Science babby here, does free will scientifically exist?

So I guess the question's still open for debate. Thanks.

>Probabilistic phenomena
Do you really think that the universe relies on randomness? Just because Copenhagen shills are too lazy to find a pattern behind quantum effects, doesn't mean that the patterns aren't there.

cont'd
if you are talking about "free will" on scale of separate individual, namely "choices", it is a basically a meme, for it relies on assumption that a man can act in two or more ways in one situation, which of course is not true, as in one situation only one outcome, that is, choice, is possible.
actually, a man doesn't really choose an option in a particular situation, but merely undergoes the inner fight of his motives, the strongest of which necessarily wins, which illustrates the impossibility of individual's free will.
however, one's motives, outer causes and circumstances are not known precisely at any given point of time, which in turn, leads to such misconception

Free will is metaphysics, go read philosophy.

But you are your brain.

that's a retarded point of view.

a thing isn't "not free" because it could theoretically be predicted. you're referring to god's omniscience or some shit but god is theoretical. most of everything that is going on in the universe is unpredicted by everyone.

which are, in turn, determined by outer objects acting on one's sensory system
which, in turn, are determined by other objects acting on them, and so on to infinity
>inb4 there wuz no tiem b4 big bang

There is an ongoing controversy that can't be solved by just calling everyone who disagrees with you 'shills'.

>Possible nondeterminism on a subatomic level is probably irrelevant at the level of the neuron (and thus the brain), so according to your ridiculously ignorant notion of what free will is, you don't have it
I've once read in a book a claim that "Chaos is an order of higher level"

it was a physics book

we cant be definitive about it yet but for the most part everything in the universe has a pattern

>Am I akin to a character in a finished book that can only live in a linear, unchangeable line of events or do I have some degree of choice?
Even if you are 100% deterministic (and the jury's still out on this), you still make choices.
And there's no practical way to predict your choices with complete accuracy, you for all *practical* purposes are not predestined to make certain choices.
But even if you are predestined, what factors lead to you make the choices you do?
It's mostly (entirely?) your genetic predispositions and the sum of your life experiences, both of which are a part of who you are, despite claims such as:
"It's not you making the choices, it's your brain!"

the answer doesn't really mean much
its like asking if you see different colors than i do

>it relies on assumption that a man can act in two or more ways in one situation, which of course is not true, as in one situation only one outcome, that is, choice, is possible.
>Hey guise, I re-defined free will in a way that can't possibly be satisfied. The debate's over!

>a man doesn't really choose an option in a particular situation, but merely undergoes the inner fight of his motives, the strongest of which necessarily wins, which illustrates the impossibility of individual's free will.
>You're not really "choosing" because I'm calling it something different!

>Am I akin to a character in a finished book that can only live in a linear, unchangeable line of events or do I have some degree of choice?
you are akin to a character of the book you are reading at this very moment
while you are reading the book, it may seem that character has certain degree of freedom, but the inevitable circumstances lead his into situation, where he has one and the only way out, no matter how many he can imagine for himself
and in the end, the book's character life appears as linear.
just like your own life would.
when you'll be very very old.

If everything is predetermined, then you knowing the answer to your question by definition won't change anything. Just stfu and start living, OP.

1) then give me your own definition if you dare to mock mine! maybe then the answer will be different
2) then what your praised "choice" is, if not a fight of one's motives?

>if

SAVAGE

In no meaningful way.

If we have no free will how can we talk about having a free will or not? No one has ever answered this question to me in a way that satisfied me. How can we be so meta if we have no free will?

not everything is deterministic

Ignore the autistic edgelords OP. Free will does exist.

No. Physics points to the conclusion that free will is impossible. Even quantum physics provides no way out of the conundrum.

That which is not deterministic is random, which does not give any room for free will. Quite the opposite, your decisions would then be made by millions of little roulette wheels.

>Quite the opposite, your decisions would then be made by millions of little roulette wheels.
This is still pretty neat, even though I tend to prefer the more rigid mechanical beauty of determinism.

Yeah, as someone who is basically done with their undergrad in physics I still hold the belief that there is a deterministic structure governing quantum mechanics.

Care to back that up in any kind of scientific way?

nope becuase free will is an abstract defininfiton thats added to things "after the fact"

is and existential designation. if the essence or inherent being of a thing acts free then we say it has free will.

consiousness is the closest scientific analoge

i think you are forgetting that at least some people are self-aware and rational about their motivations and consider them in a meta analysis of other motives.

they way you put it makes it sound automatic with no rationality on the part of the subject.

Science has proven free will doesnt exist? Thats news to me.

Not what I said, but all scientific evidence points to free will being impossible

>Is the fate of the universe or what I am going to do already predetermined?
yes

>citation needed

Throw a rock in any direction and you'll hit one.

psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/54/7/480/

Also the entire concept of causality

In contrast, please find me a single scientific study of any kind that suggests free will is a plausible concept

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

>he fell for the mechanical mind meme

Post even the tiniest flimsiest piece of scientific evidence that its not correct

>psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/54/7/480/
>posts MRI results

guys guys

Bloodflow is the be all end all of activity. I can can totally explain what this blood flood meaning , even though the picture looks like a buck shot to the brain, yeah no I got the complexity of the human brain down pact.

who needs connectomes, or neuron mapping.

you fucking pop sci pleb. get some critical thinking skills

>please find me a single scientific study of any kind that suggests free will is a plausible concept

you don't really have free will but the universe isn't fully predetermined either.. you can say you have free will over what you eat for lunch tomorrow but with enough information, odds could be assigned to your different lunch options, in the same way one assigns odds to football teams winning the super bowl. Then the outcome is just odds based variance like rolling a dice.

If you think you have free will you are wrong because every outcome has preset odds and if you think everything is predetermined you are wrong because often times there are numerous possibilities that all could have happened and the outcome was just luck.

We dont actually know yet whether there are any truly stochastic effects in the universe. Its possible its deterministic all the way down. No free will either way of course

Wtf does free will mean to you?

Do you mean by free will absolute possibilities for your actions? As if you wanted to ride a unicorn right now into God's kingdom - it should be possible if free will was real right?

If you aren't a complete fedora-lord then watch this

youtube.com/watch?v=WxBOBWLAn2Y

His entire argument is based on the assumption that our universe is a simulation

But he also presents an argument that materialism/determinism is a logical dead-end and is the incorrect paradigm to use to describe the physical reality.

In this video he presents his argument for why he thinks reality is a virtual reality
youtube.com/watch?v=2Nlbro2MNBs

>Tom Campbell
An educator in psychic powers, decorporalization, mystical thinking, evolution of the inner - un-probable being.

A bender of mysticism with pop-sci.

no math.

a holder of a PhD in Experimental Nuclear Physics and has worked with NASA and the Department of Defense

there's plenty of discussion of physics if you watch the whole thing

>materialism/determinism is a logical dead-end
>"I stringed some word together and it looked weird therefore logical impossibility, therefore God is true. Whoops, I mean virtual reality."
Bad philosophy bullshit.

>no backing for free will
What about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or something similar?

>materialism implies fundamental indivisible elementary particle
well whats the source of that particle?
>"the big bang"
well what the source of the big bang?
>uhhh uhhh uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

logical dead end

I'm not watching a 2 hour video of some philosphers ramblings. Summarise

>philosopher
>a holder of a PhD in Experimental Nuclear Physics and has worked with NASA and the Department of Defense

He has more credentials than you will ever have.

Double-slit experiment, foaminess/granularity of space-time at small levels, how radioactive decaying particles behave when measured implies probabilistic, information based reality implies virtual reality

>he thinks the big bang theory is about the origin of the universe
Why would you come here if you have the understanding of cosmology of a middle-schooler?

seems pretty clear that space-time and thus the universe didn't exist pre-big bang

educate me

>experimentalist
topkek, nice blue-collar PhD

>seems pretty clear that space-time and thus the universe didn't exist pre-big bang
Literally why would you make such a claim?

>educate me
Pre big bang physics is a massive and extremely speculative field, not much else to add.

So you literally don't know shit and are just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian?

>ethos (appeal to the credibility/prestige of the speaker)

Not a way to hold arguments, and you can't refute my genuine claims which are based on evidence ( I can point you out of minutes if video recordings of him proving that he believes in all that and encourages irrational beliefs ) using ethos.

>you literally don't know shit
Yes, nobody knows what came before the big bang. Thinking that "we don't know" is a logical impossibility tells us more about your psychology than about the universe.

The part about you being a middle schooler is because, like most uninformed idiots with a big mouth, you think the big bang theory is a theory of the origin of the universe, while in reality it is a theory of its expansion.

>lol u cant know anything for sure xdddd

minkowski space-time did not exist the moment before the big bang occurred

there's no method that will ever be afforded to us that will give us knowledge of what occurred before the big bang simply because that information is not a available to us within this Universe.

Literally your only argument is "that guy has alot of credentials, but just b/c he has credentials doesnt make him right"

You haven't challenged a single one of his claims with a counter-argument

No, you argument was that his credentials make his spiritual bullshit legitimate. I just pointed out to you that you cannot use ethos to prove that.

Are you even paying attention?

His ideas are still irrational regardless of his credentials based on evidence from video where his voice and face are both recorded and you can clearly see and listen him spitting irrational, magical shit.

Do you have a legitimate argument or are you going to keep saying "lol he's wrong" without evidence of logical basis?

>lol u cant know anything for sure xdddd
that's not what I said you massive retard

>minkowski space-time did not exist the moment before the big bang occurred
how THE FUCK do you know that?

>there's no method that will ever be afforded to us that will give us knowledge of what occurred before the big bang
You literally just claimed to know you humongous faggot.
And of course there are methods to lean significant things about pre-big bang physics. The same way we learn about anything else: you make hypothesis, deduce the consequences they would have today assuming a certain framework, and test those consequences.

>You haven't challenged a single one of his claims with a counter-argument
No math.

Please stop lying. Are you underage?

Physics is Math and there's plenty of physics in his argument

great argument

no math tho

You cannot argue when the partner does not respect the rules tho

This is the same way religious people act when more rational people deconstruct their faith-based fictitious beliefs.

Exact same pattern now with determinism/materialism parishioners

...

At this point it's safe to assume that you're genuinely retarded.

>This is the same way religious people act when more rational people deconstruct their faith-based fictitious beliefs.
Indeed, it's the exact same argument.
Invoke some made up "logical inconsistency" and pretend it proves your point.

>he thinks people are rational
I'll have you know know that willing precedes thinking

>Nuclear Physics
So, meme physics

Tom Campbell is a charlatan, there's no doubt about it.

Just look at the behavior of his followers, exactly like religion - go and check his speculation of everything forum and see for yourself.

>then give me your own definition if you dare to mock mine! maybe then the answer will be different
It's like you never heard of Google.

>2) then what your praised "choice" is, if not a fight of one's motives?
That was my point to begin with.

DEFINE
E
F
I
N
E

FREE
R
E
E
E
E
E

WILL
I
L
L

>all scientific evidence points to free will being impossible
Free will is a matter of theology, philosophy and semantics.
Why would science be able to "prove" anything about it.
What you *mean* is that sperglords who major in physics in particular just don't like the idea.
That's why the field has such a problem with QM: "I refuse to BELIEVE that God plays dice with the universe!"
We can't even really define consciousness, hell we can't even come up with a good name for it, but you're certain the choices we make somehow aren't made by us.

Speaking of God...
In theology, free will has little to do with predestination, and is mostly about whether a being is constrained by the will of God.
How's the physics community feel about that?

According to PBS Space and Time, all matter exists in 4dimensional space time as a series of events, with a definitive beginning and end. In this sense we already exist in all moments of our lives and time is irrelevant. Everything we do has been done before we are aware of doing it.

For that to be true, it means you should be able to predict everything that someone will ever do, as well as events beyond their control that will happen to them. This is impossible, so free will must exist.

Everything we know, tells us that free will does not exist.

We have an illusion of conscious will that typically coincides with what we would refer to as voluntary actions, yet sometimes it fails to do this and other times we experience the illusion of consciousness will in relation to the actions of others.

There's not really anyway we could have free will; deterministic, probabilistic or random it doesn't matter.

You can take a leap of faith and believe in it anyway; it's up to you.

ill flip a coin, and you should be able to predict which side is gonna come up.
if you can't predict, it must mean that the coin has free will.

>the universe is deterministic, including human brains
>we can determine the nature of every aspect of the universe, including human brains

Two very different things, user.

We wouldn't ever be able to gain a complete understanding of the elaborate mosaic of genetic and environmental programming that makes us who we are; however, our inability in this regard does nothing to negate our programmed nature.

alrighty
>free will
>noun
>1.
>the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
and how exactly does one act against the constraint of necessity?
if an event happened, the one and only out of multitude of possible ones, there must be a sufficient reason for it's happening, which necessarily leads to the previously mentioned event.
now, on a scale of single individual, for the definition of free will strongly implies its appliance to one, it is no different in the principle, but only in way of execution, namely, by the subject.
say, we have a situation, which involves the subject to make a choice, thus necessarily leading to one event, i.e. outcome.
if this event happens, there must be a reason for its happening, that is a deliberate choice of a subject, which acts as a necessary cause
now look back at the definition, which implies disobedience to the necessity
Q.E.D.

now, what choice is has been already explained by me(), and you didn't care enough to make clear what you understand by it

Nobody cares about theology. It isn't important and it has no bearing on discussions about reality. If you want to discuss theology among circles of likewise deluded people, feel free. But this is Veeky Forums and thus we are concerned with reality, not an inferior sub-discipline of philosophy.

The universe is not deterministic, fucking brainlets

Do you even Copenhagen interpretation?

You realize it's called the Copenhagen interpretation because it's one of several viable interpretations, right?

Only 1 interpretation is deterministic (Bohmian)

and it fucking falls flat on so many levels that nobody takes it seriously

Everett is also deterministic. So is GRW. In fact the only interpretation which actually says the universe has an underlying statistical nature is Copenhagen.