Determinsim

how is this theory so widely accepted by scientists and philosophers yet so hard for normies to swallow? is the idea of not having free will so hard for people to grasp?

Other urls found in this thread:

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>this theory so widely accepted by scientists
lmao get fucked

not an argument

QUANTUM

Random number generators don't have free will.
Normal people prefer to believe they're special. It's the same reason why people don't like thinking of the human species as a kind of animal. Or why geocentrism was once a common belief about reality.

Because there is no proof it is true and egghead virgins want something to blame their social ineptitude on.

>I was never able to be anything BUT a loser, I couldn't have done anything else.

Determinism is for those searching to be a cosmic victim and deny personal responsibility.

>widely accepted by philosophers
That's compatiblism. Fucking 12% of philosophers are determinsts, coming behind free will libertarians and "other"

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=13371

It took less than a minute on google to find this out.

Calling philosophy a "social science" is an insult to every other practitioner of science. Modern philosophy is a completely vestigial field of study that exclusively ponders questions which have absolutely no bearing over the real world and to say that answering them expands our understanding of the world around us is truly a farce. Discovering whether or not we have free will will not change anything and and the answer will have absolutely no bearing over what is happening, has happened, or will happen on Earth.

>widely accepted
(citation needed)

your entire thread is built on an appeal to authority that doesn't exist. why don't you develop the arg for determinism that you think is so great so we can refute it mercilessly for you?

(also maybe do it on Veeky Forums, where there's better philosophers, or maybe on Veeky Forums where all the chud scientists whose concepts of philosophy are limited to Sam Harris can make your head spin with how little scientists actually get philosophy)

>philosophy considers questions with no real bearing over the world
>science is completely based on ever-changing and developing epistemology first formulated and continually updated by philosophers
>therefore science must not have real world bearing

really makes you think.

Say determinism is true and correct. It just means that whatever our position in life is, was unavoidable from the beginning so we shouldn't worry or regret too much about it.
We're just watching a really long movie.

Determinism has no effect on free will.

You still need to make decisions.

Even a simple program:
>if x=1 then continue
Requires a decision to work.

The future maybe as fixed as the past, but this has no bearing on the fact that you make choices. As a conscious being, you're limited in your perception, and must make decisions based on limited information.

Basically, it seems folks that think otherwise are declaring free will requires the ability to defy physics.

Just because you can't fly by flapping your arms does not mean you do not have free will.

I don't think the debate is about whether we make choices or not, but about the nature of our choices: are they "free" or rather they follow necessarily from given facts?

Because existentialism blows it out of the fucking water

He said modern philosophy, mr. Religion man.

I guess normies see determinism as being an automaton, which scares them. They don't realize that even if we are deterministic, that doesn't stop us from living our lives and experiencing enjoyment, so it doesn't matter anyway.

>how is this theory so widely accepted by scientists
it's not though? current scientific consensus seems to be settled on the universe being probabilistic instead of deterministic

and are you really asking why normies can't wrap their head around this? most people in the world still don't understand that cumming inside will lead to babies and act surprised when they end up with one after having unprotected sex. how is there any hope that people like this will absorb the complex philosophical implications of our current understanding of physics and cosmology?

free will is literally a meme

Again, the only way something can do other to follow necessarily from given facts, is to defy physics. If you kick a rock off a cliff, it will fall. If your mom off a cliff, she will fall. Doesn't matter if one has free will or not.

And decisions affect decisions. So if you choose to move your Knight to F2, you change the decision of the opposing player, in turn affecting your next move, etc. etc. Both players are pitting their free wills against one another.

The only creature that could be a decision making machine as we are, and not have free will, would be an omniscient one living exclusively within the confines of this same universe. It would know all things, including every decision it would make and every consequence thereof, and thus would never actually make said decisions, as it's existence would effectively be non-temporal.

But the universe's physics cannot sustain such a creature - the size information storage would be as vast as the universe itself, and the communication between its nodes would have to be instantaneous, and thus faster than speed of causality would allow.

Since such a perspective cannot exist in the universe, and all conscious thought is the result of limited perception, free will is inescapable for such creatures. They are bound to it, in the same way they are bound to the inevitability of physics.

>current scientific consensus seems to be settled on the universe being probabilistic instead of deterministic
This is where science and philosophy kinda start to blur - but relativity tells us that, even though time is a quite a wonkier than we ever imagined, the future is as fixed as the past (and thus predetermined). QM agrees with this, but it creates the paradox in which some events are forever indeterminable by beings, such as ourselves, that perceive from single reference of time and must interact with the universe in order to perceive it.

Thus, from the human standpoint, you can only see probability. In the grand scheme of things, that probability is determined. Even if sometimes future events affect the past, especially on the micro scale, and even if, from different references, different events may appear to happen in different orders, from the grand non-temporal view, all events are still predetermined.

But the human standpoint, the human perspective, is the only one we have - the other is fiction (or, at least, inaccessible to us), thus we have free will.

>implting they have a choice but to look

I know you're just shitposting for fun, but unfortunately there's a lot of people who believe that, even within this very board.
>Quantum Mechanics means free will
This is a meme perpetuated by idiots who have absolutely zero understanding of even Classical Physics.

So free will isn't really a "power" but a feeling arising from our ignorance of the causes of our decisions.

It's a side effect of being perceptual beings with limited perspective.

We're procedural interpreters in a churning ocean of time with many winding currents. Our decisions have indeed already shaped the events within those currents, we've just yet to process the next line where we experience making them.

An interesting argument for fatalism but not a currently proven one.

Well, if your cell phone still knows where you are, the fact that the future is as fixed as the past is proven.

That whole "consciousness" thing comes into play in all this though, so yeah, can't help ya there.

I see no problem with not having free will since we perceive ourselves as free-willed. Whether what we perceive is the truth or just an illusion makes no difference because the illusion is sufficient insofar we cannot tell the difference.

>doesn't understand continued relevance of epistemological discourse
okay Mr. Applied Science Trog Man

black dick

because it's completely incoherent

you can't even decide to believe or not believe in free will, because it's all determined

what's most absurd is people arguing we should change the justice system based on humans not having free will, as if we have a choice

worlds most retard belief

this.
free will is an illusion caused by not knowing the future.
a godlike figure that knows the future has no free will in fact - the christian god doesnt have free will.