[ 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: 144 KB, 500x389, 1305235193533.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3232465 No.3232465 [Reply] [Original]

How is it possible for free will to exist? Under classical mechanics, if an individual were to know the exact position, momentum etc. of everything then there can be no free will: it would be possible for said individual to predict the future exactly as there would be a set future.

If we introduce quantum theory, then we introduce the idea of probabilities... now this stops the idea from being deterministic and prevents anyone from being able to predict the future accurately but it does not allow free will: the only difference now is probability.

Everything that will ever happen (including the decisions/"choices" of every individual to ever exist) is determined by what has already happened and a set of random probabilities.

Am I missing something here? How can anyone believe in free will?


pic related: moles are cool

>> No.3232471

Beliefs are founded on their social support, not on relevant facts.

>> No.3232470

No one can rationally believe in it, it's just a belief, a religion.

>> No.3232481

>>3232465
Because the observation of outcome it does change etc observing yourself ect.
Its indeterminable because determining it would change it.

>> No.3232485

>>3232465
why do you need free will? just like a consciousness that is above matter, you dont need free will. from our perspective the world is exactly the same irregardless of whether we make our own choices, it still feels like we are in control and you can stop that.

>> No.3232498
File: 7 KB, 228x221, imagesdrfh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3232498

>>3232481
>>3232481
If you knew the location of every atom in the braina dn how their movements and itneraction simulates conciousness, you would be able to predict a persons actions exactly, whether you told them or not. the logic is sound but it is ofcause speculation


>mfw another you aren't real thread

>> No.3232504

>>3232498
>If you knew the location of every atom in the braina dn how their movements and itneraction simulates conciousness,
>you would be able to predict a persons actions exactly

Nope, learn 2 uncertainty principle.

>> No.3232505

>>3232465
because people are stupid/ because not having freewill contradicts religious(or political) doctrine(so therefore it can't be true)

>> No.3232520

>>3232498
Bitches dont know bout my superpositions and Dual nature
Thats also impossible to do. You have to give up on one to determine another factor. Its is also impossible to tell if the conscious is a response to the electrical signals or the electrical signals are a response to the conscious. Since the conscious mind isnt located in an observable universe its impossible to determine.
Oh and again, by you knowing a persons actions you change their actions because you are part of the equation. You actions change which will change their actions.

>> No.3232533

There are too many Philosophical debates about Free Will now a days. I would say that Free Will needs to be redefined. Its current definition is a residue of Kantian/Platonic thought which was retarded anyway.

>> No.3232536

>>3232498
Missed the observing yourself part eh.

>> No.3232549

OP again here... so it would seem that most of /sci/, at least, doesn't believe in free will. I wonder about the rest of the world's population?

Also, if free will does not exist, do you think that it is fair to attribute blame and responsibility to people?

>> No.3232565

>>3232549
That particular free Will exists where you can blame people for making decisions against some moral principle. Free Will classically has been seen as a magical property that somehow exists independent of the reasoning apparatus (brain) and allows moral decision making. This magical idea should be dropped and instead replaced by responsibility of individuals towards civic behavior.

So yes, You can blame people for crimes. They are responsible for what decision they take because they have been warned of the consequences.

>> No.3232575

>>3232549
For the most part, the science community has not taking a stance. Since we cant explain the conscious mind or what life is exactly only few claim free will doesnt exist. many different arguments in favor of free will. Besides the ones in this thread there's the whole randomness of the universe theory. Observing randomness. Interacting with randomness. Uncertain principles makes it determine which one so youre just going to have to wait until a few more mathematical advances come along.

>> No.3232578

>>3232549
>Also, if free will does not exist, do you think that it is fair to attribute blame and responsibility to people?
That sentence implies that some people still have free will. Anyone can attribute and blame anything on anything if they are predestined to do so.

>> No.3232600

>>3232578

Think what you have just said through thoroughly. Meditate on it. Sleep on it. Meditate on it again, and then come back and tell me that it is that simple.

This idea is almost paradoxical.

>> No.3232626

If free will doesn't exist then you know where you'll end up in 20 years.

Reality Check, no one know where they'll be in 20 years.
You may do everything in 'your' will (free will amiright guise? xD) but it still doesn't guarantee anything.

Also, to imply that free will doesn't exist is to imply that a divine being lets call him God is responsible.

>> No.3232654

>>3232626
If you know the future you WILL change it somehow.

>> No.3232664

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon

>> No.3232669

>>3232626

>If free will doesn't exist then you know where you'll end up in 20 years.

What? No... what offensive misrepresentation of logic is this rubbish?

>Also, to imply that free will doesn't exist is to imply that a divine being lets call him God is responsible.

Also untrue.

>> No.3232677

>Laplace's Demon
>only read first paragraph of original post

>> No.3232678

>>3232600
What are you talking about? No. If there's no free will it doesn't really imply anything, you can't make any decisions based on it because you don't have a choice. It IS that simple.

>> No.3232682

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

>> No.3232694

>>3232465
The one thing you are missing is
PHYSICS =/= PHILOSOPHY

>> No.3232697

>>3232520
/thread
Why are we stil discussing this.

>> No.3232698

>>3232682
As I said earlier that shit is gay. Taking one mistake with a one correct thing does not rectify that mistake.

>> No.3232708

>>3232678

Ah but that's not quite correct...you can still make "decisions" and "choices" based upon the assumptions that free will doesn't exist. It's just that those decisions/choices were predetermined, and you had no direct hand in making them. Even what I'm saying doesn't quite make sense - and I do realise that - but I just want you to think it through more. The sudden realisation that an (intelligent) consciousness is not making decisions does not suddenly mean that the decisions are not made.

Practically speaking, my question still stands: is it moral to hold people to account for their actions if there is no free will?

>> No.3232710

OP you can't go to science to figure out the equation for love. How do you expect science to give you an answer to free will. Using math to figure it out will get you nowhere.

>> No.3232712

I've found that the question is irrelevant. We act and indeed must act as if we have free will, otherwise responsibility and blame, punishment and reward become meaningless. To some extent we as societies recognize that a person is the outcome of circumstance; we hold children and people incapable of higher order reasoning blameless for some crimes, we create laws that treat people differently based on their background or past experience such as affirmative action or three strikes laws. However, the underlying ethical question in these and all cases is not "did you have a choice?" but "did you know better?". Thus the problem of free will ceases to matter in both our day to day lives and in the larger picture.

>> No.3232720

>>3232694

meta + physics = philosophy
>>3232697

a new question has been raised to which no satisfactory answer has been given: >>3232549

>> No.3232735

>>3232708
Morality hardly exists in a predetermined universe, but it is still probable that people get punished for their crimes in the future also.

>> No.3232734

>>3232720
>I think therefore i am.
You are always responsible for your actions. No excuse except reasonable ignorance.

>> No.3232748

>>3232669
>Also untrue.

Then who's responsible?

>> No.3232758

>>3232748
No one.

>> No.3232761

>>3232734
/thread

>> No.3232770

>>3232758
I'm gonna let that slide and ask you again because that makes no sense.

Then who's responsible?

>> No.3232792

>>3232770
That's like asking that if God didn't create the universe then who did it...

>> No.3232796

>>3232792
Theres a reason we still dont have an answer to that.

>> No.3232805

>>3232761
Why?

>> No.3232821

>>3232796
Everything doesn't have to have a personal entity behind it, most things are caused by impersonal events like chaos and the random occurrences.

>> No.3232827

>>3232821
You mean like God?

>> No.3232840

>>3232821
>Implying those things arent caused by god.
It answers everything, youre just looking for an alternative because you dont like it. Which is fine.

>> No.3232847

>>3232840
umm, oh now I got it, your just a troll who wants attention

>> No.3232873

I just read the first sentence of OP.
So:

Chaotic: free will can't exist because everything is random with no order.

Deterministic: free will can't exist because everything is predetermined.

Soul: free will can exist because you are a spiritual being that makes the decisions outside of the physical world.


Thats why free will not only its not possible, but nonsensical.

inb4 quantum mechanis.
No, they are probabilistic but still deterministic.
Even if they were pure random that would mean free will again wouldn't exist because its random, no will whatsoever, let alone 'free'.

>> No.3232882
File: 2.76 MB, 260x200, 1283114342019.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3232882

you aren't real, deal with it

>> No.3232885
File: 20 KB, 251x249, 1307546460282.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3232885

>>3232882
I am. Deal with it.

>> No.3232894

>>3232873
>Observing free will

>> No.3232939

"It's an illusion. AN ILLUSION . . .

unless we can't fix it, then it's a reality."

~ The Amazing Jonathan

>> No.3232960

>>3232939
Its fixed with our death. Try again.

>> No.3232964

Explain choice.

When you choose something. . .

"Do you want chocolate ice cream, vanilla ice cream, or no ice cream?"

You make a choice. Choice might be as simple as a "checksum" of every stored electric pulse signal in your brain. If your brain has this particular configuration (where these electric pulses are stored here, here, here, here, there, there, there, here, here, and here, and no pulses are stored here, here, here, here, or there) you'll choose chocolate. If your configuration is like "this", you'll choose vanilla. If your configuration is like "this", you'll choose no ice cream.

LULZ.

Also sage, because I "choose" (lol!) to.

>> No.3232974

>>3232964
Implying im not indifferent. Never heard of Chocolate. never heard of Vanilla. Concept of ice cream does not exist for me. Dont give a fuck which one i end up with.

>> No.3232990

>>3232974
> Brain checksum set to "escape mode" (find existing alternate probabilities)
> You want an RNG to decide what kind of ice cream you want?
> NO ICE CREAM FOR YOU IT IS
> Isn't this "game" fun?

>> No.3233005
File: 43 KB, 344x517, 1266773621055.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3233005

Free will exists to a degree in which the outcomes of my actions influence my life, in other words it exists "well enough". Heisenberg would disagree with the practicalities of your hypothesis.

>> No.3233032

>>3232990
Who said i didnt pick one.

>> No.3233081

bump

>> No.3233115
File: 2 KB, 101x55, 1305991301402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3233115

>> No.3233132

>>3233115
Okay, you got me. But save it as a png next time. its looks somewhat suspicious.