Why does /pol/ believe in free will?

In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least it is true that man has no control, even over his own will.

I support free wi-fi as long as it's not coming out of my taxes.

Theist beliefs and dogma also refute themselves with simple logic.

Psalm 147:5 "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

Theist claim that their god is omniscient but also claim that they are given free will.

This is not possible as an omniscient god would know all states past present and future and thus all information would exist in a closed system where all probable outcomes are predetermined through gods will alone.

It also refutes any possibility of an oppositional force such as satan as all creation is for god and of gods will. god and satan are one and the same.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand cuckolding. The kink is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of intersectional feminism most of the empowerment will go over a typical cuck's head. There's also the Bull's aggressive outlook, which is deftly woven into his role - his personal mannerisms draw heavily from the mating habits of bovine animals, for instance. The cucks understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of being cuckolded, to realize that it's not just arousing - it says something deep about DIVERSITY. As a consequence people who dislike cuckolding truly ARE idiots - of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the power of when the woman says "leave the room Carl you're breaking Tyrone's concentration," which itself is a cryptic reference to the plight of African-American males in the United States. I'm smugly grinning right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as The Bull's strong African seed ejaculates itself on my wife. What bigots... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a cuck tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for The Bull's eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 7 inches above of my own (preferably higher) beforehand.

>always going to happen from the beginning of time.
>everything you do is caused by a long chain of coincidence.
These two claims are contradictory. Any chain of coincidence could've changed randomly and caused you do so something slightly different, meaning it wasn't going to happen from the beginning of the universe. If it was *going* to happen, it would be determined, not coincidental. Let's have logical consistency for our claims please.

Why do people believe there's any difference between free will existing and not?

What a load of shit! I have free will! My destiny is my own!

This. The only answer to the question is that free-will vs. determinism is a false dichotomy. The answer to a non answerable question is the explanation of why it is not answerable.

It's a tricky question. Yes, God gave us free will. Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. To achieve the maximum potential for individuation, one must submit his own will to God's will. This is what the sacrifice of Christ means -- the king crucified on the cross is the individual ego being fixed to the intersection of the material plane and the spiritual plane. The Spirit is the conduit for receiving God's will and is the path to joy, and heaven on Earth. So yes, we were given free will but the best thing to do with it is submit our will to God's will.

Agreed. I've been saying exactly this for a while (YouTube search 'radical podcast - free will' - mine)
All science (literally, all) conflicts with any conceivable notion of free will. It's a myth, and a harmful one to boot. #1 redpill of all time. Source of the twin notions of blame and credit. Twin notions are source of most of humanity's ills.

>Why does /pol/ believe in free will?

I choose to.

Because you were conditioned to through your upbringing. Because of who you were raised by and the information you assimilated. Through no choice of your own. Checkmate.

>All science (literally, all) conflicts with any conceivable notion of free will.
Try to explain why it does.

>Because you were

Stopped reading there. You calling me a fucking liar, leaf?

>no free will
>so be as degenerate as you want goy!
>you have no control over anything anyways!
I don't think so kike. Nice try

>letting some faggot named Occam decide what to think

I guess some people indeed do not possess free will.

I'll only start refuting the existence of free will if I ever get caught fucking a dead animal or something.

Occam's razor isn't even what OP thinks it is. Its a useful tool that allows shortcuts but has obvious limitations within any significantly complex problem.

Biology - you have no control over your genetics, your biochemical response to your environment, your neurology, your need to urinate, hunger, and so on. Neurologically, you are conditioned by your environment/genetics.
Physics - no control over quantum entanglement ( your atoms are entangled with every other molecule/atom/quark in the universe. All function dependently with one another. EVERYTHING is dependent on everything else. This fundamentally conflicts with any notion of free will.
Chemistry - you react to pheromones, odors, toxins, allergens, psychoactive all without choice.
The basic fundamentals however are this: the world is fundamentally interconnected - weather, tides, gravity, oxygen cycles (you breath in what trees breath out, you breath out what trees breath in) food cycles, water cycles.
EVERYTHING is fundamentally interconnected. Everything is fundamentally interdependent. This is all fundamentally in conflict with any conceivable notion of free will.

Liar no, conditioned to believe a myth, yes.

>Biology - you have no control over your genetics, your biochemical response to your environment, your neurology, your need to urinate, hunger, and so on. Neurologically, you are conditioned by your environment/genetics.
False. Look up epigenetics. By purposefully changing your environment to fit kids better, you can improve the genetic condition of your ancestors.
>Chemistry - you react to pheromones, odors, toxins, allergens, psychoactive all without choice.
We used chemical knowledge to stop many of the things we were "determined" by, such as infectious disease. You can stop reacting to things if you choose to eliminate them or make them insignificant.

You are making massive philosophical assumptions and claiming that they are Science! Its nonsense. Interconnection doesn't disprove free will, it means if you change one thing you change everything, it does not preclude the possibility of changing it in the first place. Notice I'm not making claims for free will, but simply demonstrating how your claims are irrational.

Coincidence is relative to the affected. There is no such thing as a random thing. Just a thing that happened.

So why do we punish people for crimes?

>Occam's razor
Back 2 Reddit

I'm tired af hearing about ''occam's razor''. All kinds of retards using it as an argument as to why the simple thing must be the right thing. Because occam's razor, duh!

Sometimes the complex answers are the correct ones, and the complexity or simplicity of an answer are not what determines truth.

To understand free-will, you first must be free.
Few are. Few put in the work to become.
Those w/o it question those who exercise it.
It's a state of mind.

As for the science of the matter, you'll be given something soon.
/thread

You could not be conscious without having free will.

>There is zero evidence to support free will.

Except for the billions of subjective reports of its apparent presence. As much as one might like to think that subjective human experience has no place in the realm of scientific inquiry, we really can't overlook it. I -- apparently -- have free will. It seems to me that I do. Others I've talked to say the same thing. Sure, it's a belief which isn't rigorously proven, but it's still evidence pointing in that direction.

Now, just because billions of people have had a similar experience or sensation, that doesn't mean that we've interpreted it the right way. That is, our free-will may just be an artifact. It may appear to us that we are making our own decisions, but in reality, it's just an effect of a concert of cause-and-effect firings of neurons. If that IS the case and free will is just a specter, then why do SO many people experience it? How is a phenomenon, about which nearly every philosopher has touched, which is shared by nearly everyone NOT considered evidence about its existence? That experience didn't just pop out of nowhere.

Getting to the bottom of the processes which (may / may not) lead to an (apparent / real) sensation of freewill. The fact that there is a sensation of it -- the sensation does exist -- which is shared across an entire species is a pretty big hint that it may exist.

So the shared sensation of free will IS evidence of its existence. It is not proof, however.

This is exactly my line of reasoning, but with a different conclusion: The very concept of free will does not make sense It's a memme.

Well, coincidence is:
>a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.

If there isn't apparent causal connection, how is something you do resulting from coincidence determined? It seems like you are adding new bits instead of admitting that you argument might not be completely rational.

if i don't have free will i can go on a murder spree at my closest afro-mall and claim i never had any control of my actions.

hmmm

If you had free will you could will your life however you want it. But destiny choses to shit on some people and they will never will what they want into reality.
How will you fix your next mistake? How will you enable your next triumph? You don't know. But it will happen whatever it is.

Thought is a quantum event, therefore no decision made can be stated in a model of certainty. Even in the case that there are a limited number of choices even if the probability for one of the choices is over 90% the very existence of the 10% would suggest that I have free will.

Prior knowledge of all outcomes doesn't invalidate the choices that lead to them.

But it does mean that no matter what you think you are going to choose the outcome remains constant.

If god is omniscient choice is merely an illusion.

Choice is an illusion
Decision is not an illusion (assuming this is not a simulation)

Decision or Free Will whats the difference

No what I'm saying is its only a coincidence to you from your perspective.

From His perspective, maybe (Pointless to postulate whether this is the case, because we cannnot know). From our perspective it remains more or less the same.

Naw, Occams razor says it is simpler that there is a huge universal conspiracy for every single petty choice you make.

Not the assumption that you just make them.

Destiny or Fate?

(You)

>Thought is a quantum event,
[citation needed]

PLEASE link me to a peer-reviewed paper describing a working theory of thought. I'd love to read it.

We don't know what thought is. Just because there is randomness at the quantum level which may or may not effect the voltage of neurons bringing some up to threshold (and then firing), does NOT mean that this fuzziness is the stuff of thought.

I see you watched the latest episode of rick and morty as well, fellow intellectual.

We do know, we have his holy word which states clearly that he is both omniscient and omnipotent. This remains true across all Abrahamic faith and true for most any other theistic belief system.

Omniscience means knowledge of all things. Which in turns means predetermination. If theist actually practiced what is preached they would simply follow their own whims as nothing but gods will alone no matter what it might be.

I use Christian text purposefully as the only price for admission is to simply believe.

If the laws of physics don't penetrate your brain, shoot yourself in the head

No-one knows fucking anything about conciousness, so they're no evidence, either way.

>Occam's fallacy
Lmao

>Occam's razor
why are fags suddenly all about this? it's not a law of the universe. simplicity is subjective as well. you know what doesn't follow occam's razor? quantum physics

We live in a simulation

Yes, He knows everything that can be known. And He can achieve everything that is possible.
But does he place the same value both on the knowledge of the outcome and the actual outcome once it has occurred?

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him"

Everything is his will alone, thus no free will. If it happened it was by his design alone.

Free will does not exist, but there are so many variables in even second-to-second life, that you may as well pretend that there is, as the future is nearly impossible to predict (outside of measurable events)

Lawofone.info
Free will is the first distortion of unity.
>lawofone.info/synopsis.php
>The First Distortion
>The first distortion is free will, or finity, or the limit of the viewpoint (13.12, 15.21, 99.5). The created universe that we experience is the Creator’s exploration of Itself through the first distortion, which Ra also calls the Law of Confusion (27.10).

People who push no free will are generally idiots who want to live without conscience. People have control over themselves in every practical sense and by eliminating your concept of self you eliminate any your very being. You'd rather exist as nothingness than as part of something you might find scary; it's creating hell on earth.

There's something off about that entire sentence. Having access to the outcomes of your actions doesn't discount free will. You're taking this web you've woven and since every conceivable outcome is incorporated, no matter where anyone branches off it's all considered the same as a single timeline. You're saying "since everything that will happen has happened you have no free will because you took a path along the numerous available paths available to you." See, no matter what anyone says, under those circumstances where one goalpost is singular and the other is a collective, of course we wouldn't have free will in your estimation. As for God having all the answers at his finger tips. Same thing, it's the same web. Possibilities and realities are quite different. The point is you don't know what the future holds and have no way of knowing. You have many choices and options available to you and won't know what your line looks like until it's done. Of course looking back you're going to say "oh, well everything was determined and I was destined to do everything I did." Okay fine, you can make that argument, but that doesn't change anything.

truth..

It's very irrelevant in any case. As everything can happen only once and only one way. You don't get to revisit and redo a moment. We seem to have -a Will-, whether you choose to call it free or not is of no consequence to anything.

You're a very smart boy for believing what is self-admittedly the simplest explanation.

>Occam's razor...
When will people realize this is a nonargument any time the discussion is about anything that there is no pragmatic reason to.

Also, fucking hell, I could use Occam's razor to "suggest" solipsism is the "most logical" point of view. Why? We know we can experience hallucinations, very vivid ones, not to mention dreams. So what's more likely? That a whole entire universe is out there with billions of years of existence? Or that it's all just a figment of my imagination, which as proven I already know I can misinterpret as sensory truth.

I'm saying choice is an illusion. What we perceive as choice has already been predetermined through the will of god alone. If the outcome is predetermined through omniscience the choices were as well. If I present you with 100 doors but know you will always take the third did you ever really have a choice?

>If I present you with 100 doors but know you will always take the third did you ever really have a choice?
Yes. You didn't force him to take the door, you applied no force to either his body or mind. He chose to take the door.

Pretty much this. You yourself don't know what you are gonna do. You merely react in the way you always were going too.

White people created free will to escalate our power level and overtake the nwo determinists.

Free will means taking the ultimate stand against entropy and inevitable suffering. It's like stopping time, saving a life, or any other miracle.

Faith in free will is magic, it is illogical, it is powerful, and ignorance of self determinism will be the Jews down fall.

he never had a choice, he will always take the third as that was predetermined.

That's why I say free will and choice is an illusion. It does not matter how many possibilities exist when the outcome has already been determined. That's the core essence of omniscience. It means that the path of every particle, the vibration of every atom has already been set in stone. Past, present and future.

Let's say for a moment, for the sake of a thought experiment, that the universe is utterly ignorant of it's outcomes and that no being knows the future. People go about their business, days go by, stars are born and die. Free will from your perspective, right?
And suddenly, you become armed with the knowledge of the future. What has actually changed? How did this sudden knowledge invalidate and collapse the nature of reality?
Or better yet, with a bonus question; How would a will that is actually free and thus unlike from our "unfree" will look?

There's a difference between free will and non-deterministic will though. A man says he will measure an electron's spin to determine what he does today. If it is up, he will go out and apply for a job. If it's down, he will stay at home and see how many times he can masturbate in one day. Is this man exhibiting free will through this device?

Free will only exist if an omniscient god does not exist, if said god is not omniscient he is neither omnipotent. If a person were to suddenly gain omniscience and know all outcomes then that individual could indeed exercise will to change those outcomes. He would in effect become a god. It does not invalidate or collapse reality, it merely adopts the position that theist believe in. That only god really wields control over will.

Bonus answer : Free will is chaos.

I do think we have free will, and more power than we believe.

Some very smart individuals managed to achieve a cristal clear mind that allows you to reach whatever goals you want.

Therefore they learned to keep everyone else dumb, confused, obscured to enlightment and do everything in their power to achieve that and keep that power for themselves.

There are ways to improve for anyone, but its very hard and full of obstacles by those who dont want you to wake up.

Each scenario is identical however. The will is neither free nor unfree, it just is.

So you believe that there is no free will?
Then how do you believe in having beliefs if everything you think is per-determined? You didn't choose this point of view, you trusted the chemicals in your brain to re-arrange themselves to make you say that you have that point of view. But even saying that means that you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they're chemicals. All I'm saying is that holding such a position is hard when you're arguing against people being able to choose their opinions, or anything else. But it is interesting to think about.

this meme "scientific" theory that if we could simply map out every molecular interaction ever we could prove freel will dosn't exist is total BS, and proof has foundation in science itself. Two words
>Quantum Theory
Rules laid out in quantum physics means that at any point for a molecular, and subsequently biological reaction to take place, a certain electron arrangement must be met. We simplify this into the statistical rate any reaction moves forward or backward, but determing whether or not a single atom at a single point in time will go forward depends on its quantum state, which any armchair scientist can tell is
A: only partially measurable
B: exists in both states at the same time until "determined"
C: Measurement of one entangled particle will have the instantaneous opposite affect on the other

From this we can derrive

A: We can not even theoretically, let alone practically, model every interaction
B: Even if we could, the ultimate result is always changing and
C: Even theoretically, outside forces are constantly revising the path of your "determined" will.

Using determined will theory as a crutch to blame for your shitty actions? Heres how you can change that. Think of a situation, something simple. "Should I go to the bathroom now or wait 5 minutes". Roll. Ending digits odd, take option A. Ending result even? take path B.
Bam, you have just re written your entire molecularly determined future.

This is happening, constantly, at a particle level, and as you move furth and further up the biological scale more and more "noise" is introduced. Within that noise you are free to make a determination, or as some call it, free will.

Occam's razor is more of a heuristic than a hard principle. It's based on the observation that most systems do not have extraneous moving parts, so a satisfactory answer that is as simple as possible is often the actual answer. The problem most internet mental warriors don't recognize when invoking it is that it's very easy and very common to give an unsatisfactory answer by oversimplifying.

picture slightly related

>Putting limits on an omnipotent being.
What a fag you are

occam's razor also says schrodingers cat is both alive and dead simultaneously because magic.

Omnipotent does have limits. They start where possibilities begin, and end where possibilities run out.
A misunderstanding of this word is what leads atheists to come up with paradoxes such as "Can God create a rock so heavy He could not lift it?" in order to disprove His existence. God is omnipotent and therefore able to achieve everything that is possible, and paradoxes such as that one are by definition impossible. Infinity cannot spawn another infinity. An unstoppable force will never meet an immovable object. Etc.

Not necessarily true. Knowing all possible outcomes is not the same as determining every outcome. God knows every possible decision I could make. He also knows what decisions I will make. Sounds like he's determining what I decide but not really. Knowing what will happen doesn't make it happen. If you give a kid a bowl of worms and a bowl of ice cream, you know, being the vastly superior intelligence that you are, that they'll choose the ice cream. Scale that up and you have the theistic view of God's omniscience in agreement with our own free will.

If you watch a movie a second time, you know what the characters will do. You know what decisions they'll make. But you don't make them make the decisions. How? Because you're outside of the timeline of events in the movie, much like God is outside the timeline of events in the world. He knows what you can do, even what you will do. Does that make sense?

>Biology
but you can indirectly control transcription rates (ie working out, getting shot)
>Physics
but can change state of entanglement through observation, and can change observation through something inherently random
>Everything
within pre-determined outside factors is a degree of noise within which you can act on
Within internal factors is a degree of noise not fully A nor fully B

Whether its A or B is "your decision" aka free will.

Because to do otherwise is to be an irresponsible fool.

Schrodinger's cat is pretty tongue-in-cheek. The only way you can say the cat is in a superposition is if you believe the particle hasn't been effectively measured until the box is open (not true. The particle would have already assumed a definite quantum state by that point), or that future events that are dependent on a non-deterministic outcome are also in superposition (a weird claim. This would suggest there are aspects of the future in the present, in which case, what are they doing here).

At any rate, Schrodinger's Cat was a deliberate reduction to absurdity rather than a truth claim.

You still need to introduce a dualistic element to make this square with free will though. Otherwise, you are just beholden to a partially random system rather than a predetermined one ,and there's still no space for the subjective perception of choice.

i cant even resist shitposting despite not wanting to do it

Unless he has given us free will, yet is aware of all possible outcomes where our free will may lead us. At the same time, a truly omnipotent God would be capable of turning off his own foresight, perhaps to entertain him/her/itself, or for some other purpose.

Hi, Veeky Forums, mods are fags and they do it for free.

Love, /pol/

welp for anyone from pol who made the migration, I've decided this is a fruitless use of my time

GGGGGRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFFIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Occam's razor
Why do people keep acting as if it's some sort of a rule or a law?

>most logical point of view.
It is logical for you to conclude that you are unable to conclude things?

God knowing what will happen does not imply that a free choice is not being made. There is your mistake.

They must have thought highly of this thread usually we go to /bant/

The fact that we have been utterly unable to replicate human consciousness in computers despite having computers with far more processing power than a human brain suggests that there is some non-material component of consciousness outside of purely deterministic physical models.

Two types of Veeky Forums posters