Does the belief in free will directly contradict the idea of physicalism?
Basically the theory goes, if everything was pre-determined by the initial conditions of the big bang, then free will does not exist. Free will must implies that there is something extra-physical (like a soul).
Other urls found in this thread:
Free will is determined by complex chemical reactions anyway, mate. The characteristics of a person are determined by molecular patterns. Free will is bs
The question was not whether or not you believe in free will. The question was this. Would free will directly contradict the idea of physicalism. Does it imply something extra-physical?
you can change the definition of a soul to fit into the situation where free will doesn't exist
think 'brain in a vat' except the brain is some sort of computer, i.e. a soul is a 'computer' that reacts to input, e.g. physical stimuli
Free will is logically impossible.
to elaborate, free will existing probably requires an external force existing (soul) but free will not existing could also require an external force. it depends how the external force is defined.
read "I am a Strange Loop"
Yes, free will directly contradicts to the idea of physicalism. (Physicalism is also a bs, there is pluralism) Free will could be interpreted as the effect of uncertainty.
This is the conclusion I came to as well. I believe in free will but I also recognize that at some level that makes me "religious" or at least "non-atheistic".
Could you elaborate on this?
>if everything was pre-determined by the initial conditions of the big bang, then free will does not exist
Yes and this is true.
en.wikipedia.org
Bell's theorem proposes the idea that at the quantum level there is a level of randomness. This contradicts the idea of pre-determination. I'm not exactly sure how it applies to free will but it certainly starts to tear down the walls of pre-determination in general.
Is this what you were getting at?
Is there a philosophy board?
Randomness in physical systems is a matter of epistemological uncertainty.
Just because humans at a macro-level are uncertain of something, does not mean that the system is itself "random", it could simply mean that we lack the knowledge.
There should be
Depends on how you define physicalism, if the soul is what makes choices and it causally interacts with matter, then it is not immaterial, but physical.
You are out of the game, that's what you wanted.
I'll spend some of my energy to tell you a few things.
First, you are one adorable monkey to my eyes, a really stupid one, since what you just said is wrong, since you can talk about math using words, one plus one is two, and you can understand nature without understanding math, you drop an apple, it falls and so on :)
a small tiny lecture to you, understand it.
And since you are not in, you don't want to know how to.. for example know how to calculate how to get your dream job? Like I have.. or.. How to be the perfect father?
Those are all states of everything in existence, plausible ones.
And yes, I am aware this is waste of time, like trying to teach algebra to a dog, but to others here who don't get this, be humble, don't attack me, but the theories, we will never be finished, but we can use these for literally anything..
be smart, for once in your life at least.
This post is pure autism.
newest addition to the folder: pasta by popscientists guaranteed to kill popsci threads
Physical's definition fades out as you zoom in. A wave (the simplest example) can't be called physical. A wave behavior becomes major in macro world.
Strong evidence suggests the possibility of string like wave producers acting in a so called "Higher D".
Yes, Bell theorem popped up in my head while defining "free will".
That has never been proven.
Intellectual (me):1
Pseudo-intellectual:0
I am an atheist as well.
I'm just an educated atheist.
Here are my beliefs:
Empiricism, falsifiability, fallacy checking, the scientific method, the socratic method, humility, scientific consensus, etc.
I don't believe in jumping to conclusions or siding with an unproven concept and calling it proven with emotional fervor.
That's irrational.
The only rational thing is to remain neutral until something is proven true with experimentation or some form of evidence.
Presumption is never evidence.
congratulations on getting a C in philosophy 100, but the same speech you give your pot-smoking magic mushroom buddies doesn't really sound intelligent to normal people
What makes something physical?
Do you write them down or something?
Also I didn't even say I believe, I consider it plausible. I don't know what you mean by "unproven concept". Instead of randomly browsing Wikipedia, educate yourself. Math&Physics.
Mass
OP here, you're a fucking retard dude.
is this copypasta?
free will is an expression by complex orientations of matter\energy\time\space of the uncertainty implicit in QM and "lower level" physics.
"Theres no free will, but rather ab expression of a clockwork universe" arguments are proportional to "the direction of radiation is an expressiin of it's will" arguments.
Its a shit questiin desu. EVERYTHING experiences a measure of uncertainty, which to a memequestion like OP is synonomous with free will
A will is just what we call our reactions to sensory input. so yeah, what you are is basically a culmination of the forces of the universe at this specific point in time and space. In an infinite universe, everything exists an infinite amount of times. So a will is just the arbitrary reactionary dependencies of atoms. And there's literally nothing to even suggest that this is inaccurate. A will, is a human construct. A model built in our brains in a vain attempt understand reality.
>A: If free will exists then we are responsible for our actions. Punish/reward for free will.
>B: If free will does not exist we are unable to control our "decision" to punish/reward for free will.
The result is always the same.
Furthermore, the second part of the OP kind of betrays a bit of ignorance. The big bang is in popsci the starting point of everything, but really it is just a period of such energy that anything that came before it is (believed to be) inconsequential. Indeed the big bang an example of an event that would disproove determinism, in that it is a peruod of such uncertainty that determinism cannot reasonably hold.
The term free will is frought with connotations. It usually isnt thought of in its basic sense. That is "free" like an electron can be free. Unbound will, pmuch exactly what uncertainty is.
So does uncertainty imply something extraphysical or contradict physicalism?
*quantum tunnels behind you*
Heh, nothin personnel kid
>determinism means you have uncertain past states
false false false.
Determinism does not prevent ambiguous previous states. It only means that future states are fully determined by the present state.
"extra-physical (like a soul)" things would still be governed by their own "extra-physical" concepts and laws. If there were to be such things as souls, that still wouldn't mean that they're beyond cause and effect.
The only reason we say killing is usually bad is because we've evolved brains to have a consensus on that. It just makes us more likely to survive. Even that has exceptions, we all have militaries. we kill people who we think did some subjectively bad things in some previous point in space and time. we do this punish reward thing because it helps us survive. That's it. The ones who don't, don't exist anymore. This creates a strong illusion, but it's no more real than any other illusion.
Isnt that contradictory?
this is literally too dumb to care about.
how about instead of answering philosophical questions you get off your ass and do some real science.