Free willl vs. determinism

"Free will doesn't really exist. But I act like free will exists."

>But I act like free will exists

You realize that this statement is precisely the exact same thing as saying that free will exists.

Let's say for instance, we are coming up with our own mathematical system. We have this "1" symbol, and we can say that 2 ACTS LIKE it equals 1+1

You might try to say: 2 doesn't really equal = 1 + 1. But it acts like it does. For instance, if you added 5 to both sides, 2 would still act like it equals 1 + 1.

(2) + 5 = (1 + 1) + 5

7 = 7

Notice that this mathematical system is completely divorced from reality. You can think of it as a completely different universe with it's own rules, rules that we come up with ourselves. We tried to say that "2 doesn't REALLY equal 1 + 1" there must be some rule within the system that when applied to (2) and (1+1) they produce a result that distinguishes them. We can define f() such that f(2) = 634, and f(1+1) = 3.

In that case we can have (2) and (1+1) not being equal, hooray. But our second premise that 2 acts like 1+1 has been violated. In order for 2 to still act like 1+1, we need to have every single rule in our math system to treat 2 and 1+1 the same. So we can get rid of the function f(). But in THIS system of rules we have created, we can't say that 2 and 1+1 aren't "really" equal to each other.

By the same logic, if WE act like we have free will, and also EVERYTHING else in the whole universe (the whole system) also acts like we have free will, then there is no rule within the universe that you can use to show make the distinction between actually having free will, and just looking like you have free will.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Free will versus determinism: are we the cause or the effect? Well, we're both, the in-between. So I'd say free will and determinism are two faces of the same thing: how we perceive the way we are througth time.

I think we have free will.

People are predictable which implies determinism. If there is a degree of randomness hidden underneat it's to small to quantify whether there is some true random number generator or we simply lack data to accurate predict the person and so the seeming randomness is just a lack of information on our side.

Sidenote: I believe older cultures believe in fate being set in stone was a belief in determinism.

Jokes on you brainlet, the thought which compels you to think you have free will was a result of biochemical reactions in your brain and body; if we could measure and model your entire body we would have been able to tell that you would think you have free will even before you thought it. Hah!

For all intents and purposes we have free will but it's an illusion.

Quantum mechanics shows that there's always an element of randomness, right? So I don't think you could completely model the brain.

Prove it.

You can predict shit
/thread

>For all intents and purposes we have free will but it's an illusion

If we behave as if we have free will for all intents and purposes, and there is no context within the universe where one can show we don't have free will, then it is not an illusion. It is simply real.

See:

>can't show it
>doesn't exist
the Earth is flat PROVE ME WRONG

"free" will is impossible as everything is subject to cause and effect

>inb4 some brainlet starts babbling about quantum tunneling

Bro you can describe to my how a flat earth would interact differently with the universe than a round earth would.

But you can't even describe to me how a human with the illusion of free will would interact with the universe differently than a human with actual free will.

determinism
It's all just hidden variables all the way down into infinity.

Congratulations!

You just proved my hypothesis that "any scientific debate will inevitably lead to the mentioning of Flat Earth."

Your prize is 1,000 years in Hell!

Whether or not you have free will is irrelevant considering that the constraints of your decision making are so incomprehensible that you might as well go about your life assuming you have control over it.

Free will is the ability for a conscious being to make almost any decision, correct or incorrect?

Let's just call it “chaotic will”. Deterministic in principle, unpredictable in practice.
Maybe stochastic?

Is this Veeky Forums's Godwin?

dictionary.com/browse/free-will

And would you consider humans to be conscious?

>Is this Veeky Forums's Godwin?

Yes... Welcome to Hell!

determinism. we do things we don't want to all the time. most of us procrastinate.

Determinism because I'm a manchild that doesn't want to take any repsonsibility. (post-ironically)

Depends of definition. "Absolute" free will is impossible, but in practical sense for all intents and purposes humans have free will.

>mcdonalds makes branding red and yellow
>subconsciously makes people hungry as fuck
dude for all intents and purposes free will lmao

Yes. It's your fault that you are fat.

free will through determinism
it can be determined, but it's practically impossible and you're experiencing free will, even though it's not really free.

freedom is the recognition of necessity.
most people act deterministic without realizing their own interests. they are nothing more than hostages to circumstances.
the only free people is the people who realize what really need to be done. so they won't blindly follow chaotic impulses.

free will is an invention by the christians/jews so they can blame people for sinning
there is only will, tangled up in the environment and other wills

>"Free will doesn't really exist. But I act like free will exists."
>>But I act like free will exists
>You realize that this statement is precisely the exact same thing as saying that free will exists.

All objects obey the laws of quantum mechanics, not the laws of classical mechanics. But really heavy objects act like they behave the laws of classical mechanics. This does not imply that heavy objects actually obey the laws of classical mechanics. It implies that for heavy objects, classical mechanics is a very accurate, albeit imperfect, approximation.

Similarly, "people act like they have free will" in the sense that a model that treats people as having free will is very useful and can produce very accurate predictions. But ultimately, there exists a more accurate model in which "free will" is neither an axiom nor a theorem. But because the more accurate model is mathematically intractable, we use the imperfect "free will" model to get easy answers, just like we use classical mechanics to get easy answers to how heavy objects move, even though it is a theory with strictly inferior accuracy to quantum mechanics.

I see what you're saying and you bring up a good distinction.

>But really heavy objects act like they behave the laws of classical mechanics. This does not imply that heavy objects actually obey the laws of classical mechanics.

Within the system of classical mechanics, everything DOES behave according to classical rules, because that is how we have defined the system.

If you step outside of the system of classical mechanics, you can see that the universe interacts with itself in a way that is inconsistent with classical mechanics. This is because we can break the heavy object down and see that it is interacting with itself and producing virtual particles and other quantum phenomenon.

So without the premise that heavy object act EXACTLY in classical ways, we can't follow the logic of my argument to say that heavy objects really do behave classically.

Free will is obviously real in the context of free will, in the system that defines free will. However, when we step outside of the system of free will we will see that is it still EXACTLY, 100% consistent with all other observations in the universe. Even in the system that encompasses all of existence, free will still behaves as if it's real. And since it is real in the {Real} context, then it is real.

>"free" will is impossible as everything is subject to cause and effect
What caused the universe?

Perhaps nothing cause the universe.

Are you suggesting that "free will" exists outside the universe but somehow still can interact with the universe?

>Perhaps nothing cause the universe.
Then not everything is subject to cause and effect.

>Are you suggesting that "free will" exists outside the universe but somehow still can interact with the universe?
No.

cause and effect implies an initial mover ie god
probably there's something else our brains can't comprehend

Free will and determinism are unrelated to each other.
There can be both, or neither.

If I give cause to a existence, without proprietary pictures of presidents, it's free will anyway.

...

Are the posters arguing against free will just coping for bad life choices they made?

Some people obviously have more free will than others but everyone I've met has at least SOME free will

obviously, you must be dumb to take people like that seriously

why use a word with so much baggage? cause and effect does NOT imply a god, it implies a CAUSE to the observed effect "the observed universe", what about that cause implies that it must be a god, or are you using little g to leave "god" up to any interpretation?

also, do we assume time started at the big bang? if so, how could you have a cause outside of time start time?

literally makes no difference

Or maybe successful people are more willing to attribute their success to their own ostensible abilities instead of combination of largely independent of them factors, regardless of how close to the truth this might be.

cause the first cause would be uncaused. use your brain dumbass

the only thing that can be uncaused is a "god" that you haven't defined? care to show your work?

i'd like to take this moment to postulate an uncaused omnipresent bagel

tell me what else is uncaused

that's not how it works, you are claiming that the only thing that could be uncased is a god, the burden of proof is on you.

...

free will exists because of quantum mechanics

i said prime mover. call it god call it what you please the fact the you can't name anything beside god is evidence enough that it's a retarded idea

you can believe whatever you want. the idea that a bagel (which we've got plenty of and are all caused) is the prime mover is even more retarded than god. it still shows cause and effect isn't all there is

i can and i just did, my unmoved prime causer uncaused bagel is just as legitamate as your undefined god because you still haven't shown why only "god" can be uncaused

you're not making any argument

free, as in freedom, means there is no god you align your decision to...

Also it means, you simply think more about what you exactly is.

i didn't read the second sentence to the initial post i responded to, i think i might agree with you? i tend to lean towards determinism, but i guess i do disagree with you when you say that cause and effect must imply "god"

as if he has a coherent theory behind that god babble. c'mon, you know better.
It makes a difference for attributing "ultimate" blame on someone. Revenge on criminals makes no sense, it's just like kicking an already broken toaster. (not to say that punishment couldn't have positive effect on development of someones character, but never just for "justice")

>blame
also makes no difference
>Revenge
also makes no difference
>justice
does not make a difference by itself

furthermore your logic is broken. someone predicting your actions doesn't exempt you from responsibility, regardless of whether it is an omniscient god or just some guy.

If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense. You might as well try to punish a rock that fell on you out of vengeance. You could, but that would be dumb and pointless.

>If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense.
explain the sense it makes in the alternate world

While it is true that the brain is the consequence of natural laws which the individual has no control over, free will is a matter of power to choose. Someone has this kind of power, and hence free will, if they hypothetically had the ability to do otherwise than they did - barring undue burdens. Thus, free will and determinism are compatible, and we probably have free will

That's retarded, user. It's literally a contradiction. Infact, it's fucking nonsense. A predetermined action is not a choice.

Determinism

Everything happens because it is willed to happen, God gave everything characteristics (continuing will) that makes them do what they should, however, God can make them do things they're not supposed to do.

Al-Ghazali explained it best

>hypothetically had the ability to do otherwise
>consequence of natural laws which the individual has no control over
If they had no control, they could not have had excerted control.
At what point could a physically deterministic system have had the "choice" to deviate from its starting conditions? This is as obvious a contradiction as you could have made.
Stop with this desperate word-twisting, just face the facts, it won't kill you.

Because the perpetrator would be the ultimate cause of its actions. Not the starting conditions of the universe.

Didn't he say a fire burns only because god continually and actively generates that effect or something? Every atomic and subatomic particle has strings attached that god has to pull at all times. And people actually believe this too.

Not determinism is all we know

>However, when we step outside of the system of free will we will see that is it still EXACTLY, 100% consistent with all other observations in the universe.

This is a very strong statement. It seems to mean that "free will" is a literal synonym for "the laws of physics." So the answer to "why do apples fall when you drop them" is "free will." And how does a lightbulb work? Free will. Surely that's not what you mean, by free will though, right?

The problem is the following: one conclusion that science has led to is that there exists one single, unifying law that governs everything. The law that makes humans do things is the exact same rule that makes apples fall and lightbulbs turn on. So if you say "free will is 100% true" and "free will governs what people do," you must also say "free will makes apples fall and lightbulbs turn on" or "science is wrong about the concept of universal law."

>Every atomic and subatomic particle has strings attached that god has to pull at all times
What do you think determinism is?

wow, the people here without free will sound like miserable human beings

is it really that bad?

Spectrum but people refuse to admit between either since it's simpler for one to either completely admit or deny something than deal with the muddy water.

Personally free will is a spectrum. We have limited free will, that is controlled by a myriad number of factors which would be a pain for any one man to figure out.

TL;DR binary freewill argument is for brainlets.

>At what point could a physically deterministic system have had the "choice" to deviate from its starting conditions?
In that free will is purely hypothetical. It doesn't matter if someone was determined to make a decision, what matters is that they could have chosen otherwise if they wanted. Now, if you want to argue that someone who chose a donut off a dessert table could not have made a different decision that's up to you. I'm saying that the person determined to pick the donut had the power to choose another dessert, *if* they wanted. That *if* is the key word.

Just because it's affected by randomness to a degree doesn't mean it's a free will.

For those who don't believe in free will: what kind of evidence would make you change your mind?

>Because the perpetrator would be the ultimate cause of its actions. Not the starting conditions of the universe.
that is not an explanation you fucktard

>that is not an explanation you fucktard
Do you need to swear?

This is an excellent point, which means that of course it will be completely ignored here.

Well where does cause and effect lead you if not to a prime mover?

Free will is only possible with some magical "soul" so I guess the second coming of Jesus will do.

>Free will is only possible with some magical "soul"
What do you mean?

yes i do you fucking shit-monkey

>If your actions are predetermined, then punishing you for choosing them makes no sense.
This is pure nonsense. Dumb russky

>unironically being a """determinist"""
Who fucking cares? Does it change anything at all? You're still going to act like if you have free will. It's a pointless argument.

>disturbs and angers religious/spiritual vermin
More than enough reason to point out inconsequential facets of reality

We are in a computer simulation that could be deterministic or probabilistic. In either case, there is will and the will changes what happens in the simulation. But it is not free. If our simulation is deterministic and we would just start the program again, the same movie would play once again.If it is probabilistic, a different movie would play but the differences would be because of different realizations of the (pseudo) randomness that was coded into our program, not because will changes everything. Or in other words, if we run the same probabilisitic simulation again and it just happens that the same realizations of randomness occur as in the previous simulation, it would be the exact same movie.

I believe it like I said it, but I also sometimes have difficulties thinking about it. If it really is like that, can one be responsible for anything? Can something be someones fault? The answer is no if there is a preset fate.

>Surely that's not what you mean, by free will though, right?

No, but now we're getting into Abstractionism here.

>It seems to mean that "free will" is a literal synonym for "the laws of physics."

Nah. Free Will is an Abstraction based on the laws of physics.

Just like "heat" is an Abstraction of the laws of physics. You wouldn't say: "How does an electron orbit a proton? Heat." But you can say that the underlying atoms will never behave in a way that is inconsistent with the laws of heat. If you look at the atoms abstractly as Heat, you will always, 100% of the time see heat flow from hot to cold. Also the underlying atoms need to qualify as heat, you can't just say that a graviton is heat. Similarly, you can only abstract out free will when the underlying atoms represent consciousness. Heat is true because it acts like it's true and can never been shown to be acting like it's not true.

Let's say the world is like this:

0011001100110011

The laws of physics state that each number is neighbors with both a 1 and a 0, unless they are on the end.

The Abstraction of Free Will (F) is based on the universe having a "001" sequence. So we get:

F1F1F1

The laws of free will state that two F's will never be right next to each other. This is true, and it is consistent with the laws of physics. Meaning, given the laws of physics and all the information about the universe, you can never find any contradiction between the laws of Free Will and the laws of physics. That means that the laws of Free Will are true, not just in the free will context but within the largest system you can even consider: Reality.

>We are in a computer simulation
It's not a simulation, it's more akin to a dream. You're the dream (which takes the shape of experiences) and you have free will to take the shape of whatever experience you want. You-as-a-person's date is determined by the dream, as your body is merely a part of the landscape. Therefore, your fate is free if you decide to identify as the landscape, or "that which takes the shape of experiences" and deterministic if you identify with the "person view" your experience is formatted with.

btw, as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will. There is will and it changes how humans behave. But it is not free because what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). So the fate is totally preset or at least preset depending on the randomness that will occur (not depending on what your will is), your will can't change it.

If the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for. So far it looks like we can find physical models for everything that happens and that reality really follows these laws. It's really doubtful that our will is the source for the exception in computability. I would think it's more likely that a god is the source.

>btw, as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will. There is will and it changes how humans behave. But it is not free because what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). So the fate is totally preset or at least preset depending on the randomness that will occur (not depending on what your will is), your will can't change it.
>If the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for. So far it looks like we can find physical models for everything that happens and that reality really follows these laws. It's really doubtful that our will is the source for the exception in computability. I would think it's more likely that a god is the source.
This is mostly meaningless garbage.

What parts do you not agree on? Maybe I can clarify or you can convince me that I'm wrong.

inb4 everything

>all this debating
>the answer is clearly determinism

You mean randomness

>What parts do you not agree on?
" as long as our universe is computable (it doesn't have to be computed, i.e. be a simulation), there is no free will."
" what will happen is directly computable (or at least probabilistically computable if there is real randomness in our universe). "
"f the universe is not computable, that would first of all be really outstanding. That would mean there are areas where it's impossible to define/model physical laws for"
" a god is the source."