/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7687686
>>>his

granted this is a question which is better to google than to ask 4chan

we have free will because dude spooky quantum mechanic randomness we cunt no nuffin lmao

>>7687687
>>7687686
case in point
>>7687690

>>7687687
>>>his

Sorry, but this is most certainly a question of science. its about the physical reality, about physical forces and effects.

>>7687686
No free will basically doesn't exist.

Even with probabilistic outcomes, we're a slave to the forces and atomic interaction around us and throughout us.

But it's a fucking bummer, dude. Just maintain that delusion and roll with it.

>>7687686
If you did have this "free will", what would that be?

>>7687703
>But it's a fucking bummer, dude. Just maintain that delusion and roll with it.

I'm trying.

I just think about how every movement of my finger, every blink of the eye would have been almost certainly set before I even existed.

Sends me off on a mind trip tbqh

If it isn't us controlling ourselves, WHO DUN IT?

>>7687708

An uncertain future. A future that my actions can effect. That I have the ability to make choices that mean something rather than my life being on rails. Its like riding a roller-coaster, it will go left followed by a double helix because that's what has already been set in course whether you know it or not.

>>7687716

jesus

>>7687686
RUN RUN RUN JUST AS FAST AS YOU CAN YOU CAN'T CATCH ME I'M THE DANGALANG MAN

>>7687686
Dude, if I can think in the first person, then I have freedom of thought.

Then I have free will. If I can will myself to imagine being submerged in water, feeling the lake's bed beneath my feet, seeing the particles stir up and form a cloud underneath and around me, observing these practices and moving my hand through the cloud, seeing these particles disperse, then yes, I can think.

And if I can create anything in my mind, the keyword being /anything/, then I'm 'willing' these things into existence.

>>7687714
Seriously, I love philosophy but this is a question that really doesn't do anything for you. Most philosophers today would agree that free will is an "illusion" of sorts and that some sort of causal determinism is true. But no matter what, you will operate as if you are making a choice. You will never not "decide" to do something voluntary, as nothing voluntary can be done without your brain interpreting it. So even if it was necessary that you would spend unimaginable amounts of free time funposting on an Uzbekistani finger painting canvas, you're always going to feel like you're making a decision to visit it on any specific day.

>>7687728
*necessary due to the course of past events (and thus the "original/first" event)

>>7687718
>An uncertain future.
You already have this.

>A future that my actions can effect.
And this as well.

>That I have the ability to make choices that mean something rather than my life being on rails.
Regardless of the nature of the universe, and the "actuality" of your existence, as far as your perspective goes you already have this as well.

You haven't really answered the question. What would it be? What could it be? I'm not trying to taunt you, because I myself can't imagine any scenario where you've come to possess the truest and free-est of free will. (Free-est just being free-er than the free-est free we presently know). At that point, how would your environment affect you? What would "you" even be? It sounds as though you would more be the universe, than be a part of it. And you still wouldn't be free.

>>7687727

no

>>7687728
>you're always going to feel like you're making a decision to visit it on any specific day.
disagree.

I may feel like I'm making a choice, but I'm not.

I feel like it doesn't really matter what I say or think as It has already been determined. I can "choose" to forget about it but that "choice" to forget has also been predetermined.

Tbqh I was hoping this thread would gravitate more towards electrons n shit rather than whatever this is but Whatever.

>>7687736
Yes you fraily twit.

>>7687736
I'm not arguing against determinism at all. In fact I support it. My point is that even though everything you do is a natural consequence of previous events, even though you really have no choice in the matter, you will feel like you're making a choice. Also determinism does not necessarily imply fatalism (the belief that all things in the future are predetermined) although there is considerable overlap between the two.

If true randomness does indeed exist then determinism is thrown out of the window and we have no idea how much of an effect this would have on the human brain. Presumably it wouldn't matter because once you get to a certain scale you know that things behave deterministically. But modern science is pretty sure that true randomness really doesn't exist and that even what we perceive as randomness is just probability.

>>7687686
Given this some thought in the past anon. Looks like others have given you some good answers but try this tonight ur gears turning.
If 1 persons entire brain structure (memories and all) were copied into another person right next to them, their very first thoughts and movements would likely be exactly the same. However as more time goes on their 'choices' would become more and more different as all their senses would be giving them more and more different information.
This is to say our consciousness and choices are all a product of our brains initial structure plus the collective input of all our senses over the period of our existence.

what is the % chance that exactly 3 posts in this thread will be written in farsi (persian)? what are the initial conditions which would give rise to exactly 3 posts in this thread being written in farsi?

what is the % chance that you will go to the nail salon on a skateboard next thursday? what are the initial conditions that would give rise to you going to a nail salon on a skateboard next thursday?

what are the chances that you would be reading a post on the 4chan /sci/ image board right now? etc.

there's no free will, sorry lads

Why are people still asking this question?

I thought it has already been rightfully concluded that space time has always existed and that the past and future all belong to the same form of matter/energy. Biological perception of time being the result of entropy.

>tfw you are just waiting for some fresh-collared MIT student to publish your theory

Feels Alfred Russell Wallace man.

>>7687806
>Why are people still asking this question?

Because some people are still trying to learn things, humanity isn't a hive mind. Just because one person has learnt something doesn't mean everyone else has.

>>7687819
True, but it really annoys me when someone asserts
"we don't know"
when some people do

>>7687833
>when some people do

Do they really though? Surely they're just working with current theories that will likely be obsolete in 1000 years.

>>7687833
>when some people do
They probably don't. And probably can't.

>>7687839
they have made observations that can be communicated to another person in a meaningful way, which are compatible with all other existing observations and have a good likelihood of being an accurate depiction of how reality works

that's as far as we can really 'know', so yes I do 'know'

>>7687852
It was real good. I had, uh, regulars at this place, and uh, I uh, I had the -- I, I told them, I you said, "what do you want today?" and I said, "I dunno, just make me something." So uh. Yeah. So he -- he brought some, brought some stuff to me. It was good. It was a pepper steak and he fixed it a little bit different way.

free will = indeterminism magic
so no, it doesn't exist.

>>7687873

Hallelujah.

>>7687873
sounds like fallout 4 dialogue
awful and unnecessary

>>7687686
Ha, i used to worry about that. I worried that if a single ion in my brain moved a little to the left, I'll maybe become a mass murderer. Its a damn stupid thing to think about, that might be possible but its definitely not happening anytime soon. Just go about life. We all have a choice, even if you think you don't. You only feel this way because you don't get to go back on what you've chosen. So choose well and live well.

>>7687727
YOU don't think. you experience thinking. it's not an active thing, thoughts come by themselves.

>>7687686
I thing it's a good question,
but I don't thing we can proove that it is true or false now.

An other difficult question is: "if you see red like I see blue, and blue like I see red, then I can ask you <<is the sky blue>>. For you, the sky is red and <<blue>> means red, so you will answer <<yes>>. I think there is no way to check if we see the same colors or not"
do we see the same colors? do we here the same sounds?...
or "can you prove me you are not like a robot, and you really feel pain, I mean <<not like an information in a computer>>"

I think all this question and your question about free will are unanswerable. I think and hope it's true, but I have no way to prove it... I also have no way to prove that I have no way to prove it (...), so maybethere is a proof.

>>7687901
Consciousness is neither fully a watcher, nor fully a director.

Learn to choose.

>>7687686
I imagine free will as a progression toward a finite number of conclusions through an infinite number of paths and actions to reach any of those existing conclusions. Simply, there exist different realities where I am a firefighter, a car salesman, a hobo, race car driver. It's already predetermined that I can be any of those things, and on that level I'm "free" to choose which one to become. Let's say I'm "determined" to be a race car driver. I'm still 'free' to choose how much/little I study/drive/compete/race/decide what type of car to race etc. And when I do 'choose' to race I'm still 'free' to decide when to gas at the start, how much to steer during a turn, etc

When progressing along a more specific outcome, the amount of choices and permutations you're able to make/experience raises exponentially.

The only certainty and only endgame in our lives is death. We're free to explore just one path among the infinite combinations toward that final predetermined fate.

>2015
>ppl still unironically believe in free will
>literally mfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk&feature=youtu.be&t=356

>>7687703
Why do you thinks it's a bummber?
I don't see it having any influence whatsoever.
Other than psychological influence on the weak.

>>7687686

Man comes to T intersection. He can turn left or right. According to multiverse theory there is universe where he turned left and universe where he turned right. Does man have free will?

>If you could perfectly analyse every element and particle from the big bang (speed, weight, shape etc)
Impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

>>7688005
underrated post

At the center of Free Will is a hard, unbreakable determinism. And at the center of that is the appearance of Free Will. We move the atoms while the atoms move us. This dance never ends.

>>7688673
What decides the dance?

>>7688708

your will

>>7688708
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao

:)

>>7687939
>>7688252

Oh shit, string "theorists" are here, RUN!

>>7687686
>Has every action and reaction been set since the start of time?
Let's look at this from a timeless perspective.

What if there is a metaphysical entity for each and every "will" that together shape this "original cause" in each moment, each time a decision is made anew?

Honestly it does not make a difference either way.
You will not act any differently from the way you are determined to if determinism is real.

Something interesting to think about when this kind of discussion is brought up is that (considering there is no free will) accurately predicting the universe's future would require another identical or bigger (as in more total energy) universe than our own to observe. There is no way to build a super quantum computer or something like that, because it will always be lacking the necessary "power" to predict the entire universe's future. The only way a computer can have the necessary processing power to do so is being the universe itself. I could be wrong, but that's what I concluded so far. I would like to see some theories debunking or adding to this from you guys if possible.

Why is my body and mind two seperate things in the first place?
Why do people want an independent free will?

>>7689208
Can a computer ever simulate itself entirely might be another way of looking at this.

>>7689244
Well, it can.

But not in real time.

>>7689281
I don't think it's possible. The only way you can simulate something is by being it or being more complex than it. Of course, you could say it is then always simulating itself, but it's firstly being itself, which is different.

>>7688005
thanks, needed that

>>7687718
free will is being able to act without being caused to do so by any physical stimuli. it's a concept that has roots in religion asserting that the "you" who has free will is actually a soul/incorporeal agent separate from the body and capable of acting against natural factors present in reality. on a fundamental level, it's contradictory with common sense. with free will, you're acting against cause and effect: where an effect can come into existence without a cause or reason.

>>7689289
Of course it is.

>>7689281
It's not a question of computing power, but of memory. To simulate itself, it would need to simulate all of its memory using its current free memory, which only works if the simulation itself doesn't take up any space.

>>7687686
>>>/his/

>>7687686
No, but Free Willy does if you believe in him.

>>7689208
>>7689244

A procedural generation from a set of axioms wouldn't require an infinite amount of power. Using Occam's Razor, what's the point of this again?