Is Free Will An Illusion?

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: Yes

It must be an illusion because there are no simultaneous events in spacetime. Everything is relative to the observer. Therefore, every event necessitating a decision already exists as the past for other observers, and for that reason can't be changed. 

Imagine being stuck at a junction with the option to travel left or right. An observer existing in your future already knows which direction you chose and therefore you can't change it, even though from your own perspective you are unaware which direction leads to that future timeline.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
While people may perceive an event at different times, such as us seeing the light from stars billions of years ago, the event seen happened at a specific past point, and the observer merely perceives the event, but did not cause it.  I see the light of distant stars, but I didn't cause them to shine.  In fact I didn't even exist when the light I see today left their sun.

Those who claim everything is deterministic certainly do not live that way.  It would be illogical to hold people accountable for their actions if what they did was already predetermined and they could not do anything other than what they did.  If someone cut you off on the road, it would be irrational to give them a hand gesture of your disapproval.  Your reaction is based on an implicit belief that the other person is responsible for their actions.  

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

While people may perceive an event at different times, such as us seeing the light from stars billions of years ago, the event seen happened at a specific past point

No it didn't. That's the entire central concept of relativity. There are no absolute past, present or future points. Those terms are all relative to the observer. You're describing the Newtonian concept of time, which is exactly what Einstein debunked over a century ago. 

maxx

according to quantum mechanics, free will does not exit.  @JulesKorngold

JulesKorngold

maxx said:

according to quantum mechanics, free will does not exit.  @JulesKorngold

Can you say more about that?

maxx

Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: How to live without free will  @JulesKorngold

Nomenclature

@maxx

Your issue here is going to be that general relativity should be the system of rules relevant to individual human experience, and relativity is deterministic. Quantum mechanics only applies to sub-atomic structures.

maxx

actually it does not only apply to the micro level.we are nothing but a collection of particles. @Nomenclature

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

The concept of responsibility does not imply that the person has full agency over his actions. It merely implies that the person chose to perform those actions out of the space of all possible actions, and the process of choosing does not have to be free from any constraints.

Suppose you were born with genetics and into the environment which, combined, caused you to derive immense pleasure from murdering people. You did not choose any of that, and, perhaps, the drive to murder is too strong for you to resist. Nonetheless, you are fully responsible for all the murders you commit, and will go to jail just like anyone else who does the same.

You may be right that everyone lives their lives as if they had "free will": it is a convenient way to conceptualize human decision-making process, and it has a positive psychological effect of generating a sense of control over one's life. Yet whether "free will" actually exists is a question separate from the question of whether such conceptualization is practically useful. The concept of "free will" that holds that one's choices are not fully determined by electrochemical reactions in their brains and bodies is incoherent scientifically, as it violates the causality principle according to which every event in the Universe must have a cause. And without this principle the whole body of logic breaks, and we are back to being mindless animals slaughtering each other for food. No bueno.

Nomenclature

@maxx

actually it does not only apply to the micro level.

Yes it does, Maxx. Science uses general relativity to explain the behaviour of objects larger than an atom.

maxx

There have already been made experiments that crosses the line from the micro level to the macro. everything is made up of particles and a wave at the same time.  Including everything at the macro level. Not just light: Everything is a wave, including you (freethink.com)  when I get more time i will find a higher quality link for uyou.   @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

There have already been made experiments that crosses the line from the micro level to the macro. 

Maxx, I've told you twice already. The rules of quantum mechanics don't work on structures larger than an atom. 

maxx

perhaps you should do more research instead of simply saying so. Direct observation of deterministic macroscopic entanglement | Science  @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

perhaps you should do more research instead of simply saying so.

Perhaps you should return to school and take a basic science course, Maxx. The fact that quantum physics explains the behaviour of quantum objects and processes but not objects and processes larger than an atom is the most well understood idea in science. The article you have linked is pay-for-access, which means it can't be read without paying a fee. It also means you have simply run a Google search for any text which matches your search criteria, without actually reading or understanding the content.

Let's just open an encyclopaedia, shall we?

Quantum mechanics, science dealing with the behaviour of matter and light on the atomic and subatomic scale.

https://www.britannica.com/science/quantum-mechanics-physics

General relativity, part of the wide-ranging physical theory of relativity formed by the German-born physicist Albert Einstein. It was conceived by Einstein in 1916. General relativity is concerned with gravity, one of the fundamental forces in the universe. Gravity defines macroscopic behaviour, and so general relativity describes large-scale physical phenomena.

https://www.britannica.com/science/general-relativity

And after you finish your basic science course, you can try this more advanced link:-

What makes quantum mechanics and general relativity incompatible? (Advanced)

This is a great question that gets at something very deep in terms of how we think about physics and models. It is correct that the two theories are applicable at different scales, and that is why we have been able to use both theories for so long now. One important fact to keep in mind is that all theories in physics are only models of physical phenomena in particular scenarios and environments, and that no model can be said to be "reality." Quantum mechanics is a description that is sufficiently accurate at small distances and small energy scales, and general relativity is a description that is sufficiently accurate at large distance and large energy scales. 

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/140-physics/the-theory-of-relativity/general-relativity/1094-what-makes-quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity-incompatible-advanced

maxx

my apologies that the article could not be read. I paid no fee.  basic science books are outdated.. science has shown that the effects of the micro level can be used at the macro level.   have you not even attempted to do the research yourself? Do you think this is all made up? Quantum effects enter the macroworld | PNAS  @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

my apologies that the article could not be read. I paid no fee.

You paid no fee because you didn't read it. You searched Google for anything matching the criteria you wanted, and then linked it. 

basic science books are outdated

Oh, please stop talking Maxx. You're objectively wrong. Stop ignoring the links I post which illustrate that you are wrong and posting your own links in response.

have you not even attempted to do the research yourself? Quantum effects enter the macroworld 

Your own link illustrates that you are wrong you dolt:-

Quantum rules apply to single atoms and other denizens of the smallest orders of magnitude known to science.

It also explains the sensationalised title of the article:-

Physicists continue to debate at what size the microscopic world transitions into the macroscopic one and how to quantify that change. 

maxx

give me a break and actuially do some of your own research. and stop calling me a . i read the article. science have been bridging the gap between the micro and macro level for years. It is not my fault you have failed to know this. Micro meets macro | Nature Physics @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

give me a break and actuially do some of your own research.

I'll give you a break when you stop denying the most fundamental rules of science and telling me to "do my own research" when I correct you. Quantum mechanics is a branch of science which deals with atomic and subatomic phenomena. Human cells such as neurons are biological structures comprised of upwards of 100 trillion atoms each. They communicate through observable electromagnetic activity, not quantum entanglement.

maxx

I understand what it is. are you failing to read the links? Until you realize that they have been easing the micro world into the macro for years, then all you are doing is spinning in circles. I am not making this up. neither is science. either read the links or research it. Or are you not capable of doing so?  @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

are you failing to read the links?

Yes. Your first link was pay-for-access, your second link debunked your own argument, and that's when I stopped. The physical experience of humans in the physical world is not governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, and you need to go back to school and learn 8th grade science.

maxx

what i said, is that they are and have been bridging the gap between the two levels for years. nphys2704.pdf @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

what i said, is that they are and have been bridging the gap between the two levels for years

No, that isn't what you said. That's what you changed your argument to when I illustrated that what you said initially is wrong. You began:-

according to quantum mechanics, free will does not exit (sic)

To which I replied:-

Your issue here is going to be that general relativity should be the system of rules relevant to individual human experience, and relativity is deterministic. Quantum mechanics only applies to sub-atomic structures.

And then you replied back with:-

actually it does not only apply to the micro level

You are one of these annoying people who changes their argument from one post to the next.

maxx

there is no way you read the previous link and not accept it. are you so closed minded that you can not accept what the science is saying. You seem like dee and may others on her and prefer to call names than actually research anything. call names because you are safe behind the internet. How nice for you .You fail to accept the scientific findings because it goes against your beliefs, nor will you do research to find out for yourself. Micro meets macro | Nature Physics @Nomenclature

maxx

there is no way you read that previous link and not accept it. It goes to show a person at how biased and closed minded you are. Is this how you debate?  yes I did say free will does not exist and you replied with that quantum mechanics only applied to the micro level, and I attempted to explain to you that is incorrect.  It has been proven that the electrical currents to fire the neurons to do a specific act occurs before one i even conscious of the act or decision to do so .@Nomenclature

Dee

@maxx

You seem like dee and may others on her and prefer to call names than actually research anything

Stop lying , I called you what you are as in mentally challenged , you post link after link as each one is knocked down you change position and post another up. No one on here has ever supported your nutty views and you are arguing with 9 different people at the moment and not one person agrees with your increasingly nutty views

You know nothing about science , history , math etc ,etc and can barely string a sentence together without several spelling and grammar errors , looking at your profile photo you haven't even got good looks  to fall back on with your long greasy hair , bulging eyes and glasses like milk bottles , no wonder you cannot lure the kiddies you drool over into  your van 

maxx

sure troll @Dee

Dee

@maxx

sure troll 

I take it you had another bad days trawling at the kiddie playground you sicko  

Nomenclature

@Dee

Stop lying , I called you what you are as in mentally challenged , you post link after link as each one is knocked down you change position and post another up

That's exactly what he does, and he doesn't even read the links he posts. He just puts whatever he's looking for into a search engine, posts the first result which seems relevant and refuses to acknowledge when he's wrong.

Dee

@Nomenclature

He totally ignores any questions asked regarding his links . Earlier he posted up a link regards racism being innate and only read the first few lines which were then debunked by a professor in his own piece ,the guy is a complete cretin.

Nomenclature

@Dee

Earlier he posted up a link regards racism being innate and only read the first few lines which were then debunked by a professor in his own piece ,the guy is a complete cretin.

Yes, I read that exchange. It seems he gets too excited at the prospect of validating his own beliefs and doesn't bother to research any further than whichever excerpt or link he thinks supports his own argument. There's an awful lot of that on this site. Jus' Sayin' is another one who does the exact same thing. Bogan meanwhile, doesn't even bother to look for links.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Yes, I read that exchange. It seems he gets too excited at the prospect of validating his own beliefs and doesn't bother to research any further than whichever excerpt or link he thinks supports his own argument. 

That's his game, it's like he reads an opinion by one authority online and decides to follow it.

A long time ago he claimed that ace charlatan Edgar Cayce was the 'real deal' , he's also said remote viewing was scientifically validated 

There's an awful lot of that on this site

Post up a debate on minimum wage , social policies , gun right and watch the id-otic creatures scream blue murder 

. Jus' Sayin' is another one who does the exact same thing. 

Jus sayin is a believer in Republican Jesus who is a carbon copy of Trump . I'm seriously baffled as to how these id-it's actually survive even thrive 

Bogan meanwhile, doesn't even bother to look for links.

Bogan is a vile,  hate filled bigot who answers every question with a 2 million word far right rant 

Nomenclature

@Dee

he's also said remote viewing was scientifically validated 

Roflmao.

Post up a debate on minimum wage , social policies , gun right and watch the id-otic creatures scream blue murder 

Omg, I've been resisting the temptation to post up a debate about gun rights ever since I came back. Nothing brings the halfwits together better than a debate about gun rights. The problem is that they take up too much time, because you have to deal with so many NRA brainwashed guntards all swarming you at once with their angry swamp logic.

Jus sayin is a believer in Republican Jesus who is a carbon copy of Trump 

Yeah, I find him similar to Max, in as much as he just continuously cherry-picks things which support his backwards views and ignores everything else. He seems a bit more stable than Maxx though because after a while he just gives up, whereas Maxx usually enters rage mode and tries to brute force the idea that he's completely right.

Bogan is a vile,  hate filled bigot who answers every question with a 2 million word far right rant 

That's the surest sign of a halfwit on sites like these. When they write you a 10,000 word essay because they can't comprehend that you might have better things to do than read through the rantings of a deranged imbecile.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Hmmm

In his new book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, Robert M. Sapolsky (2023), a Stanford neuroscientist, argues that humans do not have free will. He bases his argument on a wide range of scientific evidence, from neuroscience to genetics to evolutionary biology.

Sapolsky begins by explaining how our brains work. He argues that our thoughts, feelings, and actions are all the result of physical processes in the brain. These processes are determined by our genes, our environment, and our past experiences.

Sapolsky then goes on to discuss the role of unconscious processes in our behavior. He argues that much of our behavior is driven by unconscious desires and motivations. We are often unaware of the reasons why we do the things we do.

Next, Sapolsky discusses the role of evolution in shaping our behavior. He argues that our ancestors evolved to behave in certain ways in order to survive and reproduce. These evolutionary forces have shaped our brains and our behavior in ways that are often beyond our conscious control.

Finally, Sapolsky discusses the implications of his argument for our understanding of morality and responsibility. He argues that if we do not have free will, then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions. This does not mean that we should abandon all moral standards, but it does mean that we should think more carefully about how we punish and reward people.

Determined is a challenging book, but it is also a thought-provoking one. Sapolsky's argument is well-supported by scientific evidence, and he does an excellent job of explaining complex scientific concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader.

Here is a summary of the main arguments in the book:

• Our thoughts, feelings, and actions are all the result of physical processes in the brain.
• Much of our behavior is driven by unconscious desires and motivations.
• Our evolutionary history has shaped our brains and our behavior in ways that are often beyond our conscious control.
• If we do not have free will, then we cannot be held morally responsible for our actions.

Here are some of the implications of Sapolsky's argument:

• We should be more compassionate and understanding towards people who commit crimes.
• We should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment for criminals.
• We should be more careful about judging people for their choices.
• We should be more open to the idea that our own choices are not entirely free.

Sapolsky's argument has been met with both praise and criticism. Some critics argue that Sapolsky's definition of free will is too narrow. Others argue that Sapolsky's argument undermines our sense of responsibility and morality.

just_sayin

Those who say there is no free will live their lives in a hypocritical way.  They want to hold people accountable for their actions - but if there is no free will, then people are only doing what they had no other choice to do.  This is unjust and if you truly believed that robbers, thieves, and rapists had no choice in their actions, you should advocate for letting everyone go from prison.  

Fredsnephew

@just_sayin

People make choices for a reason, options being one reason.

Though:
What would human society be like if 8.1 billion individuals just did random stuff

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Those who say there is no free will live their lives in a hypocritical way.  They want to hold people accountable for their actions - but if there is no free will, then people are only doing what they had no other choice to do.  This is unjust and if you truly believed that robbers, thieves, and rapists had no choice in their actions, you should advocate for letting everyone go from prison.  

How does that refute the need for prisons? Sure, on some metaphysical level this murderer could not help but murder his victim - but humans do not operate on that metaphysical level. We can still hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of whether they had a choice in the matter or not. That is how I have always lived my own life: I have never justified my actions by the circumstances forcing me to take them - regardless of the circumstances, I do what I do and pay the price for it. I did not choose where to be born, but it was up to me to adapt to that environment and make the best of it.

I invite you to get acquainted with Jocko Willink's work and his concept of "extreme ownership". It is a very powerful mindset to employ in life, one that completely eliminates all feelings of envy and self-pity. When you do not expect to be treated "fairly" by the Universe and choose to "bear your cross" (pun intended) without any complaints, nothing can stop you.

Yes, the Universe is unjust. Pity. Now we can either accept it and move on, or we can lament over not living in the right Universe... Which one is more productive, in your opinion?

Dee

@just_sayin


Those who say there is no free will live their lives in a hypocritical way. They want to hold people accountable for their actions - but if there is no free will, then people are only doing what they had no other choice to do.

As usual you totally neglect to mention the obvious which is people who slaughter , maim and destroy others have restraints put on their actions by society to protect us from those actions so how is that in any way " hypocritical"?

 This is unjust and if you truly believed that robbers, thieves, and rapists had no choice in their actions, you should advocate for letting everyone go from prison

Read above, illumination may follow.

It's interesting to note you admit your god is a hypocrite because he also cannot have free will as he knows all possible future outcomes including all his own future decisions unless of course you concede he's not all knowing and all powerful.

You fled from addressing god and free will in the past just like you always do with yourobjective morality assertions, you may get help if you wish.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Those who say there is no free will live their lives in a hypocritical way.  They want to hold people accountable for their actions - but if there is no free will, then people are only doing what they had no other choice to do.  This is unjust and if you truly believed that robbers, thieves, and rapists had no choice in their actions, you should advocate for letting everyone go from prison.  

How does that refute the need for prisons? Sure, on some metaphysical level this murderer could not help but murder his victim - but humans do not operate on that metaphysical level. We can still hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of whether they had a choice in the matter or not. That is how I have always lived my own life: I have never justified my actions by the circumstances forcing me to take them - regardless of the circumstances, I do what I do and pay the price for it. I did not choose where to be born, but it was up to me to adapt to that environment and make the best of it.

I invite you to get acquainted with Jocko Willink's work and his concept of "extreme ownership". It is a very powerful mindset to employ in life, one that completely eliminates all feelings of envy and self-pity. When you do not expect to be treated "fairly" by the Universe and choose to "bear your cross" (pun intended) without any complaints, nothing can stop you.

Yes, the Universe is unjust. Pity. Now we can either accept it and move on, or we can lament over not living in the right Universe... Which one is more productive, in your opinion?

How immoral of you.  Prisons are for those who have a moral responsibility for the crimes they committed.  If you believe that we have no free will, then we have no moral responsibility. It would be the equivalent of putting someone who is mentally ill in prison. We don't do that, because the individual is not in their right mind and has no moral responsibility for their actions. They may need to be in a hospital, but not a prison.  Prison is a place for punishing those who have moral responsibility for their crimes.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

How immoral of you.  Prisons are for those who have a moral responsibility for the crimes they committed.  If you believe that we have no free will, then we have no moral responsibility. It would be the equivalent of putting someone who is mentally ill in prison. We don't do that, because the individual is not in their right mind and has no moral responsibility for their actions. They may need to be in a hospital, but not a prison.  Prison is a place for punishing those who have moral responsibility for their crimes.  

According to your vision of morality, perhaps. But morality is subjective, and its validity is determined solely by its self-consistency and practicality. Besides, since I have no free will, the moral system I hold is a product of the Universe, so you cannot really hold it against me. You could hold it against the God though if you believe in one, since the God made me what I am, and the moral system I currently hold is a direct product of the choices he made during the creation.

I do not think that prisons have, or should have, anything to do with responsibility: people already face consequences of their actions as the reality throws them at them. Instead, prisons exist to protect people from proven violent criminals, dangerous elements of society who do not respect other individuals' rights and freedoms. I do not want revenge on a serial murderer, but I certainly want him off the private and public spaces I inhabit. To what extent he is responsible for his actions in the metaphysical sense is the question of, well, metaphysics - but the consequences of his actions are the fact of reality, and it is up to him to figure out how to deal with this fact.

Someone who is mentally ill in a way that is dangerous to others is not put in a prison because prisons in modern countries are not designed with accommodating such people in mind - they instead are put in mental hospitals that are, in essence, "medical prisons". If you disagree with it, read a bit on how dangerous patients of such facilities trying to escape them are treated in any country in the world.