Mfw I realize free will isn't a thing

DUDE IS THE UNIVERSE'S FAULT LMAO

its a sad fucking day when people place DFW over tolstoy, its official, this board is nothing but memes and trolls.

It goes:
Goethe>>>Tolstoy>>>>>>>>DFW

Can anyone give a succinct and effective argument for why free will isn't real? I'm yet to see one and my backlog is already obese

The last 5 chapters of War and Peace(Epilogue part II), hence the OP

Not OP but I have yet to see a succinct or effective argument for why free will IS real. Taking into assumption something like the 'Big Bang' actually happened, we (meaning every particle or clusters of particles) are all just energy charged particles who been propelled into temporary patterns,

>le dust in the wind
theoretically this makes sense, but how can your ability to affect change within the physical universe?

I prefer to say it exists because if it doesn't then it doesn't matter and if I assume free will it makes my life more interesting because I get to make choices and believe in change and progress. I gather that any choice I make to display free will could be argued just to be the only choice I would ever make but my preference is that free will exists. As for if we are just a decay pattern with no other way of moving except forward in time, I think things are far too complicated to be that simple; the universe goes beyond unpredictable.

Could you paraphrase it at all?

>I choose to
It seems somebody says this, almost word for word, whenever free will is discussed. I don't care what you choose to believe nor do I care about the reasons you choose to believe something. We are trying to discuss something as objectively as possible.

Great addition to the objective discussion.

I was calling that user out on his stale, useless bullshit, I would be glad to have a discussion with you or somebody else who is actually interested.

;)

Fallacy of composition

>mfw I realise I don't care whether free will is a thing

>mfw Libet's Delay

Do you even know what that is? Because it doesn't apply here.

>the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole.

This discussion is pointless without first agreeing on a definition for free will. «Freedom and agency of choice» or «Absence of coercion when choosing».

>mfw in nr realised non of these words mean anything

>implying "I choose to" isn't the BEST justification for a belief

No I can't paraphrase it it's like ten pages long, don't be THAT lazy. And the reason I can't is because half of those are examples necessary for you to understand how it actually doesn't work

You are assuming that something that is composed of energy charged particles who have been propelled into temporary patterns can't be more than that.

who gives a shit?
there is no tangible value of free will existing or not

It isn't

Not him but it's not self-evident that we are more than that.

Oh it's actually Marlowe's Dr Faustus sorry.
Goethe comes second.

What about radical freedom my boy?

I was about to correct you but then I re-read the post and realised you said "will" not "wifi".

What are you guys talking about, he didn't say free will doesn't exist at all. If anything he argued the opposite and how it's is a convoluted question to begin with.
>yfm you realize Tolstoy spent like the last 1/4 of War and Peace arguing for why Free Will does in fact exist

>It doesn't appear that things on a physical level (quantum level nonwithstanding) have free will therefore nothing does

Wow, never though of that. Why do we bother studying anything besides pure math since obviously everything is reducible like that. Psychology->Biology->Chemistry->Physics->Math right? RIGHT?

wew lad, I remember high school fondly as well....

>You are assuming X can't be more than X.

Correct, can you think of anything that is more than itself?

Not that user but you quoted him, attempted to belittle what he said on the basis that it is a common thought, then didn't attempt to actually refute what he said. This is Veeky Forums not /b/.

Ok, well the reductionist tendencies do not hold any sway in academia outside of philosophical circles. I used to work in Chemistry, but have since moved into medicine. While in chemistry not a single scientist will have their theory directly informed by it's more basic counterpart (in this case physics). We certainly enjoyed glee when it lined up nicely with establish axioms in a more basic field, but it was little more than that. And now in medicine, our biologic research is rarely informed by the chemistry except in the most basic physiology that you learn in medical school. Reductionist views that truth in one filed necessarily can be extrapolated to all related field that use the initial field as a foundation is incredibly facetious.

iep.utm.edu/red-ism/#SH2b

ie. When we say particle X behaves in such a way in these conditions. It means precisely that and nothing more or less. Extrapolating these theories and facts to broadly apply to all the humanities is a perversion that the humanities have wrought on us. You rarely, if ever seen actual scientists (new atheism is an exception) coming out and using our precise and beautiful theories and facts to then be horrifically forced onto literally everything to fit some goofy narrative. You seen Free Will people doing the same thing with quantum mechanism now too. ie. they dont understand it all other than that is is a hole in traditional physics with regard to causal relationships. ie. they think this means determination isn't strict, and there for people have free will. This thinking too is a a perversion of the humanities cherry-picking science and bastardizing it by applying it to unrelated fields to fit their narrative on how they think the world is. It's audacious and incredibly annoying.

In summary, a poorly-understood discussion on physics does not properly belong in a discussion on human "free will" as anything more than an anecdote, certainly not the foundation for an entire argument.

I hate to break it to you user, but there is no "big lie". There is no "system".

The universe is indifferent.

free IS a thing and it's everywhere all the time.

Well I'll find out when I get round to starting and finishing War and Peace in a year or two.

>In summary, a poorly-understood discussion on physics does not properly belong in a discussion on human "free will" as anything more than an anecdote, certainly not the foundation for an entire argument
This is true

>While in chemistry not a single scientist will have their theory directly informed by it's more basic counterpart (in this case physics)
This is not.

The source of the initial data doesn't dictate its applications. It's maybe less common the larger the gap on your line of subjects but that just comes down to limited data collection, analysis and understanding, which will most probably always be the limit.

You don't teach chemists things in terms only understood by physicists and vice versa etc..

Except that's wrong
>under this presumption, thing i like is true
>le anecdotes mean there is no free will

Read Sartre you cunt

Here it is buddy