/sci/ - Science & Math

If you just give up, you're merely demonstrating that you were predetermined to be a loser.

sage

Because the illusion of free will is far greater to 'experience' then determinism, if that makes sense. We don't think about it unless we really try.

>>4415968
The human brain lacks the ability to comprehend proof. YOU CANT PROVE ANYTHING. The brain works by logic and logically it appears as though we have free will

biological imperative. A species that develops the idea that its actions do not have merit will not reproduce. Your brain computes under the assumption of free will.

>Why is it that, deep down, we'd still live, and think with the notion that our actions have merit?

Your question starts with an impossible premise (proof of determinism) and as such cannot be answered.

>why would we, as we currently are, be unable to drastically change society?

We would, it would just be in a pre-determined fashion.

>Neurologically, why do we still believe, subconsciously, in free will thinking process?

Because we seem to posses a seat of consciousness.

>>4415968

because we live in the present OP, and our actions cannot be determined as such. only when one looks at the big picture and outside our limited subjective experience can one discuss such objective concepts as determinism or free will.

>>4416022
*can only be determined as such

Why would it be necessary to change if things were predetermined? Unless we could determine our own actions before we do them, there's no reason to acknowledge that we don't have free will. Our belief that we have no free will is simply because of the state of our current existence, which is quite monotonous for most.

I believe this may be border line religious as well. Not truly science here.

>>4416090
The question has roots in Philosophy, Physics, and Psychology. I'm also using sociology, however, to form my question. What I'm getting at, is, how is it that we might firmly believe that free will doesn't exist, but still be able to think I'm saying that of my own free will? A kind of, paradoxical idea.

>>4416104
as paradoxical as it is, it's irrelevant. It would be illogical to simply stop doing because we believe our actions are not our own. Certainly, it would be discomforting, but no more than knowing that eventually you will die, because that's simply the way it is.

>>4416111
>Illogical
Exactly. I'm not asking a Philosophical question here. I'm asking what is the thought process behind it? Neurologically speaking. It may be irrelevant, but most Psychological and Philosophical questions seem to be. Now, arguing whether or not it's relevant would require philosophy, which would be a bit self defeating.

Now that I've got that out of the way, I'm still very interested in any studies or experiments that might explain this.

>>4416118
I'm sorry, my mistake.

Could you perhaps explain to me the theories behind this idea. How could it possibly be that we have no free will?

>>4415968
>and that everything has been predetermined.

There is a huge difference between determinism and predetermination
Not having a free will doesn't mean all your actions are predetermined, simply that they are determined.
If you are familiar with chaos theory you will understand that certain things can be determined but still completely unpredictable.


>Why is it that, deep down, we'd still live, and think with the notion that our actions have merit?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

>be unable to drastically change society?
Because people are stubborn ape cunts

>>4416127
In short, if everything has been a cause and effect since the big bang, everything has been predetermined. If everything is predetermined, every action we make is based on something happening before it. The reason why you dropped your pen? Because someone bumped into you. Why did someone bump into you? Because they were late for work. Why were they late for work? etc etc.

>>4416137
>that certain things can be determined but still completely unpredictable
Explain?

If you throw a coin it will land on either side, producing what is seemingly a random result. Yet if you knew the initial conditions, you can/might be able to calculate the result of the throw physically. So essentially the coin throw is considered random because there are so many variables that it's considered non-calculable.

A human mind is far more complex than the physics of a coin throw, hence predicting anything would be far more difficult/impossible. This means that even if free will was proved to be an illusion, it would be irrational to change your actions with that knowledge, seeing as practically it makes no difference. ie same thinking as considering whether your experience is of a real world or you are in a simulated matrix - it makes no difference.

>>4416152

Well chaos theory (scientific theory not simply 'theory') describes how unstable initial conditions can give unpredictable results while being thoroughly determined.

Generally in science/maths small errors in data would make small errors in the conclusion.
But when we are dealing with a chaotic system small errors can have huge consequences that cannot be predicted.

The weather is a chaotic system, we can predict up to three days in advance with relative accuracy, any prediction over 3 days is nothing more than a guess though.
There are so many tiny factors we cannot quantify, and in a chaotic system they change drastically.
A small difference like 0.00023 in temperature can be the difference between a thunder storm and a sunny day.


Surely you have heard of the butterfly effect? A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causing a tornado in Texas?

>>4416164
So all your saying is that because we don't have an infinite amount of data, the more time passes from the moment of time we've collected said data, the less accurate the result will be later on?

And what is the difference between determinism and predetermination?

>>4416169
>because we don't have an infinite amount of data

That is simply one example, there are many other chaotic systems.
But maybe i should explain how drastic that still is as it isn't blatantly obvious to someone outside science.

We can't measure a center-meter for example with complete accuracy, the more detail and the closer we look at it the material we are measuring the seemingly longer the measurement gets.
And theoretically this could go on infinitely unless there is a fundamental particle or matter that can no longer be reduced (and no such thing has been found yet)

So yes small differences having large consequences is such a drastic and revolutionary idea to science, especially if infinite data isn't even possible. It could potentially undermine all of science.


>the more time passes from the moment of time we've collected said data, the less accurate the result will be later on?

That is true with weather, but some chaotic systems are unpredictable hours, minutes or even seconds in.

>And what is the difference between determinism and predetermination?


Determinism simply means the outcome occurred because of a factor(s).
Predetermination means the outcome was going to happen before it happened.

You may not be aware but planet orbits are predictions just like the weather. We calculate the factors of the orbits and predict where they will go next, never with complete accuracy.
The location of the planet is predetermined by the factors, especially in chaotic systems.

>>4416169
It seems I'll never know now....

>>4415968
>tl;dr Neurologically, why do we still believe, subconsciously, in free will thinking process?

Because that's exactly what it was designed to do. In the evolutionary sense. So, I guess more atheistically correct, that's what it was selected to do.

>>4416196
centimetre*

:S

>>4416204
Can you rephrase this? My mind can't grasp what you're trying to say for some reason.....
>We can't measure a center-meter for example with complete accuracy, the more detail and the closer we look at it the material we are measuring the seemingly longer the measurement gets

>>4416196
>The location of the planet is predetermined by the factors, especially in chaotic systems.

The location of the planet is NOT predetermined by the factors, especially in chaotic systems.

Fuck me that was a bad cockup

What the fuck is free will anyways?

>>4416219
Shit. I hate it when I just assume things. I've never asked myself that before.....

Well. Looks like I'm not sleeping today.

>>4416219
Precisely. Inadequate, incomplete, and nebulous definitions of free will are the only things that have let the notion last so long.

I had DeJaVu this morning. That incident threw out and dying hope that people could have free will.

>>4416213

It is probably my fault, we are dealing with very abstract concepts here and i'm new to explaining them.

This documentary explains it very well; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbodZKrAOGg

Just watch 12:33-15:00, explains it very easily

>>4416223
Oh, and I forgot to say
>[Spoiler: the same thing applies for God]

>>4416221
>>4416223
>>4416219
Really guys? I thought free will was just being able to do whatever you want.

Am I missing something here? I haven't given it much thought.

>>4416200
Ok. Let me rephrase this one more time.

What would be the difference, neurologically speaking, between a human that can't comprehend free will in real time, and a human that, for some reason, HAS evolved with the ability to understand this?

>>4416215
You badly misunderstand chaos theory. The concept is that complex systems are unpredictable if the initial conditions are unknown, even with an unlimited amount of subsequent observation. Key point being that the initial conditions are unknown. If you know the initial conditions you can predict the outcome.

>>4416232
>I thought free will was just being able to do whatever you want.
Ok, well you can't fly.
>Free will doesn't exist
QED

>>4416241
Well, anything within your power. Maybe I was wording that wrong. Or you're being a hard-ass over grammar.

I have the freedom to make any choice.

Is that better? Either way, you guys seem to be over-analyzing something that holds no value.

>>4416234
Too many unnecessary words and thoughts. Please be more succinct and clear.

>>4416237
OP here, but inorder to accurately predict something, you'd need:
1. Every single variable that would effect it, down the line while the experiment was occuring
2. Every single variable, which would be impossible, since you'd need to know everything the MOMENT the test started

>>4416237

I believe you are mistaken, The Lorenzian waterwheel for example.
When the flow of water is fast enough the system becomes chaotic because of nonlinear effects in the system.
After long periods the spin can reverse many times, never settling to a steady rate or repeating itself.

The initial conditions are unstable, they are known.

>>4416249
>Well, anything within your power. Maybe I was wording that wrong. Or you're being a hard-ass over grammar.
No, I'm purposely being pedantic to show you that a concrete definition is needed to have a meaningful discussion about its existence and you seem overly nonchalant about something very consequential.

>I have the freedom to make any choice.
All at one time? Can you make all choices simultaneously? And let's say you "choose" to respond to this post, given the same initial conditions would you have been able to not choose to respond?

>>4416254
Initial conditions in the real world are unknowable in absolute terms. The question is whether your precision in knowing them is good enough to meet the precision of your measurement. In terms of the water wheel, if you knew the velocity and orientation of every molecule of water as well as the wheel and surrounding atmosphere at the last moment of human interaction, then yes, you could predict its exact outcome or state at any given moment.

>>4416253

Depends what you are trying to predict, as modern science suggests, many things simply cannot be predicted;

-Chaotic systems
-Heisenberg uncertainty principle
-Quantum mechanics

>>4416246
Can't tell if you're trolling me or not. Or maybe trying to prove a point with the way the question is asked.....

But anyway, what I mean is:
I understand why we are the way we are
But what IF? What if, we could understand, that every action we make is predetermined. What would be different about the way our brain processes information, that would make us understand this?

>>4416269
Oh, alright then.

>something very consequential
Without a concrete definition your feelings towards the subject are without basis.

>>4416271

I'm worried that maybe i have "badly misunderstood" chaotic systems, so what would be the initial conditions of a planetary orbit or the weather be?

>>4416284
>Without a concrete definition
You mean like a concrete measurement of a string?

>>4416292
You're trolling me.
>Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.
Fuck you and fuck this pointless debate.

>>4416280
Our actions aren't predetermined, simply determined.

>>4416280
Virtually nothing. That is, nothing particularly out of the ordinary. Depending on your definition of the phrase "What if, we could understand, that every action we make is predetermined.", I currently understand this is the case. But the way you worded it made it seem like, "What if we could see the future?", I may be off-base on that. Basically, believing in the validity of determinism doesn't cause some magical brain transformation.

>>4416304
Right, but what kind of a magical brain transformation would be required for an entire society to accept it, and effect the way they respond to decision making? Unlike how society is now.

If you want a good example, this discussion between you and me. We are acting no differently then we would if we were discussing something else. However, we have the idea of free will not existing on our mind, every second. Yet this isn't changing anything.

>>4416284
I'm the person you originally quoted, not the string guy (although he does have a point), and it's not hard to see consequence without solid definition. One's belief about the nebulous concept of free will clearly is consequential, and in fact much so. So it isn't a stretch to say it is very consequential.

>>4416302
DIAGNOSIS: FULL RETARD

>>4416280
Whether it's predetermined is not the real question, but how much. As far as we can tell, quantum fluctuations are truly random. If that is the fact, then the EXACT state of the universe is unpredictable at any given moment, even knowing the exact initial conditions or even the exact conditions the moment before. The question is whether this matters on human terms. It's not an absolute, but an issue of precision. Do quantum fluctuations make it 100% impossible to predict the location of the northernmost electron in your middle finger? Yes. Do they make it 100% impossible to predict when you're going to get out of your chair? Probably not.

The problem is that we have no idea to what degree truly random occurrences have a meaningful effect on human lives and events. If they have no effect at all, then we have no free will. If they have a substantial effect, then we have significant free will.

Of course, that's in absolute terms. In practical terms we have a lot of free will because nothing could measure the universe to a precise enough degree to predict human events without significantly altering those events.

>>4416329

Predetermination relies on the idea of fate or god.
Otherwise the event doesn't happen until it happens.

>>4416326
I kinda see what you're saying, but I don't really see your endgame. Though our consciousness is an emergent property of various mechanistic mini-processes, I don't see any value in everyone believing that to be the case. Clearly, evolution didn't either.

Also, I'd really like you to elaborate on that last part.

>>4416351

>>4416351
>relies on the idea of fate
I.... don't understand what it is you're attacking here. Fate is such a vague term. Care to explain?

>>4416368
>>4416360

Before i can elaborate i should check what op meant by predetermined

>>4416354
Right, we're going back to the how long a string is idea.

What I mean is, the idea that free will doesn't exist should somehow effect the way our decision making process works. You can see it right now, free will is prevalent.When you'll forget about it tomorrow morning, you'll make the same (more or less) Decision making process as you normally do. But even taking into account that free will doesn't exist, it doesn't change the thought process. Why? Theoretically, it should. Why maybe isn't what I ment. HOW is it that it isn't effecting it? What is it, that is making the brain subconsciously, in a mechanical way, still believe that free will exists when making a decision?

I feel as thought I'm talking in circles.....

>>4416386
If everything happened because of the big bang, where, when, and how the particles are moving, then theoretically, everything is predetermined by the big bang.

I don't know how the big bang is indeed the first thing that has happened in our universe, but let's just assume it is.

>>4416399
AH! No, I completely understand now. Okay, being aware of determinism isn't really going to be helpful in and of itself, but being aware of what causes things indeed does. Self awareness can lead to deviant thought processes that will differ from precedent, also known as "biofeedback" or more broadly "feedback loops". And that indeed might seem like free will, but it's very mechanistic and determined as well (just less so to humans than habits).

Here, you might find this video enjoyable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeJSXfXep4M

And this article:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/06/ff_feedbackloop/all/1

And maybe this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=4&_r=4&hp

And this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop

>>4416420
Shit, I think you do understand. Alright, well, since I just spent the last two hours debating, while also writing a paper iat night, my brain is dead. I'll have to book mark and read everything you posted. Thank you, I feel as thought i got alot of things done.

>>4416406
Ignores quantum randomness

>>4416406
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HBkZPyfpdE&t=0m21s

>>4416454
Wow. Thank you. That was the best way anyone has ever reconfirmed what I thought.

>>4416451
I'm ignoring quantum anything and assuming (for the sake of discussion (and my well being)) that quantum is just a fancy word for "No laws have been made yet at this level".

>>4416467
No prob, bob.