Why you have a Free Will after all

Can someone explain why compatibilism has any meaning at all? It sounds like it's just determinism with a lazy notion of pseudo- free will baked into it so you can more readily evade arguments against either position.

>so you can more readily evade arguments against either position

bingo, you got it.

explain to me why anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of science would believe anything other than hard indeterminism.

Compatibilism is like a jumping fish in a flowing river, it falls back to the river eventually, can't escape it, and can't really affect it.

How do you know the universe is non-deterministic?

Who knew we had a genius on Veeky Forums that was going to prove the correct interpretation of QM once and for all!

youtube.com/watch?v=DJsJIVXkrGQ

youtube.com/watch?v=ADiql3FG5is

so they do talk about the "quantum effects" surrounding biology.

While this stuff is still in contention. I just wanted to point out that there is research being done in how Quantum mechanics affects the biological model.

but I also want to add that all this free will and fate and making behavior indeterministic. Is something I pay attention too.
Im mostly interested in psychology/psychiatry and abnormal behavior.
Which is interesting considering that many people afflicted with abnormal behavior that can lead to diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder and many others.
Many of the people that I have seen and talked too, all have perfectly valid reasons for acting the way they do.
Many of them not really attributing it to their depression, or their mania, or schizophrenia.
but rather the voices in their head
feeling of how worthless they are etc....

Its always really hard to talkabout about free will
becuase it seems that we can never step in the middle of a decision or a choice.
When we try to analyzzie it for evidence of free will we can only seem to play monday morning quaterback with it.

Also I owuld like to note that any single psychopharmaceutical we have, we don't really know how they work.
Theres models and theories.
but none of them have really been tested.
As to why SSRI's, and antipsychotics work we can only guess right now.

I think that really says something on how we tend to go off a bunch of assumptions when it comes to behavior in general. And how much farther we actually have to go in order to provide people with a valid answer to the question of free will.

QM doesn't account for gravity yet

phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-loophole-bell-inequality-year-old.html

This experiment's conclusion is a strong argument against superdeterminism too

because of the multiverse

Many worlds is deterministic, you fucking brainlet, holy fuck.

it's a way to save determinism fucking idiot.
you believe in the multiverse ? LOL

multiverse is the last change to save determinism

poor Occam Razor

the multiverse : when you think there is another copy of you making other choice in another universe...... LOL

Why did you feel the need to reply thrice. I'm only pointing out that many worlds is deterministic, while the poster think it isn't.

"I'm only pointing out that many worlds is deterministic"

the many world theory is a scam for guy like you stupid moron

I didn't say I believe in it, you dumb shit. Only that it's deterministic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

My position (which I would describe as compatibilist) is that the definitions of free will that hinge on some "undetermined" thing are actually incoherent, and that the only meaningful definition of it is the straightforward sense in which we consider situations before acting, and rocks do not. Does not mean our actions aren't determined.

>watch the video
>so far so good
>haha jk FREE WILL EXISTS
>QUANTUM MECHANIKSKSKSSSSSSS
>UNCERTAINITY PRINSPLLLL
fucking gas the brainlets

>This experiment's conclusion is a strong argument against superdeterminism too
No it isn't. The experiment demonstrates any hidden variables would need to have been established 600 years ago at the latest. Superdeterminism says everything about the universe was never not established, meaning even events happening today were predetermined at the big bang.
Superdeterminism still works because events billions of years ago are just as able to have relationships with events now as events a few seconds ago are. All of space and time would just be a static structure like a quilt and just as there's no reason a quilt can't have patterns that include shapes and colors on opposite ends being synched up there's no reason a superdeterministic universe can't exhibit patterns synchd up between experimenter behavior today, light from 600 years ago, and experiments ran with that light.

fucking moron

stupid

It's not stupid, superdeterminism always meant "determined from the big bang," so claiming an experiment showing that events would have needed to be predetermined 600 years ago does exactly nothing to superdeterminism as an explanation. Saying that experiment is any sort of argument against superdeterminism is wrong for that reason.

you are not very smart

This is totally retarded. There are two options here:

Either the brain functions in physical reality and you can predict with certainty what the out come of given inputs are if you have a complete model of how the brain works and complete information of its state.

Or the brain works through supernatural means and it has a fairy inside that makes the decisions.

And quantum mechanics has nothing to do whit this, quantum mechanics is incredibly predictable and presise in systems as large as a brain, and it is part of nature. QM are law's that determine outcomes just like everything else in nature.

Nice argument, brainlet.

superderminism is so dishonest ( and funny ), I think only north american can believe in that

>And quantum mechanics has nothing to do whit this, quantum mechanics is incredibly predictable and presise in systems as large as a brain, and it is part of nature. QM are law's that determine outcomes just like everything else in nature.

Heinsenberg, Anton Zeilinger, Alain Connes,
nice try moron

>Either the brain functions in physical reality and you can predict with certainty what the out come of given inputs are if you have a complete model of how the brain works and complete information of its state.
Can you predict what this pendulum will do in a minute? Let's say you have access to a computer the size of observable universe.
youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU

>no argument
You didn't even try.

no need with a dishonest moron
please do your homeworks

Yes if you have complete information of its state, and the state of the air around it.
Chaotic systems are 100% deterministic, you are just lacking enough information to predict it.

Dishonest how?

>Chaotic systems are 100% deterministic

LOL, Planck Scale fucking idiot

'Systems' is the key word here. We are not talking about individual particles, we are talking about the motion of the pendulum. Don't be a reductionist idiot.

Not an argument. Even if you don't agree with superdetermimism you absolutely cannot use that experiment as evidence against it since, again, superdeterminism always meant determined since the big bang. That experiment doesn't have anything to do with superdeterminism, it's evidence against regular hidden variable alternatives since it proves those variables would need to have been determined 600 years prior.

Hidden variable theory = Esoterism

Undergrad.

Superdeterminism is silly

The proof of Bell's theorem tells you that measurements of different polarizations of far-away particles have statistics that are not reproducible in advance by the electrons alone, making crib-sheets when they are close about what the answer is going to be for the different experiments.

If you want to use the superdeterminism loophole, you need to assume that there are electron crib sheets which tell the electrons how to behave, and further, there is some mechanism which links the electron crib sheet to the choice of the experimental apparatus of which direction to measure, so that the direction one chooses to measure is somehow determined by these crib sheets.

To understand how ridiculous this is---- I could program a computer to run a random number generator, and set the polarizers according to the outcome. Then whichever random number generator I choose to use, the result must be correlated in the exact same way with the crib sheets.

If I use a thermal random number generator (a heated chip which reads out random 0s and 1s), the result will have to be correlated with the crib sheets. This correlation cannot change even if I change the temperature, altering all the Avogadro's number of particle positions and velocities. It doesn't change if I touch the chip to a hot liquid, introducing new atoms. The correlation doesn't care if I flip a coin and switch out the random number generator for another one, or if I rewire the experiment to make different outcomes correspond to different polarization settings. The nature of the conspiracy is so implausible, that it requires an intelligent agency which knows exactly what I am doing, and rearranges all the crib sheets and correlations to make everything come out right.

It is just plain impossible to imagine such a mechanism. It defies common sense that for any randomization procedure one can dream up, the results are correlated with the electron crib sheets. Further, if you have a beam of different correlated electron pairs, you might measure this electron pair or that. The mechanism has to be correlated with all the electron crib sheets. I think that this is sufficiently ridiculous that to call superdeterminism a loophole is just an abuse of language--- it is a loophole in the same way that we could all be dreaming in the matrix and the aliens have set up the outcome to look like quantum mechanics is true. It's no more plausible than this sort of nonsense.

>If you want to use the superdeterminism loophole, you need to assume that there are electron crib sheets which tell the electrons how to behave
Nothing really tells them how to behave in superdeterminism. It's more like all of space and time including each moment and each position have always just been there and nothing's really moving or changing any more than characters in a comic book are really moving or changing.

Learn to speak, brainlet.

>Planck Scale brain
This is a whole new level.

Its funny how this discussion has come down to:
>Muh uncertainty, therefore our decisions are our own
When there is no link between our conscious decision-making and QM motion of individual particles.

Just because QM involves probability, doesn't mean that it is outside of natural laws. It is still sa physical system that we have no influence over. Every thought you have comes from natural laws.

Consider how depressing life really is if we are deterministic biological machines.

Society is a self designed eugenics program which deselects certain genes from reproducing.
How? By locking them up a cage i.e. prison because they are e.g. too aggressive.
Low intelligence = no education beyond high school = low socioeconomic group = your offspring has a less likely chance of doing well in life.
Something which we never had any say in. It could be you.

The second we are born our genes, parents and environment is locked down. The outcome is likely determined only we do not have a means to observe it. Maybe in 500 years time we will have built an AI which can take into account and compute the outcome.

I have a friend who has convinced himself that free will doesn’t exist. He is obese, smokes, smokes pot almost every day, doesn’t have a gf, isn’t the brightest, and watches reruns of the same tv shows all day.

Coincidence?

not an argument

>Either the brain functions in physical reality and you can predict with certainty what the out come of given inputs are if you have a complete model of how the brain works and complete information of its state.
Complete information does not mean predictability, especially when feedback loops are involved.

Consider an oracle program that takes the input of any program and outputs what that program would output. Now consider a program that takes input 1 or 0 and outputs the opposite of it's input. Now connect the output of the first program to the input of the second. Now the oracle cannot correctly predict the output of the entire program, since the output will be the opposite of whatever it predicts.

seriously.

This shit needs to be expanded into a horror fiction book/film

Sent a shiver down my spine.

Just because a (predetermined) lack of belief in free will is associated with (or even causes) poor behavior doesn't mean free will exists.
If anything that constitutes some decent evidence free will doesn't exist because it demonstrates a mechanism for how and why the false belief in free will could have emerged as something that provided an evolutionary advantage. Acting and communicating in response to a concept of "free will" could be a good program for producing healthy behavior, similar to how a not actually harmful / neutralized remnants of pathogens can be used to produce the beneficial immune response of vaccination.

I didn’t say I was arguing anything

Why is it so scary to you?

What are you even rambling about? Chaotic systems are chaotic because of the feedback loops.

Complete information means you have complete information on all parts involved in the system. If there is input you don't know about, then you don't have complete information.

This is not contested within physics, the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems is because of lack of information.

If you simulate a double pendulum on a computer, then you have total access to the system and you can know how the pendulum will swing before it starts.

I agree, you don't even have to bring QP into this argument.

I'm with you bro. People abuse their own misunderstanding of qm interpretations to build up their coping mechanism, because they are scared that they might not have as much control as they feel like they do. It's pathetic, honestly. I'm always down for an honest debate but it's tiring to constantly explain that the qm point is utterly irrelevant considering that, like you said already, randomness still does not imply free will.

>Free will doesn't exist hurr durr

Here are the facts:
1. This thread was made
2. I wanted to reply
3. I replied, unhindered, to this thread, which was my desire

Whether or not this thread was determined to happen since the beginning of the universe is a non-issue, and whether I was fated to want to reply is a non-issue. My will was to reply, and I did freely. Free will.

>1. This thread was made
Sure.
>2. I wanted to reply
You had an involuntary compulsion, OK.
>3. I replied, unhindered, to this thread, which was my desire
You behaved in response to a compulsion, cool
>whether I was fated to want to reply is a non-issue
No, not a non-issue, it's exactly the issue.
>My will was to reply
You were compelled to reply, yes.
>I did freely
Nope. You did deterministically.
>Free will.
Nope. You're not exempt from causality. Everything you say and do is the result of physical cause and effect relationships. Your semantics game about the alleged distinction between being free to choose to do something vs. being free to choose which something you want to do is irrelevant and only serves to reveal you read a few lines of Schopenhauer once and were very impressed by it.

>mfw freewilltards actually believe they are magically immune to causality simply by virtue of being human

the absolute ego on this one

It will stay put...

Or if its on a 0 friction surface it will turn the ball into a gas or flatten it infinitely

>Secondly, why would you ever think stuff at the QUANTUM scale would have vast implications on the behavior of huge ass molecules in your brain.
because the molecules in your brain are composed of quantum elements you retarded fucking nigger. that's like taking the Hydrogen out of water and saying it wouldn't have a vast implication

to those of you here without free will: what evidence would be sufficient to conclude someone has free will?

You don't need something more to get something more. That's what emergence means.
-Murray Gell-Mann

Its tempo is constant not in the speed but in the peak of any given corner achiving its maximum potential angle regardless of energy being dispersed at random.

Once it loses it's abillity to spin it increases the tempo proportionately.
From that simple consistency it should be possible to derive an algorithm based on harmonics to figure the force at the bottom and its spin.

If there is method in min and max values then we can actually extrapolate and calculate the amount of energy expended "randomly" by finding out the tempo of a regular one with the same mass and the use of pure mathematics.

I wanna break down this mindset for fun if you don't mind.

In a complete superdeterminist world, if you have complete information you can predict anything.

this also means you can "predict" backwards, since the equations in physics work the same both ways for all except entropy.

now, lets say you could compile the complete information of the universe into a program, and run it through some sort of supercomputer or AI. the AI, since it is running a program and not actually experiencing things on the same scale we do, would essentially perceive the entire universe across time and space at once. this means that "time" as we know it all exists at once. it already happened and already will.

broke: believing free will is based in determinism
woke: realizing free will is based in perception

Consider the opposite of free will

If i say do something and you do it, you are not excercising free will. If i give an option between 1 and 2 and say "i like option 1", you can't also say you like option 1 unless you don't have free will.

Ergo, you have free will explicitly because you disagree with God.

When you turn yourself over to god, you no longer have free will. Doesn't mean you aren't alive or don't have sentience. You just stop sucking figurative dick and dying.

God could take your free will away, or God could manipulate your free will by only providing binary options. In no circumstance, free will or obedience, do you get to create your own options. Given choices heaven and hell where God wants you to choose heaven, excercising free will only lets you choose hell. Free will doesn't allow a tertiary option.

Under such a bottleneck, the future will exist where all who have free will have died and gone to hell, where the only surviving elements of human existence do not have free will and no ability to disagree even against binary choices. God will use for God's own endeavors. God will want something and the obedient will want the same thing too, and if such a thing is in short supply, god shall enact the ability to create more through the obedient, and the obedient will know how to perform miracles as the obedient will be an extension of God and will come to know the truth of will through God, that your will is God's will and God's will is your will. You will have everything you want through obeying God.

> to those of you here without free will: what evidence would be sufficient to conclude someone has free will?
I don't believe it's a matter of evidence because I don't believe the concept of "free will" is even coherent to begin with.
Like you can find evidence sufficient to conclude Suspect A murdered Victim B, and you can find evidence sufficient to conclude Suspect A didn't murder Victim B. But you can't find evidence sufficient to conclude Suspect A both murdered Victim B and didn't murder Victim B because that's not even a possible happenstance that could be assigned a "happened" or "didn't happen" state in the first place.
If events are random and not completely determined by cause and effect relationships, then that isn't "free will," it's just randomness.
And if events aren't random and are completely determined by cause and effect relationships, then that isn't "free will" because nobody has the ability to do anything other than what those physical causes and effects lead to them doing.
And if events are neither random nor completely determined by cause and effect relationships, then how else could they possibly happen? You could try to say a person and/or their "will" is itself the cause, but then what caused that cause? The person still exists as a physical body with physical, biological processes causing their behavior, so to say they're the cause of things just passes the buck from "physical causes determine behavior" to "physical causes determine the will of the person that determines their behavior." Which isn't really saying anything different. It's not like the person is able in any case to will behavior contradicting the physical cause and effect relationships which lead up to each instance of their behavior happening.

Also someone arguing for free will might object that the existence of conflict between two different mental states means we can't be deterministic and that we're willing what we do as in the case where you feel tired and don't want to leave your bed but will yourself to do so anyway so you can get into work on time.
And in response to that objection I would just argue that there are multiple processes in the brain which sometimes interact with each other, and this isn't any more evidence for free will than multiple forces competing against each other to result in different sorts of weather phenomena like a hurricane is evidence for free will. It just means things aren't so simple that a single entity or a single force is the sole cause of events and instead there are usually many different interrelated cause and effect relationships which lead to the happenstances we observe at any given moment either in the weather or in our own behavior.

Agree

The more you realise the present the more freewill you have

QUESTION: If determinism is true, does that mean every single action, big and small, taking place in every single second of the future until the end of time, throughout all physical space in the universe, is predetermined?

For example, is it predetermined down to the level of, say, an apple falling from a tree at a certain place 100 years from now, this very second? Is it that precise?

Yes.

This. The only argument whatsoever for free will is that qualia seem to represent a subjective phenomena unexplainable by science, so somewhere in that are of mystery it could lie. It's not a strong defence, but it's literally the only recourse those who advocate for free will have, anything else is trash.

To even ask this shows you haven't thought about determinism for even a second.

Jesus, you don't even realize how much you are missing the point.
> that's like taking the Hydrogen out of water and saying it wouldn't have a vast implication
This is a shitty analogy. A much better analogy would be to say that quantum effects would have vast effects on something like a ball when its rolling. Which it doesn't of course.

And you are also totally missing the bigger issue, that there is no link between the randomness and your decision making. Just because you introduce a random input into a system, then it doesn't mean that everything in that system is now derived form it.
If you for example take a computer program that is identifying pictures of cars and introduce some randomness to it on some lower levels, then it does not suddenly mean that the program is no longer a slave to its code. It could use that randomness or ignore it, but it would still be a program that would identify cars

is compatibilism the most brainlet believe to have?

>uhh well determinism is kinda true and you can't choose your motives b-but you can still totally choose your actions

what the fuck?

>is compatibilism the most brainlet belief to have?
It's definitely up there, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were even more retarded takes on this topic.
I'm probably biased though since I hate centrist / agnostic / "why not both?" stances in general. I'd rather deal with someone who's wrong but at least took a real stance than someone whose primary motivation is to hide from the possibility of being wrong.

>[math]IQ^2[/math]
How many digits?

Thanks. Nice dubs.

So is the answer yes? I think so, but I want to be certain my conception of determinism is accurate. I wasn't trying to start an argument or make a point; I just wanted clarification.

I always thought compatibilism essentially granted the reality of determinism, but looked at it with a glass-half-full attitude.

It's true that everything (including our motives and states of mind) is predetermined, compatibilism says, but we still are conscious beings deliberately making choices. If free will means acting in accordance with our wishes, then we clearly have it. This is not less true because our wishes are the product of a complex series of physical forces that we had no part in arranging. It just means that the exercise of our free will is predetermined, which to be fair is opposite how most people conceive of free will. But it's still a coherent concept.

Schopenhauer captured the compatibilist doctrine in this quote: "Man can do as he wills, but cannot will as he wills."

Philosophy is not science.

Go back to .

Thats was full of stupid

No, how would it be a coincidence that in light of his absence of free will, he would be inclined to act in accordance with his nature?