[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 52 KB, 1024x768, Free will vs Determinism.001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15873233 No.15873233 [Reply] [Original]

From a scientific perspective, do we have free will or determinism?

>> No.15873237

Both. We have the freedom to make choices, but our choices are determined by the Universe.

>> No.15873354

Neither, the world is not deterministic but ruled by chance.

>> No.15873363
File: 22 KB, 623x362, 1700424420196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15873363

In the future we won't have free will anymore. And here's why that may be a good thing ...

>> No.15873403

>>15873237
>but our choices are determined by the Universe.
Are we not part of the universe?

>> No.15873409
File: 405 KB, 669x567, Screenshot 2023-11-14 003434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15873409

I have solved the free will debate. My explanation will lay it to rest forever for those willing to read it. I laugh at the thought of how much effort and debate is invested in this topic. The answer is so utterly obvious in retrospect.
Philosophers must be retarded not to have realized it yet.
Protip: the key has to do with a correct understanding of the concept of determinism (and not free will, which is a red herring).

>> No.15873604

>>15873233
Who cares? If I have free will, and I freely decide that I want to eat a hamburger, I'll do it. And if I don't have free will, and I am forced by the laws of physics to want to eat a hamburger, I'll still do it. I'm not going to waste my time over questions that don't matter.

>> No.15873909
File: 677 KB, 1410x1201, ORCH-OR-Theory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15873909

>>15873233
Scientific mechanisms for how free will might be possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8EkwRgG4OE

>> No.15873917

>>15873233
>we
If by we you are referring to Human Beings, then yes, we experience free will. NPCs on the other hand are not alive; they are deterministic automata. They cannot feel emotion or pain. They are assemblies of a physical world comprised entirely of physical matter. NPCs are in fact placed here on this earth to serve Humankind.

These facts are self-evident. Asking for proof or clarification is like asking a creature that exists in 4 spatial dimensions what the 4th dimension looks like. It's pissing in the wind. It's stupid. Do not engage with personoids who are less than Human.

>> No.15873982

>>15873233
Not a science question, it's an art question. Try going to /a/ and transsexualizing yourself

>> No.15874037

>>15873354
>Neither, the world is not deterministic but ruled by chance.
this

>> No.15874079

Both. The laws of physics determine my choices, but specifically those parts of the laws of physics that make up my brain. The two notions are not in conflict.

>> No.15874106

>>15873233
mh, as the notion that "free will's existence is deterministic" ever been presented?

>> No.15874127

neither
we have communism
it is a bled of free will and determinism

>> No.15874151

The nature of consciousness is outside the realm of scientific knowledge so to assume it's one way or the other before we have all the facts is foolish. Even if it's all based on physics it might be as complex as the origin of every atom in your body, at which point it's effectively chance.

>> No.15874223

>>15874151
Why do so many people assume that just because you don't understand something, neither does anyone else?

>> No.15874269

>>15874223
>>15874151
Neither of you understand anything lol

>> No.15874281

>>15873604
The only intelligent post in the entire thread by such a huge margin it hurts. This board is just an illustration of dunning-kruger

>> No.15874313

>>15874281
This post is literally the ass baby of Dunning and Kruger

>> No.15874457

>>15873233
While there is no current understanding that allows us to know for certain or not, we can see that nature itself is not always deterministic, with quantum mechanics showing that some events have a probabilistic property to them. Meaning we can conclude that the universe itself is not totally deterministic.

Also, believing in hard determinism allows for worrying moral conclusions that even if we were fully deterministic, we should operate under the pretense that we have free will.


>>15873237
>determined by the Universe.
So determinism, not free will. Okay retard

>> No.15874659

>>15873409
>the free will debate
it's political, you'll never "solve" it.

>> No.15874665

determinism
it's so glaringly obvious when you learn about the nature of the mind.
People hate the concept however and brainlets will use it as an excuse for bad behaviour.
For me it's relaxing realizing that I am actually basically just on a circus fun house ride and whatever happens happens

>> No.15874670

>>15874151
Ironically knowing about consciousness is the one thing that you can truly know is real.
The rest of reality is just colours, shadows, feelings, sensations and ideas cascading around inside a brain

>> No.15874806

>>15873233
One of the best motivators for me was a thought that if the universe is cyclical in any way, then I may be doomed to repeat my life forever, as I get born from timeless nothingness, and return to timeless nothingness, only to pop out again, subjectively a moment after I die. And that made me get over my depressed state and do something about it so next time I would be miserable only for 10 years and not til the day I die.

>> No.15875017

>>15873909
mega levels of cope

>> No.15875236

>>15873233
determinism.

>> No.15875242

>>15873917
>yes, we experience free will
prove that you could have done otherwise.

>> No.15875260

>>15875242
An evil entity that rules the universe is determined to deceive you into thinking that determinism is true. Science only discovers what the entity determined scientists to discover.

>> No.15875264

>>15873354
Probablistic universe is the true redpill, but Science as an institution is dependent on causality and will cling to it like an anchor.

>> No.15875307

>>15875260
you haven't provided the proof i asked for.

>> No.15875311

>>15873233
not science, not testable
>>>/x/

>> No.15875332

>>15875307
You can't even prove that your concious. To me your conciousness is as unfalsifiable as hypothetical other choices: a metaphysical construct more akin to /x/ than /sci/. Is you being an npc the right conclusion?

>> No.15875396

>>15875332
proof of consciousness is immediately apparent and undeniable. this is not the case for free will.

>> No.15875436

>>15873233
We don't know, we probably never will.

One thing that is fairly obvious though is that strict causal determinism is nonsense, so any argument for epistemic determinism that relies on strict causal determinism is probably also nonsense.

>> No.15875439

>>15875436
>One thing that is fairly obvious though is that strict causal determinism is nonsense
and how do we know that? do tell

>> No.15875450

>>15875439
Well, given that strict causal deterministic models can barely handle very simple physical chemistry, and that it's not possible to consistently reproduce even simple deterministic kinematic experiments due to chaotic/stochastic perturbations in material interactions, we can get a pretty good sense that strict determinism has some flaws.

>> No.15875454

>>15875450
no in fact. the appearance stochasticity can easily occur in a deterministic system. ultimately, the question of determinism vs indeterminism cannot be addressed by any kind of observation.

>> No.15875458

>>15875454
The lack of ability to reproduce a determinstic experiment kind of throws a wrench in your definition of a system being deterministic.

If exciting the system T{} with the same x doesn't allow for reproduction of the same y to an arbitrary degree of precision, your system is not deterministic.

>> No.15875487
File: 1.00 MB, 1716x1710, sciencists vs clowns.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15875487

>>15874281
>dude why do you care about [question]? Just keep crunching the numbers instead of trying to think!
Look at this mental midget and laugh. Literal NPC-tier ""reasoning"".

>> No.15875497

>>15875487
What's really hilarious is when you have computer programmers needing to resort to shit like the trolley problem in order to work out moral problems with AI, and then these same people will turn around and claim philosophy is a waste of time.

>> No.15875532

>>15873233

what or who determined the determination???!

>> No.15875705

>>15875458
>The lack of ability to reproduce a determinstic experiment kind
determinism/indeterminism are impossible to test by experiment, this is 101 knowledge in the debate. it pretty much begins and ends the debate. you cannot ever appeal to any kind of experiment to support one side over the other.

>If exciting the system T{} with the same x doesn't allow for reproduction of the same y to an arbitrary degree of precision, your system is not deterministic.
this experiment would not prove determinism or indeterminism. sabine herself has already proposed a similar experiment, but there's little point. this experiment only shows whether the same initial states evolve to the same final states, but that's not determinism. determinism is the notion that nothing could have been different.

>> No.15875711

>>15875705
> Determinism is the notion that nothing could have been different.

That is expressed analytically by the functional notation I was describing.

The systems theory way of defining determinism is in terms of system excitation. A system is determinsitic if and only if every excitation with u when the system is in state x_0 produces y.

Sabine is also a physicist, and as brilliant as many physicists are, they generally have no fucking clue how systems analysis as a discipline works.

If your system is determinsitic, it's output being determined exclusively by its starting state, functional transformation, and input defined that it couldn't have been different.

What we can show experimentally is that there are always bounds on the certainty in which we can observe, execute and control a system's behavior. People who are paying attention and have some humility generally leave it ambiguous whether this uncertainty is aleotory or epistemic.

Unfortunately physicists and computer scientists tend to have an ideological, almost religious, devotion to the idea that all uncertainty is epistemic.

>> No.15875722

>>15875711
>That is expressed analytically by the functional notation I was describing
no it isn't, this is the mistake you're making. even if you were to prepare 2 systems perfectly identically and they evolved to identical final states, it's irrelevant. indeterminists will still claim that they "didn't have to evolve that way", and it is impossible to disprove that.

>and input defined that it couldn't have been different
yes, determinists assume this. indeterminists don't. it's an assumption that cannot be tested.

>> No.15875737

>>15875722
I'm not making a mistake. I'm presenting you the standard definition of a dynamical system being deterministic.

If people are claiming that indeterminism is about some kind of supernatural "intent" of the system, they are strange.

Determinism from a systems analysis/dynamic systems point of view is about the transformation of input to the output via excitation of the system. Nothing more, nothing less.

A system being stochastic is defined just about the same way. A system T{} is stochastic if when excited with an input u while in state x0, its output y is a sample of a conditional probability distribution.

That's all there is for physical systems as far as I'm aware. Either the system is stochastic, in which case the process from input to output can only be described probabilistically, or it is deterministic.

>> No.15875745

>>15875737
you're just defining determinism differently to me. which is fine, i don't care. i'm just saying the kind of 'determinism' i care about is whether or not things could have been different. i don't care about what different final states may be achieved from a single initial state. it was already my intuition that any given initial state may evolve to different final states in different instances.

according to palmer and hossenfelder, they key dispute in the debate about superdeterminism is the idea of whether things could have been different, so my preferred definition. still, you are free to define it however you want.

>> No.15875763

>>15875745
The reason Sabine's paper on superdeterminism describes determinism vs indeterminism in this fashion is that we do not have "internal models" for the state transitions for quantum mechanics.

This is in a sense kind of a niche problem and yet is also central to why physicists tend to not make very good systems analysts. The kind of indeterminate system where we don't have any mechanism to describe the state evolution process is not the only way in which a system's evolution can be stochastic/indeterminate. In fact, it's almost kind of a novelty toy question given that we cannot produce even macro-scale determinism in practice, let alone quantum level determinism.

The much more common kind of stochastic system are the ones that experimental physics (and just about every other hard scientific discipline for what it's worth) have to deal with. We have a physical description that works well enough, but there is always the presence of uncertainties/noise in the state evolution/measurement process.

These systems are just as much stochastic as the quantum ones they are talking about in their paper. They are just stochastic in a different fashion.

>> No.15875765
File: 8 KB, 234x215, 1700512556676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15875765

I may not have free will but I have free won't. I can freely choose not to go to the toilet even though my body urgently needs it.

>> No.15875786

>>15874313
I wasn't calling it smart, I was calling it intelligent. As a minimum. All of the other posters do not even qualify for the sapiens part and didn't even manage to make a coherent point.
>what if le nondeterminism is
>determined

>>15875487
That's a lot of extrapolation. Don't break a leg jumping to conclusions.

>> No.15875825

>>15875765
You're brainwashed. Nature doesn't dictate when and where to relieve yourself but your parents, your teachers, employers and all the rest of society conspire to control your urges. Free yourself from this matrix but not in my backyard.

>> No.15875828

>>15875825
>the brain isn't biology

>> No.15875829

>>15875825
>your parents, your teachers, employers and all the rest of society conspire to control your urges
>Free yourself
>but not in my backyard.
you're sending woman-level mixed signals

>> No.15875833

>>15875825
once I was so drunk I just decided to free liberate myself right there on my lawn-chair

>> No.15875834

>>15875829
Wow, that really crossed a line Anonymous. Apologize.

>> No.15875856

>>15875828
Software isn't hardware.

>> No.15875869

>>15875856
Imbecilic analogy that doesn't begin to capture neurochemical and neurostructural reality.

>> No.15875874

>>15875856
do you even understand what an analog computer is anon?

>> No.15875901

>>15875869
>>15875874
I need no fancy words to understand that physical and mental states can not be perfectly tied together. You can make yourself anxious by watching a horror movie or your body makes you anxious if your heart starts beating faster. However, stress can be recontextualized from anxiety to excitement and pleasure for example by jumping from great heights as a sport.

>> No.15875907

>>15875901
Have you ever considered shutting the fuck up when you have nothing to contribute and no relevant knowledge whatsoever?

>> No.15875914

>>15875907
Have you ever considered making an argument?

>> No.15875917

>>15875914
You don't need an argument, you need a highschool-level textbook.

>> No.15875919

>>15875914
not him but you aren't really making any sense.

>> No.15875927

>>15875917
Still no argument. Tell me what highschool-level knowledge refutes what I said.

>> No.15875935

>>15875927
adrenaline glands for starters. Physiological responses to psychological stimuli as well as psychological constructions in response to physiological triggers are established. In other words mind and matter are not in any way scientifically distinguishable. This is so elemental your posts warrants little more than mockery. Nice 101 geared towards free will/determinism and in broad strokes is the Sapolsky lecture series on youtube.

>> No.15875948

>>15875935
You can't point out the exact difference in physiological states between anxiety and recontextualized anxiety. You're making a God of the gaps kind of argument just as much as I do.

>> No.15875958

>>15875948
The difference is that I am not making a claim towards any divide while you are drawing lines ("software isn't hardware"), which is bullshit as presented and arguably bullshit at inception.

>> No.15875967

>>15875935
By the way: a 101 for you is to listen to some of Lex Fridman guests who point out the causal chicken and egg problem of topdown / bottom-up processing.

>> No.15875968

>>15875967
I'll look into it, thanks

>> No.15876042

>>15873233
that image is wrong.

people who believe in god/karma/soul believe there is free will. in order to have a soul you have to first have a free will. no free will = no soul = you are nothing else but a puppet. god gave you a free will, what you do with it determines your fate.

on the other hand, if you take religion out, you are nothing but a bio computer, every action follows physical laws. computations, or your thoughts, follow electrical and chemical laws of nature, input is through communication and suggestion. the fact that hypnosis exists does put free will on quite a shaky ground.

take your pick. although, if you don't believe in free will, you will be far more likely to develop suicidal thoughts.

>> No.15876057

>>15876042
>if you don't believe in free will, you will be far more likely to develop suicidal thoughts
you just made that up

>> No.15876094

>>15874457
>>determined by the Universe.
>So determinism, not free will. Okay retard

You have a fucked up notion of what "free will" means.

>> No.15877061

>>15873917
ok rabbi

>> No.15877062

>>15873917
>in 4 spatial dimensions what the 4th dimension looks like
Motion.

>> No.15877066

>>15873363
What's that phenotype?

>> No.15877071

>>15873233

The idea of free will is a false abstraction. Or an ilusion, if you prefer. We are not free to think, imagine or act as we want. First of all, we are limited by our biology and material world. Then, we don't act all the time with our intentions and porpoises fully clarified (a lot of times we do something, and then just some time later we understand our real intentions. To think there is even a "will" to be "free" is denying a lot of information that doesn't support the existence of "free will" or even "will".

>> No.15877079

>>15873403
Not anon, but I agree. I would even say that we ARE the universe, even though we don't think or act like that all the time.

>> No.15877081

>>15874670
>You know consciousness is real because all the byproducts are merely illusory.

>> No.15877088

>>15875332
Then why are you directing your conversation to them and asking them questions about their awareness if you don't believe they are conscious?

>> No.15877093

>>15875705
>determinism/indeterminism are impossible to test by experiment
Double Slit Experiment

>> No.15877109

>>15877071
We are heavily habitual and instinctive, but some of us consider ourselves rational agents

>> No.15877113

>>15875825
Good Morning Sir

>> No.15877129

>>15877093
...does not test it. i hope you're only trolling

>> No.15877135

>>15877071
doubting free will makes sense. doubting will is retarded

>> No.15877142

>>15877129
You will never be able to determine which electron ends up where if you don't have an observer monitoring it constantly, the pattern of many electrons won't even make sense to an observer.

>> No.15877144

>>15877142
that has nothing to do with determinism.

for the nth time, determinism is the idea that nothing could have been different

>> No.15877153

>>15877144
That is the definition of determinism that you and only you subscribes to.

>> No.15877157

>>15877153
read sabine's paper and you'll find that to be untrue.

>> No.15877161

>>15877157
I've read Sabine's paper. In section 3.2 she explicitly outlines what they mean by deterministic, and it isn't what you are describing. It is the standard dynamic systems definition of determinism.

>> No.15877206

>>15877161
which paper are you looking at?

>> No.15877229
File: 593 KB, 1x1, fphy-08-00139.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15877229

>>15877206
"Rethinking superdeterminism"

The paper as a whole I find fairly underwhelming and one that really only has significance to theoretical physicists within a certain ideological paradigm.

For example, one of the main principles they say that needs to be violated for superdeterminism is the "principle of statistical independence" which states that the settings of two separate measurement devices should be non-interfering in the distributions of the measured object.

This is an assumption that seems to only be meaningful within quantum physics, as in general it is not assumed that measurement devices are non-interfering. In fact, there are major sections of detection theory and communication theory which seek to handle circumstances where the presence of more than one measurement device introduces distortions in the measured output relative to a singular measurement device.

Generally, their framing of determinism leaves a lot to be desired and seems to be combating the ideological conversations happening within theoretical physics circles rather than anything actually scientifically meaningful.

>> No.15877245

>>15877144
>determinism is the idea that nothing could have been different
It could though because without an observer, you have no idea where the electron lands, so it makes completely unpredictable patterns, but as soon as observation comes into play, the pattern completely changes to conform to specific probabilities of observation.

>> No.15877247

>>15877229
their definition provided in section 3.2 does in fact accord with my definition of determinism:

"By deterministic we will mean that the dynamical law of the theory uniquely maps states at time t to states at time t′ for any t and t′. This map, then, can be inverted."

the key word is unique. a unique mapping from t to t' means that t could only ever have evolved to t', and not to any other kind of state.

>> No.15877254

>>15877245
that doesn't prove that things could have been different. some people interpret the wave function probabilities as being ontic, but there's no proof that they are ontic.

>> No.15877259

>>15877247
No, it is not the same, but it is not the same for a subtle reason.

When you say that there is some transformation that maps uniquely y = T{x_0,u} you are not implying any anthropomorphizing intentions.

It is a simple mathematical relationship.

When you add the "it couldn't have been different" and then go to apply this to reality, you are adding an element of "choice" which seems only meaningful to physicists and philosophers (though I repeat myself).

A stochastic system does not require that the stochastic distributions involve "choice." All it means is that whatever casual factors are contributing to the variation/uncertainty in the final state output, they are unobservable to those taking the measurement. They may be unobservable by some imprecision in the measurement device (in which case this uncertainty is solely epistemic) or they may be unobservable due to some non-material cause (in which case this uncertainty is aleotoric).

In either case, the system is stochastic.

>> No.15877267

>>15877254
It does, though, not only that it could have been different, but that it definitely does happen differently since, without constant, direct observation particle outcomes of the same device, calibrated the same way with the same inputs occur completely differently.

>> No.15877283

>>15877259
to be honest with you, it seems like you are deliberately denying the obvious. i don't know why you are talking about intention or choice, because indeterminism does not immediately entail choice (although choice does entail indeterminism).

this is not a brag, but it's going to sound like one. i spoke to palmer myself about this, and he agreed that this is what is at issue in the debate. you can't afford to disagree with me on this point, lol

>> No.15877293

>>15877267
if you seriously believe that the wave function proves that things could have been different, then i don't know what to tell you. you need to accept that it doesn't, that there are a multitude of different interpretations of the wave function and its meaning, and only then you should return to this debate.

>> No.15877298

>>15877293
It proves, not that they could have, but that they definitely do turn out differently depending on the state of the observer.

>you need to accept that it doesn't
I will accept your concession since you can't justify yourself and have to just state that you are correct instead of demonstrating it.

>there are a multitude of different interpretations
Thank you for conceding directly, yes there are many interpretations, most of which acknowledge that things do occur differently depending on observation.

>> No.15877301

>>15873233 There are good reasons for both. Arguments, data, and studies for and against can be found in this arguments tree: https://www.kialo.com/free-will-or-determinism-do-we-have-free-will-5685
Some points are probably missing so I guess also join the structured debate there.

>> No.15877308

>>15877298
>observer dependence
this is not determinism.

>It proves, not that they could have
ok, so you do actually agree. thank fuck

>> No.15877342

>>15877308
>determinism
It is though since you can only determine something that can be observed and the act of observing itself changes outcomes which means that determinism is not fundamental, but rather observed.

>actually agree
No, I disagree to an even greater degree than you are stating since "could have" is definitely proven by the higher standard of demonstrably does.

>> No.15877362

it can work out differently and you have zero say in it. nature always has a wildcard.

>> No.15877379

>>15877342
no offence, but i don't think you know what you're talking about.

>> No.15877396

>>15877379
I accept your concession, outcomes are not entirely determined by initial conditions since observation and relativistic probability seems to play a major in the outcomes of experimental events as demonstrated with the double slit experiment.

>> No.15877451

>>15873909
Do you control the "quantum interactions in the microtubules inside each cell"? Of course not. Even if it's not determined, if you don't control it then it's random. This is why quantum woowoo is irrelevant to the free will debate

>> No.15877455

>>15877396
let's look back.

>"could have" is definitely proven by the higher standard of demonstrably does.
what the fuck does that mean?

>> No.15877463

>>15877455
It means that you wanted to know if things "could" turn out differently and I showed that not only can they theoretically maybe do that, but you can actually demonstrate through a specific experiment that outcomes definitely depend not only on initial conditions, but also on observation bias and probabilistic uncertainty.

>> No.15877477
File: 1.06 MB, 1920x7560, holyspiritdescended.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15877477

>>15873233
we have free will
Penrose is correct that quantum effects occur in the brain where quantum states in neuronal microtubules collapse into specific other states, but he's incorrect in thinking that this collapse is objective and caused by outside forces
it's rather you, an individual conscious entity, who collapses the wave function across all the microtubules in the brain and causes specific electrochemical signaling pathways to trigger rather than others
this is essentially analogous to using a mouse or keyboard to operate a computer
in the analogy you (the individual conscious entity) operate the computer (the human body, an advanced robotic biocomputer), which would otherwise operate entirely deterministically unless interacted with, and feed it nondeterministic, but still computable, input via the keyboard and mouse (by consciously collapsing the wave function of the microtubules in the brain)
this is how you do all consciously willed actions, from breathing consciously to opening and closing your hand intentionally
when you, the conscious entity, elect to bond with a human body, you start out when the body is still at its youngest and the neuronal pathways are still pliable, and you start tuning into it, seeing what works to move your body parts in different ways, a process which typically only takes a couple of years (but of course can be enhanced greatly in later years, such as when displaying fantastic athletic prowess)
in this sense then, the idea of the "ghost in the machine" that Ryle tried to discredit is in fact the truth of the matter, as has been recognized both by sages throughout the eons as well by many contemporary scholars

>> No.15877497

>>15873233
False dichtomy.
One does not exclude the other.
Problem arises when people have "Cartesian theater" perception of consciousness.

>> No.15877498

>>15873909
correct, see: >>15877477
the wrong part is thinking that this is objective though, as Penrose suggests that it happens due to gravitational effect, but in reality it's you as an individual conscious entity who collapses it (as explained in my post)
>>15877451
>Do you control the "quantum interactions in the microtubules inside each cell"?
yes, that's precisely correct, that's the interface where you collapse specific neuronal circuits into certain states to trigger a cascade of signaling downstream to the rest of the body that makes it move in certain ways, or even alter its own biochemistry
of course I know what you're thinking, "how can you possibly control all of those trillions of microtubules?", but it really is just one single quantum state, and you don't interface with it by focusing on single microtubules at all, it's rather a tuning process that occurs when the body is still young and the neuronal pathways pliable, you naturally learn what type of conscious intentions lead to e.g. your arm or leg moving, and then you refine that over time (and if you put enough conscious intention into it, you can become e.g. a gymnast or climber and so on)
>Of course not.
to the contrary, see above, also see my post (here again for reference): >>15877477
>Even if it's not determined, if you don't control it then it's random.
true, but fact is that you do indeed control it, and it's not random at all
in fact, nothing is random at all, everything runs on a mix of partial determinism and free will
whenever you don't consciously will anything, the body and brain just runs deterministically, like a computer that no one is interacting with, just carrying out its programs
this is in fact why using conscious intention to reprogram your body and brain to run differently can have great benefits for your body
it's also why people who have already put in all the effort can enter a flow state when e.g. performing a piano sonata, because at that point no will is required

>> No.15877527

>>15874806
Nice one, Friedrich.

>> No.15877532

>>15877463
>can they theoretically maybe do that
is this you admitting that it's not proven? that's how it reads.
>probabilistic uncertainty
probabilities as we understand them do not prove that things could have been different. how is this not a trivial point?

>> No.15877538

>>15877532
that's not how what he wrote reads at all
read his sentence again:
>not only can they theoretically maybe do that, but you can actually demonstrate through a specific experiment
learn to read
>probabilities as we understand them do not prove that things could have been different
that's literally exactly what probability means, retard

>> No.15877541

>>15877283
If it is the case that your view of the subject accurately represents Palmer's then this is very unfortunate for him.

This means he has gotten this far in his academic career without ever seriously engaging with the material of probability theory, stochastic processes, and information theory (let alone their practical applications to stochastic dynamical systems).

He has instead decided that there are no stochastic processes, only stochastic models, when it is in fact the exact opposite. Determinism is the one that only can exist on paper.

He has confused the mathematical modeling that we use to make inferences about the behavior of reality, for reality itself. I'd say this is a shame, but it is typical of physicists to confuse the map for the territory.

>> No.15877543

>>15877538
>that's literally exactly what probability means, retard
you understand that there are different interpretations of probability? and not only that, but also that these numbers calculated by humans do not constitute evidence of counterfactual worlds being possible, right?

>> No.15877545

>>15877543
>you understand that there are different interpretations of probability?
and exactly none of them means what you just suggested
every definition of probability entails the possibility that a certain outcome could have been different
if not it's not probability, just chaotic determinism

>> No.15877551

>>15877541
palmer believes that stochasticity cannot be fundamental in nature. but at least he admits that this has not been proven, and it appears impossible to prove. the question is, can you equally admit that stochasticity has not been proven to be fundamental in nature, and it appears impossible to prove such a thing?

>> No.15877556

>>15877551
>can you equally admit that stochasticity has not been proven to be fundamental in nature, and it appears impossible to prove such a thing?
I'm not that person, but quantum field theory has experimentally proven nondeterminism, whether that be stochastic or another process (such as free will)
in other words, the only reason you'd ever admit what you just asked for if you're an intelligent person who knows the experimental evidence would be because technically speaking the nondeterminism could be entirely non-stochastic and entirely due to other processes (like free will)
if however you conflate "stochastic" with "nondeterministic" and use "stochastic" to refer to any nondeterministic outcomes, then what you're asking for is just blatantly false, since nondeterminism is an experimentally proven fact

>> No.15877559

>>15877545
>every definition of probability entails the possibility that a certain outcome could have been different
brother, this is just wrong. the two main interpretaions of probability, bayesian and frequentist, are neutral on the 'could have' question. you could go either way with either of them, they are silent about the matter.

>> No.15877563

>>15877551
I can prove that stochasticity is ever present in nature and that the amount of this stochasticity which is aleotoric vs. epistemic is unknown and will likely forever remain unknown. As a result, those claiming causal determinism at any level (even macro level) are lost, confusing their modeling for the object they seek to model.

If there is any evidence of a truly deterministic fact of reality, it is that those who claim that some "we" can figure it all out are always wrong.

>> No.15877571

>>15877556
>but quantum field theory has experimentally proven nondeterminism
oh man...this is just not true. who told you this? where is this so-called proof?

>> No.15877580

>>15877563
>I can prove that stochasticity is ever present in nature
ok, where is the proof?

>If there is any evidence of a truly deterministic fact of reality, it is that those who claim that some "we" can figure it all out are always wrong.
determinism doesn't mean we can figure it all out, because it may be the case that the information we require in order to figure it all out is physically impossible to obtain.

>> No.15877584

>>15877580
The proof is that every single experiment that has ever been done has involved process and measurement errors at some degree of precision.

There is not a single experimental verification of determinism on any level without having such a crude measurement and state modeling process that you are essentially resorting to "discretizing" your state space to get determinism.

As far as your second claim goes, to assume that all determinism is epistemic determinism is to assume that there is some mystical "we" that can get full observability and controllability of any system. They just don't happen to be in the room with us at any point during any recorded experiment throughout all of time. Quite convenient really.

>> No.15877589

>>15877584
To assume that all uncertainty is epistemic uncertainty* oops.

>> No.15877606

>>15877584
but again, determinism doesn't require that we can know everything, for the reason i outlined in my previous reply.

>There is not a single experimental verification of determinism
i entirely agree with this

>to assume that all determinism is epistemic determinism is to assume that there is some mystical "we" that can get full observability and controllability of any system
as i said, it could be that we physically cannot obtain the required information. there is more to say about that but that is the explanation in simple terms, as to why a deterministic system may not be knowable.

>> No.15877619

yes, we have free will or determinism
next question??

>> No.15877621

I have free will, but you have determinism. That means I get to determine what is going to happen to you, i.e. you live in fear of me and you are my slave.

>> No.15877629

Why did scientific progress massively slow down when it became about closing the book on the mystery? What's that about!?

>> No.15877635

>>15877606
Okay, so here is where you are, so that we're on the same page.

We can't replicate deterministic physics models in practice for any realizable system. Whole disciplines of science and engineering have emerged to help deal with the rehabilitation of deterministic physical models (because they are simple and close enough to right). Statistical estimation, stochastic control, communications theory etc. all develop as a means of implementing these unreliable models in meat space instead of solely on paper as mathematical abstractions.

The conclusion that these people come to is near universal. There is no such thing as a deterministic system in practice, only deterministic models.

Instead of reconsidering your approach to better interact with reality, you then assert that all of these other disciplines are wrong and that there actually must be some objective ordering behind all of this uncertainty because our math doesn't make as much sense if there isn't. You then assert that this objective ordering of reality must exist even if it is physically impossible to gather the state information needed to make these systems deterministic.

You then have the gall to call others religious for their beliefs about free will, while having absolutely no self awareness that your beliefs about the ordering of reality require something indistinguishable to a God in order to function.

>> No.15877667

>>15877635
there is no requirement for me to reconsider determinism unless it has been disproven. statistics as a field and all the fields which emerged from it do not disprove determinism, nor do they constitute evidence against it, since uncertainty could easily just be epistemic.

i never called anyone religious, although that is a fair description, for both sides actually. both of us religiously feel that we're each correct, we both have a faith which is impossible to test.

>> No.15877678

>>15877667
It has not been disproven strictly, but the plurality of evidence stacks strongly against determinism having some deep flaws as a "description of reality" rather than simply an "inferential modeling of reality."

In the same way that I cannot disprove that your grandmother was a unicorn, but I can dismiss you as someone to take seriously if you insist that your grandmother was a unicorn.

If it makes you feel any better, the only people who take theoretical physicists seriously are other theoretical physicists. Everyone else looks at them the same way that we look at pure mathematicians. Academically interesting which very rarely leaves the realm of "big if true."

>> No.15877679

>>15877635
>>15877667
>chaos theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW4yBSV4U38

>> No.15877688

>>15877678
Stacks strongly in favor of determinism having deep flaws. Sorry I'm also a retard.

>> No.15877692

>>15877559
>this is just wrong
no, it's 100% correct
that's literally inherent to the definition of what it means for something to be subject to probability
like I just explained, anything else would be chaotic determinism, not probability

>> No.15877697

>>15877571
>this is just not true
it absolutely is
nondeterminism is a proven fact
go to >>>/x/ if you don't want to deal with scientific facts, this is the science board
>who told you this?
no one in particular, the experimental facts of quantum field theory tells us this

>> No.15877701

>>15877692
>anything else would be chaotic determinism
and? why is that a problem?

>> No.15877702

>>15877697
ok, can you tell us more about these so-called facts? lol

>> No.15877708

>>15877527
>Friedrich
Nietzsche? What did he have to say about it? Legitimately curious, as I haven't read his body of work, yet.

>> No.15877713

>>15877708
Not that anon but look into the principle of eternal recurrence. It's where the saying "time is a flat circle" came from and is largely attributed to funny German mustache man from Basel.

Quite interesting stuff.

>> No.15877734

>>15873233
I agree with Peter Watts on this, humans generally don't have free will most of the time except in rare instances where different survival instincts conflict and the conscious mind has to choose, at all other times your actions are dictated by your intuitions.

Now if you're asking about fate or something, no fate probably doesn't exist but that doesn't mean people have free will just that things like quantum events are random.

>> No.15877753

Free will is a christ cuck buzzword. It is a made up thing to blame humans for the things God did. Determinism is just contrarianism with regards to that stuff. You simply exist and have desires and take action. These things have nothing to do with a "free will" or a "causality"

>> No.15877758

>>15877734
>and the conscious mind has to choose
and what does it happen to choose, EACH AND EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!? anything that's possible to fit your needs at the time. you never seem to choose something that's bad for you (unless you're mentally diseased, in which case free will makes more sense and I'm not joking).
>no I don't have free will usually but sometimes I do
no, sometimes the goal is deeper buried and you don't have direct access to it but you are still determined to follow it.
free will is the need for obfuscation, primitive instincts, never let your opponent know your next move. it could be anything, you can't be determined (ie others project your moves).
it's the need to hide your next moves, that's where the need for free will comes from. it's a bullshit screen basically.

>> No.15877765

Y'all out here arguing about what is literally just a justification for God making a shitty world. Its not even meaningful. Everyone is capable of choosing between a, b, or c. You can't deny that. But that isn't "free will" that is just a decision. So "free will" is an abstract made up idea that doesn't even matter!

>> No.15877769

>>15877765
free will is a rather political idea, all be it served by religion. has nothing to do with science
>no but lying to poeple is good for a greater goal
kys

>> No.15877773

>>15877769
Determinism is equally dumb and meaningless. Imagine trying to say you can predict every little thing when you never actually do and have never been able to demonstrate that you do.

>> No.15877775

We KNOW how your poop is made! We know every detail about your deterministic poopoo!

>> No.15877777

>>15877773
but I don't believe in full determinism, I'm in the "random has a say" camp. which is neither

>> No.15877780

>>15877777 me
check'em

>> No.15877781

>>15877777
Based stochastic uncertainties believer. Checked. Let God play dice if he so wishes! Who are we on this mortal coil to stop him?

>> No.15877784

>>15877777
Dude randomness is basically white noise. Come on man shit ain't random.

>> No.15877788

>>15877777
Checked but probabilityfags still have to show me anything that's actually random and not just us not grasping what mechanisms determine an outcome.
A dice roll is only random when you do not have access to kinetic data and a model to map how input determines output, and weather is only random while you do not have a complete meteorological model. No, quantum superposition is not random either.

>> No.15877800

>>15877788
That's kinda dumb and closed minded. Why believe everything is a machine? What benefits does this give you? It gives none. I can believe some things are machines and other things are feeling-things or know-things or love-things. And in doing so I can understand a complete view of the world and even science would benefit from embracing truth and meaning instead of cuckoldry to mechanical systems.

>> No.15877806

Mechanistic scientists will never understand dreams and refuse to understand archetypal things. They want to live in the world of points and numbers only for no real reason. Even if you are a super math fan you can also appreciate things outside of math. So dumb that they want nerds to be enslaved to numbers instead of wonder.

>> No.15877811

>>15877800
truth is not about benefits. does life always benefit? no, so why should the truth of life benefit either? i know determinism hasn't been proven true, i'm just saying, making "what benefits me" the priority is not the right approach.

>> No.15877813

>>15877800
>Why believe everything is a machine?
Because so far that's how it's laid out.

>What benefits does this give you?
Of what relevance is my benefit? This is about doing the best you can epistemologically.

>I can believe some things are machines and other things are feeling-things or know-things or love-things. And in doing so I can understand a complete view of the world
And that's heckin valid and I wont try to take it from you. Everyone needs and has their own ontology that helps them navigate this place whether machine or manifestation or whatever. Even if it was a machine one would need to navigate it according to the structures laid out in our monkey brains and acquire/map it in an according way. I am not disputing this on a level close to the individual.

However
>even science would benefit from embracing truth and meaning instead of cuckoldry to mechanical systems.
No. Science is one of those monkey tools, a game we play discussing things and experimenting while purposefully disregarding convenience and how that makes our monkey structures look and feel. "What if the universe is a machine" simply holds up way, way better than "what if the universe isn't a machine" when subjected to modelling and experiment.

I ontologically reject that conclusion as well. Whether because I want to believe in a divine spark or just acknowledge that I'd be a damn bad monkey operating in that framework doesn't even matter. That does not change that the results of the science game are what they are though. There is nothing allowing one to conclude one does not live in a determined machine universe, and my challenge is to point me at any aspect of the relevant sciences that shatters that model. I've been waiting for 10 years at this point.

>> No.15877814

>>15877800
it gives better chances of seeing the truth. this is not some feel good club, we're talking and dealing with science. you talk that hippie shit somewhere else.
the enlightned aproach to science is shit and limiting. you can't force nature to be what you want it to be. it is to be discovered. you can't do that (statistically speaking) if you are looking for unicorns and such bullshit. we hit the hard wall of what is, and is not discovered because it doesn't bend to some beauty idea you have.
it is what it is. and the best chances to discover it is to allow for it, which in turn affects your whole internal framework in ways you can't even imagine, but are certain to happen.
in other words, I cannot afford to hold a skewed vision of reality, even if it paints pretty flowers over everything, because that costs me dearly and affects my ability to discover what is. sets expectations and all that, that you cannot be aware of but they do bite you in the ass.
actually imposing this faggot way of seeing the world, "in a good light" or whatever the fuck you mean, is seriously damaging to a scientist's ability to perceive what is.
you and others like you always present that shit falsely, even if you are not aware of it. you imply THAT IT FUCKING COSTS NOTHING to hold that view, which isn't fucking true, by a long shot.

>> No.15877828

>>15877811
In a sense it is because the only reason given for rejecting science is the supposed horrible side effects it will have on society. If benefits mean nothing then I reject science simply because it is irrelevant to me and there are no consequences. In what way is that wrong to the so called "open minded" philosophers?

>> No.15877855

>>15877066
coin collector

>> No.15877880

>>15875396

Talking about consciousness without defining what you mean is just word salad. There are several conflicting definitions and no general agreed upon definition.

That makes most discussions about consciousness end up as worthless word salad, just like your post.

>> No.15877986

>>15877784
What is white noise in your view?

>> No.15877989

>>15877066
the phenotype in question is 40% AI generated nothing, 20% jew, and 40% mutt.

>> No.15877992

>>15877451
you're just applying turtlism as a bad strawman. Everything one could control you just counter as "but do you control the make-up of THAT?" as if the world was supported on a turtle, on a turtle. Your argument in that vein then is that either i personally control the entire universe and all aspects of physical laws, from the very beginning of the universe until the end, or I don't have free will.
I have revealed your stupid strawman, as such, you are now obligated to reply with a stupid cope, or you may accept defeat.

>> No.15878004

>>15877992
That's the truth about stochastic variation though. It truly is turtles all the way down as far as I can tell.

Unless there's some finite "resolution of reality" (in which case determinism in some sense could be materially possible even if it is unlikely) it very likely is just turtles under turtles under turtles forever.

>> No.15878013
File: 53 KB, 1280x720, WIN_20230723_20_45_37_Pro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15878013

>>15873233
The world is dumb.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E17hqs4Un-k

>> No.15878235

>>15877880
every word has disputes over definitions, so that's rather moot. it remains true that hypothetical other choices are just that: hypothetical. asserting their reality is not justified.

>> No.15878239

>>15877828
you are free to define truth as "that which benefits me", but serious thinkers do not do that.

>> No.15878711

>>15873233
our behavior is determined by who we are on our genetic basis. The problem is that it is so complex as to make it difficult to predict or let alone control it.