/sci/ - Science & Math

Is free will binary or a spectrum?

Free Will and Predetermination coexist. People have the freedom to make a choice, but the outcome is ultimately determined by a higher power.
i.e. God

>>9482825
This is more philosophical than scientific
We can’t even prove how consciousness works

Free Will and Predetermination coexist. People have the freedom to make a choice, but the outcome is ultimately determined by a higher power. I.e. God.

>>9482841
>This is more philosophical than scientific
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches

>>9482825
Definition:
"Free will" is an ability of a human being to act independently of any environmental conditions, including - but not limited to - memories from the past life, current weather, physical state, etc.

Theorem:
Free will doesn't exist.

Proof:
Human will is a manifestation of the current state in which a brain currently is. Since the brain is equivalent to a enourmosly complex but automaton, it's future states and actions depend on past states and inputs. Thus, there is no free will.

>>9483332
>Since the brain is equivalent to a enourmosly complex but automaton
What did he/she mean by this?

>>9482825
The counterpart to determinism is randomness not free will you utter moron.

>>9483332
>"Free will" is an ability of a human being to act independently of any environmental conditions

>independently of any environmental conditions

"Free will is when the environment is not behaving like the environment"

Well of course when you define it like that, of course free will cannot exist (without positing things like a soul that are outside of the environment). But even then, if you consider the soul a part of the broader environment, then the human is still acting dependently on the environment. The human is acting dependent on the soul.

By your definition, if a human is acting independently to EVERYTHING in the world, then these actions cannot be determined by anything. And if the actions are still there but are not dependent on by anything, then the actions must have been determined by random chance. True, cosmic random chance is the only thing that can act independently of the environment.

You are defining free will to be random chance. And random chance is not free will, because it has no will.

Therefore, your proof doesn't not disprove free will in the slightest.

We are all just some atoms that interact in certain ways.

>>9482825
"Free will doesn't really exist. But I act like free will exists."

>But I act like free will exists

You realize that this statement is precisely the exact same thing as saying that free will exists.

Let's say for instance, we are coming up with our own mathematical system. We have this "1" symbol, and we can say that 2 ACTS LIKE it equals 1+1

You might try to say: 2 doesn't really equal = 1 + 1. But it acts like it does. For instance, if you added 5 to both sides, 2 would still act like it equals 1 + 1.

(2) + 5 = (1 + 1) + 5

7 = 7

Notice that this mathematical system is completely divorced from reality. You can think of it as a completely different universe with it's own rules, rules that we come up with ourselves. We tried to say that "2 doesn't REALLY equal 1 + 1" there must be some rule within the system that when applied to (2) and (1+1) they produce a result that distinguishes them. We can define f() such that f(2) = 634, and f(1+1) = 3.

In that case we can have (2) and (1+1) not being equal, hooray. But our second premise that 2 acts like 1+1 has been violated. In order for 2 to still act like 1+1, we need to have every single rule in our math system to treat 2 and 1+1 the same. So we can get rid of the function f(). But in THIS system of rules we have created, we can't say that 2 and 1+1 aren't "really" equal to each other.

By the same logic, if WE act like we have free will, and also EVERYTHING else in the whole universe (the whole system) also acts like we have free will, then there is no rule within the universe that you can use to show make the distinction between actually having free will, and just looking like you have free will.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Free will versus determinism: are we the cause or the effect? Well, we're both, the in-between. So I'd say free will and determinism are two faces of the same thing: how we perceive the way we are througth time.

>>9482825
I think we have free will.

People are predictable which implies determinism. If there is a degree of randomness hidden underneat it's to small to quantify whether there is some true random number generator or we simply lack data to accurate predict the person and so the seeming randomness is just a lack of information on our side.

Sidenote: I believe older cultures believe in fate being set in stone was a belief in determinism.

>>9483449
Jokes on you brainlet, the thought which compels you to think you have free will was a result of biochemical reactions in your brain and body; if we could measure and model your entire body we would have been able to tell that you would think you have free will even before you thought it. Hah!

>>9482825
For all intents and purposes we have free will but it's an illusion.

>>9483684
Quantum mechanics shows that there's always an element of randomness, right? So I don't think you could completely model the brain.

>>9483690
Prove it.

>>9483735
You can predict shit
/thread

>>9483690
>For all intents and purposes we have free will but it's an illusion

If we behave as if we have free will for all intents and purposes, and there is no context within the universe where one can show we don't have free will, then it is not an illusion. It is simply real.

See: >>9483397

>>9483741
>can't show it
>doesn't exist
the Earth is flat PROVE ME WRONG

"free" will is impossible as everything is subject to cause and effect

>inb4 some brainlet starts babbling about quantum tunneling

>>9483746

Bro you can describe to my how a flat earth would interact differently with the universe than a round earth would.

But you can't even describe to me how a human with the illusion of free will would interact with the universe differently than a human with actual free will.

>>9482825
determinism
It's all just hidden variables all the way down into infinity.

>>9483746
Congratulations!

You just proved my hypothesis that "any scientific debate will inevitably lead to the mentioning of Flat Earth."

Your prize is 1,000 years in Hell!

>>9482825
Whether or not you have free will is irrelevant considering that the constraints of your decision making are so incomprehensible that you might as well go about your life assuming you have control over it.

>>9483758
Free will is the ability for a conscious being to make almost any decision, correct or incorrect?

Let's just call it “chaotic will”. Deterministic in principle, unpredictable in practice.
Maybe stochastic?

>>9483763
Is this /sci/'s Godwin?

>>9483770
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-will

>>9483785
And would you consider humans to be conscious?

>>9483784
>Is this /sci/'s Godwin?

Yes... Welcome to Hell!

determinism. we do things we don't want to all the time. most of us procrastinate.

>>9482825
Determinism because I'm a manchild that doesn't want to take any repsonsibility. (post-ironically)

>>9482825
Depends of definition. "Absolute" free will is impossible, but in practical sense for all intents and purposes humans have free will.

>>9483993
>mcdonalds makes branding red and yellow
>subconsciously makes people hungry as fuck
dude for all intents and purposes free will lmao

>>9484128
Yes. It's your fault that you are fat.

free will through determinism
it can be determined, but it's practically impossible and you're experiencing free will, even though it's not really free.

freedom is the recognition of necessity.
most people act deterministic without realizing their own interests. they are nothing more than hostages to circumstances.
the only free people is the people who realize what really need to be done. so they won't blindly follow chaotic impulses.

free will is an invention by the christians/jews so they can blame people for sinning
there is only will, tangled up in the environment and other wills

>>9483397
>"Free will doesn't really exist. But I act like free will exists."
>>But I act like free will exists
>You realize that this statement is precisely the exact same thing as saying that free will exists.

All objects obey the laws of quantum mechanics, not the laws of classical mechanics. But really heavy objects act like they behave the laws of classical mechanics. This does not imply that heavy objects actually obey the laws of classical mechanics. It implies that for heavy objects, classical mechanics is a very accurate, albeit imperfect, approximation.

Similarly, "people act like they have free will" in the sense that a model that treats people as having free will is very useful and can produce very accurate predictions. But ultimately, there exists a more accurate model in which "free will" is neither an axiom nor a theorem. But because the more accurate model is mathematically intractable, we use the imperfect "free will" model to get easy answers, just like we use classical mechanics to get easy answers to how heavy objects move, even though it is a theory with strictly inferior accuracy to quantum mechanics.

>>9484214
I see what you're saying and you bring up a good distinction.

>But really heavy objects act like they behave the laws of classical mechanics. This does not imply that heavy objects actually obey the laws of classical mechanics.

Within the system of classical mechanics, everything DOES behave according to classical rules, because that is how we have defined the system.

If you step outside of the system of classical mechanics, you can see that the universe interacts with itself in a way that is inconsistent with classical mechanics. This is because we can break the heavy object down and see that it is interacting with itself and producing virtual particles and other quantum phenomenon.

So without the premise that heavy object act EXACTLY in classical ways, we can't follow the logic of my argument to say that heavy objects really do behave classically.

Free will is obviously real in the context of free will, in the system that defines free will. However, when we step outside of the system of free will we will see that is it still EXACTLY, 100% consistent with all other observations in the universe. Even in the system that encompasses all of existence, free will still behaves as if it's real. And since it is real in the {Real} context, then it is real.

>>9483747
>"free" will is impossible as everything is subject to cause and effect
What caused the universe?

>>9484409
Perhaps nothing cause the universe.

Are you suggesting that "free will" exists outside the universe but somehow still can interact with the universe?

>>9484440
>Perhaps nothing cause the universe.
Then not everything is subject to cause and effect.

>Are you suggesting that "free will" exists outside the universe but somehow still can interact with the universe?
No.

>>9484440
cause and effect implies an initial mover ie god
probably there's something else our brains can't comprehend

Free will and determinism are unrelated to each other.
There can be both, or neither.

>>9483747
If I give cause to a existence, without proprietary pictures of presidents, it's free will anyway.

Are the posters arguing against free will just coping for bad life choices they made?

Some people obviously have more free will than others but everyone I've met has at least SOME free will

>>9484747
obviously, you must be dumb to take people like that seriously

>>9484506
why use a word with so much baggage? cause and effect does NOT imply a god, it implies a CAUSE to the observed effect "the observed universe", what about that cause implies that it must be a god, or are you using little g to leave "god" up to any interpretation?

>>9484506
also, do we assume time started at the big bang? if so, how could you have a cause outside of time start time?

>>9482825
literally makes no difference

>>9484747
Or maybe successful people are more willing to attribute their success to their own ostensible abilities instead of combination of largely independent of them factors, regardless of how close to the truth this might be.

>>9484756
cause the first cause would be uncaused. use your brain dumbass

>>9484782
the only thing that can be uncaused is a "god" that you haven't defined? care to show your work?

>>9484782
i'd like to take this moment to postulate an uncaused omnipresent bagel

>>9484785
tell me what else is uncaused

>>9484791
that's not how it works, you are claiming that the only thing that could be uncased is a god, the burden of proof is on you.

>>9484791

>>9484787

free will exists because of quantum mechanics

>>9484793
i said prime mover. call it god call it what you please the fact the you can't name anything beside god is evidence enough that it's a retarded idea

>>9484799
you can believe whatever you want. the idea that a bagel (which we've got plenty of and are all caused) is the prime mover is even more retarded than god. it still shows cause and effect isn't all there is

>>9484812
i can and i just did, my unmoved prime causer uncaused bagel is just as legitamate as your undefined god because you still haven't shown why only "god" can be uncaused

>>9484822
you're not making any argument

>>9482825
free, as in freedom, means there is no god you align your decision to...

Also it means, you simply think more about what you exactly is.

>>9484828
i didn't read the second sentence to the initial post i responded to, i think i might agree with you? i tend to lean towards determinism, but i guess i do disagree with you when you say that cause and effect must imply "god"

>>9484759
as if he has a coherent theory behind that god babble. c'mon, you know better.
>>9484766
It makes a difference for attributing "ultimate" blame on someone. Revenge on criminals makes no sense, it's just like kicking an already broken toaster. (not to say that punishment couldn't have positive effect on development of someones character, but never just for "justice")

>>9484907
>blame
also makes no difference
>Revenge
also makes no difference
>justice
does not make a difference by itself

furthermore your logic is broken. someone predicting your actions doesn't exempt you from responsibility, regardless of whether it is an omniscient god or just some guy.

>>9484926
If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense. You might as well try to punish a rock that fell on you out of vengeance. You could, but that would be dumb and pointless.

>>9484956
>If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense.
explain the sense it makes in the alternate world

While it is true that the brain is the consequence of natural laws which the individual has no control over, free will is a matter of power to choose. Someone has this kind of power, and hence free will, if they hypothetically had the ability to do otherwise than they did - barring undue burdens. Thus, free will and determinism are compatible, and we probably have free will

>>9482844
That's retarded, anon. It's literally a contradiction. Infact, it's fucking nonsense. A predetermined action is not a choice.

>>9482825
Determinism

Everything happens because it is willed to happen, God gave everything characteristics (continuing will) that makes them do what they should, however, God can make them do things they're not supposed to do.

Al-Ghazali explained it best

>>9484991
>hypothetically had the ability to do otherwise
>consequence of natural laws which the individual has no control over
If they had no control, they could not have had excerted control.
At what point could a physically deterministic system have had the "choice" to deviate from its starting conditions? This is as obvious a contradiction as you could have made.
Stop with this desperate word-twisting, just face the facts, it won't kill you.

>>9484979
Because the perpetrator would be the ultimate cause of its actions. Not the starting conditions of the universe.

>>9485044
Didn't he say a fire burns only because god continually and actively generates that effect or something? Every atomic and subatomic particle has strings attached that god has to pull at all times. And people actually believe this too.

Not determinism is all we know

>>9484245
>However, when we step outside of the system of free will we will see that is it still EXACTLY, 100% consistent with all other observations in the universe.

This is a very strong statement. It seems to mean that "free will" is a literal synonym for "the laws of physics." So the answer to "why do apples fall when you drop them" is "free will." And how does a lightbulb work? Free will. Surely that's not what you mean, by free will though, right?

The problem is the following: one conclusion that science has led to is that there exists one single, unifying law that governs everything. The law that makes humans do things is the exact same rule that makes apples fall and lightbulbs turn on. So if you say "free will is 100% true" and "free will governs what people do," you must also say "free will makes apples fall and lightbulbs turn on" or "science is wrong about the concept of universal law."

>>9485099
>Every atomic and subatomic particle has strings attached that god has to pull at all times
What do you think determinism is?

wow, the people here without free will sound like miserable human beings

is it really that bad?

>>9482827
Spectrum but people refuse to admit between either since it's simpler for one to either completely admit or deny something than deal with the muddy water.

Personally free will is a spectrum. We have limited free will, that is controlled by a myriad number of factors which would be a pain for any one man to figure out.

TL;DR binary freewill argument is for brainlets.

>>9485099
>At what point could a physically deterministic system have had the "choice" to deviate from its starting conditions?
In that free will is purely hypothetical. It doesn't matter if someone was determined to make a decision, what matters is that they could have chosen otherwise if they wanted. Now, if you want to argue that someone who chose a donut off a dessert table could not have made a different decision that's up to you. I'm saying that the person determined to pick the donut had the power to choose another dessert, *if* they wanted. That *if* is the key word.

>>9484800
Just because it's affected by randomness to a degree doesn't mean it's a free will.

For those who don't believe in free will: what kind of evidence would make you change your mind?

>>9485099
>Because the perpetrator would be the ultimate cause of its actions. Not the starting conditions of the universe.
that is not an explanation you fucktard

>>9485251
>that is not an explanation you fucktard
Do you need to swear?

>>9485195
This is an excellent point, which means that of course it will be completely ignored here.

>>9484907
Well where does cause and effect lead you if not to a prime mover?

>>9485195
Free will is only possible with some magical "soul" so I guess the second coming of Jesus will do.

>>9485276
>Free will is only possible with some magical "soul"
What do you mean?

>>9485264
yes i do you fucking shit-monkey

>>9484956
>If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense.
This is pure nonsense. Dumb russky

>unironically being a """determinist"""
Who fucking cares? Does it change anything at all? You're still going to act like if you have free will. It's a pointless argument.

>>9485286
>disturbs and angers religious/spiritual vermin
More than enough reason to point out inconsequential facets of reality

>>9482825
We are in a computer simulation that could be deterministic or probabilistic. In either case, there is will and the will changes what happens in the simulation. But it is not free. If our simulation is deterministic and we would just start the program again, the same movie would play once again.If it is probabilistic, a different movie would play but the differences would be because of different realizations of the (pseudo) randomness that was coded into our program, not because will changes everything. Or in other words, if we run the same probabilisitic simulation again and it just happens that the same realizations of randomness occur as in the previous simulation, it would be the exact same movie.

I believe it like I said it, but I also sometimes have difficulties thinking about it. If it really is like that, can one be responsible for anything? Can something be someones fault? The answer is no if there is a preset fate.

>>9485127
>Surely that's not what you mean, by free will though, right?

No, but now we're getting into Abstractionism here.

>It seems to mean that "free will" is a literal synonym for "the laws of physics."

Nah. Free Will is an Abstraction based on the laws of physics.

Just like "heat" is an Abstraction of the laws of physics. You wouldn't say: "How does an electron orbit a proton? Heat." But you can say that the underlying atoms will never behave in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of heat. If you look at the atoms abstractly as Heat, you will always, 100% of the time see heat flow from hot to cold. Also the underlying atoms need to qualify as heat, you can't just say that a graviton is heat. Similarly, you can only abstract out free will when the underlying atoms represent consciousness. Heat is true because it acts like it's true and can never been shown to be acting like it's not true.

Let's say the world is like this:

0011001100110011

The laws of physics state that each number is neighbors with both a 1 and a 0, unless they are on the end.

The Abstraction of Free Will (F) is based on the universe having a "001" sequence. So we get:

F1F1F1

The laws of free will state that two F's will never be right next to each other. This is true, and it is consistent with the laws of physics. Meaning, given the laws of physics and all the information about the universe, you can never find any contradiction between the laws of Free Will and the laws of physics. That means that the laws of Free Will are true, not just in the free will context but within the largest system you can even consider: Reality.

>>9485305
>We are in a computer simulation
It's not a simulation, it's more akin to a dream. You're the dream (which takes the shape of experiences) and you have free will to take the shape of whatever experience you want. You-as-a-person's date is determined by the dream, as your body is merely a part of the landscape. Therefore, your fate is free if you decide to identify as the landscape, or "that which takes the shape of experiences" and deterministic if you identify with the "person view" your experience is formatted with.

>>9482825
>>9485305
btw, as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will. There is will and it changes how humans behave. But it is not free because what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). So the fate is totally preset or at least preset depending on the randomness that will occur (not depending on what your will is), your will can't change it.

If the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for. So far it looks like we can find physical models for everything that happens and that reality really follows these laws. It's really doubtful that our will is the source for the exception in computability. I would think it's more likely that a god is the source.

>>9485347
>btw, as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will. There is will and it changes how humans behave. But it is not free because what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). So the fate is totally preset or at least preset depending on the randomness that will occur (not depending on what your will is), your will can't change it.
>If the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for. So far it looks like we can find physical models for everything that happens and that reality really follows these laws. It's really doubtful that our will is the source for the exception in computability. I would think it's more likely that a god is the source.
This is mostly meaningless garbage.

>>9485424
What parts do you not agree on? Maybe I can clarify or you can convince me that I'm wrong.

inb4 everything

>all this debating
>the answer is clearly determinism

>>9485478
You mean randomness

>>9485465
>What parts do you not agree on?
" as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will."
" what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). "
"f the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for"
" a god is the source."

>>9482825
DEFINE FREE WILL DEFINE FREE WILL DEFINE IT REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9485485
randomness still does not allow free will.

If you do whatever a dice roll decides, what choice did you have?

>>9485312
>Nah. Free Will is an Abstraction based on the laws of physics.
>Just like "heat" is an Abstraction of the laws of physics. You wouldn't say: "How does an electron orbit a proton? Heat." But you can say that the underlying atoms will never behave in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of heat. If you look at the atoms abstractly as Heat, you will always, 100% of the time see heat flow from hot to cold.

But actually, that's not true. It is a good example of the point I was making. Saying that free will is an abstraction of the laws of physics is saying that it is an approximate model, just like heat is an approximate model of the laws of physics. Your example, where you "100% of the time see heat flow from hot to cold" is not true 100% of the time. You could more properly call this entropy, and it is a statistical average that is true 99.9999(etc.) percent of the time, but not always.

The laws of physics are sufficient to describe everything that happens, and they are never wrong. Entropy is not sufficient to do the same, and entropy sometimes disagrees with the laws of physics. When the two disagree, the laws of physics are wrong and entropy is right. This is the same pattern when you compare classical physics and quantum mechanics, except that it's much easier to get examples of classical physics being wrong than it is to get examples of entropy spontaneously decreasing.

You can get the same sort of "accuracy" if you have a theory that uses vague predictions, like "such and such will happen with an X% margin of error." But this is even more clearly an approximate model.

So if you only want to claim that free will is a model that is often accurate, I agree. But if you claim that it is a model that is never wrong, then either it is a model that is vague enough to avoid predictions, or your claim is just not right.

>>9485485
still determined

>>9485619
thanks for making clear what i didn't say is wrong

>>9485630
no the real opposite, unlike free will which isn't the opposite of anything

>>9485558
You basically replied with "everything", but I'll still answer.

If everything is computable we live in a world where there are x different elementary particles that each have some properties and there are a few lines of code (or physical laws) that define how these particles interact. So our universe just consists of a gazillion particles that just follow some laws and they do this consistently. This started with the big bang and is still happening. These tiny particles ended up building up our solar system and our earth. They ended up building life and ended up building conscious being we call humans. There was no will involved in all this, it were just a gazillion particles strictly following their laws.The same is with will. If there are some electrons moving in your brane that cause you not to eat the chocolate and exercise instead, you can call that your will. But nothing else could have happened. The electron was just moving there because it just follows its laws. And other particles that forced the electron to interact in a way so it moved the way it did where also just there because they were just following their laws. Again, if our universe is deterministic (to keep things simple, but the concept won't change if it was probabilistic) and the big bang would start in exactly the same configuration, all particles would behave in the exact same way, there would be a sun and an Earth again 13 billion years after the big bang. If a program always does exactly the same thing, no matter how often you run it, everything in such a program is exactly bound to happen in a specific way.

>>9485628

I think we have differing views on the definition of Abstraction. An Abstraction is not an approximation that says "99.999% of the time, this is an apple". An Abstraction is simply "we are ignoring all the details that besides the information that gives rise to an apple". And that information would be things such as the information of the DNA, etc. As an example, say the underlying information is a row of jelly beans, some red, some blue, arranged blue red blue etc etc etc. The abstraction is "10100011", this has less information, it is ignoring the information that these are made of jellybeans. But if even one bit is incorrect, then this is not an Abstractionist Abstraction.

For a system to be WRONG, you are creating MORE details that we're there before. Details which are based on information you came up with, not the actual information of the universe. So even if something like "70100071" is incorrect by 0.001% then it is not abstractly representing reality.

>Your example, where you "100% of the time see heat flow from hot to cold" is not true 100% of the time.

Actually, this is true 100% of the time. Heat is defined as the random motion of particles in a given system. An object in which all the molecules are moving the same direction, like a ball being thrown, is not heat.

(1/2)

>>9485628
>>9485712
(2/2)

You might say that a box filled with a few random particles can, by chance, all find themselves in one corner of the box at one particular time. This would be a situation with an even heat disbursement flows to an area of higher heat in the corner of the box. Right, so the law is violated and heat does 100% of the time flow from hot to cold? No. In that situation, since all the particles are moving towards the same corner of the box, then therefore the particles are not moving in random directions. It is behaving like a ball where the all the particles have kinetic energy. Therefore, that cannot be consider heat because it is not random. If it cannot be considered heat then it does not lead to a contradiction.

You wouldn't throw a ball into a fire place and claim that as heat moving towards more heat. There are some things that you cannot define in terms of heat, just like there are things that you cannot define in terms of apples. You can't define atoms in terms of apples, but yet when you interpret the atoms you find nothing that contradicts the higher abstraction of the apple.

This is why I put the second example. It's unambiguous and you know precisely what I'm talking about.

>>9485690
"true randomness"
doesn't exist

>>9485712
>Heat is defined as the random motion of particles in a given system

Well there's the problem: it doesn't describe systems where particle motion follows deterministic laws. I.e., systems in this universe. So in your example, here
>>9485714
You say that if the particles happen to all go to one side (rules of "heat" violated), then it doesn't matter, since the system wasn't random. In other words, the laws of thermodynamics just say that heat goes from hot to cold except when it doesn't. This is what I mean by saying that "free will" is a vague approximation. It allows you to hedge, such that if someone or something behaves contrary to its predictions, you can say that that was a system outside of the predictions of free will. It's easy to get 100% accuracy if you count the hits and ignore the misses.

With regard to "apples," the point is that "apple" is a high-level abstraction. Of course there are apples, as a high-level abstraction. But there are no fundamental apples. The universe behaves in such a way that apple-like things behave in an apple-like way 99.999% of the time, but sometimes, an apple just behaves like a bunch of atoms (in a non-apple-like manner).

In other words, high-level abstractions either provide an imperfectly accurate model, or are arbitrarily hedge to allow them to ignore their shortcomings.

>>9485723
>implying

>>9484558
https://youtu.be/EJsD-3jtXz0?t=30m

>>9486308
>no
>u

>>9485951

>It allows you to hedge, such that if someone or something behaves contrary to its predictions, you can say that that was a system outside of the predictions of free will

No, you HAVE to say this, because you cannot say a rock has free will. And because a rock doesn't have free will, you can't use this as proof to say "there's no free will".

>But there are no fundamental apples.

I agree with this, it's what I mean by "you can't define atoms in terms of apples"

>The universe behaves in such a way that apple-like things behave in an apple-like way 99.999% of the time

I think there is confusion on defining exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about apples, not "apple-like things", and apples are apples 100% of the time BY DEFINITION. If it is not behaving like an apple, then it is not an apple. Plain and simple. It is another question ENTIRELY to then ask "But do apples actually exist in this universe?" or "But does free will exist in this universe?"

(1/2)

>>9486411

(2/2)

>apple-like things behave in an apple-like way 99.999% of the time

I think there is a confusion here because an apple can, possibly, quantum-mechanically break itself into a million parts and no longer be an apple. This is no different than breaking the apple apart by hand. When you destroy the apple, it is no longer an apple, so it doesn't need to behave like an apple.

A TRUE contradiction, that would prove the 4D block of particles you are considering is not an apple, is if the underlying really did not represent an apple. If you had some kind of apple-shaped object in your hand, you might wonder if it is really an apple or an illusion. So you might smell it, and it smells like an apple. But when you crack it open, it is hollow and foul-smelling. As in, a God with perfect knowledge of the universe could look inside and see that the inside does not smell like an apple, therefore this object is not behaving like a apple, and therefore it is not an apple, but the illusion of an apple.

If a God with perfect knowledge was examining a different apple candidate, he would look to make sure that it behaves like an apple. "Behave" not denoting an action across time, but merely having the information. In order to be sure if it is an illusion or not, God would look at what it is made of. He would see a firm starchy material that seems to behave like an apple, but this could be an illusion because you can interact with something firm and starchy that does not behave like in apple upon closer examination of the cells (like a potato). So you examine the cells, but you have to make sure those cells are really made of chemicals and not an illusion. If God tests every test at all levels, and under all circumstances the tests the same as an apple would test, then therefore it is effectively an apple. And since it is effectively an apple under all tests that exist in this universe, then it IS literally an apple.

>>9486417
correction:
4D block of particles you are considering is not an apple, is if the underlying REALITY**** did not represent an apple

If God tests every test at all levels, and under all circumstances IT****** tests the same as an apple would test, then therefore it is effectively an apple

determinism is obviously and intuitively true
you literally can't refute an unbroken chain of causality dictating every event that occurs, which is the only event that could have occurred
>inb4 muh quantum
if God rolls dice telling particles what to do and you're a bunch of particles, there's still no free will

>>9486612
>if God rolls dice telling particles what to do and you're a bunch of particles, there's still no free will
Wrong.

>>9486669
explain

If the universe is determinate then can you explain this?

>>9486411
>>9486417
>>9486436
>apples are apples 100% of the time BY DEFINITION. If it is not behaving like an apple, then it is not an apple.

But then it's meaningless to talk about apples. I can define any arbitrary set of things to be "apples" and then everything in that set is an apple, by definition. Saying "there are apples" is nothing more than saying "there exists a set S" and saying "apples always behave like apples" is nothing more than saying "for every element x in set S, there exists an element in S that behaves like x." Of course there does--x is in S!

The problem is that the set "apples" is not connected with an explanation of "how apples behave 100% of the time." If you want to understand how an apple behaves *approximately*, you can get very accurate answers by setting out rules about how things in the set "apples" behave. But if you want to understand in perfect detail how an apple behaves, you must resort to a theory that does not use the set "apples," because the Standard Model (or whatever the real laws of physics are) has no term for apples, yet it provides a completely perfect description of how every possible element in the set "apples" behaves. Any theory that both explained how apples (and everything else) behaved and had a term for apples would have a strictly unnecessary term--"apples."

So it makes sense to talk about apples as an approximate model, and you are free to define the set of apples in any self-consistent way you want. But the definition is arbitrary and superfluous if you want to describe things with "100% accuracy." Likewise for free will. It is a superfluous term, but it provides a very useful category for making rough approximations of specific parts of the universe that are otherwise hard to predict precisely.

>>9482825
Free will is a meme. Nature and humanity all function according to laws. Read marx

How the FUCK do apples connect to free will?

>>9482825
Every single time
This is a question that involves science but is fundamentally a philosophical question

If the topic really interests you there are a shit ton of books about it already

>>9486786
Nothing. But sometimes something. Regardless, the ball had no choice in the matter and is having suicidal thoughts due to its lack of free will.

>>9482825
Both are fake. Determinism is approximately true, but not entirely (unless pilot waves and shit). Free will is fake because our minds and personalities are chosen by previous events out of our control, and as such our actions stem directly from these events which we have no control over.

>>9486786
It goes into a superposition of states, with uniform angular wavefunction density about the entire cone.

>>9486796
>But then it's meaningless to talk about apples.

You've gone off the deep end. Apples are a real thing, they come from trees, I've eaten one before. Unless you are saying that the definition of everything is arbitrary, in that case yes it is. But arbitrary is NOT the same thing as not being defined. The only thing that is not arbitrary is base reality. Any way you can interpret that reality without contradictions is equally valid, and equally arbitrary (if you are a pure-science nihilist). Arbitrary in an informational context, not in a human context where we place value on things.

>Saying "there are apples" is nothing more than saying "there exists a set S"

I hope by "there are" and "there exists", what you are really saying is that the definition of such things exists. Just defining something and having something actually exist in the world are two different things.

We can have a clear definition of what is and what is not X. X is a group of atoms/quantum fields arranged within a certain range of possibility we define. Let's define X as a "cube" made up of 8 atoms, within a certain size range. 8 atoms arranged in a small cube shape, with no other atoms close by. Does X actually exists in the universe? Maybe.

There is no approximation here. Something either is X or is not X, because we have a clear, atomically defined criteria for X.

(1/2)

>>9486960
(2/2)

>saying "apples always behave like apples" is nothing more than

We aren't interested in that, obviously. We are interested if apples actually exist in this world.

>The problem is that the set "apples" is not connected with an explanation of "how apples behave 100% of the time."

We can define an apple as a certain arrangement of molecules organized in a very narrow range of possibilities. This range of possible arrangements is much more complicated to explain than X. Out of all possible positions of atoms, only some of them are arranged in such a way that those can be considered apple cells, and those apple cells also have to be arranged in a way that matches one of the arrangements in the set/range of apple possibilities. This is an incredibly massive amount of information to define an apple in this way, in terms of the base universe, but the point is, there IS such a set of atomic arrangements that if something in the universe matches that set, it is an apple. And it has 100% accuracy.

And that is how all things are defined, as a certain arrangement of atoms that are configured in a qualifying way. The economy is just an arrangement of matter, that is all it can ever be because it exists in reality.

>Any theory that both explained how apples (and everything else) behaved and had a term for apples would have a strictly unnecessary term--"apples."

Unnecessary for a God, yes. Good insight. An abstraction always has LESS information than the underlying reality. If you already have all the information about the underlying reality, then you automatically have all the information that the apple Abstraction can give you. So it is not necessary in the slightest to describe the universe.

>>9486960
>>9486961
>You've gone off the deep end. Apples are a real thing, they come from trees, I've eaten one before.
Yes, apples exist, of course. But the point I was trying to make is that the set "apples" is better than most other sets because apples have certain common properties, and we can use those properties to make reasonably accurate (approximate) predictions. Otherwise we're talking about an arbitrary set, and I could just as easily say that apples* exist, where apples* is defined as containing all green apples, the moon, all up quarks, and every photon whose wavelength in nm is closer to a prime number than a non-prime. Surely apples* exists, but so what?

With respect to free will, certainly something like "people who behave like they are agents exercising free will" is a set that exists (the definition may be a little fuzzy, but so what). It might be an empty set if free will is defined IN a silly way, but reasonable definitions of what counts as free will will include at least some people in the set. Here, "free will" acts as a criterion for who is in the set (most people in, most apples out).

But why do we care? Only because "free will" provides a pretty good model of people's behavior. We know that the model will be imperfect--indeed, very imperfect. We also know there exists another model (physics) that is strictly superior, and explains literally everything, but lacks any reference to free will (other than implicitly, as it models minds of people who think about free will). So insofar as it is a meaningful idea, free will is an idea that is useful for making high-level predictions. Just like classical mechanics is useful for making high-level predictions. But both are fundamentally wrong, because there's a model that is uniformly both more precise and more accurate. (And that's OK! Simplified models are just fine! They're really useful! The real answer is mathematically intractable for us, anyway.)

>>9486983

Ok, now I'm thinking maybe free will IS an approximation. Free Will is a nonsensical concept in the same way classical physics is a nonsensical concept.

The set of "things that behave in a classical way" is zero. If you are talking absolutely, no approximations. There is a small bit of information contained in classical mechanics that is not in the universe, that's why the predictions never manifest with 100% accuracy in reality. An actual classical object is just a thought experiment, and the laws of it are thought experiment, that exist only in your head and nowhere in actual reality.

It's kinda like the idea of the unicorn, an idea off in it's own little space. The only difference is, classical mechanics approximates the world whereas unicorns do not.

If what humans have is just an approximation of free will, then the molecules of the universe are moving about in a pattern that has a very very close resemblance with free will, but on an absolute level, considering all the details, it is not free will.

Meaning what we experience at any given moment is a mix between free will and not-free-will. Like how you can say quantum mechanical objects behave in a mix between the disembodied idea of classical physics and behavior that is not-classical.

In a way, that almost makes more sense. Even in our experience of free will, at least for me, it never feels 100% free, I'm not saying "I'm so lazy lol I don't have free will", I'm considering just one instant of time. It's like at every instance in time, you are thinking one thing that you control, but your body is thinking another thing that you don't control, and these two things are necessarily intermixed with each other.

>>9487050
no no no... OR: what we experience IS exactly free will, therefore the Abstraction of our consciousness contains information that is non-real.

>>9482825
Go to /his/ or /lit/ faggot, they cocern themselves with irrelevant questions.

>>9483397


False equivalence goes in all fields.

>>9487082
t. (il)Logical Pos*tivist

>>9487088


This discussion really does not belong here, except for the purpose of weeding out humanities brainlets who LARP as mathematicians because they did a calculus 1 crash course.

>>9485153
If we have enough choices that not one person can accomplish all of them in one lifetime,why is free-will a spectrum?
It would seem that for all practically reasons,free will is infinite from the human perspective.

>>9487094
Philisophy is a 100 years ahead of science.

>>9485163
They couldn't have wanted otherwise. It's not about whether they had physical access to more pastries.


>>9485251
it is, even if you're too dumb to comprehend basic concepts

>>9485140
Determinism says nothing about any gods. It says our universe unfolds by immutable laws. Not that it's arranged moment to moment by something that is undetermined.

>>9485347
>If the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding
I like this sentence. It is good.

>>9487050
>Ok, now I'm thinking maybe free will IS an approximation. Free Will is a nonsensical concept in the same way classical physics is a nonsensical concept.

Yeah. In other words, it's a sensible concept. Very useful. A valuable tool that lets us understand a complicated system.

>Meaning what we experience at any given moment is a mix between free will and not-free-will. Like how you can say quantum mechanical objects behave in a mix between the disembodied idea of classical physics and behavior that is not-classical.

Kinda, but not quite. I mean, the true behavior of everything is solely quantum mechanical, but in the right limits, quantum mechanics makes predictions that are so close to classical mechanics, you're safe using the latter. Similarly, humans always behave in deterministic ways, just as rocks do. But unlike rocks, sometimes (often) our deterministic behavior is well-modeled by free will, whereas "free will" does an awful job predicting what a rock will do.

>If what humans have is just an approximation of free will, then the molecules of the universe are moving about in a pattern that has a very very close resemblance with free will, but on an absolute level, considering all the details, it is not free will.

That I would agree with.

>>9482825
Freedom of choice within a deterministic sandwich.

compatibilism or gtfo

>>9485153
I want to understand how free will can be a spectrum. Even if you only ever have one instance of free will, or can only partially influence your decisions, wouldn't that just be "free will = 1"? Brainlet here just asking, not trying to troll.

>>9482825
>Free willl vs. determinism
I see no reason why these two concepts should be mutually contradicting. I can make a decision (i.e. exercise free will) in a deterministic way. Where is the conflict?

>>9488105
i l l u s i o n

>>9488110
How so? What makes you think that?

>>9488150
making decisions in a deterministic way isn't "true" free will because you didn't really make a decision, it was all predestined like a recording

>>9488389
It was all predestined that you made that decision, yes. But why would that mean that you didn't make it?

>>9488515
because by making a decision you're determining something yourself but if everything is predetermined you haven't determined anything
this isn't tangible in any way, every decision still behaves like a decision in the normal sense, just like Newtonian mechanics work at non-relativistic speeds

Holy fuck you group of massive faggots, define your terms. What do you mean by "decision," or "free," or "determined?"

>Free will is just a useful tool

Just because something is useful for making predictions, doesn't mean that you can inherently derive this tool from the world. If a God was looking at the universe, he wouldn't be able to interpret it in classical terms unless he added information that wasn't already there. Things like baseballs that can travel faster than the speed of light, and more utter nonsense that is just plucked out of thin air. And since you are adding information, there are an infinite number of approximations you can make of the high-level physics of the world.

You could say that women have snakes inside them, and in order to tame snakes you have to play music. This is a very useful concept, because women were evolved to pick mates with good hearing, and as a "tell" of good hearing, they are attracted to men with good taste in music and good ability with a musical instrument.

So this idea can be used as a useful tool in picking up women. But do women actually have snakes in them? No, this is a nonsense to the highest degree.

Similarly, are real objects in the real world actually able to divide themselves into an infinite number infinitesimally small parts like classical physics says they can? If you shine a flashlight from on top of a car going 50 miles an hour, then is the light from a flashlight on the ground going 50 mph less? No, that is nonsense to the highest degree.

Free Will is nonsense, it's only useful to humans (which are arbitrary) in a specific arbitrary context where free will can be applied. It doesn't even mean anything, because the idea itself contradicts itself.

>>9488529
>because by making a decision you're determining something yourself but if everything is predetermined you haven't determined anything
Yes you have. You are part of predestined physics. Thus, the decision is both made by you and by predestined physics.

Is it not a case of a decision being made EITHER by me OR by predestiny, the way a decision that is mine can therefore not be yours. I am part of the predestiny. The decision is made by predestiny, in the form of the specific part of it called "me".

>>9488562
>"decision"

A decision is made when a "consciousness" considers a set of possible options for the future, and one of those options is chosen as physical action based on what the consciousness thinks the consequences of those options will be.

>"consciousness"

A conscious object is an object that not only stores the information about the object, but sense the storing of information is also a part of the object, the object is also storing information about itself storing information about itself storing information about itself ad infinitum.

>"free"

Determined by consciousness.

>"determined"

An action is determined by another action if the two could not possibly exist separately.

One act of consciousness determines another. Since the next thought is based on the previous thought, this satisfies the criteria that the consciousness is making a decision.

One physical action in the world will determine another. The universe is a static, 4 dimensional space-time block. Everything has already happened and the universe is dead. You could say that the whole universe only lasted an instant.

>>9488665
>sense

*since

>>9483332
Beyond past and future, there is the present. Realise the present, be transcendent. Beyond conditioning.

>>9484409
Unrealised eternal potential

>>9484759
Because there are no beginnings or ends, this is a dream, within a dream... Forever mind. Maybe..

>>9488665
The universe didn't last an instant, it's conception was already determined.

>>9486801
Like sanatana dharma, but diversity is important too - which is where our freewill lies, within the creative force to alter our destiny and the world around us. So freewill is real, but control is a delusion.

>>9482827
its like Gender

>>9482841
Yet....

>>9483332
The only problem is that the universe isn't deterministic.

>>9486786
It stays on top of the cone

At any point in time there is literally either a Free Will vs. Determinism thread on /sci/, /lit/, or /his/.

The answer is obviously we cannot live in a reality where the immaterial is materially defined, so determinism is objectively false.

>>9486786
>>9486917
>>9495870

>plebs calling half of an elliptical spheroid a cone

lel

>>9495897
>immaterial
Leave religion out of this.

>>9495912
I just said immaterial. Nothing about religion.

Are you saying that there is nothing immaterially defined and objectively observed? That all there is to reality is what we observe?

>>9495921
>Are you saying that there is nothing immaterially defined and objectively observed?
I'm saying that nothing can be immaterial and exist at the same time.
>That all there is to reality is what we observe?
I swear, its like you ripped that straight out of a bible or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lks1MfZ8gQU

Thoughts?

>>9484998
Or, all possible paths converge to one path eventually.

>>9483332
>Since the brain is equivalent to a enourmosly complex but automaton

This is false, automatons don't have consciousness or self-awareness. That you would make this claim without supporting or even inspecting it shows that you don't care about your own shitty argument. Moreover this premise is the same thing that you are trying to claim, making your argument circular.

In conclusion you aren't going to convince anyone with this horse shit argument.

>>9495941
>I'm saying that nothing can be immaterial and exist at the same time.

What about language? Your self is a story, comprised of memories, your model of your character, desires, dreams etc. "You" are constructed wholly out of language. You do not exist as a material entity.

>>9496194
Are you trying to assert that all of those are immaterial because they're too complex for you to comprehend in a material way? Or because you just want something to argue about?

>>9482825
test

>>9495661
So there's only two of them

Anyone who believes in free will is an idiot at worst and a deluded wishful thinker at best. The brain is a classical system that obeys causality. Free will is an absurdity incompatible with this fact. By proposing free will, you are proposing some form of fantasy magic, whether you realize it or not.

>>9496288
>magic
Take the word magician, or mage. Which is related to sage, or wisdom. And also related to genie or genius. There is the ability to harness the magical generational creative powers of the present moment to alter the time flow of reality. You are the creative force. The genie within...

>>9496288
I bet you have taken very little responsibility in your life.

>>9488593
>It doesn't even mean anything, because the idea itself contradicts itself.
Only if you use a retarded definition. Free will is the ability of an agent with self awareness to freely choose any course of action available to them at any time. That's it. You can do that, can't you? Then you have free will. It's that simple

>>9496702
kek the ad hominem is so strong

>>9496717
Not fallacy, likely to be true. go find a bunch of people, split them into two groups- those who believe in freewill and those that dont. Then ask the same people if they feel responsible for the happenings in their lives. Then ask them again what influence does their mindset have on their outcomes. Many people think freedom is the opposite to responsibility, but they are firmly intertwined.

>>9496752
doesn't make it not ad hominem

>>9496757
I am dealing with the issue at hand, human existence + freewill and determinism, it is beyond the individual, so its not ad hominem. I shouldn't have used "you", because it applies to many. But examine people around you with the points i made and see what you discover.

>>9482825
Both.
Time doesn't exist, you are locked into a determined course, that you yourself set before the universe was created. The future is inescapable and intentional.

>>9497059
>>9496752
>>9496702
Anyone who "takes responsibility" is low IQ. Even if you ignore the non-existence of free will 99.99% of the course of your life is determined by genetics and parenting. There's no responsibility to be taken.

>>9485153
i agree, it is completely possible for some alien 100x times smarter than us to consider our actions to be totally predictable, hence appears to not have free will

>>9484578
top right and bottom left make 0 sense

i guess you can make a case for bottom left if quantum shit is truly random but still, unlikely

>>9484409
Infinite possibility for something rather than nothing.

Given infinite time and infinite space, something appeared out of nothing.

>>9497690
>top right and bottom left make 0 sense
Why?

>>9498753
>Infinite possibility
This is a meaningless notion.

>>9495870
>He thinks it stays on top of the cone
lol, it can arbitrarily decide to fall down with no outside forces acting on it and it can do so at any point in time, whether that be this minute or in a billion years.

>>9497277
Lol ok, meanwhile others are pushing their development and possibilities, by taking responsibility

>>9498812
Well what is eternal, without cause, beyond space and time & more? There is something, because nothing is still something. The universe/entirety cannot be nothing. And that something, has the potential to be many things. But what are they? Unchanging? Maybe. Infinite? In some ways, maybe