Post your arguments in favor of determinism or free will. Construct yout logic within the frames of casualty...

Has someone actually read CTMU?
Is it worth the read? Do you need much math background to be able to understand it?

The whole question is irrelevant and heavily reliant on what "free" means. If you're free if you do what you want to do, then there is nothing contradictory between free will and determinism, because what you want can be influenced by the world. If "free" is to be understood in unrestrained, absolute way than it fails by definition. You can't be absolutely free because you can't choose not to be free. Therefore the first definition of freedom should be used, that is not opposed to determinism.

False dilemma

I struggled with his CTMU for years, actually, before I finally saw the forest for the trees a few weeks ago, and the whole thing suddenly made sense. It truly is genius. Another user here had the same experience, and similarly remarked that it is completely brilliant.

You probably do need a very strong math background to understand it. It's a philosophical work that abstracts understanding of mathematical concepts from model theory to algebraic topology to, most centrally, duality principles. One needs to understand these on an intuitive level. He also regularly uses philosophical abstractions of mathematical terms.

It is extremely difficult to explain self-determinism -- in a sense it is the primary enterprise of the CTMU. However, I can recapitulate Langan's very succinct arguments for why neither determinism nor randomness (acausality) can be the core ontological nature of the universe. Determinism assumes a real set of laws somehow external to reality which govern it: but having real things external to reality is obviously inconsistent. As Langan would say, this violates the "closure principle" of the reality predicate. On the other hand, randomness requires an external probabilistic framework, likewise violating the closure principle. It is almost tautological from the fact that the predicate "reality" is "autological", or self-descriptive, as reality is the set of all real things.

(In fact, its tautological nature is precisely what Langan would claim. But now we require a precise understand of the nature of autology, which is intricately linked with that of self-determinism itself, so we are back to web of the CTMU.)

0/10

First we must determine definitions. Free will is the actor's own determined choice rather than another actor's determined choice for another actor. Either you have free will or not, 50% chance. In other words, sometimes you have free will and sometimes you don't. The proof is trivial. QEF

ITT: science wannabees

That's nice.

Interestingly, Langan ultimately gives an extremely subtle understanding of what freedom even is, to the end of self-determinism resolving the determinism/free-will dichotomy through their identification as dualities. While our actions are in a sense entirely determined by the highest nature of reality, we can dually view ourselves as freely shaping that highest nature itself.

Yeah dude, quantum world is the same as macroscopic scale. I guess I can wake up on the moon tomorrow because of quantum uncertainty.

So what you're saying is that whatever "you" are, which you've yet to define, is something out of the realm of the universe which doesn't abide the laws of physics whereas the entire matter in the universe does.
Which is why it's a 0/10

Determinism isn't true because there are events that are fundamental random which results cannot be predicted no matter how many information you have.
Souls or other metaphysics entities doesn't exists. Human's consciousness is caused only by activity inside the brain and the rest of the body.
I understand free will as ability to make decisions, which means at least human, animals and any truing complete machine have free will. Starting with common definitions is base for reasonable argument. If you use different definition, post it.

No you can't.

> If I can't predict it, it means that its random and not predetermined.

Just because your tiny brain and your puny human technology fails to predict the outcome of an event, doesn't mean that it's random.

Can you predict if the coin will be heads or tails ? You can't ? Well I guess that just disproves determinism right ?

Quantum Physics is spooky /thread

>what fundamental means
>you can't predict coin flip
Are you retarded or only pretending?

what if we are an outside force, but just haven't realized yet?

I abide completely by the laws of physics. You obviously do not understand at all, though I can vaguely see how you might have interpreted things that way.

Thats a huge claim to be making since all the particles we do know abide the laws of physics. I'll wait for your evidence though.

> outside force
outside of what ?

Nope, you just made vague claims with unscientific terminology. State your argument which should clearly prove free will exists.

>Thats a huge claim to be making since all the particles we do know abide the laws of physics. I'll wait for your evidence though.
What is the huge claim? That there are fundamental random events which are against laws of physics?
I've never heard about law like that. Which law of physics prevents random events from occurring?

Second law of thermodynamics & Newtons law of motion. There is no reaction wihout a prior action. Things act on causality, they don't just happen out of nowhere.

Also by saying "I don't know any laws of physics that prevent this", you are not proving anything related to what you said. Learn physics 101 before coming to this thread please.

>literally arguing for quantum consciousness

define random

>Nope, you just made vague claims with unscientific terminology. State your argument which should clearly prove free will exists.
"Free will" is not scientific terminology, so it is impossible to meet your criteria.

But here is the very brief, almost tautological rebuttal of determinism in favor of something that looks like free will:

• Definition: "Reality" is the class of all real things.
• Definition: "Determinism" says reality is determined by some (real) set of laws L.
• Deduction: L is therefore within reality.
• Deduction: L is determined by L
• Conclusion: L is self-determinative.

None of these laws prevents events from having undetermined results.

I meant events which results fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

L governs reality. These are no numbers or groups that you can make a graphic out of. This is pure semantics and not an argument even related to the subject of determinism.

outside of the physical universe we are able to measure

how would that happen ? How would an action happen by itself without a reaction, and what are the laws you put on the table that prove things happen randomly and nat by causality

No it wouldn't happen without a reaction.
It also wouldn't happen randomly.
I've never said(or never meant to say) there are events that happen randomly without causality. I'm saying that there are events which results are random, ie. fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

By ignoring that L is tautologically self-determining, you ignore a fundamental truth. But suit yourself.

how the hell do they create a random outcome ? The energy that goes into the input is explicit, as well as the output.

> cannot be determined
determined by who ? You know there is no human involvement in the origin of causality right ? Even if we didn't exist, everything would still abide the laws of physics, even though there is nobody around trying to determine them.

I wish I could accept more semantics as evidence, but unfortunately I can't.

>how the hell do they create a random outcome ? The energy that goes into the input is explicit, as well as the output.
Using quantum indeterminacy.
>determined by who ?
Determined by any observer. If it's fundamental, then it's independent on competence, intelligence, technology, resource of human observers.

> Using quantum indeterminacy
and how is that prove that reality works by randomness ? You're gonna need more than a sentence fragment to prove and explain your point.

Sidenote : randomness is a theory that opposes free will

I have pictures of gorillas on my computer. Argument closed.

CTMU got blown the fuck out by Kant hundreds of years ago.

Conceptual possibility isn't real possibility

Free Will can only be hypothetically posited as a force outside the empirical series of conditions of everyday reality, but it is only posited as a thing that would not be contradictory if it did exist outside the series of empirical conditions. It is not therefore posited a real thing within the realm of possible experience but a thing that wouldn't contradict our empirical reality if it existed outside of it causing the conditioned empirical state of affairs we experience here.

I don't even know what you mean by this being semantics. It is objectively the case that L determines itself, as proved in .

I find it telling that proponents of free will inevitably resort to ominously saying
>quantum

It's like, if at any point anyone disagrees with your obvious bullshit opinion, you need only point out that there is a physical theory of the universe that defies intuitive reasoning, whence your own bullshit reasoning must be correct

>uuuuuuhhhhhh ... quaaaantuuum

No, reality is within L, not the other way around. and I have no clue how is this supposed to be a rebuttal of determinism, let alone anything more than semantics gibberish.

Your marriage

It's clearly semantics in that it hinges on the semantic assumption that the laws governing reality are "things in reality". No one says laws governing reality are "in reality," they are simply descriptions of how reality works. You just obscured the tautology that deterministic reality determines itself to make it seem like this was somehow a rebuttal of determinism.

>and how is that prove that reality works by randomness ?
What do you mean by that?
All what I'm saying is that there are events which results fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time. This is against determinism since it assumes everything can be determined.
>You're gonna need more than a sentence fragment to prove and explain your point.
Path of photon in double-slit experiments is an example of result that can't be determined. We can only determine the probability of photon getting detected in any area, but we can never determine at which point it will be detected.
Some people explain it by using hidden variables, but Bell has shown that they don't exists.
>randomness is a theory that opposes free will
Define free will.

Universe is not defined by what you can or cannot determine, which makes your argument invalid since the only thing you're clinging on is to repeat "we can't determine". Our technology for measurement is very limited and naturally we can't predict the outcome of things.

You've yet to define randomness and how it happens by breaking the rules of physics known to mankind and introduced by great physicists like einstein.

>Define free will.
Not him, but shouldn't these things be defined *before* you start the discussion?

What you get at actually limns an important semantic issue.

The law governing reality is real if it exists, as anything that exists is real. As reality contains all real things, reality must contain its law. But even though this is a tautological fact, you disagree, ultimately because you cannot reconcile your interpretation of that with how you interpret "containment".

This is resolved by Langan's stratification of the containment predicate into two dual aspects: "topological" containment [math]\subset_T[/math], and "descriptive" containment [math]\subset_D[/math], both of which are ultimately identified as mutually dual.

seems to be using the [math]\subset_D[/math] notion, as the syntax descriptively contains the state, while you seem to be using the [math]\subset_T[/math] notion by thinking of reality as a collection of material things.

It actually is the case that the syntax is topologically contained within the state it describes, as otherwise, just as with an automata-theoretic transducer, it has no procedure to follow in its processing of its state.

thats the problem with this so called 'free will'.
It's so absurd a concept that people just start blathering, because if they first thought about precisely defining what they're blathering about, their idiocy would be illuminated to themselves

> let me try to debunk determinism by completely irrelevant semantics autism that has nothing to do with investigating laws of physics, causality, quantum mechanics or the laws of thermodynamics
still 0/10 sorry

They are afraid to define it because their definition will indirectly state that free will is something like a soul that exists beyond the physical reality of the universe. Free will is the pretext for spiritualism and metaphysics, which is not remotely the subjet of science.

this

Read Kant if you like philosophy . You're trying to do metaphysics with semantics and/or conceptual possibility. You're letting reason loose.

>Universe is not defined by what you can or cannot determine, which makes your argument invalid since the only thing you're clinging on is to repeat "we can't determine".
Universe is is all of time and space and its contents. Its definition is independent on what I personally can or cannot determine. Yet, this fact doesn't make my argument invalid.
>Our technology for measurement is very limited and naturally we can't predict the outcome of things.
It's fundamental, so it's independent on competence, intelligence, technology, resource of human observers.
>You've yet to define randomness
I've already defined event with random result as an event which outcome fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.
>how it happens by breaking the rules of physics known to mankind and introduced
You've not provided any law that prevents events from having outcome that fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time though.
>by great physicists like einstein.
>Argument from authority
Einsein believed that determinism is true, but it doesn't mean he proved it or that it's true.

I already defined free will as
>ability to make decisions, which means at least human, animals and any truing complete machine have free will
in And asked him to provide different definition in case if he disagree. He did not provide any and now said something that goes against my definition, so I asked him to provide definition once again.

>Post your arguments in favor of determinism or free will.
What is there to argue?

You didn't give any specific definitions, but as I understand it, "free will" means that the action taken by me (in particular, my body) is sensitively affected by the decision made by me (in particular, my brain). In particular, it means that a different decision by my brain would have resulted in a different action taken by my body. This is evidently the way human bodies work, so I see little to argue about.

The best current conceptions of physics are deterministic. This, too, seems straightforward.

What's there to argue about?

its not argument from authority, it's the work of einstein which has been tested and observed to be true for over decades by hundreds of reputable scientists. And we're still waiting for you to stop repeating "no its not true" and actually put countering evidence on the table so your claims have a bit of weight and not go into the trash as empty semantics about a hypothetical metaphysical entity.

Get this pholisophical NOT science off my Veeky Forums

Considering langan is a pretentious hack and his followers are in essence a cult of personality, I wouldn't imagine it's a particularly difficult read if you can get past all of the glittering generalities.

Describing a concept as difficult to understand basically discredits that concept.

Good job, fucko

>it's the work of einstein which has been tested and observed to be true for over decades by hundreds of reputable scientists
Work of eninstein focuses on parts of physics that are deterministic or non deterministic effects were so insignificant that they were not noticeable.
>And we're still waiting for you to stop repeating "no its not true" and actually put countering evidence on the table so your claims have a bit of weight and not go into the trash as empty semantics about a hypothetical metaphysical entity.
I've already provided evidence, here: >Path of photon in double-slit experiments is an example of result that can't be determined. We can only determine the probability of photon getting detected in any area, but we can never determine at which point it will be detected.
Some people explain it by using hidden variables, but Bell has shown that they don't exists.

That's absolutely laughable.

I suppose that describing set-theoretic forcing as difficult to understand discredits it too, eh?

It sounds like by "investigating the laws of physics" you refer to investigating established theories such as QM and GR. It is nonsense to assume unproven hypotheses in one's metaphysics.

In traditional philosophy, one could argue for absolutely anything. It's all gibberish. Why isn't this possible in mathematics? Because mathematical deduction [math]is[/math] semantic deduction. Semantic deduction from formal definitions, as in , is the philosophical equivalent of mathematical ratiocination.

You may as well dismiss formal Hilbert-style proofs for being nothing but semantic deduction.

Math is based on objective rules and equations. Philosophy is gibberish. Not only they are very different, they sit at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Your "proof" is still based on humans inability to determine it, rather than arguing wit the usage of a physical law.

The integral whole of the universe is made up of many components. Each component, derived from the whole, has a different tangent to the whole. These tangents are relative to each component. Each component does what it wills to do, freely relatively. This is the universe splitting up into a multiverse, and the expansion of the universe. The limit of knowledge: the area of the trigonometric function with y as consciousness, x as automata/nomy//platform, and pi as rational integration of will and knowledge; is elementary to that which we are slaves/servants of. This is the entropy.

>As reality contains all real things, reality must contain its law.
I already explained why this is wrong. Laws are not "things", they are just *how* things behave. Reality is the way it is. That's the only truth in what you're saying and there is no meaning in your words beyond that trivial tautology. It has absolutely nothing to do with determinism, yet you are using innuendo to make it seem so.

>Langan
LOL, nice troll.

I have a bunch of apples, grapes and oranges. I can group the apples to one side and oranges to another. All apples, oranges and grapes abide the laws of gravity, but gravity is not a subset of apples, nor apples are a subset of gravity.

If you really can't comprehend the basic distinction that physical properties and matter are on different formats, then you shouldn't really try to form any opinions on determinism or anything related to physics before you get an elementary education on physics.

I use the word "thing" as a free variable, like one would use the variable "x" in first-order logic. To be clear:
"Reality is the set of all real [math]x[/math]".
Then the formal deduction follows, as "law" is something that can be instantiated by a free variable.

And thank you, I am glad that everything I have said is tautological. That means it is true.

You are philosophically operating in a sort of type theory that precludes universal quantification. Append to your type theory a "universal type" (type: real) that all things are, and proceed from there.

If the law is with respect to variable time, then time is variable and the law changes.

>Your "proof" is still based on humans inability to determine it
No, as I said, it's fundamental inability, not related to used technology, resources and competence.
As Bell has shown there is no hidden variables that make these experiments determined.
>rather than arguing wit the usage of a physical law.
You've not provided any law that prevents events from having outcome that fundamentally cannot be determined ahead of time.

Can you try to explain what kind of "big picture" you saw without going too much into the underlying math, and what makes it brilliant?

just give up, Langan is a complete hack.

Well you can choose to not be free and stop being free from that moemnt on, there is no contradiction here. (Of course you can't choose to get back to being free again). The contradiction only happens if you're supposed to be always free.

Literally doesnt matter either way because everything only happens once so you cant prove either.

To crudely translate the big-picture technical notions in and consequences of the CTMU to common English requires theological concepts. After understanding the CTMU, all of the things Langan has said about God make sense.

Keep in mind that your understanding of the below as an explanation of an aspect of the CTMU is like a layperson's understanding of String Theory obtained from listening to Michio Kaku:

Reality as God with an timeless omnipotent self-determinative agency, and each of us as smaller closed reality-loops that on the one hand freely self-determine in a limited way, yet which can be dually regarded as being configured by God.

()
And that is just a very tiny aspect.

>"Reality is the set of all real x".
This clarifies nothing, you're just switching around words. Try to substantiate some *meaning* into what you are writing. What does "real x" mean? Why is reality a set of it?

>Then the formal deduction follows, as "law" is something that can be instantiated by a free variable.
"All bachelors are single. I can describe one apple as single. Therefore bachelors are apples." If you are not a troll, I hope you have someone that's taking care of you. How you could survive on your own with such illogical thinking is puzzling.

>And thank you, I am glad that everything I have said is tautological. That means it is true.
And you're apparently illiterate as well. I did not say that what you said is tautological, I said that the only truth in what you said is tautological. Most of your posts are just obfuscations in order to make an unsound argument.

That only explains what the big picture is. I want to understand why you came to so intuitively understand it and how all the math fits together with it.

Basically this, the question is ultimately a paradox. Why cant it be determined that we have free will? Rather that our freedom can appear to be exactly that, and still be determined?

You're right, I had misread you about the tautology.

I hear what you are saying in , but I am confused by your stance. Does the law determining reality exist, or does it not? Is it real, or not real? If it is real, then it is an aspect of reality, and thus determines itself. If it is not real, then what are we even talking about?

To reply appropriately to this would require the style of quoting individual things and then replying separately to each of them. I find this a terrible Veeky Forums practice that is guaranteed to result in nothing but derailment of successive misunderstandings of tiny elements while failing to discuss the original topic at all. I will just say that everything you refer to as a not-thing is thing to me, because in my vocabulary all aspects of reality are things. And I have absolutely zero idea what your bachelors-apple false-syllogism has to do with absolutely anything; it is seems that it is impossible for you to understand me because we seem to speak different languages. To me, you don't even know what "thing" means. So given that, I think we're done.

>Does the law determining reality exist, or does it not?
It does or it does not, depending on what you mean by exist. Ultimately the distinction is pointless as it is merely semantics until you substantiate it with meaning. Reality is the way it is. Does this mean that "reality determines itself"? Again, what does that mean? It's a very common game to write things in a poetic sense so that they are too vague to be criticized and then treat this as a hard fact that other things can be deduced from. This seems to be mainly what Chris Langan is trying to do with CTMU. It's simply obfuscated language and poetics in an attempt to conveniently reach conclusions about "God" that amazingly are right in line with Christianity. If one actually looks at what he is saying one realizes that the argument is so vague as to make these feel-good conclusions practically meaningless. What thousands of years of failed metaphysics has shown us is that you can't define your way into understanding reality. It simply doesn't work, except as a rhetoric.

>>Math is based on objective rules and equations. Philosophy is gibberish. Not only they are very different, they sit at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

please speak to me after class, and tell your waifu to see me in my office after my office hours

In a social sense. We have free will.
For the sake of semantics and science, we do not have free will.

Not sure why this is still an argument.

>2. You are not a god
citation needed

>In a social sense. We have free will.
>social
into the garbage it goes.

Determinism is king, free will is an illusion.
Explained:

I have a hypothesis that consciousness isn't what people think it is; meaning it's a trick of biology caused by a random mutation and there is no "I" or "you" in the sense of a continuous existing entity and the identity is based on residual memories, most of which are slightly distorted [confabulation].
Basically, there is no self in the sense of "I think therefore I am".
A small program can be programed to say such a thing; does it make the program conscious? Hardly. Does it prove the process was built of consciousness or choice?
Not necessarily:

Basically animals developed a complicated system of neural networking that allowed for data to be stored, however the data is sorted into area of positive and negative relationships and conceptual relationships.

So, your body goes through all sorts of changes, but the neural network refuses to remember particular negatives because the brain itself would detect that as a loss and going into survival mode, which WAS useful.
Then someone randomly developed a gene that allowed for Logic Loops in the brain that modify memories and understanding of one's environment, so that they don't overreact in crowded areas [what later became social circumstances].

These Logic Loops are what we would call "the self" or "consciousness".
It explains everything from mental illness [dissociation is caused when these loops are broken; mood disorders when part of the loop is disturbed, etc.] to religious thinking [magical thinking, confirmation bias, anchoring, etc.].

Consciousness and choice are in the same level; they both illusions caused by incomplete and skewed understanding of data and reality.

We're reactive, but our input and memory?
It's mostly fiction folks.
Sorry.

dude quantum mechanics lmao
dude we cunt no nuffin lmao
dude quantum spookyness lmao
dude free will lmao

>muh intellectual edge
>muh transcendence from society
Two sides of the argument and you still can't help being a faggot.
Good luck getting out of pretension and actually doing something with your life you fucking sac of 70% water.

does having the illusion of free will explain human technological advances as well as actually having free will does?

Consciousness could indeed be a Gouldian spandrel, but then how to explain the current success of humanity? The computers we're communicating on weren't engineered by an illusion.

"Resultism"; the complex inevitability that is part of complex evolution.
We evolved to survive, and then we evolved a complex neural network, which we applied to survive. Eventually that headed towards technology.

then why did no animals that lack the illusion of consciousness do the same thing?

Instinct doesn't explain human behavior, eventually you have to give a name to that thing which makes us different from every other animal.

if the ability to invent something that has never existed before doesn't spring from free will, then where's it coming from?

I've never seen a picture smaller than a KB on here.

There are different level of logic loops and intelligence because of random genetic mutations, and intelligence [or that is, awareness] isn't always beneficial [may trigger counter-productive reactive behaviors].
So not all animals evolve to the state humans have.

>or that is, awareness
the user claimed that "consciousness" is an illusion- awareness is synonymous with consciousness.

>So not all animals evolve to the state humans have
None have outside of our lineage and there's no reason to think any will.

I notice you haven't addressed the actual point. What drives this unique ability if not free will? Is it in our genetic makeup to mindlessly invent computers and then pretend we did it consciously? If so, what other magical innovations does our DNA encode that we haven't yet produced by the deterministic process you claim we excuse?

must be because quantum spookyness

From a human perspective free will is indistinguishable from the illusion of free will so it doesn't really matter.

except one is explanatory from an adaptationist standpoint while the other is not.

Also believing free will is an illusion measurably harms people's productivity and happiness. Which would seem to indicate it's not.

Personal belief does not matter when it comes to the very nature of the consciousness that believes it. An AI could be programmed to believe it has free will but that wouldn't make it so.

It makes no difference what people think, or whether they believe themselves free - on a fundamental level, the human brain is nothing but an organic computer, and any thought that comes out of it is no more the product of a free will than the musings of a chatbot are. The only difference between a computer and a human mind is the level of complexity and thus there is no free will - only the illusion of it. Input -> output. That's it. That's the entirety of human consciousness.