determinism. we do things we don't want to all the time. most of us procrastinate.
Free willl vs. determinism
Easton Taylor
Jose Myers
Determinism because I'm a manchild that doesn't want to take any repsonsibility. (post-ironically)
Jonathan Butler
Depends of definition. "Absolute" free will is impossible, but in practical sense for all intents and purposes humans have free will.
Juan Collins
>mcdonalds makes branding red and yellow
>subconsciously makes people hungry as fuck
dude for all intents and purposes free will lmao
Ian White
Yes. It's your fault that you are fat.
Hudson Hernandez
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.
Caleb Walker
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.
Nolan Cruz
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
Dylan Roberts
>"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.
Isaiah Lopez
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.