Free Will (hint: you don't got it)

[Thomas]

Hey Metro, not to veer off into a tangent, but this thread gave me a great comeback for one of my recurring arguments with Mrs. T

Mrs. T: UR so Predictable!
Thomas: I knew you were going to say that.

Thanks man!

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hmmm, that's a hard thing to ponder, because there are too many variables to consider that affect a later outcome. Under those criteria predictability then becomes a near impossibility for the tools we have available to us: too many external stimuli to track, each with its own timeline for when it comes into play. Interactions between people, memories, childhood trauma, PTSD, too many visits to CE (but no need to be redundant here): those all have an effect on the decisions we make over the course of a day.

I was about to ask about decision fatigue, or the existential "f@&k it" that we all go through at times...and I suppose that could be a function of overload...hmmm, gets more interesting the more I think about it.

But, how do you account for, say, T4?

Goddammit you ass. PM me your phone number and I can explain it to you.

 

[origenesprit]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Yeah, the difference would be that in the same instance (literally), you would act the same. Not necessarily in the same general situation. Of course this is nonprovable as we currently have no way of going back in time and testing it over and over at the same instance.

And don't get me started on the whole infinite parallel universes at every moment theory. Sheesh.

Actually I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the infinite parallel universe theory. I assume you think it is a stupid idea because, since you believe in determinism, you couldn't believe that another parallel universe would be at all different, given that the physics of one universe matches another.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by origenesprit

Actually I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the infinite parallel universe theory. I assume you think it is a stupid idea because, since you believe in determinism, you couldn't believe that another parallel universe would be at all different, given that the physics of one universe matches another.
I'm actually way too stupid to understand the parallel universes theory, but as I understand it, it probably has something to do with the randomness of quantum physics creating a new universe in which every single random possibility is manifested, leading to infinite universes branching out from each existing universe at every instant. I don't know nearly enough about it to say if it is stupid or not. Or if I even described it somewhat correctly above (I made most of that up).

 

[Dakota rube]

Is this the thread where I get my free will?
I really need to update mine, and, well, money's kind of tight right now.

 

[A Y]

The depressing thing about determinism is that the whole point of the last 14-odd billion years is this post.

--Andre

 

[Jerome]

Unfortunately one can neither disprove free will nor complete determinism.

 

[Sanguis Mortuum]

The irritating thing that always seems true about philosophy threads on the internet, is that half the posts seem so dumb they're barely worth responding to, and the other half (like those by Manton and Fuuma) go completely over my head

 

[MetroStyles]

I just talked to Thomas on the phone!!!

 

[onlinematt]

Ok, the argument comes down to either physics or god. And since I'm not religious, I'll choose to pursue the physics side. So, take two identical atoms that are in exactly the same circumstance in time, space, etc. They have exactly the same forces being exerted on them. Now, we know that the electrons and neutrons and protons in each of these atoms will behave in exactly the same way. So the deal breaker in this theory *may* lie in quarks, which, from my understanding, can appear on one side of an atom and simultaneously appear on the other side - the same quark at the same time in two different places. So, the next logical question is whether or not the behaviour of quarks is predictable and governed by the laws of physics, or whether their movement and behaviour is 'truly' random. If it is truly random, then this could explain general randomness and thus *possibly* free will. Anyone know **** about quarks?

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by onlinematt

Ok, the argument comes down to either physics or god. And since I'm not religious, I'll choose to pursue the physics side. So, take two identical atoms that are in exactly the same circumstance in time, space, etc. They have exactly the same forces being exerted on them. Now, we know that the electrons and neutrons and protons in each of these atoms will behave in exactly the same way. So the deal breaker in this theory *may* lie in quarks, which, from my understanding, can appear on one side of an atom and simultaneously appear on the other side - the same quark at the same time in two different places. So, the next logical question is whether or not the behaviour of quarks is predictable and governed by the laws of physics, or whether their movement and behaviour is 'truly' random. If it is truly random, then this could explain general randomness and thus *possibly* free will. Anyone know **** about quarks?

I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?

 

[origenesprit]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?

I don't think it allows for free will but maybe his point is that maybe it doesn't allow for determinism either.

 

[onlinematt]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

I followed you up to free will. How does randomness allow for free will?

Because we're taking the assumption that everything is governed by the laws of physics = preordained movement of all matter = deterministic = no free will. But if the behaviour of quarks is random, then the movement of matter can't be preordained, therefore breaking down the deterministic theory. I guess this doesn't necessarily correspond directly to free will, but at least it would (if true) break down the deterministic theory...

****. This doesn't really help.

 

[onlinematt]

Originally Posted by origenesprit

I don't think it allows for free will but maybe his point is that maybe it doesn't allow for determinism either.

Exactly. A non-verbose explanation of what I just posted.

 

[grundletaint]

Originally Posted by Jerome

Unfortunately one can neither disprove free will nor complete determinism.

i can prove determinism.


1. the beatles
2. jessica biel's ass