Debating free will is difficult to keep grounded...
Turncoat stated: source post
What makes it predictable though?
If that capacity were to be expanded upon to a much more extreme point, the absolute limits of it, how couldn't everything eventually become predictable in the same way?
If we didn't have quantum physics to confuse us I'd agree with you that hard determinism is the most logical explanation. Now instead I'm agnostic.
yes, you might know that you have multiple options(that you will do a coin flip), but you wont know which option it will be at the end(heads or tails?).
And the coin flip is just a methaphor. I do not actually flip a coin lol. But my choices on many things are that random. Some of those things are considered important, if not life changing, but i do not consider them important.
There is also the theory of the 10th dimensions, which says that each choice is its own dimension. And in theory you can travel between dimensions. If all dimensions are predetermined, then there would be a paradox when you travel from one choice to another. Because you can go to any dimension: you can have a dimension where you are not supposed to travel, by predetermination, but in theory you should be able to, so why not choose those? It doesn't make sense that predetermination itself would limit you to never choosing to travel to those dimensions. If the dimensions are created as the choice arises however, then the paradox is solved. Ofc this whole thing could be totally different.
But there is not enough data to say if a choice is fully predetermined or not.
Also, this is truly random:
Primal stated: source post
Not for me it isn't. ..lol....
I propose that those who argue against Free Will are fundamentally flawed wrt accountability for Choices made.
Or just cognizant of cause-and-effect, and that all things are made of matter behaving according to immutable laws.
Tryptamine stated: source post
Primal stated: source post
Not for me it isn't. ..lol....
I propose that those who argue against Free Will are fundamentally flawed wrt accountability for Choices made.
Or just cognizant of cause-and-effect, and that all things are made of matter behaving according to immutable laws.
...LMAO....Mmmhmmm....
1. Cause: Something pisses me off
2. Effect: Crowbar to base of skull responsible for pissing me off...
Immutable is the metal in the crowbar, but you should see what it does to bone...
Inquirer stated: source post
Tryptamine stated: source post
You are able to exchange reason for comfort? I did not expect that from you.
The idea of free will is more appealing to me on an aesthetic/emotional level. I'm agnostic on the actual issue of free will versus hard determinism.
I know it's more appealing to you on aesthetic/emotional level. That's how you are able to exchange reason for comfort.
Something isn't random simply because you don't know the outcome, it simply appears to be random from our not knowing any better. One person's "random" can be another person's "obvious", much like how one can either merely play a card game or count cards instead.
A person can not know why they're doing something and still be doing it, in fact, that's largely what we do. At best we can pose theories about ourselves. Your calling your choices "random" or "whim" only notes that you aren't pausing before acting, and your tendency to do that is also largely automatic, just as automatic as if you'd spent the time thinking about it. You still are going with where you're being naturally tugged. While it may seem random for you, another who knows you well enough might see you making this "random" choice before you've even made it.
What has you "decide" on how much it's worth thinking about is affected by a large list of priors. Just because you aren't reading yourself doesn't mean that there isn't a you to read.
Turncoat stated: source post
Something isn't random simply because you don't know the outcome, it simply appears to be random from our not knowing any better. One person's "random" can be another person's "obvious", much like how one can either merely play a card game or count cards instead.
A person can not know why they're doing something and still be doing it. Your calling your choices "random" or "whim" only notes that you aren't pausing before acting, and your tendency to do that is also largely automatic, just as automatic as if you'd spent the time thinking about it. You still are going with where you're being naturally tugged. While it may seem random for you, another who knows you well enough might see you making this "random" choice before you've even made it.
What has you "decide" on how much it's worth thinking about is affected by a large list of priors.
Something is random if you don't know anything about the outcome. It is random to you.
Something is purely random if its impossible to know the outcome, even if you know everything.
And i argue that your choices's variables are not always known enough and quantum physics, as well as other theories, suggest its possible its even puerly random.
Yes another person can guess. They can also fail at guessing.
Tryptamine stated: source post
Where is there "free will" in any of that?
I'm on my phone so I won't write a dissertation, but, by virtue of the dimensions in which we exist, a very specific data set is available. We'll only ever witness Outcome A, and so is it logical to assume it was the only possible outcome, or is it simplistic? I would argue the latter. We're constantly being given hints that variables exist beyond the system we observe, and for that reason, hard determinism feels a bit lazy given modern advances in quantum physics.
But, ultimately, "free will" and "fate" are absolutes, and the universe is unkind to absolute concepts.