/sci/ - Science & Math

No where.

>>4626357

Then why bother?

>>4626478
One can like causality all the same.

>>4626478

Maybe you enjoy it, maybe you don't but the specific nature of your situation doesn't allow you to make the choice to end it.

also

>why not bother?

>>4626478

Because our illusionary sense of agency is more than satisfactory for everyday life.

I thought this was a science board, not a philosophy board.

1. assume the universe is deterministic
2. given full knowledge and a powerful enough computer, you could theoretically predict the future state of the universe
3. if you could predict the future, you could fuck it up on purpose, but then the universe would not be deterministic
4. so the universe must be non-deterministic, and there's your free will.

>>4626654
3. isn't necessarily true, in fact 3 begs the question

>>4626654
>>4626659

Also, 2 is impossible. To accurately predict the future with absolute certainty, you'd need to model the entire universe down to the sub-atomic scale. This, out of necessity, would include modelling the computer, which, in turn, would have to contain a model of the computer modelling the computer, which would have to contain a model of...

It'd be computers all the way down.

Infinite recursion. Ergo, impossible.

>>4626659
the prediction show you doing "X" the next day
the next day, you avoid doing "X" on purpose
prediction was wrong, so it was not a prediction
free will === non-determinism

thats how I see it

unless infinite parallel universes, but then who cares

>>4626659
2. is also impossible

and also, quantum theory is only probabilistically deterministic

>>4626352

Free will is an incoherent concept. It's what retards sputter to themselves as "deep" thoughts without realizing how childish it is in the light of neurology and chemistry let alone everyday experiences in which the experience of "decision making" is prompted by a multitude of drives that have nothing to do with the freedom of some made up object called "the will".

Not to say that the perceptions of the phenomena that lead to men calling things "wills" doesn't exist but it's absurd to think of such things as a single rather than as the result of innumerable complex mechanisms that have nothing to do with the linguistic attempt to dominate them by postulating a singular will that then can be modified with vague words such as "freedom" and "good".

>>4626667
being able to avoid doing it assumes free will, which is what you are trying to prove

you can't assume what you are trying to prove

>>4626665
I said theoretically, ofc you can't build a machine complex enough to model the whole universe.

but same applies to an isolated room with just one dude and a prediction 30 seconds into the future, shown to the dude.

>>4626670

And I have some apprehension that there might be apes idiotic enough to take the cold appreciation of mechanics as a license to utter nihilism or rather the refusal to consider mechanics on the charge that to consider them leads to nihilism. That in order to find things "meaningful" or to enjoy simulations one has to have some absolute freedom and tyranny over all possible and future propositions and sensations. Fucking Christians

But that's another rant.

>>4626678

You said theoretically, you were wrong. Any time you include read-outs of predictions in the system, you have to include the predicting system in the system itself.

Using that room example, you'd have to not just model the person in the room, but also the computer monitoring the person in the room, because the computer is part of the system at that point.

>>4626674
nope, being able to avoid it assumes previous knowledge. If you know what's coming, how could you not avoid it?

>>4626678
that machine would also have to model itself, and model itself modelling itself, etc.

as the machine is at least as complicated as the universe, this is impossible, as the machine

>>4626687
by not actually having free will.

you don't know that you have it, in this thought experiment.

you do understand basic proofs don't you? where you mustn't assume what you are trying to prove

If there is no free will, why aren't prisons replaced with psychiatric facilities?

>>4626682
but couldn't you, considering some hypothetic future technology, scan the state of everything inside the system, even taking into account the effect of probing it and just predict the future state (assuming absolute knowledge of physics)?

im not an expert, just enjoy debating

>>>/r9k/

>>4626667
But the fact that you were shown the future, and however you reacted based off that, would also be predetermined

>>4626713
because we don't have the free will to replace them of course

>>4626708

Not if you wanted to effect it in any way. If you existed in one universe and, somehow, without altering or impacting anything, could theoretically scan another universe, and then model everything within it perfectly...

Then, yes, assuming quantum effects aren't actually random, you could map everything and predict the perfect future outcome.

However, you couldn't ever interact with that universe without ruining your predictions, nor could anything from any other universe.

>>4626713

Some people are honestly trying to do that, and it's a damn good idea. It really cuts recidivism rates pretty sharply.

>>4626700
I must write really bad because you seem pretty confused.

Never assumed we have free will, I was just saying that if you can predict the future, then you can fuck it up, so it was never the future. Thus free will would be a property of reality that prevents determinism.

Unless the guy saying that you can never predict the future, even if it's deterministic, is right.

>>4626716
but then the prediction would show you doing what you are going to do, even if you decide not to, the prediction should show that also, and infinite other possibilities, in the same prediction.

so if you can predict the future, you can't predict the future?

>>4626728

You are assuming free will is possible right here:

>then you can fuck it up

Just because you know what's going to happen doesn't mean you have the power to diverge from that timeline and therefore change the outcome. To be able to would assume what you are trying to prove/disprove (free will).

>>4626728

You couldn't model the future, because any attempt to model the future including you would become a recursive loop. You'd have to model yourself modelling the future, which would be of you modelling yourself modelling the future, repeat ad infinitum.

And, of course, any model not including you would be an inaccurate model to begin with.

>>4626728
no you are just retarded

you assume you are capable of fucking the prediction up

that requires free will

what about this post do you not understand?

>>4626352

OP,

What you mean by "free will" is a libertarian freedom, which can't exist. However, a compatibilist - one who believes that a deterministic universe and free will are compatible - will point out that along this unchangeable chain of events, your will was a link that did lead to your actions, meaning that you WERE acting based on your own will and no one else's.

However, I don't believe there is such a thing as "will" leading to action, as I believe consciousness isn't an active agent involved in decision making, which is why the above explanation doesn't work for me - but it may work for you.

>>4626728
Exactly. So of all the possibilities that I can think of, only 2 make sense.

Reading the future is impossible, which actually implies free will

Or, more likely, the multi-verse theorem

>>4626751
does that mean you can't model a future that includes the observer? or that you can't model any future?

>>4626647
You came to the wrong board, buddy.

>>4626751

That's Popper's Pocket Oracle argument!

>>4626765
No it doesnt. Free will implies that you cant predict the future, not the other way around.

>>4626756
Yeah I must be a retard, please explain this to me:

You CAN predict the future
So, you can know exactly what you are going to do tomorrow
You tell me
I shoot you in the face
You were wrong
You can't predict the future because I can shoot you in the face when you tell me

It's the time travel paradox backwars, for fucks sake

>>4626765

No, reading the future being impossible is so because any entity predicting the future cannot be a part of the system it's modelling, due to infinite recursion. If an entity were outside and incapable of interacting with the system, it COULD model the future perfectly.

>>4626770

See above.

>>4626774

Never heard of it, but I am googling as we speak. Always happy to look up new stuff.

>>4626792
> i shoot you in the face

how do you know you will be able to do that?

>>4626792
we've explained it maybe 4 times, if you can't get it then just stay dumb

>>4626793

At least I THINK it's Popper's, but it's definitely called "Pocket Oracle". Basically, the argument claims that you cannot predict the future in a deterministic system AND intervene, becuase you'd have to calculate further and further ad infinitum; that is, unless you get to a point where the agent acts the same way he would have had you not intervened, based on his personal judgement of the situation and acting according to his will - meaning, you COULD predict the person's future actions but only when they won't be affected by your prediction. Either way, he does what he wills.

But again, I don't believe none of that crap.

>>4626795
you have to be trolling...

>>4626801

Yeah, I just found it in a book online. It's an interesting concept and basically what I'm trying to get across here.

If you influence a system and, hence, a part of it, you have to predict your own future, effectively meaning you have to predict your own future. Infinite recursion, total inability to do so. Ergo, impossible.

>>4626814
of course not. if we're questioning free will, how do you know you will have the free will to shoot me in the face?

This crashes my brain into a fucking tree. I don't mind admitting that the idea scares/scared me, but I think it can be dealt with by just letting go and adjusting your perspective. If I was a runner I wouldn't sit around angsting that it wasn't my decision to have naturally good cardio. What's the difference between that and being intelligent/decent, if it's all biologically determined anyway? If anything it just means you should switch from being proud of your attributes to being glad you have them.

tl;dr you can deal with determinism without going LOL IM EDGY NOW

>>4626819
And how would I not have the free will to kill myself if you told me my future, just to troll your prediction?

>>4626826

Because your decision to shoot yourself would be influenced by the prediction. You'd not do it otherwise. The prediction can't include itself, making the prediction flawed and, hence, not a proof against determinism.

Again, YOU CANNOT MODEL A SYSTEM THAT YOU ARE A PART OF.

>>4626826
we don't know whether you would be able to or not.

the whole purpose of the thought experiment was to establish something about free will.

if we go and assume everyone has (or hasn't) the free will to shoot people, we are assuming what we are trying to find out.

are you at last getting it now?

>>4626831
chill bro, I got that. You convinced me, can't predict your own future.

what he's trying to argue is that even if you could predict the future, you wouldn't be able to do shit about it because there is no free will anyway and he's so edgy...

>Everything you do is as a result of chemical and electrical signals in your brain,
Science does not prove that, nor does it have a means to prove that. That is %100 pure assumption right there.
Furthermore, the Universe is not a closed system, and therefore, is unpredictable.

Probability is the only truth. Particle physics are completely unecessary when everything can be describe with waves anyway. Determinism is a pipe dream.

>>4626846

If you were given knowledge of the future, it automatically becomes invalid because your knowledge of the future would have to include you knowing of the future, which would have to include you knowing of you knowing of the future, which would etc. etc. etc.

There is no escape from this loop. If it didn't include infinite recursion, then it's not an accurate map of the future.

>>4626846
>edgy

i see you are mad

we can't assume one way or another if there is free will or not if we are trying to prove that very thing.

wiki begging the question

it means assuming (subtly) what you are trying to show, which is what your retarded brain did, and couldn't see after several anons wasted precious time trying to enlighten you.

Whole nature is an endless(?) reaction.

>>4626352
Being deterministic is not the same as being predictable. To be deterministic only requires physics. To be predictable requires the information of every particle and interaction, and the computing power to process it -- which is no different from you just BEING you, and nobody predicting anything.
That's all Free Will is, our level of ignorance and inability to calculate your responses. You responses are random, to the degree that the word random represents our ignorance of the physical processes and our incomplete information.
You are how an algorithm feels from the inside.

>Determinism is a pipe dream.
Fucking this.

Christ, why do we expect science to progress when we're still clinging to Newtonian physics? They're good for simple situations, but if you're actually attempting ground breaking research, you shouldn't be adhering to philosophies that are nearly 400 years old. Especially when you have mechanics that are far more advanced and don't rely on excuses that are just "We couldn't measure any closer!"

At least adapt to a system that doesn't let people misinterpret what we're trying to do in QM.

>>4626855
yes.

>>4626856
Sure, I'm a retard because you were arguing for a fallacy instead of the real question...

>>4626855
The only escape from this loop is if you bring chance into the equation, which quantum mechanics seems to have done. It sorts this riddle out almost by letting you avoid it.

Basically, there are several, possibly an infinite amount of, possiblities which can occur at any one point, with the probabilities of any one path being taken to be determined by quantum mechanics. it allows the system to be fundamentally unreadable, and yet still deterministic. Convenient, but a little messy and unsatisfying.

>>4626861
algorithm that ponders its own existence, not bad.

>>4626850
>Science does not prove that, nor does it have a means to prove that. That is %100 pure assumption right there.

So the entire field of neurology and neuro/psychopharmacology are invalid because a random poster on the internet is trying to assert with, all the blundering of a giant in a field of fragile flowers, that the existence of a set of propositional explanations outside the realms of present human knowledge somehow invalidate the set of known or more validated propositions about decision making uncovered by more intelligent humans and scientists?

Makes fucking sense! How about I pump you full of 4-ACO-DMT and you can blabber on how chemistry is totally not an essential component, if not THE, of our consciousness and decision making while you giggle uncontrollably with emotions of joy and delight at an altered psychology.

>>4626873
i am showing you the fallacy in your argument.

what on earth is retarded about that?

that's what goes on here.

>>4626882
Wouldn't that imply that there are infinite universes overlapping, one for every possible state of everything?

>>4626888
>So the entire field of neurology and neuro/psychopharmacology are invalid because a random poster on the internet is trying
Sorry, I got bored of reading your post and stopped there.

I hope you don't mind that I refuse to take the rest of your post seriously when part of you're argument is based off of my legitimacy as a poster when you are anonymous as well.

Good bye.

>>4626893
And I am failing to make you see your own fallacy. That by arguing against a fallacy, instead of against the possibility of predicting the future, you are granting that you can predict the future, which creates the whole problem.

But no hard feelings, I kind of enjoy being trolled

>>4626897
I think that's the theory yes. Of course it isn't proven, or even properly comprehended, but I think it's the only solution to the issue that has been thought of yet.

>>4626902

Well nice to know you're a faggot troll who refused to read how utterly dumb you are.

Have a good day!

>>4626907
not trolling

i also argued against the future prediction here>>4626693

but the subtle fallacy of begging the question was important to point out.

testing argument is part of what goes on in science. if you don't like it, you know, leave?

>>4626908
It's because you're not worth arguing with.

And you're kind of annoying, too.

>>4626882

If you bring chance into the equation, then the prediction can't be accurate, which is really my point here.

There is no way for there to be accurate predictions as a part of the system (I.E. The predictions can have no effect on the system).

>>4626911
you could have answered the whole "no predictions" argument on the proper chain of posts and avoid me trying to argue against an anon who was apparently basing his whole argument on "you assume free will from the start!"...

>>4626912

"I can't refute the entirety of the scientific field that deals with the central nervous system, that part of the body which is probably most essential to our notions of consciousness and decision making.

Therefore you are not worth arguing with because I'm trying to protect the status of some childish notion that, in trying to analyze matters of decision making and consciousness, is a fucking stillborn"

Makes fucking sense!

>>4626352
quantum mechanics

>>4626926

Hell you even have to go further than refuting the institutional knowledge of neurology. You have to refute the ancedotal experience of billions of people whose decision making/will power and psychology have been altered due to increases and decreases in nutritional and psychoactive substances.

>>4626917
Exactly. I think I used the wrong word when i said "unreadable but determinable". I should have said "unreadable but mechanistic". I think that makes more sense. But yes, that is why I said this method almost avoids the logical conundrum instead of solving it, which is very unsatisfying for a logician

so we can't know if there is free will? Makes the whole argument irrelevant.

>>4626929
i was that anon

and it is a totally valid argument. it's like 101 of argument checking. i'm in shock that it took you so long to get it.

and since when do you decide how people answer on 4chan?

just accept you are raging for making a dumb argument and be done with it.

>>4626936
Does that mean a system that contains observers must be non-deterministic?

>>4626953
whatever bro

>>4626959
You cannot determine future events because chance is involved. This however still doesn't imply free will.

I'm not sure if this would be considered deterministic or not, but definitely still mechanical

>>4626978
but you can determine the future state of simple systems, we do that already. Its when we have an observer in the system, who can observe the prediction, when shit goes wrong.

sounds like saying that a system can either have observers or be deterministic, no?

>>4626995
That was my point. You just agreed with me, and added "no?" at the end.
Determinism seems feasible until you add an observer, at which point it breaks down. The only theory that doesn't break down is with all the reasoning of determinism, with the unpredictability of quantum mechanics thrown in. That way you can't know your future in order to contradict it, but free will still isn't necessary.

>>4627032
Yes I'm agreeing with you. Because an observer can only be so if its sentient, which is like saying that conscience prevents determinism.

Now if conscience has the intrinsic property of preventing determinism, we may as well call that property free will.

>>4626352
It is the result of electrical signals being stimulated by all of the stimuli, including stimuli from other neurons. If you are in a car heading for a tree, and you know this is happening, you (if time permits) have the free will to chose whether to crash or swerve.
Next question

>>4627092
> including stimuli from other neurons.
And where does their input come from? Gosh you're dumb.

>Then why bother?

There is then no such then as choosing to bother. You are a machine, you will go on because that is how you were built.

Why does it matter? If free will doesn't exist that fact is not significant slightest, and philosophizing about whether or not it doesn't exist is a waste of time.