Holy shit Veeky Forums do we have free will?

for fun / escapism?

so if, in theory, everything is fine and dandy and we're only living to pass the time and have fun, then why does life make us suffer?

Nah, the universe is deterministic

Doesn't mean doing bad things is not your fault or anything though

what makes you think life has the kind of intentionality to "make" us suffer?

life exists on its own. some of the parts of life induce suffering in us. there's no explanation, and no point in looking for one either.

Read Schopenhauer. We have will, but it isn't free.

Blatantly false. We don't know yet.

I do. Do you?

>it doesn't matter
Yes it does. The only case where it doesn't matter is if we do not have it.

The Universe is not deterministic. It has predetermined limits and boundaries. Double slit experiment is impossible to explain with determinism.

What you need to understand is math. A question can have multiple correct answers, sometimes even opposite ones. Ex.
>square root of 25?

Math is made up bullshit you idiot, it has no impact on the real world

It's the most basic interpretation of the universe we have, therefore more accurate than things like language or science

The double slit experiment proves that we can't predict an outcome
This doesn't show that the universe isn't deterministic, it shows that science has true limits

You can't "prove" that something is truly random because that would imply proving an absence of causes, which science isn't capable of doing

>basic=good

brainlets...

Ok I'll simplify it

System A:
>simple as possible
>minimal difference with reality due to low complexity
>explains basic phenomenon perfectly

System B:
>overly complex
>confuses notions due overlapping in terms and ideas
>can't explain anything accurately without confusion or error

System A is maths and System B is language in case you didn't guess, and it's pretty obvious to tell why one is more universal and useful for understanding the universe than the other

>The double slit experiment proves that we can't predict an outcome
We can know the limits.
>This doesn't show that the universe isn't deterministic, it shows that science has true limits
So you are determined that the universe is deterministic. Give me proof or I'll disregard your position as fantasy.

What's your definition of proof

This thread just changed my mind. We don't have free will.

Give it as a functional answer with explanatory power. As far as I'm concerned, determinism fails to explain physics, math, phenomena, myself, human traits, virtues and many other existing things.

Which board do you come from where this works as efficient bait? r9k? b?

>determinism fails to explain
wut

In a deterministic world, there would not be anything that leads to what can be described as 'different outcome'. Math does it constantly, just not with functions as they are by definition deterministic. Math isn't limited to functions, and neither is reality.

In this world, you can not repeat a single thing, ever. Even the most vacuumed experiments will result in a wide (but functionally restricted) outcomes.

Reality isn't accurate enough to be deterministic, albeit it gives us enough determined information to grasp several core principles of the world, such as morality and logic.

You have a weird understanding of hat determinism is. Maybe read up on that.

Also 'math does it constantly' is nonsense.

>can't explain anything accurately without confusion or error
Isn't it funny ?

>You have a weird understanding of what determinism is.
Every event has an outcome that is determined before the event occurs.

Quantum mechanics indicate that we can even interact with past. This infringes in the territory that I kept in the box of determined events.

>Also 'math does it constantly' is nonsense.
Square root of 25 is 5 or -5. It's not determined.

Of course, you could say that it is determined by the axioms it resides under, but that is so meta that I can say that those axioms do not define the questions we will ask, hence freedom.

congratulations on taking your first red pill.

Without free will, there is no difference between voluntary and involuntary action. Any congratulations are empty and void. The irony of them falls flat, unless it is meta-irony. Say, you are wrong, but God is making you do that stupid stuff, so it wasn't voluntary.

free from what? time?

>Quantum mechanics indicate that we can even interact with past
source?

io9.gizmodo.com/an-experiment-that-might-let-us-control-events-millions-1525760859
space.com/667-quantum-astronomy-cosmic-scale-double-slit-experiment.html
Top two Google searches. You might also be interested in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment

>Square root of 25 is 5 or -5. It's not determined.
Are you retarded? You literally wrote it down and then said it's not determined.

The problem with determinism is that it claims to know enough about the world to come to an ultimate conclusion of the principles at play.

I already replied to that post. Determinists are the only predictable humans, as I know what their goal is and their modus operandi; their limits and their narrow minds.

>thinks delayed choice is time travel
>doesn't even read his own sources which state most physicist agree it's not
Shouldn't you fedora tipping on /r/futurology?

Free will isn't even a coherent idea. Either you are subject to cause and effect, in which case you get will without freedom, or you aren't, in which case you get freedom without will. There is no compromise position.

What? I don't care about your determinism debate, just stop using your babby-understanding of mathematics in examples to support any view. It physically hurts to read this drivel.

I don't think it does
It just claims that if you knew these conditions you could come to a conclusion

>>thinks delayed choice is time travel
I said, "interact with the past". Not time travel.

We choose that an event occurs; an event that had been waiting for millions of years to occur in the source. We render the past when it is needed.

>It just claims that if you knew these conditions you could come to a conclusion
Give me an accurate model of reality, and we will test it out. No error margin allowed.

All these fags ignoring the fact subatomic particles behave randomly and there is thus a chance for us humans to make our own choice.

We don't will the behavior of the subatomic particles, so no. Free will is nonsense with or without determinism.

>lack of understanding means it's random
you fucking idiot

are dice rolls random too because you can't predict them?

It's not limited to subatomic particles. Atoms and particles behave the same way, and there is no reason to assume that it doesn't do so in this world as well.

They sent a fullerene ("buckey ball") through the experiment.

They don't though, we just can't perfectly observe them so we have to model them with probability distributions

>it's totally a lack of understanding
So is determinism.

>We don't will the behavior of the subatomic particles
Yes, we will the behavior of meta-particles; our bodies, minds and those of others. Tell me about placebo; how does it work?

>it's another thread where absolute brainlets try to argue metaphysical positions using materialist evidence
>it's another thread where absolute brainlets think their nigger-tier interpretation of physical concepts mixed with popsci and wikipedia summaries have anything to do with modern scientific models

nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n7/abs/nrn3976.html

Anticipation of improvement activates the release of helpful neurochemicals. We can't will the results of random events and we can't alter the course of causal ones. You've fooled yourself into believing that a universe with both forms some kind of emergent free will, but for that to work we would need to be able to predict the results of random events, which is by definition impossible. If we can predict them, they aren't random.

>We can't will the results of random events
That's only true because {We} includes (you).
>and we can't alter the course of causal ones.
With faith, we can.

it's still a shitty man-made understanding of the universe that we're constantly correcting

Its like using 4 pieces to guess the image of a 250 piece jig-saw puzzle.

(((not an argument)))

>>it's another thread where absolute brainlets think their nigger-tier interpretation of physical concepts mixed with popsci and wikipedia summaries have anything to do with modern scientific models
>implying it is not a leap of faith to show courage to demolished men advertising their doom

As if arguments would work against your faith in determinism. Our models and explanations do not define world as is, but the world to us. You get out of it something you call determinism because you desire determinism.

I have no faith whatsoever in determinism. It's very clear that the universe is not deterministic. It's just that free will is incoherent irrespective of that. I would be happy to accept any argument you have that will and freedom can be reconciled, but I'm fairly confident that one can't be made.

No matter how kush your life may be,
if there are others, then there are politics.

I say there is no free will, unless you're secluded.

I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me, unless I have to.

I question these existential crisis-type questions often during or after meditation.

However, I find it more bizarre to question our existence, itself. In terms of biologically with our brain and its extremities, sociologically in terms of culture and mass media manipulation, and in gratitude to live at such exciting, exponentially changing times.

I'm 30, atm, and I believe I have the potential to live forever in this realm of reality before my life is over. I believe in A..I. merging with minds. I believe language, itself, will become antiques yet still treasured.

Ah. I got you mixed up.
I think that free will is the ability to see and understand limits; consciousness is by definition 'free'. It's not in a vacuum.

As for why such a thing exists, or how. It is an idea, and it possesses the husks of men and begins to act out will.

Of course, free will implies freedom from something. Generally I perceive it to be will free of determinism. It is obvious that we are limited beings. However, I will not be surprised if that is a lie, and only true because we believe it.

>I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me, unless I have to.
Why not? Do you not hate eating?

I choose with my free will to believe we do.

Not in the sense you would perceive it, no.
But we do have volition, which is enough.

I love eating. I'd rather not shit if I could because everyone's shit smells bad, and I prefer a clean crack than crusted. Ooo-wee

What good is your free will if you're baited this easily?

If you have it, nothing changes.
If you don't have it, nothing changes.
Inadvertently it doesn't matter outside of philosophically ubiquitous conversations such as these... at best.

Riddle me this: could God have freely chosen not to have free will before he existed?

We don't even have will, free or not.

That's a whole lot of assumptions.

wasn't nietzsche a huge believer of the will

Determinism is a massive misinterpretation of observations that are incredibly likely to be inaccurate. The only way you have no free will is if you believe in some kind of spiritual system or religion that has an authority system or entity which denies you your own will.

Only man would be so arrogant as to at once recognize that he can only perceive the universe as he is capable of doing so, note that the limitations of his perception make it highly likely to be impossible for him to "know" the universe, and then also convince himself that his perception of reality is truth and that the universe must bend to his will in perceiving it.

>you have no control over what you want
This is literally provably false. Go back to school.

Again, misinterpretation of possibly inaccurate observation. Also, baseless assumption based on what other people have said.

>if determinism is true
You're obsessed with fatalism. You want their to be meaning and are facing the reality that there may not be meaning. This can only be a problem if you want their to be meaning, so stop expecting the entire universe to make sense to the perception of a singular life-form with an intrinsically limited capability to perceive its own reality.

You're entire problem would be solved if you'd get the fuck over yourself and realize that your ego is trying to defend you from something that you don't need to be defended from.

Math isn't an interpretation. "Math" isn't anything but a system of logic and language to help us think in a particular manner about something, and then communicate those thoughts and observations in a meaningful way. Math is literally no different than "the Scientific method", or "English". Only people who can't properly identify characteristics or haven't bothered to think about it at all still get confused by this.

Maths is very different to english and science
It relies on a limited amount of well defined axioms

Ultimately nearly the entirety of maths can be done with just additions
As opposed to languages such as english which rely on the objects or concepts being known for the word to have any sense

In fact an easy way to tell the difference is that in science and languages, there is a limited amount of terms that can be used, however in maths there are an infinite numbers, functions, equations etc...

Maths is very different to english and science because it's an entirely different construction, but you were probably too lost in your own smugness to realise this was already admitted in the post you were responding to

if there isnt a definitive answer it is most likely on another dimension, if its not yes or its not know, there is most likely an alternative theory that is not yet discovered. consider the theory of God before Spinozas philosophy, there either was a God or there was not one, a new theory came about and now there is not a God, there is one, and there is the theory of both existing but merging the existent and non existent into each other.

I was baiting, randomness (it was not proven there is no randomness) in matter ≠ freewill.

I am sure you are aware Einstein spent a great deal of his life trying to prove this but did not succeed. We can predict the out come of dices because we have the required variables. We lack the variables to find a pattern in subatomic particles. You cannot say there is a patern because nothing proves there is. I will contradict myself and say that I do believe there is a patern but there is nothing to prove it.

I am not sure what you're saying.

Maybe, but so far it was not proven they have a pattern. It is speculation not fact.

Pic is very related to what my whole post was about and yes I do believe there is a pattern to subatomic particles but we have yet to find and no there is no such thing as freewill.

nope, everything is deterministic. you're just a domino. a sad, suicidal domino.

We know nothing and will never not.
>math is correct cuz i sed so
False, all interpretations are wrong.
>math is correct becuz i sed so
>it explains everything perfectly becuz muh systems are based around it

And all those axioms are incorrect

Reductionist determinism is false because awareness of being conscious affects your thought processes and actions.

Yes, but determinism anticipates this and says we were meant to become aware of our conscious and the concept of determinism, it's just another method of restraining one's choices by guiding towards a certain path.

Obviously we do? People who say we don't are just trying to provoke, they themselves believe they do.

this

Also:
>It's another thread of people who haven't read Kant

This is philosophy 101 minus 1

Are we beginning to wake up a bit?

Are we beginning to realise freedom has nothing to do with quantum particles or physical theories?

Are we ready to begin reading Kant?

Or is Veeky Forums still oscillating like a mindless pendulum between yea and nea?

Probably the latter.

>DUDE DO WE HAVE FREAUDUMS, WOAH HOLY SHIT !!!
>He asks without knowing what freedom means
>Veeky Forums is this teenage

It doesn't matter.

the false sense of superiority of a cuckold, gentlemen.

>i won't change my life unless someone tells me I actually can

This is the height of being a lazy cry baby.

Trying to make an account of free will which is both physical and compatible with materialism seems really obvious misguided and pointless. It's not even clear to me in what meaningful sense the quantum action account of brains actually defends free will - it's still a basically physical account of brains. Arguing that the universe is non-deterministic does not mean that it's not physical and I'm really not sure what the actual contentful way is in which quantum action merits being called free will even if it is nondeterministic. What is the actual sense of free will that is being defended here?

It seems to me that there are three basically plausible alternatives here.

1) Accept determinism
2) Give an account of free will which is non-physical and compatible with materialism
3) Give an account of the universe which is non-materialist

Personally, it seems to me that the most palatable option here is the second one, as it seems to overlap massively with the broader problem of giving an account of consciousness and being in a physical materialist universe. but that's just me.

>This is literally provably false. Go back to school.

you want to prove me wrong
you want to look smart
you don't have any control over that

explain user

>kant is kurrekt becus i sed so
That's not what free will is.

>ad homming to mask your ignorance that Kant invented the entire language of free will

We have these threads all the time and the discussion never goes beyond the teenage "holy shit I just read about free will on wikipedia!!!"

>ad homming to mask your ignorance that Kant invented the entire language of free will
Delusion, he is a corrupter of language.

yer mom's a corrupter of language, at least from what she was yelling last night

but user

i never said it was free will :(

explain how people have control over what they want plz

>thats not what free will is because I sed so

Explain how they don't. Do you want some things? Do you not want other things? Why?

Free will isn't le superpowers you fucking redditor

are you trying to tell me that something moving close to the speed of light has already observed the heat death of the universe? lol
>how fast are we moving rn?
>what kind of frame of reference do you use when deciding if something is moving close to the speed of light?
I mean we're hauling through space as it is going some unreasonable speed im sure?
>now what about something moving close to 0 speed will the universe ever end?

don't bother to explain this to me but if you have any resources for laymen that addresses some of the shit...