Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?

Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?

Is there anything in nature that happens completely randomly? Would this give the free will argument some legitimacy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8&t=155s
youtube.com/watch?v=b8vNYZddU6A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Lmao if you don't want ur free will i know someone that might

>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
No. Actually, many interpretations of quantum mechanics shed a wholly deterministic light on the universe. Determinism is more plausible than ever, contrary to many people's belief.

Apparently, philosophical questions are beyond this brainlet's scope of comprehension.

>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
quite the opposite is what we've found and if you have an IQ above 120, it's pretty easy to understand that the deeper you go, you will find a reason to why you did something at a physiological level, which is not free will and the only reason free will was ever an idea was because we did not know enough and that's where you go to some easy, simple conclusion of """free will""" instead of the reality, which points to an "absolutely not" conclusion.

This is also not math or science related.

>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?
Well, that depends on what exactly you mean by "free will". If you take the vague human intuition of that concept and try to cache it out into something meaningful, I would argue that the result is something that is indeed real. Other ways that you could interpret that intuition, which I would consider less sensible, are not real.

>Is there anything in nature that happens completely randomly?
It would seem that the answer is "no".

>Would this give the free will argument some legitimacy?
In my interpretation as above, no randomness is involved in any way, so no it doesn't.

I ask because I read a book on the subject and it said that electrons jumping to a different orbit and gamma rays being produced by radiation were random processes. But the book is fairly old (from the 90s) so I suspected the info may be outdated. I'm not acquainted with the sciences in any way, so I thought I'd ask here.

You can't just say free will without defining what you mean by the term.

Define free will

You can easily ignore your physiological needs and push through them, at least for a while. Mind you, I'm not disputing free will at the quantum level, but 'will' is definitely a thing for humans.

also

It was outdated in the 90s as well. But it IS what was genuinely thought in the 60s, yes. And pop science still has to catch up to the progress since the 60s in this area.

I could have done or refrained from doing X at time Y if all conditions, internal and external, were the exact same.

then the answer is categorically no if the universe is 100% deterministic

You have hidden the unclear semantics in the word "could". I can still sensibly interpret your definition as being real or unreal depending on the vague intuition of "could".

You can choose to believe in free will or choose not believe in free will. You can also not give a fuck.

when you realise that body and mind are one in the same, you'll see that even your thoughts succumb to logical determinism
there's no escape, not even suicide will free you from nature

this is why i'm starting to side with religions when it comes to fate

free will isn't random shit, that's what the determinismfags can't seem to understand

No, no, and no... next question!

so what is it then?

Yes, when something isn't deterministic then it's random, so free will would be random.
That doesn't mean that it's like throwing a dice, it just means it's unpredictable. Randomness is broader concept than most people intuitively think.

Free will is, IMHO, not a thing that exists.

I don't know enough physics to back up this, but it seems to me it's very plausible that the world is completely deterministic. That would, of course, rule out free will.

Even if there are truly random events, free will isn't random. Does a (true, theoretical) random number generator have free will?

>That would, of course, rule out free will.
That's not clear at all, and in fact is the whole crux of the disagreement. Please explain this part.

free will would only be possible for a 4th dimensional and supernatural being and if such a thing ever existed, it would cease to be supernatural

Not that user but the way i see it is that things behave in ways dependent on their properties and the reaction of those properties to the median through which the thing occurs.

Based on the physical conditions of the atmosphere a tornado may turn towards a house and end up killing people, but you wouldn't say that the tornado decided to kill those people out of it's own free will.

Similarly, a man might grow up to become a killer, but like the tornado his behavior was simply the product of his physical properties and their reaction to physical conditions.

I just read Free Will by Sam Harris, and he makes great arguments against the idea. The things that come closest to "free will" are things that simply happen randomly, like certain things that happen in the brain that can't be reliably predicted, but randomness is not the same thing as free will-- you're still controlled by background processes that you yourself did not consciously choose or were even aware of until they already happened. The fact that they were random doesn't give you an ounce more of free will.

So if free will doesn't exist doesn't that mean whether or not I come to the conclusion it does or doesn't exist is already predetermined by mathematics, physics, and chemistry?

of course and you can see how ridiculous that idea is. but determinismfags just can't admit how plastering determinism everywhere leads to paradoxes and is wholly unsatisfying

Pretty much.

But you can't choose, that's the point. A man can do what he chooses, but he can't choose what he chooses. You have no more control of your life than I have control of how I "choose" to end this very sentence

>A man can do what he chooses, but he can't choose what he chooses.
too bad reality decides to disagree with your assesment

Free Will is a pseudo-problem. Who cares if you really have free will or not if the illusion/belief you do exists and can't be broken?

Denial of free will seems to imply Irresponsibility: for people who won't accept accountability and consequences for the actions they chose. People who deny responsibility are unpredictable because they don't think. However, for much of their day they can be predicted to do many stupid, thoughtless things, because they choose to not think and choose to not learn. We have to accept responsibility for ourselves and choose what's best; no one else can do it for us.

A lot of words for a shit explanation

i have no choice in this matter

im compelled to call OP a faggot

The question of free will is completely a definition problem.

I mean how would you define free will?

>of course and you can see how ridiculous that idea is.
I don't see why this is ridiculous. Can you explain?

>plastering determinism everywhere leads to paradoxes
Can you explain the paradox for me, please? I don't see any.

>and is wholly unsatisfying
Whether or not you find a particular explanation pleasant does not really have any bearing on whether it is true...

Questions for determinists:

If every action is determined, then why are people morally responsible for their actions?

If you subscribe to a current of determinism in which the "truth" becomes clearer the more information you have and, as such, "free will" disappears the more you know about the universe, how do you justify a person's decision to go against the most logical option they could opt for? Say you're playing a game of chess. One average played would think of 10 possible plays, all equally valid, but an experienced player would see that there's only one play that would win him the game. So, as such, that experienced player would be conditioned by his amount of information to perform the logical play, but what if instead opts to do something else, or just break the chessboard in half? Is that not free will?

Having the choice of being able to perform action X differently at point in time Y if the conditions, both internal and external are the exact same as they were when the action was done.

>then why are people morally responsible for their actions

To control behavior and avoid self-fulfilling prophecies.

>If every action is determined, then why are people morally responsible for their actions?
Because things are determined, among other things, *by people taking actions*. Which means those people can be morally responsible.

>as such, "free will" disappears the more you know about the universe,
I don't follow you here.

>why are people morally responsible for their actions?
They aren't, they can't be, and they ought not to be. Moral retribution is used as a tool to deal with trouble makers, and so we have designed a court system that is based on free will, based on the assumption that people have agency over their lives and will be punished if they "choose" to behave badly. But most people on death row have some combination of bad genes, bad environments, bad upbringings etc. Which of these quantities were they personally responsible for?

A grizzly bear can't be held morally responsible for mauling someone to death, because on some level you know a grizzly bear can't help but be a grizzly bear, and that's what they do.
A person with a tumor in their brain can't be held morally responsible for going on a killing spree, because that tumor affected their thoughts and actions in ways that they had no control over.

>why do people do illogical things, that must mean free will exists
Logical or illogical, decisions are always preceded by events that you did not consciously deliberate over-- if you looked at the entire lifespan of the experienced player up until he made that illogical decision, if you understood every synapse and every neuron and every atom that comprised his life up until that very moment, you would know exactly why he did what he did, and you could predict that he would do it before he even did it.

>I don't follow you here.
I'm talking about the kind of determinism that roots itself in logical decisions. The one that believes that humans only perceive to have free will and that free will disappears the more information you have about the world.

If you have 10 choices in a chess game, you may perceive to have free will in choosing any one.

But if you're an experienced player, you'll know only one of them will win you the game. Thus, more information limits your perceived notion of having free will.

If that's the case, then why could that experience player choose to break the chessboard in half and go against the logical option?

>then why are people morally responsible for their actions?
They aren't. There's a reason why the concept of "punishment" is phased out in civilized countries.

>If you have 10 choices in a chess game, you may perceive to have free will in choosing any one.
But once you choose one, it was always the case that you would have chosen that one.

>I'm talking about the kind of determinism that roots itself in logical decisions.
I have never heard about that concept, and I'm quite certain that's not what determinism means in physics contexts.

There's scientific determinism, which is the one mostly debated and accepted now, and metaphysical determinism, which is the one user was probably talking about.

Is it logical that a person who thinks they have free will is likely to be a more useful human being?

I think so.

This is a nice line of thinking.

...

I personally do not believe in free will. The world operates on cause and effect. I still choose to operate on the belief that I have free will hahaha.

>A necessary illusion.

youtube.com/watch?v=_rZfSTpjGl8&t=155s

I really enjoyed this video on the topic. I like Searle's point about evolution evolving complex brains as decent evidence against determinism.

>Moral retribution is used as a tool to deal with trouble makers, and so we have designed a court system that is based on free will, based on the assumption that people have agency over their lives and will be punished if they "choose" to behave badly.

This really grinds my gears to be honest family.

I try explaining this to normies and they are just incapable of grasping this concept.

A person with severe cognitive dissonance is a ticking time bomb, so no, they are not more useful.

>I don't see why this is ridiculous. Can you explain?
it's pretty nice theory but it has no bearing on reality whatsoever. kinda like flat earthers and creationist can create nice theory but sadly for them reality disagress


>Can you explain the paradox for me, please? I don't see any.
in a deterministic universe you should be able to predict everything til the end of times if you know where every particle is. let's assume we knew that and could predict the future. that would raise a multitude of paradoxes.

>Whether or not you find a particular explanation pleasant does not really have any bearing on whether it is true...

someone should look up what unsatisfying means

Yes and no. It honestly depends on your definition of science.

Using the scientific method we can't or at least haven't proved or disproved free will, it's extremely complex and there have probably been precious few studies on it. It's also deep, it involves a lot of complex information to solve, or information that we are missing.

The 'yes' answer comes from two points. If we use a general definition of science as 'knowledge' then we can reach outside of the field of the scientific community and find answers to this question in other fields that can't be scientifically tested. And the second point is, for all it matters we might as well say we have free will, even if it can't be proven, because our choices are so incredibly complex within the scope of the universe and all time that it renders whether or not our will is truly free as a moot point. We feel like it's free, it's severely complex, therefore it might as well be free.

If you want to speak strictly, say the universe is finite, and that time is finite, then we have finite choices, and therefore in that sense, our will is not 'free'. This is playing with the definition of 'free' in this case.

How free? So free it can do anything? Then obviously not, for example I am not God. I can't create a universe from sneezing. Etc. There are many choices I cannot make. So my will is not entirely free.

But the real question of free will means, are we free 'agents' or do we have a soul, basically, not whether or not our wills are entirely free.

>no bearing on reality whatsoever
it has a bearing how how we view things such as morality and personal responsibility
>that would raise a multitude of paradoxes
such as?

speculation at best

>such as?
Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it? If we're able to change it, then that means that we can't predict the future. And if we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.

>if you know where every particle is
That's impossible though so your statement is dumb. Something cannot contain all the information of the universe while being inside the universe because the presence of that information alters the universe and creates even more information.

given you have two identical universes, where literally every atom was in the exact same state, the same choice would be made in every case-- there's no reason scientifically to believe that this wouldn't be true.
Mental events are the products of physical events. The brain is a system entirely beholden to the physical laws of the universe

basically this.

Does determinism basically mean that the universe is one big domino effect, that everything that has happen and will happen was "meant to be" are we basically just in for the ride with this illusion that we are making choices?

Even though the science doesn't support the big crunch could the universe been expanding and contracting for eternity causing the same events over and over?

youtube.com/watch?v=b8vNYZddU6A


I mean how many times have I really posted this?

>illusion that we are making choices?
It's not an illusion, it's a misinterpretation.

Asking about free will (or free agency) is the equivalent to asking whether or not there is a soul, or God. (Not that that's a bad thing.) And related, 'what is consciousness'.

Here is how: Do we have free will? If so, the part of us that chooses can't be bound by internal limitations, it has to have truly free agency. Nothing physical that we know of has free agency (atoms etc.) that we are aware of.

Therefore what is this chooser, what is the 'I' that chooses, what part of our body has agency if it's a physical thing? If not, is it something like a soul? etc.

The reason I have to say 'internal' limitations is because our will is obviously limited 'externally'. We have limited choices. I can't for example choose to wish Jupiter out of existence.

>That's impossible though so your statement is dumb.
an argument determinismfags often bring is if we wound back the clock there's no reason to believe you wouldn't do the same thing again, and that's also impossible that's why it's a thought experiment. oh look it just so happens a fellow fag of your was making this same argument while i was typing
wow determinismfags are really predictable. maybe you're really deterministic after all

>there's no reason scientifically to believe that this wouldn't be true.
and that's still speculation

>Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
no, your question is a little paradoxical-- if we can predict the future, the only way for that to be possible is if the universe is deterministic and if we have sufficient knowledge/technology to look ahead-- it does not mean that we have the ability to change it. Perhaps it was us seeing the future that was the trigger event for us getting to that state(the state that we saw in the future), and if that's the case, then it was pre-determined for us to see the future and decide to do whatever it is that we did.

The terrifying conclusion:
On paper, it's all predictable
Choice is just an illusion
It's all been written in stone
From the start

Wherever you are
On the path you walk along
You can't rewind
So how'll you ever prove me wrong?

The story told
As my day starts to unfold
Is filled with surprise

But with hindsight, so clear
Every fault
Every tear

>Perhaps it was us seeing the future that was the trigger event for us getting to that state(the state that we saw in the future), and if that's the case, then it was pre-determined for us to see the future and decide to do whatever it is that we did.
terrible cop out. in fact didn't even come near to answer away the paradox

Panpsychism already resolved this problem. The agent field is universal present, and is measured in limited space by human senses.

the thing is, is wouldn't really matter if there was such thing as a soul, God, ectoplasm, or any other spooky concept you want to attribute to free will, because you STILL aren't responsible for your own actions, your soul is-- and you had no choice in the matter of what kind of soul you received and you can't decide to change how your soul behaves, and you can't take credit for the fact that you did not inherit the soul of a psychopath or serial killer. Instead of mysterious events that arise at the sub-atomic level and beyond, you're controlled by equally mysterious events that occur within your soul, which you have no agency over

the only 'evidence' free will fags have for free will is the thought of "Oh, but I could have made a different choice" AFTER they decided to do whatever it is that they did. And that thought itself arrived out of background causes over which you had no conscious deliberation.

>ctrl+f quantum superposition 0 results
if you have particles in quantum superposition, and you collapse them to a certain state by measuring them, you get a different, random result every time. doesn't this make determinism impossible?

It also potentially makes seeing the future possible(in the sense that it eliminates the paradoxes).

what?

I think all it does is add randomness, and randomness doesn't solve the core issue of free will. By definition, a chance event is something over which you can take no control over-- If I told you your choice to marry your wife was due to a roll of a dice, a certain chance probability, would you still feel as though it was your personal choice to marry her instead of not marrying her, or marrying some other girl instead?

Can I get an answer to this?

I'll try another go at your question:
> if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
in a deterministic universe, no. What would lead you to this conclusion? If free will doesn't exist(and it definitely does not exist, because in your example we have the ability to see the future, which depends on the universe being deterministic), in what way could we change the final outcome?
>If we're able to change it, then that means that we can't predict the future
but we could not change it. It was determined for us to be at that state, at that particular point.
>f we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.
or it means everything we do is determined and cannot be changed out of free will

>Is there anything in science that gives credence to free will existing?

Hard to say, I keep changing my mind.

>it's pretty nice theory but it has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Wait, you mean determinism as a concept? Determinism is not a theory, it is a property that follows from our best current theories of physics. It is most definitely not a free-floating theory.

>in a deterministic universe you should be able to predict everything til the end of times if you know where every particle is.
To be pedantic about it (not to one-up you on technicalities, but to avoid miscommunication later), it specifically means that *something outside the universe with a global vantage point* -- say, someone running the computer simulating the universe, or somesuch -- should be able to predict everything until the end of time. This is not a position someone that is part of the universe can achieve; that would indeed lead to problems.

>that would raise a multitude of paradoxes.
I'm gonna repeat 's point here -- such as? Name one, please? Remember that per the above, we are NOT talking about someone who is part of the universe predicting perfectly what is going to happen inside it. That would indeed be contradictory for various reasons. But that's not what determinism is.

If the universe works on probability, then your magical device that shows the future actually changes the future by measuring it. From all possibly futures, one is selected wherein which the result being shown to you won't create a contradiction.

>we basically just in for the ride with this illusion that we are making choices?
No. We ARE making genuine choices. The future is determined through the laws of physics *of which you are a part*. If you had chosen something different, then different things would have happened in the world. The future is determined by all physics, including the part of physics that makes up your brain; physics decides what will happen next week, by (among others) consulting the piece of physics that implements your brain. Physics decided everything AND you decided parts of it, which is not contradictory because you are part of physics.

just as much evidence as you have for determinism

Whether or not you had a choice in existing is not talking about free will as free agency, but freedom of choices which was already addressed.

The 'soul' or whatever it was that was the 'chooser' if there is such a thing as free will, could still be bound by choices and have free agency. In other words, it could still freely choose with limited choices.

It could choose between a, b, or c, freely.

What the question 'is there free will' is really asking is not 'do we have unlimited freedom and choices' because we all know the answer to that is no. The question really means, 'is there a selector, a free agent that chooses, or is the choice made already predetermined by something like the laws of physics.'

Therefore, a 'soul' would be a way of naming this very thing, that's why I said asking whether or not there is a free will is the same as asking if there is a soul, or God, etc.

I wasn't arguing that there IS, or isn't, I was just pointing out it was the same as asking that. This free agent could be named 'the soul' or etc. That's a way of saying it isn't bound by predetermination in it's choices.

Whether or not it could choose all things, doesn't make it any less free of agency, only limited in it's choices.

So the future and the things I have and will experience are basically set in stone?

>in a deterministic universe, no. What would lead you to this conclusion? If free will doesn't exist(and it definitely does not exist, because in your example we have the ability to see the future, which depends on the universe being deterministic), in what way could we change the final outcome?
except that's not reality. you just disproved determinism thanks

Yes, but they do depend on your choices and actions.

Even though I make choices, my choices are influenced by my brain,environment and experiences. All which I'm not really in control of..

You have an extremely outdated definition of free will.

The problem with the idea of free choice is that it moves back the goal posts without it actually being necessary. The human anomaly isn't about what is conscious choice, it's about what is conscious action.

>it specifically means that *something outside the universe with a global vantage point* -- say, someone running the computer simulating the universe, or somesuch -- should be able to predict everything until the end of time. This is not a position someone that is part of the universe can achieve; that would indeed lead to problems.
ok i'll grant you that. but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough. so the paradox is still standing

>but to predict the behavior of an individual you wouldn't need to know the position of every single particle in the entire universe, just locally would be enough.
Indeed.

>so the paradox is still standing
What paradox? Sorry, I may have lost track of the thread of argument here.

Quantum Mechanics suggest the universe is probabalistic rather than completely deterministic. So there is some randomness. So maybe we don't have fate. So maybe we have free will.

But I wasn't making an argument that free choice actually existed or didn't exist. I was only pointing out that it was like asking 'is there a soul'.

I believe you're correct, conscious action is a good definition for it.

you are your brain dummy

...

Cringe at all the brainlets in this thread.

The unconscious operations of a soul would grant you no more freedom than the unconscious physiology of your brain does-- if a soul is still bounded by parameters, choices a b and c, and we are bounded by a soul of which we know nothing about and can never prove exists or understand objectively, what is the point of a question like that? That just crosses into being theology

>Not him, but if we can predict the future, shouldn't we also be able to change it?
No. Why? You could just have read-only access to the simulation. (Yes I know the simulation thing is a bit silly; it's not a serious theory, so much as an illustration of what determinism means.)

>And if we're not able to change it, then it means it was determined for us to predict the future and do nothing.
No. The being able to predict the future is not part of the universe, remember? Determinism applies to the universe, not the hypothetical thing with the global vantage point.

Yes. But it seems like the choices I make, I was gonna end up making anyhow. I meant like genetics,personality and all the jazz that contributes to calculations you make.

So is reality already determined like a set of dominoes falling one after another right after the big bang? Does "meant to be" basically the truth of reality from planets, galaxies and life that exists within it.

Here's an argument

How can one speak of counterfeit money if money never existed to begin with

What arguments are there for what purpose the consciousness could serve if it's actually an illusion? How does believing this illusion provide any benefit to humans; why hasn't this trait been selected against?

>all the plebs in here who haven't read Hume

lol

That explains it very well actually

>Why? You could just have read-only access to the simulation.
the simulation predicts you're gonna drink the whole content of a glass of water in front of you in 10 seconds. so you're telling me you'd be compelled to do so in your opinion.

Mister here. This seems exactly right.