/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15085559
Not science or math >>>/x/ >>>/lit/

>>15085559
>Logically, there is only two possibilities,
Logically, why couldn't it be a dipolarity?
>Where your decisions are not random but also not fully deterministic?
Sure, Adequate Determinism. It is called the two-stage model, first the “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determinism evaluation and selection process we call “will."
>Please defend your position
As a processist, my position on free will is fundamentally ontological.

>>15085559
I was surprised to find that 60% of philosophers lean towards compatibilism. Meaning free will is compatible with determinism
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4838
Here's the related wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
I still don't really believe it though. Determinism means everything including the path and momentum of every atom is predetermined. But being able to think freely surely would have to use any set of neurons in your brain at any time. Unless if dualism is true, which quite a lot of them again voted for here
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5010

>>15085559
>tertium non datur
Only midwitted NPCs fall for this false dichotomy. The third option is the most important one.

>>15085559
as long as there's true randomness in the universe, I can claim to have free will.

for instance you can ask me a yes/no question and I can just roll a quantum dice like measuring the spin of electron and answer based on that, as a close system it looks like my decision is completely undeterministic.

I have proof that free will is not computable by combining the proof of the Halting problem with Newcomb's paradox.

Assume we can create a computational device (something equivalent to a Turing machine) which perfectly predicts our decisions. Without loss of generality we can also assume that it can do this prediction in arbitrarily short time (see e.g. Malament-Hogarth spacetime constructions for making infinitely long computations in finite time). Now ask this computer the following simple question: "Will I fap to tranny porn or to scat porn today?" After it's done with its computation it will yield the output "You will fap to scat porn." Now after hearing this prediction please tell me, which law of physics is stopping me from fapping to trannies instead?

>>15085683
Then you agree with me, the only two options are perfect determinism or randomness. If we define free will as the possibility for random decisions, then "free will" can exist, but if we define it as the possibility of unpredictable but non-random decisions, then it cannot exist.

>>15085769
>which law of physics is stopping me from fapping to trannies instead?
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle prevents you from fapping to trannies.
If there was a way to measure all information about all particles in the universe without affecting them, then your machine could perfectly predict what you will fap to, but it still cannot tell you, otherwise it will perturbate the system and possibly change your fapping decision. It will know exactly what porn you will fap to, and the exact nanosecond you will ejaculate. But it cannot tell you.

>>15085586
very interesting site, thanks for the link. Dualism seems like an easy scapegoat for brainlets. Sure it could be that decisions are taken in another realm/universe/dimension and then applied in our observable universe. Assuming that we have no way to observe that decision realm, we cannot predict those decisions, even if we have perfect information of all atoms in our observable universe. But if we had access to the realm where the decision happens, then we are back to square one, all decisions made there would still either be fully deterministic or random.

>>15085559
I am a divine creature created through the chaos of the stars that is able to choose what I will do in my sphere

>>15085812
>Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
kek

>>15085559
>muh free will believers
It's literally just mentally ill determinitards who are obsessed with the fantasy that everyone is a mindless automaton just like them, versus everyone else.

>>15085680
You will seethe for weeks but you will never be human.

>>15085812
>the only two options are perfect determinism or randomness.
Even if your religios tenet were somehow necessarily true, it still wouldn't have any bearing on the question of free will.

>>15085874
>determinitards
Hello schizo christcuck

>>15085907
>muh christchuds are everywhere in my head
Thanks for demonstrating your mental illness.

brain cells are quantum and are constantly connected with and communicating with your brain spread across the multiverse, like a 4D brain mesh. at any given time it is observing the potential futures and if it finds one that is potentially bad, like death, it collapses the quantum wave function to avoid it. this is why you have so many uncanny close calls.

>>15085559
>Do people who believe in "free will" really think there is a third option? Where your decisions are not random but also not fully deterministic?
Yes, because there is. It's called "self-determinacy". This is the kind of causality Langan appeals to in his theory (the CTMU), and it is the *only* kind of causality which is applicable at the limit of causality (the universe). Why? Because reality must, by definition, configure and select its own laws. There can't be anything external to reality "determining" it or its structure. If you say otherwise, that's a logical contradiction. This cannot be argued.

>>15085559
You being able to type out all of that is an example of free will. The only brainlet here is you, since you can't wrap your head around this overwhelmingly simple concept.

>>15085956
No, it is neurons firing through the same laws of physics as anything else in the universe. The feeling of free will is an illusion, the conscious mind (itself an illusion) is there to only watch

>>15086010
>The feeling of free will is an illusion
Prove it.

>>15085812
>otherwise it will perturbate the system and possibly change your fapping decision. It will know exactly what porn you will fap to, and the exact nanosecond you will ejaculate. But it cannot tell you.
With such a perfect understanding of your brain, why shouldn't it be able to factor your response to its answer into its answer? It should be fairly simple, since under a deterministic understanding of the brain, there would only be one possible way for you to respond to it answering that you should watch scat porn, and one response to tranny porn.

My wording was a little clunky, but what I'm getting at is, if the brain is deterministic and the machine has a perfect understanding of it, there should be no way for it to perturb the system in a way that it couldn't also predict the outcome of, or else the argument that the brain is deterministic falls flat.

>>15086012
You would have to be a godly creature existing outside or the laws of physics to have free will. And I don't care if some smart computer scientists or whatever believe it, they are not physicists or neuroscientists. Philosophy is not science either

>>15085559
"Free will" is first and foremost the intuition there's a natural distinction to be made between the way inanimate objects act and the way conscious, self-reflecting beings do. You can object to specific attempts at formalizing that intuition, but objecting to the intuition itself tells me not that you are rational (what is there to rationally object to before the intuition is crystalized into an intellectual statement?), but that you've been brainwashed into forfeiting your own agency, and how belligerent people like you get in their attempts to attack a ghost of an idea really drives that point home: you are lashing out against other people's sense of agency; it angers you that others see themselves as active participants in their own fate.

>>15085559
"Free will" is first and foremost the intuition there's a natural distinction to be made between the way inanimate objects act and the way conscious, self-reflecting beings do. You can object to specific attempts at formalizing that intuition, but objecting to the intuition itself tells me not that you are rational (what is there to rationally object to before the intuition is crystalized into an intellectual statement?), but that you've been brainwashed into forfeiting your own agency. How belligerent people like you get in their attempts to attack a ghost of an idea really drives that point home: you are lashing out against other people's sense of agency; it angers you that others see themselves as active participants in their own fate.

>>15086108
>You would have to be a godly creature existing outside or the laws of physics to have free will.
Why?

bomp

>>15085559
>Logically, there is only two possibilities, things can either be fully deterministic or randomic, tertium non datur.
Your logic isn't logic. Free will exists. Randomness exists.
You forgot there are more than two people. Something can be true and false.

There's Coke inside of my Coke. Outside it's all Pepsi.

>>15085559
>there is only two possibilities, things can either be fully deterministic or randomic
This falls apart quickly.

For determinism, this anon provides a decent framework >>15085769
Assume there's a machine that can perfectly predict what will happen and is completely honest. If a contrarian then appears and does the opposite of what the machine says (i.e. takes A if the machine says he will take B or vice versa), the system falls apart. Either such an actor cannot exist, or determinism is fundamentally broken (or both).
Free will resolves this conflict. If you replace the machine with an actor who has free will, then said actor can decide which path the contrarian takes with 100% accuracy.

For assuming things are fully random, then that means nothing is 100% certain - otherwise, your system is at least partially deterministic. But it's easy to come up with counterexamples that show otherwise. If you decide to pick up an object at a table, you will do so 100% of the time. Even probability theory seems to refute it - probabilities just measure the proportion of total outcomes that have a specific result.

If anything, rather than only the two extremes being viable, it's the exact opposite. There is something between absolute certainty and absolute uncertainty that best describes reality.

>>15085769
>which law of physics is stopping me from fapping to trannies instead?
You could say it's like fate. The question of what to fap to, the calculations, the result and your decision to ignore the result were already determined at the beginning of the universe. There is no true randomness and every decision you make is just atoms moving around in your brain the way they were always going to move. So trying to trick yourself or the universe isn't possible. I don't particularly believe that's what's happening but I think there is some chance that supdeterminism is real, there has to be some chance when we don't know the fundamental nature or the starting conditions and configuration of the universe if there even was such a thing as the start. Maybe if there was no start then there can't be superdeterminism

>>15085559
If you don't believe in free will you're no better than a chat bot, why would I try to change you?

>>15085586
>>15085812
The process of things "happening" follows the rules of causality. All things are predetermined, and reality follows along its singular course.

>The process of things "happening" follows the rules of causality. All things are predetermined, and reality follows along its singular course.

>>15085559
>an utterly obscene number of parallel states of things determine who you are and what you do
yes

>>15086120
Only decent take ITT.

>>15085559
>Logically, there is only two possibilities, things can either be fully deterministic or randomic
That's only logically true if you can show a contradiction in there being a third possibility, and you haven't done that you fucking retard

Life is nondualistic. Free will is part of life. Free will is also nondualisitic.

That's it.

>>15086813
only true for the white race

>>15085683
>as long as there's true randomness in the universe, I can claim to have free will.
No you can't. Randomness doesn't "give" you free will.

>>15086817
Why not?

>>15086825
>Why not?
Because you don't control the randomness. So what there are random elements in quantum mechanics, does that mean you control them? Of course not. All you can say is that you can't determine how the universe will play out.

>>15086834
>you don't control the randomness
Why do I need to control randomness?

>>15086839
>Why do I need to control randomness?
Is that not where free will is supposed to come from?

>>15086847
Why is free will supposed to come from controlling randomnes?

>>15086853
>Why is free will supposed to come from controlling randomnes?
Where does it come from, then? Explain what you believe.

>>15086855
Why are you deflecting? We're discussing your statements.

>>15086861
>Why are you deflecting? We're discussing your statements.
I'm asking you to explain what you believe.

>>15086864
I don't believe anything. Why do you keep deflecting?

It's really tiresome to play according to OPs rules
>your brain never stops singing to itself
>these songs are currents like the wind in a forest
>these currents are electric and light up multiple regions
>this happens through potential and monoamine neurotransmitters
Now let's get back to free will
>hierarchical construct abstraction of a ruleset
>now merge it with probability wave fields in your brain
There can be no determinism or free will as such
Your speculation is maladapted to pattern reality insofar as you ignore specific brain tuning through potential activation and kindering release
That's just the brain mind you, now lets try to free will or determinism into creativity
>even if the creative capacity of the brain and its plasticity is predetermined
>you cannot into imagination to level determinism adequately
Can you for a fact determine the imaginative capacity?

>>15086903
Interesting take, but I don't think you've factored in the predetermined nondual potential of the positron-activated universal mind. Consider the implications for a space-faring civilization of creativity-driven AI gods.

>>15086913
It sounds like a catch, but that would be because of the inadequate definition of AI. True AI would be a masterbrain from DnD. An organic brain, with all of its previous capacities and many more on a scale which is impossible to currently discuss due to experimental genetic limitations. That's right, you'd have to argue it from a genetic position and that is something far above anyone's abilitiy atm. If you can square nondual potential and merge the atomic with the biological computers, you'd still get the human creativity factor, perhaps so wild in its potential that it would still be a matter of talent, a respective skill as to whether it bends into something you can determine or is far too complex, even for the current gods i.e.: most advanced data synthesis algos, to predetermine. At its root, there is no current model of mathematics that allows for a complete take on this question, but there will be new schools emerging, and perhaps, there will be a reconciliation between all that is and what is temporal, and them we might just know the answer, until then, we are just intelligence at large getting exp pts

>>15086701
>Maybe if there was no start then there can't be superdeterminism
I don't see how there could be. If things are determined from the start, but there is no start, then how can they be predetermined? I don't know if Penrose talks about this with his cyclic conformal cosmology thing

>>15086817
It might not give you free will but it's no longer going to be a superdeterministic universe

>>15085559
>high iq
>logically there is only two possilities
>there is only two

Not only is your query laden with grammatical errors, but logically speaking, there could be an infinitesimal number of possibilities; you might realize that if you were to scrutinize your own conclusions more thoroughly.

>>15087480
infinitesimal means 'infinitely small'

true randomness is completely paradoxical.

>>15085559
>Where your decisions are not random but also not fully deterministic?
Upload a human brain into a computer simulation and simulate that brain to make it play Pacman for eternity (this hypothetical isn't inherently contradictory I can argue that if you want). We can deterministically predict the outcome of any computer simulation that does not involve random numbers, thus we can predict the path the brain will choose.
If pacman is in a maze for eternity moving along, but you can see the path he will take before he takes it, then you could claim he has no other option but to take that path and his path is deterministic.... but why is/was/will that path [be] chosen in the first place? If you say the initial conditions of the brain in the simulation determined the outcome then you will reach paradoxes. There's an infinite number of paths to be taken, but there is ultimately only a finite number of initial conditions the brain could possess when it is uploaded to the computer. It makes no sense that limited data can map to infinite data (and this isn't a simple repeating algorithm or procedural algorithm that plays out eternally)
This implies decisions cannot be exclusively random or exclusively deterministic. There is something else involved.


>>15087615
>true randomness is completely paradoxical.
This is a good take. If something happens *for NO reason* it completely escapes our comprehension.
If the path of a particle randomly changes direction for no reason, meaning no prediction is possible (even with perfect knowlege) ergo it displays randomness, you might as well say God did it.

>>15085926
Thats bullshit but I believe it.
>t.had several close calls

>>15087615
>>15087819
>true randomness is completely paradoxical.
>b-b-because it just is, okay?
Homo.

>>15087819
>Upload a human brain into a computer simulation and simulate that brain to make it play Pacman for eternity
> We can deterministically predict the outcome of any computer simulation that does not involve random numbers, thus we can predict the path the brain will choose.
In other words, determinitard dogma is true because your childlike pop-soi fantasy is true in your head?

>>15087615
Randomness is not knowing the outcome.
If someone sees a jet engine, and he's never seen one before or heard about it, the fact the jet engine will turn on, start spewing fire from its mouth and shaking uncontrollably will appear as random.

>>15087881
>Randomness is not knowing the outcome.
Wrong. Randomness implies that multiple outcomes are actually possible.

>>15085559
>to me (high iq)
KEK

>>15087850
proof is left as an exercise to the reader

>>15087854
>>15087850

>>15085576
This

>to me (high iq)
lost me there

>>15085559
>To me (high iq), the concept of free will never made any sense.
>(high iq)
>free will never made

>claim to be high IQ
>proceed to make a grammar mistake
Not gonna make it.

Anyway, you're mostly right.
Free will is a pipe dream.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0915161107

>>15085559
I think of it as determinism being like a net/total. Being able to overwrite/interact with the net lends to motility/freedom/choice since you build on it like a meta net/total.

>>15089931
>be a mentally challenged ASL
>post braindead propaganda
Like clockwork.

>>15090347
Self reference the term. Seems like consciousness or self awareness entail from it with a feedback loop.

The idea of free will is a coping mechanism to avoid stress caused by feeling of lack of control.

>>15090435
Determinitard dogma is a coping mechanism to avoid stress caused by the implications of agency.

>>15090357
>mentally challenged American Sign Language
lol nice try
Neuroscience proves no free will, he'll just basic physics and logic says so without any need for that, only some philosophers hold onto it by redefining it into meaninglessness. You rely on bronze age semitic texts.

>>15090444
>Neuroscience proves no free will
How can it do that? You sound mentally ill.

>>15090435
That sounds counterintuitive. If anything that would just be detrimental by giving one the stress, guilt and any other negative emotion that they could have done otherwise.

>>15085576
>Not science or math
P ∨ ¬ P

>>15085683
>true randomness

Sure, as long as I can't know ALL the variables which influence me, I can claim free will. It's such a cope tho...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mongL_2KMGg

>>15090357
>everything I don't like is propaganda

>>15085559
Why are you blabbering like you even know what these words mean or what the question is? You only have faith in what you were taught
https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/necessity/Necessity.htm

>>15090435
That feeling and all your actions, all your will, would be within determinism by your own belief. You don't exist outside of it. Which is why you cannot prove it or grasp it. You are inherently stuck having a will and agency whether you like it or not.

>>15085559
>To me (high iq)
stopped reading there

also not science or math

>>15085559

Free will is a misnomer. Will is not free by definition. The correct term is Freedom of choice (Liberum Arbitrium).

I hold to the position that freedom of choice exists, but only in relation to criteria for choice inside our mind. Basically, I'm a compatibilist, freedom of choice and determinism are not mutually exclusive, and in fact the former needs the latter to exist.

>>15085559
God have free will. We don't.
We are also not the doers. Our egos wants us to believe that we are doing things, but it is God doing those things. We are just the instruments. If your IQ is really high, you'll understand that.