Anything that has ever happened and ever will happen was parametrized by the conditions at the beginning of the Big Bang

Its been proven that there are no /local/ hidden variables. Determinism hasn't been disproven.

Person experience can't tell you if you have free will or not, simpleton

It can't tell you if you're a brain in a vat being fed sensory information either but we reject such theories because they're stupid and lead nowhere. Leave the "What if we don't have free will maaaaan?" shit for your weed sessions with your frat

Yeah, except that it's impossible for free will to exist.

Except it's not and we experience free will so if you're making an extraordinary claim you need extraordinary evidence to support that claim. Of which you have none because you're making a statement based off your philosophical preference for determinism which is dumb because we know for a fact determinism is false.

>i
>deterministic fedora

You must be over the age of 18 to post here.

science [math]\Rarrow[/math] determinism

>You already admitted we can't tell if we have free will, now in this post you're back to saying we experience free will
No I said we can't tell if we're a brain in a vat but pursuing such theories is pointless and it's better to just go with theories that are congruent with human experience until such time as we have evidence to prove otherwise. Just because we can't tell we're a brain in a vat doesn't mean it's prudent to assume we ARE a brain in a vat. No, we assume the world we experience is real, and that includes all our experience including free will.

No if you have evidence to prove we are a brain in a vat, or that we don't have free will go ahead and show it but until you do we should assume we are not brains in vats and that we do have free will as that is congruent with our day to day experience of reality.

Are you stupid or something? What's the magic particle in your brain producing this "free will"?

>We can't explain how we experience free will yet therefore it can't exist!
Are you retarded? Free will aligns with your day to day experience of reality. Claiming it doesn't exist requires evidence, not just handwaving and saying it can't because with our current knowledge we can't explain it you retard.

"free will is an illusion"

Experience means literally nothing. It's a fact that free will doesn't exist.

Yes. No evidence has ever been put forward that conclusively proves such a statement true, it's merely speculation. Given the fact that it conflicts with our experience of reality anyone should be skeptical of it until proven. If you disagree then I have just posted a picture of a square and need no evidence to prove that because if you claim it's anything other than a square then I can claim that your subjective experience of looking at the square is unreliable.

>Experience means literally nothing
Then what basis do you have to claim free will doesn't exist considering all of the "evidence" you have is based on sensory experience which you have just dismissed?

You have this straight up backwards. Free will is the extraordinary claim; it would literally require magic to work. Physical systems don't work the way you think they do.

The idea is that the entire universe is chaotic (sensitive to initial conditions) so it behaves pseudorandomly but everything in fact was predetermined by the initial conditions. The big bang is seen as evidence of this.

>Free will is the extraordinary claim
No it isn't because it's perfectly congruent with everyday experience. I experience free will therefore I have it. You need to show extraordinary evidence to claim otherwise and the "uhhh experience doesn't mean anything!" is the last gasp of the brainlet trying to justify his baseless view. If experience doesn't mean anything then all the information that you have gathered to form your opinion is moot because you gathered it through sensory experience. You read it or heard it. Sorry user, I guess I just have to dismiss your claim that it would need "magic" because I just can't rely on information gathered through subjective experience.

>God exists!
No

The simple concept that you're not grasping here is that since you are your brain, "feeling" free means nothing. Of course a brain is going to think it has free will, since it IS the entity processing inputs and giving outputs. "I think I'm free" is a meaningless and expected statement, whether the being is or isn't actually free.

Then you have no basis to claim you haven't come to an erroneous conclusion because by your own admission your judgement is bound by how your brain processes the information.

Luckily I do have free will and my argument does not have any such contradictions. I have come to the correct conclusion by exercising my free will to make a judgement based on information I've gathered. I'm glad we can agree that if you're right, you're actually wrong and if I'm right, then I'm right. Such is life when you choose to make self defeating arguments

both of you are dumb
metaphysics is dead

>Luckily I do have free will
But you don't, you just think you do. Sorry this fact about the universe makes you feel so panicked, I'm sure you'll get over it eventually.

The non-existence of free will is proven by evolution.

You wouldn't know what any facts about the universe are in the first place because you claim you're an automaton not capable of coming to any other conclusion than what you've been programmed to. If your claim is correct then you have no basis to make your claim in the first place, you lack the ability to match data with the correct theory. Sorry, turns out your theory has too many holes in it to be credible. You'll just have to accept responsibility for your shit life instead of taking comfort in the idea it was all the boundary conditions of the universe that did it. Sorry bud.

It's not proven by anything. It's pseudointellectual drivel from those who still subscribe to the incorrect and outdated model of determinism.

All humans are objectively automatons; you're one that isn't particularly smart.

You know we've found many phenomena that are completely uncased right? Determinism was debunked like 50 years ago. You're a little bit behind the times.

Determinism has nothing to do with it. Whether the universe is deterministic or probabilistic, a human brain is equally "unfree" to make choices. Evolution disproves it because homo sapien has evolutionary ancestors that not even someone as delusional as you would argue have "free will." Or maybe you do? Do monkeys have free will? Lemurs? Ants? Plants? Indeed, "homo sapien" is only a man-made categorization; there are no lines drawn in nature between species.

In other words, we come directly from beings that can't even be argued to have an illusion of free will. So somewhere between then and here, free will proponents are claiming that, magically, the laws of the universe changed to accommodate us, which is moronic. What actually happened is that we have very complex brains which create a convincing illusion of freedom. This is the only explanation which has even the slightest shred of logic to it.

>Evolution disproves it because homo sapien has evolutionary ancestors that not even someone as delusional as you would argue have "free will." Or maybe you do? Do monkeys have free will? Lemurs? Ants? Plants?
Yes. Remember free will is a spectrum, not binary. Again you're arguing against outdated concepts. If you want to go back to the 1800s and argue against shit they believed back then please do that instead

So silly, you can't see the fact right in front of your face. Ants are not free, their simple nervous systems take input and give output just like man-made computer programs. They are biological machines. The same applies to us, with vastly more complexity.

More complexity = more free will. Ants are little more than biological machines but the further up the tree you go you find animals with more and more capacity to override ingrained biological instinct and follow their own desires instead. Claiming that because an ant has limited free will that we do too is a tremendously retarded argument. Free will is an emergent property and a certain level of neural complexity much be reached before individuals can start overriding biological imperatives with their own will. Humans are not unique, dolphins have sex for enjoyment and exhibit many behaviors that show existence of exerting their own will.

You don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.

>ingrained biological instinct and follow their own desires instead

It's obvious by shit like this, where you imply you think "desires" are free just because you call them desires. Desires are still the deterministic result of inputs being processed by a machine.

>Claiming that because an ant has limited free will that we do too is a tremendously retarded argument.
No, actually, it's called logic.

>Free will is an emergent property
Source?

In any case you'll be proven wrong, probably within your own lifetime. Processing power will reach the point where a human's next thought or action can be predicted with 100% accuracy based on a set of conditions.

>Desires are still the deterministic result of inputs being processed by a machine.
We've already proven determinism false. You're going around in circles now. There is no such thing as determinism.

The universe IS deterministic at the scale where the human brain operates.

The universe is not deterministic at any scale.

lmfaoooooooooooooooooooo

>Processing power will reach the point
what is Diminishing returns

Machines won't even predict weather with 100% accuracy based on a set of conditions.

When you're using Catholic talking points they use to argue for the existence of God it's time to stop.

catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-physics-disprove-the-first-cause-argument

>he says while using a computer that couldn't work if the universe wasn't deterministic at the macro scale

jesus you're fucking retarded. I suggest understanding quantum mechanics and how it relates to the macroscopic world before making embarrassing posts in the future.

The universe has the illusion of determinism at the macro scale. This is not the same as it being truly deterministic.

How?

>people implying that free will and determinism are incompatible

lol

How does this matter at all? It doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter that nothing matters.

How was it proved that there's no hidden variables?
Please tell me

>people implying that free will makes any sense whatsoever
What does it matter if the future is knowable or not. We are still the machine which decides.

Bells theorems nigga.

It is deterministic for all practical purposes. If you deny this, you are just throwing common sense out the window
If this was not the case computers would not work as someone kindly pointed out

no shit, you are part of that 'anything'. it's not like you can even grasp the determined path of the universe so who gives a shit.

We have free will for all practical purposes.

WRONG

Tell me why humans are exempt from determinism when literally everything on the non-quantum level isn't.

The position of electrons aren't certain gayboi, it's impossible to determine only predict

>we should assume we are not brains in vats

You've completely missed the point on that. That's only pragmatically speaking. There is no good reason to believe that we in fact are not brains in vats. Just because it might make society better off if we believe in the free will, this doesn't mean we there is a good reason to assume we are special when it comes observable truths of our world.

To argue otherwise would require you to provide proof since the determinism is taking the negative position.

>literally everything on the non-quantum level isn't
Do you think the universe is split into two and there are different physical laws that govern each half? Quantum mechanics describes ALL reality. From the smallest particle to the largest galaxy. There is no "quantum level". We've induced quantum states in molecules that are large enough to view with the naked eye. There is no determinism, period and you can't escape that by claiming that determinism only kicks in at certain scales. Either the universe is deterministic or it isn't. For the argument that we have no free will to work the premise that ALL physical systems are deterministic MUST BE TRUE. All of them. Clearly, not all physical systems are deterministic. Therefore free will can exist.

oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-176/lecture-5

>determinism is taking the negative position.
Completely and entirely incorrect. The null hypothesis is that we do have free will since that is congruent with human experience. When you claim something that is incongruent with human experience you need proof. You can't shift the burden of proof over because you know you don't have any. You're using the exact same technique that theists use when they argue God must exist. They set down a series of premises then claim logically it must follow that God must exist. You're setting down a series of premises and claiming that free will can't exist. In both cases the response is "Where is the proof?" and in both cases the arguments ultimately fail because you have no proof.

>Do you think the universe is split into two and there are different physical laws that govern each half?

Yes, actually. Or else we would have no knowledge of something as simple as kinematics.

>believing a loud crash built everything and not our lord

Calm down brainlets.

>The null hypothesis is that we do have free will since that is congruent with human experience. When you claim something that is incongruent with human experience you need proof.

I experience god therefore god exists, it's on you to disprove my experience.

It's not my goal to sound rude, but do you understand what positive and negative mean?

>le quantum mechanics is randum and therefore free will exists XDDDD

No you fucking idiots, quantum mechanics its deterministic, the wave function moves based on the hamiltonian and thats determined. Even if it was random, universe is only picking between equally non free choices, free will is a meme for brainlet human monkeys.

>it's on you to disprove my experience
Easy. It's not something other people experience. All people experience free will. Your argument is dumb, you might as well argue that we're brains in vats or that you're the only real person and everyone else are p-zombies. It's intellectual masturbation of the worst kind. Humans are conscious beings, they're real and they have free will. These are all base assumptions that science is built on and you have nothing to support your view that any of them are wrong other than "simulation hypothesis" type bullshit where you claim that a bunch of arbitrary premises lead to your conclusion

Are we in a simulation? Until we have proof the default is no because there is no reason to believe our reality is not real. Do we have free will? Until we have proof the answer is yes because there is no reason to doubt first hand experience of the phenomena.

Feel free to circlejerk about all sorts of bullshit that has no proof but your premises don't prove we lack free will any more than people can prove we live in a simulation.

5/9 =/= 1/2, that's how
...and it's no LOCAL hidden variables
youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c?t=4m

>Your argument is dumb
Not an argument.

>you might as well argue that we're brains in vats or that you're the only real person and everyone else are p-zombies

I don't think these specific positions are constructive but you cannot reject them, the problem is you're using the assertion that they aren't constructive (ex:arguing that we don't have free will) and making the leap to saying that they are incorrect. The problem with doing that in the case of free will and determinism is that it fundamentally shifts the blame we place on individuals.

quantum events are just expressions of a different variable occurring in multiverses

>and making the leap to saying that they are incorrect
No, I'm saying there's no point discussing any of them because there is no evidence sufficient to make a judgement either way. I think you're making a massive mistake by underplaying how important subjective experience is, particularly when we're talking about something that cannot be measured or experienced by anyone other than the subject. If I place my hand in a fire and say it's hot and it hurts it is not helpful for someone to say "How do you even know that feeling of pain is real?". Things we experience are rightfully judged to be real phenomena until we have proof otherwise, such as a group of other people observing me who did not see a fire. Although people are somewhat mocked for holding the belief the Earth was flat, it was actually correct to construct a hypothesis that was congruent with the human experience. Then we had hard evidence the Earth is actually sphere shaped and things changed.

It's perfectly reasonable to hold the default opinion that free will is real and exists because we experience the sensation of choice, until such time that there is definitive proof that says otherwise. I do not think it is constructive or helpful for anyone to argue that because of probabilities that we exist in a simulation, or that because what we know of determinism suggests we are biological machines. Certainly it's even worse for people to claim it's a fact that we do not have free will when there is absolutely nothing to suggest that other than an outdated idea of determinism.

Wrong.

I just don't buy the experience argument. If one person experiences god, does that make god real? You would say no because not everyone experiences god. If we had a different universe where no one could experience free will but nothing in that universe could be predicted deterministically, would determinism be the correct position because it's what people experience? Our cognitive biases trick the fuck out of us every day.

Ok hol up here negros. How can we say everything can be determined? I would find it highly arrogant to say our understanding of the universe is so absolute that we can exclude the possibility of the existence of perfect randomness. If perfect, or true, randomness exists, something cannot be predetermined.

Also, for all the fags going on about free will, it can still exist even with predetermination. The predetermination would just determine the will of the person. You could determine I would say yes to an offer of 1 million dollars, yet it is still my free will to take it. It is impossible that I would not take it because the nature of my existence is such that I would never want to deny the offer.

Free will doesn't exist. Stop posting.

>The predetermination would just determine the will of the person.

Compatibilism, not even once.

He can't. He doesn't have free will dumbass.

nigga why not?

If one knew the initial wavefunction of the univserse, couldn't one use the time-evolution operator to find the wavefunction of the universe at any future point?

Thought experiment. Copy paste this universe, run both universes separately.

Possibility one, they never diverge for eternity. Fully deterministic

Two, they diverge slowly over time due to quantum fluctuations.

Three, they immediately diverge

>if true randomness exists, something cannot be predetermined
means nothing for free will. how do quantum fluctuations equate to one being able to make choices?
oh, your gut bacteria rolled some dice and now you want salmon instead of chicken

There are mechanisms that can randomness into choice

It's a long-winded way of saying that we don't have free will.

If the argument is there is no free will because of predetermination then it means everything for the bloody argument. And it very well could be that quantum fluctuations in our brains we don't yet understand could affect our thought/will.