/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4641672]

Try to type something random /sci/, alright, you can't, thus free will does not exist.

You could try to do something seemingly random by using analysis but you are just using determinism then so same end.

[Anonymous No.4641686]

I just placed on my desk a radioactive atom of half-life T, along with a geiger counter.

I then decided the following:
if a decay occurs I shall end this post with the character 1.
Otherwise, a 0.

I then waited for exactly the time T and then looked to see if my geiger counter registered the decay event.

It did, so therefore I type the following which is the ultimate result of a completely random process and therefore itself random:

1

[Anonymous No.4641688]

Your logic is shit.

[Anonymous No.4641695]

mfw everything ever is only pseudorandom

[Anonymous No.4641700]

>>4641695
>doesn't know about quantum mechanics
>mfw

[Anonymous No.4641701]

>>4641686

Nice try but I doubt this guy will think atomic decay is random.

[I'm not you !u98ItQCQ1I No.4641715]

>>4641672
I could do something indeterminably chaotic.

[Anonymous No.4641724]

>>4641672

def sayCity():
__list=[]
__list.append(someCityIDidntConsciouslyChoose)
__return list[someRandomChoiceImNotConsciousOf]

you can choose what you will
you cant will what you choose

all choices are built on non-conscious processes.
free will has an infinite regress problem.

[Anonymous No.4641726]

>>4641700
so your quantum state is a conscious process?
and the quantum state of flies and ants too?

[Anonymous No.4641731]

>Try to type something random /sci/, alright, you can't, thus free will does not exist.
That sounds like a silly non-sequitur to me. How the hell does the first lead to the second?

[Anonymous No.4641737]

>>4641731
i guess hes going for hard determinism.
that would preclude free will.

[Anonymous No.4641740]

>>4641737
How so?

[Anonymous No.4641756]

>>4641740
if hard determinism then all future events are predetermined.
that precludes most definitions of "free will" maybe not for people like dan dennette.

but for philosophical libertarians and most compabalists? definitely.


consciousness as thoughtful decision-making and prior to action is usually the standard for free will.

if a brain scan revealed your intention to move, cough, or blink before you consciously considered these actions, that would shake most peoples notion of free will.
(such a scan does not prove hard determinism, of course)

[Anonymous No.4641761]

>>4641756
>that precludes most definitions of "free will"
>if a brain scan revealed your intention to move, cough, or blink before you consciously considered these actions, that would shake most peoples notion of free will.
Only severely misguided definitions. This definition only makes sense if you assume "me" and "physics" are disjoint entities, which is obviously not the case.

Also, gotta run, go finish this thread without me.

[Anonymous No.4641768]

SO I say, hey there
What is happening here
What is this all about?
Well, just let it happen as it goes,

[Anonymous No.4641780]

>>4641761
what people experience as consciousness is what makes them think that they have free will.

if the idea that consciousness happens after the choice is made is then a very shallow definition of free will is all that can exist.
(experiments to measure the above scenario reveal that consciousness occurs post-"decision")

if im properly reading what sam harris says.

[Anonymous No.4641794]

im not convinced that anything follows from a "no free will" position.
less moralnagging would be nice, whatever the case.

[Anonymous No.4641859]

Everything multiplies with time.


At every instant in time everything duplicates. Explains expanding universe, eulers number, logs, dual slit interference, biological trees,

reproduction.

Everything is constantly dividing but it's not because it's multiplying.

[Anonymous No.4641875]

>>4641672
Your face when the scientific definition of "random" is "deterministic but beyond the capability of this model to predict with the information given in any reasonable time".

[Anonymous No.4641972]

How does my ability or inability to do something random have anything to do with free will?

[Anonymous No.4641975]

>>4641672
Arguments in a nutshell: pedantic arguments over definition.

Some people are fine with a definition of "free will" that may be deterministic.

Some people define "free will" to mean "neither deterministic nor random", aka what I like to call "magic", aka "not real". These people are too confused to be understood, and usually deny a simple materialistic reductionistic explanation of reality.

[Anonymous No.4641981]

>>4641975

/thread

It's pointless to define "freedom" as something which can't exist. (See also "certainty").

[Anonymous No.4641990]

>>4641975
Even if this test somehow proved I did not have a free will, it would still be possible that something else had a free will. You cant just declare free will no be nonexistant just because I dont have free will.

[Anonymous No.4641998]

>>4641990
What test?

Do you deny that human behavior is solely a product of basic physics, aka a materialistic reductionistic world-view?

[Anonymous No.4642006]

>>4641975
No. Are you suggesting that free will doesn't exist because humans don't have it?

[Anonymous No.4642017]

>>4642006
>No. Are you suggesting that free will doesn't exist because humans don't have it?
I'm suggesting that this discussion is between people which different preconceived definitions of "free will", which makes discourse exceedingly difficult. Let's take a simpler question - do you believe in the materialistic reductionistic world-view?

[Anonymous No.4642162]

there is no such things as random.
- zanfr, lord of the underachievers

[Anonymous No.4642185]

>>4642017
You've stated the problem with these discussions quite nicely, though I expect that most people who are still arguing about this don't know what the materialist-reductionist worldview is.

[Anonymous No.4643309]

>>4641672
>Try to type the words "all right"
>alright, you can't