superdeterminism is the only way forward

[Anonymous No.15431211]

it's time to give up on the childish fantasy of 'free will'.

[Anonymous No.15431214]

Yeah well I designed ultradeterminism which is super demonism + global causality. Get fucked.

[Anonymous No.15431226]

>>15431211
>free will
what is that, exactly?

[Anonymous No.15431230]

>>15431226
The idea that OP is causally and morally responsible for his retarded post.

[Anonymous No.15431231]

>>15431226
the ability to have done otherwise. aka pure fantasy.

[Anonymous No.15431233]

>>15431211
Why is that woman talking?

[Anonymous No.15431235]

>>15431230
what does it mean to be responsible for something, exactly?
>>15431231
how exactly do you disprove that someone has the ability to have done otherwise? It seems to be an unfalsifiable an impractical notion. I don’t understand it

[Anonymous No.15431237]

>>15431231
A pure fantasy that people can't help to have because we're determined to have it, according to you. But you can't help but think you're better for believing you have no will, because you have no will either.

Personally, I just assume anyone who doesn't believe in free will is an NPC. It's what they want, afterall.

[Anonymous No.15431246]

"no free will" is a rebranding of the new age mantra "everybody is doing the best they can at any given time, including me".

[Aubrey De Gray No.15431253]

>>15431211
didn't read
>inb4 this thread gets saged beause someone out of their own volition decided to not bump or even better the mods took it down for twitterposting

[Anonymous No.15431256]

>>15431233
because she knows better than 99% of her male peers.

[Anonymous No.15431257]

>>15431235
>how exactly do you disprove that someone has the ability to have done otherwise?
you can't. it's still correct though (that we lack such an ability).

[Anonymous No.15431259]

>>15431237
you will never be free, bug.

[Anonymous No.15431261]

>>15431211
Some arguments for free will from a quantum mechanical perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

[Anonymous No.15431285]

>>15431261
complete rubbish. superdeterminism is the only correct approach.

[Anonymous No.15431303]

>>15431211
If I have no choice, how do I give up on it?

[Anonymous No.15431306]

>>15431211
I was predetermined to not accept this. I was also predetermined to not trust ugly people, meaning your words and the words of that ugly "woman" have no effect on me.

[Anonymous No.15431310]

>>15431257
Why should I believe that soience?

[Anonymous No.15431322]

>>15431211
The problem with Local Causality and Statistical Independence and General Relativity is that they violate the law of Faith.

[Anonymous No.15431323]

>>15431303
you can't choose to. you're still gay for believing in it though.

[Anonymous No.15431327]

>>15431310
because it's true.

[Anonymous No.15431328]

>>15431211
Cool, I am gonna jack off to the thouhht that nothing could have stopped me from jacking off. It's like the universe if forcibly giving me a handjob

[Anonymous No.15431331]

[math]\textbf{LOCAL}\\
\text{integer derivatives are }\textbf{LOCAL}\text{ operators}\\
\text{but}\\
\text{fractional derivatives are }\textbf{NON}\text{-local operators}\\[/math]

https://youtu.be/2dwQUUDt5Is?t=985s

[Anonymous No.15431335]

>>15431328
Hot

[Anonymous No.15431338]

>>15431327
the problem is everyone thinks the universe is some kind of playground for god and that god has access to the "source" code for the sandbox. but everyone knows that the halting problem is unsolvable so even if the universe is deterministic, superdeterministic, or whatever else you want to believe there is fundamentally no way to predict the future. no one has a crystal ball and no one will ever have one so all physical theories are an approximation of reality. physics works for ballistic trajectories but it doesn't work for anything else because there is no such thing as a theory of everything and there never will be such a theory.

[Anonymous No.15431354]

>>15431331
gibberish.

[Anonymous No.15431358]

>>15431338
>everyone thinks the universe is some kind of playground for god and that god has access to the "source" code for the sandbox
of course he does. if he didn't, then he wouldn't be any kind of god.

>there is fundamentally no way to predict the future
and?

>there never will be such a theory
says you.

[Anonymous No.15431387]

My free will is an irrefutable fact.

[Anonymous No.15431406]

>>15431387
>i could have done otherwise
proof?

[Anonymous No.15431410]

It does not violate free will. You simply formed your will before the universe came into existence. And now you follow it and you observe any maybe tell yourself "muh free will" because you lack any will to think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.15431424]

>>15431410
>It does not violate free will
superdeterminism? yes it does, overtly.

>You simply formed your will before the universe came into existence
absurd fairy tale.

[Anonymous No.15431443]

>>15431235
>what does it mean to be responsible for something, exactly?
You do a cause, you suffer the results of the effect.

[Anonymous No.15431692]

>>15431235
This is the essential question of quantum mechanics. Does there exist the possibility for something else to have happened (fundamentally)?

I say god doesn't roll dice.

[Monadas No.15431696]

>>15431338
Only if the church-turing thesis holds true. (But these are thoughts for the far future which we may need to continually test empirically (popper won over mathematics finally))

[Anonymous No.15431716]

>>15431211
I don't get it. Why would anyone argue against free will? If you are right, you achieved absolutely nothing and if you are wrong, it would be the most idiotic position to take.

[Anonymous No.15431727]

>>15431692
Midwit detected

[Anonymous No.15431737]

>>15431716
Bro, the truth seeker doesn't need copium.

We want the cold truth not le free will

[Anonymous No.15431744]

>>15431737
If you are certain you do not have free will, why do you not take the most efficient action and do and say nothing? What would you achieve otherwise?

[Anonymous No.15431824]

>>15431744
You don’t have to be certain if it. You only need to be slightly skeptical, and observe that ‘will’ is not associated with freedom. Choice is not freedom, it is uncertainty. Just break it down logically, forget the physics, and it’s clear that free will is some sort of bizarre catholic tradition allowing one to burn others alive for their own good

[Anonymous No.15431829]

>>15431824
You didn't answer his question.

[Anonymous No.15431834]

>>15431824
>free will is some sort of bizarre catholic tradition allowing one to burn others alive for their own good
If free will doesn't exist then no such justification is necessary so why create it?

[Anonymous No.15431835]

>>15431829
God’s will has me typing. Not having free will does not mean I don’t have desires, it does not mean I should do nothing

[Anonymous No.15431838]

>>15431834
So I can justify burning you alive for your own salvation

[Anonymous No.15431842]

>>15431410
close
when you make a choice
that decision goes back in time to the Beginning and changes the initial state of the universe to make your decision "determined" by for ex changing the value of Planck's constant a bit.
it's actually more complicated than this (where the initial state isn't precisely defined (not just epistemically but ontologically) and your decisions force the initial state to become more and more precise.

[Anonymous No.15431844]

>>15431838
If you don't believe in free will, then you need no justification for any action. The fact that you're still talking about justifications belies the strength of your faith.

[Anonymous No.15431845]

>>15431406
if you didn't choose to ask that why should your question be taken seriously?

[Anonymous No.15431849]

>>15431844
Free will specifically implied that I am independent from my actions. It has nothing to do with logos or tricking others, or creating systems of justice

[Anonymous No.15431852]

>>15431211
There's no avoiding the experience of free will for any sentient being with a limited perceptual scope, however hard one may try. It matters not that one is physically incapable of acting otherwise, only that one had to make a decision from a limited perspective. Only omniscient gods and Laplace demons lack free will.

[Anonymous No.15431862]

>>15431849
actually, free will says your specific decision is independent from the environment.
your decision is contingent on only you.


you also misunderstood that anon's reply to you:
if you don't believe in free will, then why do you seek justification from others? you betray your larp when you still treat humans as agents who should justify their behavior to you

a true denier of free will doesn't behave like you; he especially wouldn't shill for free will denialism, for one.

[Anonymous No.15431865]

>>15431852
This is just called uncertainty/ignorance. Why do you associate free will with this. Is it so you can punish others who wrong?

[Anonymous No.15431867]

>>15431862
>decision
Semantics. Action is simply a decision that can be observed. I no longer consider you to have good faith so I did not read further

[Anonymous No.15431869]

>>15431852
God has free will
He literally instantiated all the rules so even if He holds Himself to them He does so willingly.
you don't need non-omniscience to have free will since knowledge doesn't violate free will (contrary to midwit notions)

[Anonymous No.15431873]

>>15431867
actually, free will says your specific
action is independent from the environment.
your action is contingent on only you.


you also misunderstood that anon's reply to you:
if you don't believe in free will, then why do you seek justification from others? you betray your larp when you still treat humans as agents who should justify their actions to you

a true denier of free will doesn't act like you; he especially wouldn't shill for free will denialism, for one.

[Anonymous No.15431878]

>>15431865
>Is it so you can punish others who wrong?
Do you have something you would like to tell the class, anon?

[Anonymous No.15431883]

Locality is literally debunked so these tweets did not age well

[Anonymous No.15431884]

>>15431873
>your action is contingent on only you.
This is what I meant, yes. But funnily enough you can invert it and it’s equally as ridiculous.
> a true denier of free will doesn't act like you; he especially wouldn't shill for free will denialism, for one.
You feel good writing this? It’s complete nonsense to me

[Anonymous No.15431888]

>>15431873
>you also misunderstood that anon's reply to you:
>if you don't believe in free will, then why do you seek justification from others? you betray your larp when you still treat humans as agents who should justify their actions to you
Oh and this is called game theory. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It doesn’t require free will

[Anonymous No.15431893]

>>15431884
>>15431888
do you think solipsism is wrong?

[Anonymous No.15431896]

>>15431862
>>15431884
It's very poorly worded, but what they're failing to say is this:
If free will does not exist then in a metaphysical sense humans cannot be truly responsible for their own actions, and if this is the case it does not seem rational to, for example, punish a criminal.

This is retarded, as even if you take it as a given that human actions are deterministic there are non-metaphysical reasons behind things like punishment.

Their confusion comes from a murky and conflated definition of choice. When we describe something legally as a "free choice" we mean that it is an action the person desired and not one they were forced to take under duress or coercion. We do not mean it has a metaphysical property that defies determinism.

[Anonymous No.15431898]

>>15431893
50/50
We are quite possibly in a dream or simulation

[Anonymous No.15431904]

>>15431896
>punish
What do you mean by punish.
I’m all for separating criminals from non criminals, but also I don’t see them as evil. Sorry
I see them as being dealt a bad hand. So in a sense, no they are not responsible as hard as that is to grasp for the endoctrinated

[Anonymous No.15431909]

>>15431904
>What do you mean by punish
How is that confusing?
If someone commits murder we put them in a cell to stop them murdering and disincentivize more murders. This is not because they are metaphysically special or objectively evil (there's no such thing), but because it appears to be in our own self-interest.
>You just don't get it bro you're indoctrinated
I literally just explained that yes, in a metaphysical sense they are not responsible for their actions. They don't have to be to justify imprisonment.
>I'm all for separating criminals from non criminals
Then you agree...

[Anonymous No.15431912]

>>15431909
Ok so we agree then.
To some people, punish means, as a prior example, justified burning a criminal alive. In fact I believe the origins of free will are created for this justification

[Anonymous No.15431920]

>>15431235
>p1: out of any possible options, you choose the option you most want to do
>p2: what you most want to do must ultimately be determined by what you cannot control
>C: options you choose are determined by that which you cannot control
The reason p2 is true is because if you can control what you want to do, you must also want to do that action. So to prevent infinite recursion of desires there must be a base uncontrollable desire that determines all decisions

[Anonymous No.15431924]

>>15431898
if you're in a dream then your actions are solely determined by you.

[Anonymous No.15431929]

>>15431920
that doesn't follow
you can have an infinite recursion of desires

[Anonymous No.15431933]

>>15431929
>you can have an infinite recursion of desires
An infinite recursion in this scenario would make decisions literally impossible

[Anonymous No.15431968]

>>15431924
Sure, I will grant you, if I’m god then everything is my will (lmao)

[Anonymous No.15431972]

>>15431211
>physicists: philosophy is DUMB and STUPID and NOT A REAL SCIENCE
>10 seconds later
>physicists: here are my very strong philosophical views on a variety of subjects and if you disagree you're wrong I will not debate these views

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.15431973]

>>15431869
An omniscient god already knows everything he is going to do, and thus has no free will.

[Anonymous No.15431979]

>>15431835
I agree with you but you reference God and desire.
What is their cause? Do you want causality or not?

[Anonymous No.15431985]

>>15431865
Because some degree of ignorance is required for free will, but it's a degree possessed by all human beings. Punishment is deterrent and/or corrective, to discourage incorrect behavior. Deterrents are often sufficient to prevent undesired behavior, whether you deny free will or not.

[Anonymous No.15431996]

>>15431920
>So to prevent infinite recursion of desires there must be a base uncontrollable desire that determines all decisions
But what if that desire is rationally accepted? For example, what if this desire is the will to power? The desire to be always stronger? No one would want to give up such a desire. If we were “free” to reject such a desire, why would we? I think freedom consists in adhering to this desire and manifesting our essence as best as we can. Otherwise freedom just means non-action, non-identity, non-existence.

[Anonymous No.15431999]

>>15431996
Cool word salad

[Anonymous No.15432008]

>>15431999
All you need to know is that following your desire is not an issue if you believe the desire is good for you. And so the presence or absence of “free will” would be irrelevant. A strong will is practically indistinguishable from a free will. Of course those with weak wills are more likely to reject the notion of free will, because they perceive its absence the most, and crave it.

[Anonymous No.15432024]

>>15431979
The question is there one initial cause, like a fractal and we are part of that. Or if there is “randomness” and cause is an illusion. Of course I follow the former, logically

[Anonymous No.15432036]

>>15432024
So it is possible for causality to be violated only once but never again? Can you explain the logic behind this?

[Anonymous No.15432037]

>>15432008
>A strong will is practically indistinguishable from a free will.
A strong will is just that. There is nothing free about it. You blindly bring in a concept without understanding what you’re saying

[Anonymous No.15432042]

>>15432036
There was an initial act, God’s will. And every other action stems from that initial act. I can’t explain much ally

[Anonymous No.15432043]

>>15432036
Causality is a property of the universe
You cannot invoke causality for the creation of the universe

[Anonymous No.15432047]

>>15432037
If the strong will is your most fundamental and cherished will, then it dominates all other possible wills, and you control your choices more than others do. You do exactly what you want to do. This is the closest to freedom you can get while also still having desires. But “freedom” isn’t exactly the end, anyway. The real goal is power.

[Anonymous No.15432053]

>>15432047
See you even agree you’re talking about power and not freedom. You don’t know what freedom is

[Anonymous No.15432055]

>>15432053
true freedom is non-existence, which is lame

[Anonymous No.15432060]

>>15432055
Try again

[Anonymous No.15432065]

>>15432053
>>15432055
Also, freedom does not last because it is free to constrain itself. A universe with no laws will eventually be bound by laws. We have wills because this is the best way to ensure our existence. It is just the process of evolution. The freest beings die off. The most powerful live on.

[Anonymous No.15432070]

>>15432043
I can agree with that, but does that not apply to logic too?

[Anonymous No.15432079]

>>15432070
Yes.
You cannot assume that logic or causality or time or space have any meaning outside of this universe. This is why the first cause argument fails a priori.

[Anonymous No.15432094]

Sabine is just another pop-sci grifter.
If you actually watch her FTL vid you see there's zero content, just clickbait.

[Anonymous No.15432101]

>>15432065
Sounds like you too are skeptical of free will

[Anonymous No.15432142]

>>15432079
It was all in reference to this post >>15431835. If the justification for your action is God, who does not adhere to logical systems, then you cannot argue that your action is logical. If you don't want logic or causality, why argue for determinism? If you do, why don't you do nothing?

[Anonymous No.15432159]

>>15432142
God created the universe which adheres to very observable causal laws. This is all logical to follow. You are asking what came before the universe, which nobody can know

[Anonymous No.15432161]

>>15431973
>God doesn't know how to have free will
>your prior knowledge of your decision makes that decision externally determined
>knowledge is causally prior to decision

[Anonymous No.15432165]

>>15431968
you said you believe you're in a dream
that means you believe there's no external determination of your decisions

your laugh at the absurdity means you don't actually believe what you say you believe, because when you're confronted with a necessary implication of your stated beliefs you treat it as an absurdity
so stop larping

[Anonymous No.15432167]

>>15432165
I don’t believe, but it’s not impossible.
Something came here, seemingly out of nothing. It sounds like a dream to me, but that would be absurd, wouldn’t it? It’s funny

[Anonymous No.15432172]

>>15431933
do you also think the arrow in Zeno's Paradox never reaches its target just because there's a geometric infinite regress?
just because there's an infinite regress it doesn't mean distances can't be crossed, or decisions made.
you also assume you're currently at the end of the infinite decision regress, when that's not necessarily the case. (eg you'll be making decisions in the future whose regress you're currently going through)

[Anonymous No.15432179]

>>15431716
>I don't get it. Why would anyone argue against free will?
because it doesn't exist.

>If you are right, you achieved absolutely nothing
false - i will have been correct about nature, which is obviously important.

[Anonymous No.15432184]

>>15432167
if you believe it's possible that you live in a dream, then you believe it's possible that there's zero external determination of your decisions.
>something out of nothing
so you belive there's "nothing" externally determining your decisions since you think your world came out of "nothing".

[Anonymous No.15432189]

>>15431852
>There's no avoiding the experience of free will for any sentient being with a limited perceptual scope, however hard one may try
yes there is, nobody experiences the ability to have done otherwise.

>It matters not that one is physically incapable of acting otherwise
it matters a lot, because that's how we're defining free will here.

>Only omniscient gods and Laplace demons lack free will.
only gods could reasonably have free will as they could transcend time.

[Anonymous No.15432190]

>>15431883
she literally made those tweets yesterday. locality isn't debunked. please educate yourself

[Anonymous No.15432194]

>>15432179
>if free will is wrong, then "I am correct"
shouldn't you rephrase and say "the environment determined a belief in a brain and the determined brain is not responsible for holding the correct belief"?
you talk like you did something to be proud of, when your very own belief implies zero credit to you holding your belief.

>I'm right about nature
are you nature? even if nature locked free will does that mean you do? also why do you speak like there's a "you" and a "nature"? if your belief about nature implies certain things about you, then why the distinction in your rhetoric?

>it's important
what is important about denying free will? if you're right, you gain nothing. if you're wrong, you lose everything.

>>15431716
it's a pre-cope because we will all be judged by God. those who deny their own agency are trying to steel themselves so that they won't feel guilty when Jesus comes.

[Anonymous No.15432197]

>>15432189
>nobody experiences the ability to have done otherwise.
you mean YOU don't experience it
there ane many mystics who have seen visions of counterfactual timelines.

[Anonymous No.15432201]

>>15432189
>it matters a lot, because that's how we're defining free will here.
Defining free will as the ability to defy physics seems counter productive. It's the ability to make decisions, which you not only have, but cannot avoid. It doesn't matter that all things are ultimately inevitable. From your limited perspective, you have free will.

[Anonymous No.15432205]

>>15432194
>shouldn't you rephrase and say "the environment determined a belief in a brain and the determined brain is not responsible for holding the correct belief"? you talk like you did something to be proud of, when your very own belief implies zero credit to you holding your belief.
no. being correct is irrelevant to who or what is responsible for that correctness.

>are you nature?
a part of it.

>even if nature locked free will does that mean you do?
no. i don't call the shots. if i did then this planet would be very different. i can assure you that.

>also why do you speak like there's a "you" and a "nature"?
powerful sense of self. that's different from any sense of free will (which I don't have).

[Anonymous No.15432208]

>>15432197
nobody experiences it. those who claim they do, are dreaming it (we know dreams are just fake; that's what makes them dreams) or just delusional.

[Anonymous No.15432212]

>>15432201
>Defining free will as the ability to defy physics seems counter productive.
it's the only kind of free will i would ever care about.

>It's the ability to make decisions
too vague; we would need to define what a decision is. but anyway no one can stop you defining it this way, but I won't be doing so.

>From your limited perspective, you have free will.
no.

[Anonymous No.15432215]

>>15432205
I have free will.
I am responsible for that correctness.

[Anonymous No.15432216]

>>15432208
if you didn't choose to say that, why should I take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.15432218]

>>15432215
you can believe that but it's false.

[Anonymous No.15432221]

>>15432216
i know you like to keep parroting this line as a trolling technique but it's gotten a bit stale my friend. anyway i don't care if you take it seriously or not. it doesn't change the facts.

[Anonymous No.15432229]

>>15432212
>>15432201
free will is the ability to choose without external causes.
that said, even if physics is consistent with a choice, it doesn't necessarily mean that physics caused that choice (see: Idealism)
also, because of the limits of physical fidelity (planck length, etc), both presented choices will appear to be physically consistent, until the specific choice has been made.
even if you scanned a brain to the planck length and analyzed it, you won't be able to predict that system's behavior past its Lyapunov Time.

[Anonymous No.15432232]

>>15432218
>you can
No, you mean
>you must

Every single fucking time. No one lives or even talks as if determinism is true, even while trying to promote the idea of determinism.

[Anonymous No.15432233]

>>15432229
>free will is the ability to choose without external causes.
Who defines it that way?

[Anonymous No.15432236]

>>15432221
>>15432218
if you didn't choose to say that, why should I take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.15432238]

>>15432233
who asks about definitions that way?

[Anonymous No.15432239]

>>15432229
>free will is the ability to choose without external causes
if you define it that way (i don't), then we would still not have free will.

[Anonymous No.15432240]

>>15432239
if you didn't choose to say that, why should I take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.15432243]

>>15431211
Deterministic interactions are the only logical way forward.
>but muh free will!!!
As N goes to infinity the distinction between a deterministic but highly nonlinear system and free will become indistinguishable. Your will is as free or not free as you believe it to be.

[Anonymous No.15432244]

>>15432232
i'm allowed to use that phrase. the way i used it doesn't contradict determinism.

[Anonymous No.15432255]

>>15432243
no, you're only confusing matters. the distinction is clear.

>Your will is as free or not free as you believe it to be.
false. there is a fact of the matter, of how real/possible counterfactual lines were. and the fact is they were always impossible.

[Anonymous No.15432257]

>>15432243
>God won't find me guilty if I believe my agency away hard enough.

[Anonymous No.15432259]

>>15432212
>[defying physics is] the only kind of free will i would ever care about.
Well that's just childish. Just because you can't fly under your own power doesn't mean you aren't saddled with free will. You experience the decision making process as free will, from your own perspective, and from the perspective of those around you.

[Anonymous No.15432261]

>>15432229
>free will is the ability to choose without external causes.
Nothing happens without external causes, so that's neither here nor there.

[Anonymous No.15432265]

>>15432261
my choices happen without externas causes

[Anonymous No.15432269]

>>15432259
you're obviously strawmanning when you say "defying physics". that's not my wording.

>Just because you can't fly under your own power doesn't mean you aren't saddled with free will.
the ability to (have flown) is an ambitious counterfactual. but we don't even have the ability to have done ordinary boring things. that's how limited and unfree we really are.

>You experience the decision making process as free will
I don't experience any ability to have behaved otherwise. i may consider multiple options, but this is a completely different phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.15432274]

>>15432255
then you need to explain how the electron is affected by a possible path that it neven went through.

[Anonymous No.15432275]

>>15432269
>I don't experience any ability to have behaved otherwise. i may consider multiple options, but this is a completely different phenomenon.
While you might be an NPC, we have cognition and agency. Don't try to force your disability on everyone else.

[Anonymous No.15432287]

>>15432274
that doesn't happen with a single electron. you only get a wave pattern if you use multiple electrons building up, and this is obviously because the electrons are landing in variable places oj the screen.

[Anonymous No.15432294]

>>15432287
Experiment has been done firing single electrons. The interference pattern still appears.

[Anonymous No.15432295]

>>15432275
>we have cognition
yes, i can agree that "we think".

>and agency.
depending on how you define it.

>Don't try to force your disability on everyone else.
if i'm not free, then neither are you. sorry.

[Anonymous No.15432298]

>>15432232
You literally can't live or talk as if determinism is true. Because determinism does not prescribe a way to live, only gives a description of what the world is like
You may be confusing determinism with nihilism but those two have no necessary connection (you can be a non-determinist nihilist or a non-nihilist determinist

[Anonymous No.15432299]

>>15432287
you're confused
while the famous fringe pattern does require many electrons to be emitted and detected, that's not the point.
a single electron will still behave fringelike. it will appear as the only point on the detector screen, but its position will correspond to having been affected by its counterfactual path through the other slit.

[Anonymous No.15432303]

>>15432295
Actually, I have free will.
And if I do, then so do you.
have fun at Judgement.

[Anonymous No.15432305]

>>15432298
>you MAY be ...
there it is again
clear larp

[Anonymous No.15432306]

>>15432172
Zeno's paradox includes increasingly small divisions of space which make a convergent sum that adds to a finite number, allowing for it to occur within finite time. The regress of decisions would not be convergent, since each action is equivalent and therefore the infinite sum of the series goes to infinity, and thus cannot be done in the finite.

[Anonymous No.15432307]

>>15432294
I can't find any sources making such a claim. but let's say that's true. it would say nothing about counterfactuals. all it would mean is that single electrons are wave-like in some strange way.

[Anonymous No.15432313]

>>15432299
>its position will correspond to having been affected by its counterfactual path through the other slit.
false conclusion. in what way would it have been influenced by the other path? that's just a made up idea.

[Anonymous No.15432315]

>>15432306
>each action is equivalent
that's your opinion
an infinite number of actions doesn't necessarily require an infinite amount of time

[Anonymous No.15432317]

>>15432305
>may
Means I do not have sufficient evidence to know. Does not affect determinism at all. My own capability to learn the necessary information to predict your actions has no bearing on the conclusions I would be able to make with that information. And the same for this post
Uncertainty comes from lack of information, not lack of determination

[bodhi No.15432319]

sabine is hag

you dress in drag

you think you are woman but you are really just a fag

[Anonymous No.15432320]

>>15432265
Without external causes, you wouldn't even have any choices to make, and all your choices are influenced by external causes, past and present.

>>15432269
>you're obviously strawmanning when you say "defying physics". that's not my wording.
Reminder that yonder >>15432212 you claimed that the ability to defy physics is the only kind of free will you would ever care about. There's nothing supernatural about the experience of free will, beyond consciousness itself.

[Anonymous No.15432326]

>>15432313
in the way that you reject: that possiblity is real, and even has causal effect on the actual.
because the electron could have gone through the other slit, it interferes with its counterfactual self and results in landing in a different spot on the detector screen (usually to the side more).
conversely, when the electron couldn't have gone through the other slit (since it was detected at the slit) then it doesn't interfere with its counterfactual self and keeps going straight.

since you're having a tough time here I'll give a clearer real life example (picrel)

[Anonymous No.15432327]

>>15432315
But for the type of actions we are referring to it does take an infinite amount of time, since in the cases where it doesn't take an infinite amount of time the infinite sum of the times converges to a finite number.
Before replying to this post, touch an infinite number of blades of grass, since apparently you think this is possible in a finite amount of time.

[Anonymous No.15432328]

>>15432317
>my own capability
lol there it is again
stop larping

[Anonymous No.15432330]

>>15432320
>you claimed that the ability to defy physics is the only kind of free will you would ever care about
i went with it because i wanted to skip past the silly strawman and have some kind of discussion. i already stated how i define it earlier, so it's on you to be consistent with that.

>There's nothing supernatural about the experience of free will
having done otherwise is squarely supernatural. or a better word than supernatural would be simply; false.

[Anonymous No.15432332]

>>15432327
is touching half a blade of grass not an action?

[Anonymous No.15432333]

>>15432326
>it interferes with its counterfactual self
this has never been observed; it is not really what's happening.

sabine has already addressed the EV bomb tester in the context of superdeterminism. all it shows is that what particles do depend on measurements which will take place on them.

[Anonymous No.15432335]

>>15432332
Sure it is. It would take the same amount of time though, if not longer because it would be lower to the ground. Also not what was asked

[Anonymous No.15432337]

>>15431211
So closed systems are a fantasy? Interesting.

[Anonymous No.15432338]

>>15432307
no, electrons only behave wavelike in certain circumstances, when they are presented with multiple physically possible paths.
this means the wavelike property of electrons is caused by possiblities having an effect on the actual (note: this doesn't require modal realism)
when the electron is constrained to few possible positions it behaves less wavelike (eg, at detection)

[Anonymous No.15432346]

>>15432287
You get an interference pattern whether you fire one particle at a time, or a bunch at once. The only time you don't get an interference pattern is if you have a detector at the slit, and record which slit the particle went through.

Not that I'm a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation, but be aware of the issue at hand.

[Anonymous No.15432349]

>>15432333
stop schilling your youtube channel
partciles do depend on future measurements, yes, but that alone doesn't nullify counterfactual paths affecting the actual path. that's because for any final quantum state, there are multiple indistinguishable initial states.

oh, and just because you put the word "super" on the end of your ideology's name doesn't mean you can resolve these issues.

[Anonymous No.15432350]

>>15432337
that's irrelevant. closed or open, it is deterministic. therefore no free will.

[Anonymous No.15432351]

>>15432330
The inability to go back in time and change your decision doesn't remove you from having the experience of free will at the time the decision was made.

[Anonymous No.15432355]

>>15432338
>electrons only behave wavelike in certain circumstances
I don't know, maybe.

>this means the wavelike property of electrons is caused by possiblities having an effect on the actual
doesn't follow even if the earlier statement is true. this is just an invented narrative.

[Anonymous No.15432358]

>>15432350
>determinism means no free will
no it doesn't
the initial state of the universe wasn't determined to be in any precise state, so the determinism afterwards is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15432361]

>>15432346
>fire one particle at a time
but they still have to fire multiple electrons.

[Anonymous No.15432363]

>>15431211
superdeterminism is wrong and the notion of free will is also wrong

t. knower

[Anonymous No.15432365]

in order for determinism to be true, all the information about the future must already exist in the present

[Anonymous No.15432366]

>>15432349
>that alone doesn't nullify counterfactual paths affecting the actual path
again there is no observation of any counterfactual events occurring. it's made up.

>oh, and just because you put the word "super" on the end of your ideology's name doesn't mean you can resolve these issues.
john bell coined the word 'superdeterminism', so blame him. he didn't like determinism so he tried to portray it as radical by prefixing it with 'super-' (it's not radical).

[Anonymous No.15432367]

>>15432346
>The only time you don't get an interference pattern is if you have a detector at the slit, and record which slit the particle went through.
THE DETECTOR HAS CONSCIOUSNESS AND IS A FREE WILL CHILD OF GOD
But seriously wtf? Obviously the detector is breaking the system in some way and making it no longer a closed system.

[Anonymous No.15432369]

>>15432351
never had any free will experience.

[Anonymous No.15432370]

>>15432338
Or it just means systems in which interaction with a system is of-order the energy of the bodies-of-interest inherently lead to statistically wave-like behavior.

[Anonymous No.15432373]

>>15432365
so?

[Anonymous No.15432374]

>>15432358
>the universe didn't have a particular definite initial state
that's a very absurd commitment you're making.

[Anonymous No.15432376]

>>15432365
…if the universe never performs calculations. The universe could be a finite state machine and not predetermined bit by bit like a movie. Though I’d argue an fsm works out to being predetermined like that anyway.

[Anonymous No.15432378]

>>15432365
yes. so it must.

[Anonymous No.15432381]

>>15432367
detectors can be put into superposition
it's only because someone with consiciousness and free will sees the result of the detector (and causes non-reversibilty) that the eletcron can no longer go through the other slit and interfere with its counterfactual self.

[Anonymous No.15432385]

>>15432378
show this information about the future then
>>15432376
calculations don't generate new information

[Anonymous No.15432387]

>>15432361
Even if you only fire one electron, the probability is it'll land as one of the wave crests of an interference pattern. Unless, that is, you measure which slit it goes through, in which case the probability is it'll land directly opposite of the slit as if it traveled in a straight line.

[Anonymous No.15432391]

>>15432369
I'm sure you have. You've just defined free will as something supernatural, which of course you haven't experienced, rather than simply the act of making a decision, which I'm sure you do all the time.

[Anonymous No.15432392]

>>15432381
>it's only because someone with consiciousness and free will sees the result of the detector (and causes non-reversibilty) that the eletcron can no longer go through the other slit and interfere with its counterfactual self.
Bullshit. Check the pretty scattered bar image on the second screen first and then the detector that checks which slits the electrons went through. The second screen will still look like pic related. Human observation has no effect on anything. The equipment used is simply interfering with the experiment if you’re getting different results.

[Anonymous No.15432393]

>>15432385
>calculations don't generate new information
Then why do we solve equations? It’s so we can get fucking new information from them.

[Anonymous No.15432397]

>>15432387
that's so wrong on multiple levels

[Anonymous No.15432398]

>>15432391
we behave/act in the world based on calculations our brains perform. there is no freedom here.

[Anonymous No.15432400]

>>15432398
We experience those decisions as free will, whether we want to or not, regardless of how ephemerally aware we are of the ultimate inevitability of it all.

[Anonymous No.15432402]

>>15432397
Name one. That is the conundrum, that a single particle acts as though it is interfering with itself, unless you force the probability to collapse upon passing the slit.

[Anonymous No.15432409]

>>15432397

[Anonymous No.15432411]

>>15432402
particles never travel in straight lines. they aren't detected only directly opposite to the slit they came from.

[Anonymous No.15432412]

>>15432409
see >>15432411

[Anonymous No.15432415]

>>15432409
The photon detectors are fucking shit up. It’s that simple.
>muh human consciousness
Discard the data the detectors gather without looking at it. It will still be the same result unless you remove the detectors. It’s just a case of equipment breaking the experiment.

[Anonymous No.15432421]

>>15432411
If you have a detector at one or both of the slits, it changes the pattern on the measurement screen. It acts as a particle instead of a wave. You get two lines, instead of the wave pattern you get without the detectors. That's the whole reason the experiment is odd.

[Anonymous No.15432423]

>>15432421
wrong, you never get two lines you always get a continuous distribution. the shape of the distribution changes because using detectors is not the same as not using detectors, duh.

[Anonymous No.15432426]

>>15432423
We'll have to agree to disagree, as I've not the equipment on hand to prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.15432430]

>>15432426
you don't have to do any experiments to talk about the results of thought experiments

[Anonymous No.15432431]

>>15432430
Talking about the results of physical experiments, not thought experiments.

[Anonymous No.15432436]

>>15432431
these are thought experiments, since no one actually uses "detectors" near the slits in these experiments

[Anonymous No.15432437]

>>15432431
NTA, isn’t the result always a wave distribution?

[Anonymous No.15432448]

>>15432436
They literally use photoelectric detectors. (Or path detectors for some variants.)

>>15432437
You don't get an interference pattern if you set up detectors at the slits recording which slit your photon, electron, or Bucky ball went through.

[Anonymous No.15432450]

>>15432448
>They literally use photoelectric detectors
photoelectricity works by absorbing photons, so if the photon was absorbed at the detector, how could it reach the other screen? i've never heard of "path detectors"