

YOU DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL

NOT EVERYONE IS YOU

>>14676800
>>The will is more free the more degrees of freedom and choices it is aware of.
>>A rock has no free will because it has no will with which it can freely choose to change its position.
>>A slave in solitary confinement has some free will posibly, but not much bodily free will, because its will does not have the freedom to choose to leave the jail cell.
>>A billionaires will can freely choose between 9999999 different options in any moment, so they have a will that has more freedom than a rock and an inmate
>>14671958
>THE PROOF OF FREE WILL.
>EVERYTHING IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED EXCEPT MIND LIKE THINGS
>THE MIND IS NOT A SINGLE 1D OBJECT.
>THE MIND SIMULATES REALITY.
>THE MINDS SIMULATION OF REALITY CAN PROJECT MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES OF REALITY
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN SEE MORE THAN 1 1D OBJECT IN THE MIND AT A TIME.
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TO DEGREES GREATER THAN 0, ESCAPE PHYSICS AND TIME THAT DETERMINEDLY EXIST OUTSIDE THE BODY BY FOR SOME AMOUNT OF TIME ONLY PAYING MIND TO THE MIND
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND CAN TAKE INTERNAL TIME TO MAKE UP ITS MIND, BY PLAYING WITH MULTIPLE SIMULATIONS IN THE MIND
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND ULTIMATELY FINALLY HAS THE ULTIMATE FINAL CONTROL TO CHOOSE ONE OR MORE IN THE SEQUENCE OF THEIR CHOOSING, WHICH INTERNAL SIMULATION THEY WANT TO TRY TO ENACT ON THE OUTER WORLD.
>ULTIMATELY THE OUTER WORLD DOES NOT DETERMINE THIS CHOICE FOR THEM.
>THE VIEWER OF THE MIND IS CALLED, A WILL, AND IT HAS THE POWER TO FREELY CHOOSE AMONG MULTIPLE MIND SIMULATIONS IT CAN WORK TOWARDS FORMULATING

/Thread

>>14679033
YOU ARE ALL DETERMINED BY GOD BY NATURE TO CHERISH AND CHAMPION LOGIC

YOU ARE DETERMINED TO READ THESE POSTS AND CONCLUDE FREE WILL IS POSSIBLE

GOD, NATURE, DETEMINED FREE WILL TO EXIST

FREE WILL IS NOT EASY OR ABSOLUTE

BUT IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NOT

>>14672530
>mathematics is deterministic
You don't know anything about mathematics, so go ahead and stop using the word until you learn something about mathematics.
>the atoms move according to mathematical laws of motion
No, they don't. The movement of atoms can be modeled mathematically - no "mathematics" makes the atoms move. What actually makes the atoms move - the set of total internal and external forces acting on an object - is a matter of pure chance. Hell, even mass itself is quantumly defined as the likelihood of interaction between two particles.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're taking massive guesses based on partial information you've received completely external to any formal education or training on the matter.

>>14677489
That's unheard of. Proofs?
>>14677492
You're just a retarded mathfag, who doesn't even know that time exists, because mathfaggotry is ignorant about time, science is clearly beyond your understanding.

Only a mind can possibly be freely self willed determined.

The raw material of the universe is not a thinking option choosing mind. It has no will to choose between choices.

The raw choicless optionless willless material of the universe has no choice, option, or will by which it may do anything other than exactly what it's material nature and proximity surroundings demands by unchosen, unoptioned, unwilled, law

>>14671958
Weeellll not to be pendantic but if you are a bit angry at the time and your blood cortisol levels are high and a little chihuahua is biting your ankle and it stings real bad - its gonna influence your outcome so yes i do agre - we have free will - but its only 100 percent free - maybe when we sleep ?

Its under the influence most of the time AND WHEN IM UNDER THE INFLUENCE BABY I LIKE TO POST HERE WITH MY SMART BOIS SSS LOOKING ALL SMART AND SHIEETTT

aaawww yuussss

I AM WATCHING YOUR MOTHER SHOWER THROUGH A WINDOW

BUT SHE HAS SEEN ME SOMEHOW
AND SHE NOTICED MY HARD PROBLEM
WHICH I WAS NOT CONSCIOUS OF

SHE THEN DETERMINED THERE WAS NO NEED TO WASTE INTERNAL MIND TIME
TO PROCESS MULTIPLE SIMULATIONS IN ORDER TO FORMULATE A GOAL BECAUSE THE GOAL WAS ALREADY CLEAR AND IT WAS STIMULATION OF MY PROBLEM

INTERESTED IN ITS FLAVOR SHE ENACTED HER WILL AND GRABED, WITH HER REAL LIFE 3D HAND MY REAL LIFE 3D D

AND DETERMINED TO MAKE A CHOICE FOR ME AND THEN THE SUCTION RECIEVED UPON MY DONG SOLVED MY
PROBLEM OF BEING HARD

*mic drops* (but it creates audio feedback so the noise gets louder and louder and louDER AND LOUDER AND THEN THE VOICES OH GOD THE VOICES AND THE SCREETCHING OF THE NAILS ON THE CHALKBOARD HIGH PITCHED 3000 TIMES REVERBERATED THROUGH THE OPERATING HALL WILL SOMEONE PLEASE INVENT A DEAR GOD WHO WILL MAKE IT ALL STOP PLEASE...

And that, anons and anonnetes - is how REAL science is done. Also, in hindsight - i probably should not have crushed and snorted all of my prescription methylphenidates pills

>>14680293
Someone respond

>>14680553
Your post is a great example that would be challenging to wrap our heads in analyzing just exactly how much of your writing was determined and how much was freely willed.

We can also do the same to my response here, I'm aware I could have said, my writing here instead of response, what forced me to choose one or the other. Did the, how freely judged how objectively accurately determined, pleasure of certain word sounds together force my hand.

Anyway you seem to have gotten into some speed flow state, when trying to write a creative post, your mind flashes with more words and images than usual as you try to quickly cram in ideas and visions for effect and affect, you are quickly choosing this word or that, this direction or that your story could have gone in, seeing and not seeing over arching vision of the horizon where it might lead, while considering this word now, and 10 and 20 words from now and how they may tie in together to equal a vision or point.

Speaking of I am certain I had another point to make but while putting all my focous into expressing those detours I lost my train of thought.

Oh no I remember, a very interesting point:

It's about, attractor, it's about, goals. It's about tossing a line out ahead in space and time and reeling yourself in, projecting, seeing a path in the future, and then following it, collapsing your own wave function, your own potential.

We force ourselves to be determined, lock ourselves in paths, that offer more freedom in the long run.

A monkey has more freedom than a man, in that the money can just pick fruit from a tree and have sex and it's whole life is free time.

A man sacrifices his freedom as such of that ( as it comes with pains of ignorance and elements and powers over you) to lock himself into a structured path of goals, to maximize little bits of freedoms of rarer, higher, and finer quantity and quality, and pleasures over the long run.

>>14680553
>>14682196

Cntd
If man does not forsee his future and lock himself into goals, collapse his infinite freedom for deffinite determinism, his life likely dwindles. He needs to commit, he needs to curb the freedom of his will, whether he wants or not for the benefit of his survival and well being.

This is partially the reason so many are so quick to say free will is impossible , for them it might actually nearly might be.

They have been so brought up and ingrained. Do this don't do that think this don't think that. They go to school every day, they go to work every day. They are determined by nature to get a wife and have kids, there are a finite number of video games they are detemined to choose from and play, and movies to watch and sports teams to root for and groceries and restaurants to eat from.

But I still state;. The discussion of free will has never and is never about whether man has infinite omnipotent free will, but whether some how Nature has done the neatest trick, and developed such a complex convuluted system, that the hardcore billiard ball determinsm of natures Legos, is escaped by the supreme subtlety of the mind.

>>14673143
>You can not be a materialist and also a determinist
>you can't believe in an all knowing god and not be a determinist
I refuse to accept that this is anything other than bait. Nobody could ever possibly be intelligent enough to use language and a keyboard and also be this fucking retarded. Do you tie your own shoes? Your answer to this question reveals if you are trolling.

>>14676259
>>14676386
Step right up step right up and fail to disprove this argument

>>14683000
I am looking it over and writing some notes, will sleep on it and take a shot tommorow

>>14684084
I can't find any faults or flaws, you have once and for all proven the possibility/existence of free will.

>>14686036
>>14683000
I wish someone would try but they literally can't

Where is, e when you need him

>>14671630
>I don't see how a determinist who thinks the universe has a completely set in stone path down to the last atom would need to reject any reasonable definition of freedom.
they were fated to do so

>>14671630
They think that without alternatives or choices there is no freedom. In a purely deterministic universe and given a fixed past there is only one possible state of the world at any time and, according to their interpretation, there are no true alternatives and no true choices.

With only illusory choices and alternatives to they argue there is obviously no free will and no freedom.

This line of thinking ignores, among other things, that the universe is not entirely deterministic, that alternatives and choices often concern counterfactual scenarios, and the important role that one’s intentions play in decision making.

>>14671968
This. Empiricism is the foundation of all deterministic science. A failure to understand this means you have to go back to >>>l/lit/

>>14687503
>>14686036
>>14683000
>>14682220
>>14682196
>>14671958
Damn, this is embaressing. I now see that I was absolutely wrong, I was not smart enough to provide the solution, I just picked the simplest most determined thought that too the least amount of thinking and effort. I now see that my weak mind is not absolute proof free will is possible. I am entirely determined by the universe to be a simple autonomon. Superior minds such as your owns are able to achieve free will. Please your honor, forgive me for being so foolish. And take pity knowing, it was not my will, but the will of the billiard balls I am made of, struck by the cue stick of God at the big bang, that made me so inadequate and unable, and you so brilliant and divine

>>14687503
>>14686036
>>14683000
>>14682220
>>14682196
>>14671958
Damn, this is embaressing. I now see that I was absolutely wrong, I was not smart enough to provide the solution, I just picked the simplest most determined thought that took the least amount of thinking and effort. I now see that my weak mind is not absolute proof free will is impossible. I am entirely determined by the universe to be a simple autonomaton. Superior minds such as your owns are able to achieve free will. Please youre honor, forgive me for being so foolish. And take pity knowing, it was not my will, but the will of the billiard balls I am made of, struck by the cue stick of God at the big bang, that made me so inadequate and unable, and you so brilliant and divine

>>14690437
I accept your apology.

Are there any other challengers that ignored my writing above so are unaware what freewill is and how it's possible,?.

Early galaxies only spin when observed. JWST is a deterministic weapon.

>>14691051
Master, is there anything I can possibly do to go from being a purely determined mind, to having any amount of free will at all?

>>14691740
Yes, for starters you can try thinking a little bit

>>14673456
>it's known that without a God, the universe is not deterministic
no, it's not known. what's your next schizo assertion?

>>14676506
>doesn’t understand what he’s reading
>still gets mad about it
well done

>>14671958
Someone go through this word by word, line by line, and suggest where one is false

>>14674738
mo fucka just met sophia lmao

>>14693452
Tried, it can't be done, I kneel, I'm btfo, it's based, it's over

>>14693342
The universe is described by mathematics, because mathematical models match it to arbitrary precision, go learn science, schizo.

I have some free will prove me wrong

>>14694664
Your mind is a single marble that is forced by all the surrounding marbles of the world to move this way or that.

All your thoughts and vision and movements is a marble, or a billion marbles, forced to move by the surrounding marbles

>>14696843
Heh... Those billions of marbles bounce quadrillions of much tinier marbles between them at light speed, after they enter the eyes and subtley sculpt the shapes of collections of bigger marbles.

Somehow an area of the marbles is so constantly vibrationally oscillatorily impacted that the impacts register, and patterns are stored to patterns

>>14671511
>He doesn't. OP is a retard. Schopenhaur just notes correctly that determinitard arguments are vacuous and irrelevant and circumvents them altogether.
based and galen strawsonpilled

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson#Free_will

>>14671630
>I don't see how a determinist who thinks the universe has a completely set in stone path down to the last atom would need to reject any reasonable definition of freedom.

lets say person A murders person B. you agree this is "immoral"?
then I ask you the question "what should person A have done?"

your answer will entail person A breaking the laws of physics. therefore your position is internally inconsistent

>>14697971
Ummm wot

>>14671958
>>14676259

PROVE THIS WRONG YOU CUNT

>>14698473
Strawson is an utter brainlet.

>>14671473
>>14700527
>Axiomatically:
>1. The universe is deterministic
>B. Time moves forward

>The result so far has been, life. The previously mentioned axioms allow for the emergent property of evolution in the universe. And i don’t mean the definition as limited by biology, in the general sense of the word as growth or development from an increasing foundation

>Next, what has coincided with life, is will. Not free will, but will at all.
>What I’m trying to say is, the meaning of life is to evolve and develop greater will until we ARE free.

>right?

read the wiki for the book, makes no real point. absolute drivel toward the end
jump on my theory

>>14700686
Being-into-future?
Your schitzo crud might align with my overly considered in a vacuum crud.

Would be less likely to call it schitzo but somewhere along the way you forgot that caps lock is not cruise control for cool.

>>14700742

>>14700742
There’s a word for different framing same phenomena which I can’t find on the tip of my tongue.
Free will doesn’t clash with determinism because they’re the same thing at different levels being the key concept.
What word am I brainlet-ing on here?

>>14700763
>Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.
?

>>14700791
Thanks anon, I was having a brainlet moment.
One of those things where you arrive at a sufficiently satisfactory answer, move on, and forget about it.

Not that determinism is that in vogue given quantum indeterminism, but the answers based off that are even more fake and gay.

>>14700748
Being into the future what ? Are you pointing out some typo?

>>14671473

This simple thing refutes determinism

-No determinist would ever tell his son: "don't study, be a lazy fuck, drop out of college, it doesn't matter, anything you do has been set in stone since the beginning of time and you have no responsability for it"
because if he tells that to his son, it may ruin the life of his son.

They would have to be determinists who believe that telling their children about determinism determines their life for the worse, how likely could something like that be?

>>14702777
this is as retarded as it gets. the thread is done, no more shining xamples of retardation can be expected.

A rich smart man has more free will than a poor stupid man;

Therefore more and less free will exists;

Therefore freewill exists