Quantum theory and free will

No, it just means that given enough information you may be able to extrapolate the outcome
IF you had seemingly infinite computing power

>life is determined to self-determine
So then we do have free will? We're not just determined? We do make genuine choices?

But if everything is determined then surely our decision making process is just meaningless.

>o then we do have free will? We're not just determined? We do make genuine choices?
"Free will" isn't a good term "agency" or "will" is better because although we do make our own decisions they are very constrained by the boundaries that allow us to make decisions

Nigga, overthinking life is for losers
Just live

Could you plebs please read even the most basic of articles on this stuff before posting shit like this?

1. The human is a physical system just like everything else, for example a rock.
2. The universe is either deterministic or probabalistic.
The actions of humans are therefore either determined or random. Either way we don't "freely" will them.
Humans have no more control over the physical reaction that take place in the system we a constructed from than a rock

>A rock sees a predator coming and doesn't move,
>it dies'ed
>Human sees rock flying towards their head brain,
>Moves
>Human not death
See living things can interpret meaning and then behave logically to continue living.
This is why living systems can run around with all their energy and not explode towards thermodynamic equilibrium

>describing input/output conversions of biological systems on a macro level
These computations that the brain performed to decide on an action is still either probablistic or deterministic given that the brain is a physical system just like the rock.
You are tricking yourself by thinking of humans as being fundamentaly different from anything else.
I can see where this misconception comes from given that humans seem to be complex beyond comprehension vs rocks that seem so simple, even thought on a fundamental level they are both just particles being acted upon by the laws of physics.

read up
lehigh.edu/~mhb0/physicalemergence.pdf

What part of this is incompatible with
????

wow fast and bad reader, the incompatible part is the part where you dont recognize that higher levels of complexity and cause lower levels of complexity to do something
Ax>Bx
Bx>Cx
Cx>Ay
Ay>By
therefor Bx>By
where A is level 1 B is level 2 and C is level 3
>‘physicalists’, or ‘materialists’. In this scheme, the biological, including the physiological,
is labelled as physical, as if that label was unproblematic. Yet, one does not need to know
much biology to recognize that this scheme has gone seriously wrong. Just a little
reflection on the differences between a living body and a dead corpse calls into question
this lumping together of everything non-mental as ‘physical’. We all know that right
from the time of death (whatever are the criteria for determining that time, and whether or not death is instantaneous or occurs over a shortish period) the corpse begins to
disintegrate. It literally disappears, unless the natural process of disintegration is
artificially suspended – by freezing, embalming, or placing in formalin.
Obviously, there is something to being a living organism that is more than the assemblage of atoms and molecules. (In which sense there is ‘something more’ is yet to be determined – recognizing this is not the same as committing ourselves to Bergson’s
élan vital.)
biosemiotics comes in here and thats a different topic
>The development of the physical and biological sciences since the time of
Descartes has replaced his dichotomy with a multi-layered model of the world as
stratified into different levels, in a micro-to-macro hierarchy. Consequently, the bipartite
Cartesian model has long been outdated, and in the new model of Nature, entities,
characterized by their distinctive properties and processes, emerge (in some sense) out of
the entities, properties, and processes of the levels below it