Free will? - General - Facepunch Forum

[QUOTE=Method_Man;33049500]Study the bible, open your mind to God, and ask for forgiveness - that is the way to free will from temptation and bodily desires.[/QUOTE] Your post adds [I]nothing[/I] to the discussion.

[QUOTE=Method_Man;33049500]Study the bible, open your mind to God, and ask for forgiveness - that is the way to free will from temptation and bodily desires.[/QUOTE] agreed -GOPisGOODFORME

[QUOTE=Jookia;33049554]Your post adds [I]nothing[/I] to the discussion.[/QUOTE] Sure it does. Some cultures believe that your physical body hinders you from free will and everlasting happiness, and I think it's an interesting juxtaposition to this forums mostly Western thought.

[QUOTE=gra;33049879]Sure it does. Some cultures believe that your physical body hinders you from free will and everlasting happiness, and I think it's an interesting juxtaposition to this forums mostly Western thought.[/QUOTE] This is a discussion based on facts, not beliefs.

huh [editline]30th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jookia;33049902]This is a discussion based on facts, not beliefs.[/QUOTE] UR A RACIST [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is NOT how you debate" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Jookia;33049902]This is a discussion based on facts, not beliefs.[/QUOTE] prove to me that its a fact -GOPisGOODFORME

[QUOTE=Jookia;33049902]This is a discussion based on facts, not beliefs.[/QUOTE] If science conclusively found [I]factual[/I] evidence of whether free will exists or not we wouldn't be having discussion. Free will is a philosophical concept that has no hard evidence. Secondly, since there has been debate about free will, major philosophers have quoted their beliefs, religious or not, into their best opinions.

[QUOTE=gra;33049952]If science conclusively found [I]factual[/I] evidence of whether free will exists or not we wouldn't be having discussion. Free will is a philosophical concept that has no hard evidence. Secondly, since there has been debate about free will, major philosophers have quoted their beliefs, religious or not, into their best opinions.[/QUOTE] WOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH thats deep man. i never thought of that. is that like the matrix or inception?

There is no free will because everyone does the same thing eventually.

It's easy to grasp the fact that free will doesn't really exist but thinking about this type of shit can fuck you up

our biochemistry determines our free will

[QUOTE=Noble;33049129]You guys should read Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design". Here's a part from chapter 2: If anyone wants to read more of Hawking's explanation on the concept of "scientific determinism" I suggest getting the book, its a great read.[/QUOTE] Determinism is probably wrong, though it doesn't make free will any more likely.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33051672]Determinism is probably wrong, though it doesn't make free will any more likely.[/QUOTE] Why would determinism be wrong? On topic, I very much doubt free will exists (although I'm not going to rule it out of possibility); however it's such a fucking amazing illusion that, for all intents and purposes, you might as well treat it as though it does exist.

Fuck my brain hurts.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33051672]Determinism is probably wrong, though it doesn't make free will any more likely.[/QUOTE] Why is it probably wrong? I know of no evidence that doesn't support it.

[QUOTE=sltungle;33051841]Why would determinism be wrong? On topic, I very much doubt free will exists (although I'm not going to rule it out of possibility); however it's such a fucking amazing illusion that, for all intents and purposes, you might as well treat it as though it does exist.[/QUOTE] Quantum physics. Doesn't mean we have free will or anything, shit is just random instead of determined.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;33052049]Quantum physics. Doesn't mean we have free will or anything, shit is just random instead of determined.[/QUOTE] But that only really applies for the small scale. On our everyday scale quantum effects don't dominate. If you shoot a billiard ball down the centre of a billiard table and it has only momentum in one direction and has no spin (angular momentum on it), and it impacts another billiard ball 'square-on' (an odd term for a sphere, but go with it) then classical physics will calculate (and correctly so) that the impacted ball with move directly backwards. Determinism in action - cause and effect. It works for our length scale. The statement 'determinism is probably wrong' is an all encompassing statement which applies to all length scales and I don't agree with that.

It works for our scale, but our scale is not all there is. For practical purposes it's irrelevant, but determinism is still not true because of it.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;33052428]It works for our scale, but our scale is not all there is. For practical purposes it's irrelevant, but determinism is still not true because of it.[/QUOTE] And? All physical theories we currently have only really work in certain circumstances. For example I don't think you can apply a non-modified, raw form of general relatively to quantum systems (I may be wrong there though) and get the correct results, but that's not to say that general relativity isn't correct. The universe simply has different sets of rules for different circumstances, just because determinism doesn't ALWAYS apply ALL of the time it doesn't mean it's 'wrong'. The second law of thermodynamics, energy conservation, all of these HUGE foundations of physics are frequently violated throughout the universe at a tiny scale, yet it doesn't mean they're 'wrong'. Energy can be 'borrowed' and given back to the vacuum, which doesn't end up violating energy conservation in the long run, but an isolated snippet of time would say that energy conservation WAS violated. The second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law, which means that the 'average' result proves the law to be true, but if you isolate small parts of a thermally interacting system you'll see that occasionally the second law is violated briefly on the small scale.

First can we define free will because a lot of these arguments are almost nonsensical. Is it being able to make a choice based on information you don't have and being able to pull it out of your ass? Is it being able to make decisions from a supernatural perspective? Is it being able to choose something completely randomly rather than how you would make a choice? How do you test any of this with any relevance if you cannot determine the difference between a lack of choice and a sensible choice or turning it into a precognition test? It's not a simple concept, ascertain what you are trying to disprove before making all kinds of stupid arguments.

Why is quantum physics random? How do we know that there isn't just some internal deterministic logic to it? I believe that the universe is deterministic, and because of my definition of free will (that there is more than one [B]possible [/B]outcome and we can choose between them) I believe free will does not exist.

[QUOTE=Ziks;33052755]Why is quantum physics random? How do we know that there isn't just some internal deterministic logic to it? I believe that the universe is deterministic, and because of my definition of free will (that there is more than one [B]possible [/B]outcome and we can choose between them) I believe free will does not exist.[/QUOTE] That's the nature of quantum mechanics. For example the electrons in an atom have probabilities explained by wave functions of being at any given distance from the nucleus of their atom. There are certain distances from the nucleus (one of which IS the nucleus) at which the electron can't be present, and that's experimentally validated by the fact that all matter hasn't spontaneously collapsed into a sea of neutrons as of yet.

[QUOTE=sltungle;33052775]That's the nature of quantum mechanics. For example the electrons in an atom have probabilities explained by wave functions of being at any given distance from the nucleus of their atom. There are certain distances from the nucleus (one of which IS the nucleus) at which the electron can't be present, and that's experimentally validated by the fact that all matter hasn't spontaneously collapsed into a sea of neutrons as of yet.[/QUOTE] Probability doesn't imply randomness. I don't think randomness is possible, I believe there must be some internal logic determining the outcome of quantum interactions.

QM isn't entirely random, the probability of an event happening is a well-defined probability distribution. I think.

If free will exists, where does it come from?

[QUOTE=sp00ks;33052049]Quantum physics. Doesn't mean we have free will or anything, shit is just random instead of determined.[/QUOTE] Even thought quantum mechanics has a subtle randomness to it, I still believe fundamentally that free will doesn't really exist but it is so complicated that we will never understand it.

[QUOTE=sltungle;33052194]But that only really applies for the small scale. On our everyday scale quantum effects don't dominate. If you shoot a billiard ball down the centre of a billiard table and it has only momentum in one direction and has no spin (angular momentum on it), and it impacts another billiard ball 'square-on' (an odd term for a sphere, but go with it) then classical physics will calculate (and correctly so) that the impacted ball with move directly backwards. Determinism in action - cause and effect. It works for our length scale. The statement 'determinism is probably wrong' is an all encompassing statement which applies to all length scales and I don't agree with that.[/QUOTE] That example is approximate thanks to quantum mechanics. Quantum effects may not dominate on our length scales, but they are still there, and they mean that reality is probabilistic. [QUOTE=Eudoxia;33055267]QM isn't entirely random, the probability of an event happening is a well-defined probability distribution. I think.[/QUOTE] But it's still probabilistic. Something like Laplace's demon could never exist. Knowledge of the laws of physics and boundary conditions of the universe alone will only allow you to calculate averages, not exact behaviors of every particle. [editline]31st October 2011[/editline] [quote]Adequate determinism is the idea that quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events. This is because of quantum decoherence. Random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles (where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics). Stephen Hawking explains a similar idea: he says that the microscopic world of quantum mechanics is one of determined probabilities. That is, quantum effects rarely alter the predictions of classical mechanics, which are quite accurate (albeit still not perfectly certain) at larger scales. Something as large as an animal cell, then, would be "adequately determined" (even in light of quantum indeterminacy).[/quote] You can still call it determinism if you want, but I don't. Claiming determinism is "approximately true" is silly, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33056368]But it's still probabilistic. Something like Laplace's demon could never exist. Knowledge of the laws of physics and boundary conditions of the universe alone will only allow you to calculate averages, not exact behaviors of every particle. [/QUOTE] Okay, thanks for clearing that up. [QUOTE]You can still call it determinism if you want, but I don't. Claiming determinism is "approximately true" is silly, in my opinion.[/QUOTE] I know, just asking.

I believe in compatibilism I believe that the concepts of free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. As a compatibilist, however, I tend to define free will differently so that it fits in with the concept of determinism. It's difficult to explain outside of my own mind, but on a basis, we have the will to do something, but this will is determined, and whatever we chose to do from a specific point, was already going to happen, but we still have that point of choice.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;33045670]The best example that free will exists is subliminal messaging. If free will didn't exist and we followed things based on biochemestry then subliminal messaging would've worked, but to date it still fails.[/QUOTE]What? The reason subliminal messaging doesn't work is because your brain doesn't sense it so it can't have an effect on it, not because you have free will.