this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2023
21 points (95.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43947 readers
942 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
21
Deleted (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by IsThisLemmyOpen@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
 

Deleted

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gatsby@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

You react to choices the specific way you do because of experiences you've had previously.

Reverse time without changing anything, you'll always make the same choices because you're having the same thoughts each time every time, because you've been conditioned the way you are.

The universe doesn't "know" where it's going, but the plan is already in action. You can choose whatever you want to do, but if you were the same person in the same circumstance, you would and will always make the same decision.

[–] Mugmoor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My brother and I have been having an ongoing debate about this and Simulation Theory for a good few years.

In my mind, it's a pointless question to try and answer. It makes for a nice thought experiment, but actually having a belief in it is useless.

[–] AaronMaria@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have the feeling most people cling to free will as a concept because not having free will raises questions if a "self" truly exists. However the existence of free will can be as scary if not more, since how could we define a "self" if it could freely do something not based on what defines it.

I think it's more complicated than free will existing or not.

If you knew every single possible value about the universe at its start and had a perfectly accurate model of physics, you could theoretically predict/simulate everything that would ever happen. For practical reasons, though, that's impossible, even ignoring weird quantum effects, for the simple reason that that is a lot of data points, more than any of us could reasonably keep track of- it's like how, in sufficiently controlled conditions, a fair dice can roll the exact same number 100% of the time, but there are enough variables that are hard enough to control for in a normal situation that it's basically random.

Similarly, if you knew everything about every human on Earth, you could theoretically predict exactly what any of them would do at any given moment. Of course, that's just not practical- the body and brain are a machine that is constantly taking in input and adapting to it, so in order to perfectly predict someone's thoughts and actions, you'd need to know every single detail of every single thing that has ever happened to them, no matter how small. Then, you'd need to account for the fact that they're interacting with hundreds of other people, who are also constantly changing and adapting. It's just not possible to predict or control a person for any reasonable length of time like that, because one tiny interaction could throw off the entire model.

Just look at current work with AI- our modern machine learning algorithms are much more well-understood and are trained in much more contained environments than any human mind, and yet we still need to manually reign them in and sift through the data to prevent them from going off the rails.

So, technically, I suppose free will doesn't exist. For practical purposes, though, what we have is indistinguishable from free will, so there's not much point getting riled up about it.

[–] SpinalPhatPants@vlemmy.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Deterministic with no actual free will, but complex enough that we'll never be able to tell the difference. Essentially, our choices may technically be predetermined but for all intents and purposes, they are indistinguishable from free will and can't be predicted.

[–] VoxAdActa@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly how I feel about it. Whether or not free will exists has functionally no effect on my life. In order to survive and succeed in the world, I am forced to live as if I had free will. The universe isn't going to do my laundry or clear out my work queue if I don't make decisions and take actions. While those decisions and actions may be "forced" by the broader universal framework, from the local perspective, I still have to make them.

Therefore, the question itself is meaningless. If I don't live my life acting like I have free will, whether or not I am engaged in a pre-determined path, shit will get really bad for me really quickly.

[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 3 points 1 year ago

Hard determinist here. It doesn't make the future predictable by me, but I don't see how randomness could really occur. And then likewise there's no such thing as free will.

[–] mcc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So that's a topic that fascinated so many people forever.

With all these people fascinated by it, some of them weirdos put their whole life's at it.

And these weirdos came to a few absolutely terrifying conclusions:

  1. The ultimate future is predictable: 2nd law of thermal dynamics means the universe will eventually end with energy being equal everywhere, so there is nothing because there is no difference. That's the heat death of the universe.

  2. Otherwise nothing is absolutely predictable: the uncertainty principle says you can either know the precise position of a particle, or you know the precise movement of a particle, you can't know both at the same time. So yeh if you know the initial condition you can make a prediction, but you can't know the precise initial condition at particle level, and since the world is made of particles, you can only make imprecise predictions without 100% certainty.

You could argue that the human mind is a quantum machine. You don't know it's initial condition. Nor do you know the precise initial condition of every human mind in the world. The impreciseness of any prediction, even if it could be small individually, adds up in the scale of the world, the universe. So that can be you foundation of free will, up to the heat death.

[–] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I live my life as if I have unlimited free will, and I view the world as if everyone else is fully determined by their circumstances. And then I just ignore the contradiction. Ez pz

[–] Emanresu@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Best answer.

[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Here is a good lecture from Robert Sapolsky on Human behavioral biology that will replace your question with more questions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Now see, if you're looking at things from a biological point of view, it's important to recognize the forest from the trees. A few trees are, well, just a few trees. But a great many trees together constitutes a forest, and becomes more than the sum of its parts. I feel the same way about the human brain. Yes, it's a series of electrical and chemical impulses, but there are so many of these working in tandem that it becomes exponentially more complex, akin to ever-advancing computer technology. It's complex enough that we think, we talk, we make decisions. And those decisions aren't based solely on instinctional drive, and can even be made in opposition to them.

It's true that human behavior can be accurately predicted based on an individual's natural tendencies, but there are never any guarantees. There's always a choice, a chance to veer off course. Decisions can be prudently made after careful research, or made on a frivolous impulse. Maybe you even realize that you would ordinarily take one action in a given situation, but do the exact opposite. You consciously chose to ignore your first impulse. If free will is an illusion, it's a damned convincing one.

[–] Exadyne@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quantum mechanics are probabilistic, which serves as a good argument for the universe as a whole being probabilistic. The position of a single particle could change a great many things!

[–] Mrs_deWinter@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Which leaves the question: Has our mind the ability to use this randomness and shape it by our will? Because if not the universe might be probabilistic and still we'd probably not have any free will of our own; being determined to act according to the setup of our nerves and synapses and their activation status at any given moment, plus a bit of incalculable randomness.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

Indeterministic + free-will doesn't exist and can't exist. You literally end in impossible contradictions if you entail its existence in a consistent universe (as in, one where everything that exists is subjected to the same natural laws).

As a side note for OP, Hisenberg has proven there's no such thing as "knowing the initial condition".

[–] Bennu@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I just wanted to say that if you guys truly want to see what serious answers can be given to these type of questions you can always take a look into philosophy and just so happens I'm trying to build a philosophy community on Kbin so feel free to check m/AskPhilosophers, and m/LearnPhilosophy.

Free will is way too vague of a concept, that it's probably not worth pursuing the answer.

[–] agentshags@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

That's a wild question.

And I asked myself this earlier in the shower.

I decided I would probably never know, and ended up upset I needed to get out and get ready for work.

Sometimes I wonder if the cosmic joke is we could comprehend a situation like free will, but never actually find out of it exists.

[–] XPost3000@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Functionality, nondeterministic. But oddly even if the universe was deterministic, that doesn't mean it's computable, so even if you knew every single state of every single atom and everything was deterministic, you still couldn't make accurate predictions

This is a weird application of the Halting Problem

Suppose that the universe is absolutely deterministic, and we have an omniscient machine that can 100% accurately predict the future because of this

Now, imagine we have another much much simpler machine that just inverts whatever input it has; when given input A, it outputs B. This can be a single if statement or even a simple electronic NOT gate, but the functionality of this machine is completely known

Now, connect the determining machine to the inverting machine, and ask the omniscient machine "what will the inverter machine output?"

Although the universe is deterministic and the machine is omniscient, it's impossible to accurately predict the future without being wrong.

If the determiner says "A", then the inverter says "B", and if the determiner says "B", then the inverter says "A"

Even though the inverter machine is highly simple in construction and it's functionality is completely known, it's still enough to make accurate predictions in a deterministic universe impossible, even for an omniscient machine, since simply making a prediction changes the outcome

The only way for the omniscient machine to be accurate is if it doesn't at all interact with the universe that it's predicting, at which case it ceases to be useful

So nothing within the universe can 100% accurately predict the future, regardless if it's deterministic or not

[–] Hunter232@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Well let's start by examining the phrase "free will"

The term free has at least two different meanings in common language.

A) free as in beer ( free from cost) B) free as in speach (free from control)

Both of these could be broken down more (e.g. Monetary cost, entropic costs, mental cost and societal control, individual control, physical control... Etc)

Now, "will" is a bit more tricky. In this context we generally use it to mean "choice" However desire, and intention also get mentioned in the definitions.

  1. desire
  2. intention
  3. choice

When commonly discussed I would say people tend to talk about B3(the ability to choose without external physical control)

I would argue 3 requires 2 which requires 1

So now we discuss B1 - are we free to pick our desires.

This I find to be interesting. We often see people desiring things which seem foolish. Foolish as is Unwise. What makes something foolish? Seems to me foolishness is caused by a lack of data and poor modeling.

At this point my phone battery is at 6% So I'll cut my response short. I see no truly free will. I think our desires can be shaped over time via our input (previous choices) however we can't roll a die and pick our desires.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Just maybe not ideal but what is in this world?

[–] Deccarrin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The licanius trilogy explores this really nicely. If you're a sci-fi or fantasy fan I really do highly recommend them.

Hopefully without spoiling too much, the future being predetermined doesn't necessarily prohibit free will. In the same way we can't travel backwards in time we can't travel forwards faster. Everything has happened, both in the past present and future, but it's still the decisions of the people that led to and lead to the outcomes that exist. The past is just as postdetermined as the future is predetermined, if that makes any sense.

It's weird but I liked it.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You forget, the underpinnings of physics involve a heavy dose of randomness. Contrary to the opinion of a certain famous scientist, God does, in fact, play dice. Lots and lots of dice.

So no, the universe is not deterministic.

Note that this doesn't mean free will exists. Your decisions may not be entirely predetermined, but them being determined by random chance doesn't fit the definition of free will, either.

[–] Emanresu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Throughout human history we say things can't be done until they suddenly get done. I'm half assing it for all free will discussions, and leaping to the conclusion that its deterministic in a way we haven't yet discovered. My shortcut is wrong, but in such an oh-so-right way! :P

[–] shiftenter@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me, I've always struggled with the definition of free will. Is there even a will to be free? The voice in my head is just a story "I" tell myself. So really, I'm just this conscious presence. I can observe thoughts that manifest within that presence. But those thoughts aren't under my control. They're just occurring.

I remember watching a video from Sam Harris years ago that really brought this to the forefront. Think of a movie. Any movie. What is it? Why did you pick that movie? Did you have conscious control over what movie you picked? Or did it just pop into your consciousness?

Either everything is purely deterministic, purely random, or something in between. But on that spectrum, there really isn't room for free will. Simply the illusion of it.

[–] AaronMaria@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

While I agree mostly, I feel obligated to tell people that Sam Harris is a racist and sucks.

[–] Gsus4@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some entities are more deterministic than others. A rock is more deterministic than an animal and a human is less deterministic than an animal because its "causal inertia" (the opposite of free will) is weaker: it can be influenced by more factors than the rock and is more unpredictable. Some people lead more deterministic lives than others.

[–] HiDefMusic 1 points 1 year ago

I would say you’re referring more to complexity than determinism. More variables increases complexity but doesn’t necessarily decrease determinism. It depends on whether you believe some of those variables include true randomness though. For example, does quantum randomness affect anything? We’re led to believe it has no real effect on a macroscopic scale, but perhaps over a large enough amount of time and across a large enough set of variables the effect becomes noticeable. If that’s the case, determinism breaks down.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

I’m fairly certain free will does not exist. There’s really no solid evidence for it, and no credible scientific mechanic by which it could operate.

Quantum physics provides strong evidence that the future is not deterministic, though it can produce deterministic-like results in larger systems.

[–] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Also, specifically addressing your spoiler,

spoiler

Any quantum mechanical interpretation of the world (read: any valid interpretation of the world) finds that it is provably impossible to know the full initial conditions of any system, even a single particle, sufficiently enough to make any predictive model of it, soooo

It can still be deterministic I guess, just not knowably.

[–] style99@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The concept of belief is rooted in free will, is it not?

[–] Bennu@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily, no. You may believe something and yet not be free to believe otherwise.

[–] Hovenko@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Free will would mean that you believe in something without any ties to your environment, how were you raised up, your mental state, biological factors... etc. It would mean you started believing in something without any of those factors and just the concept of believing is predetermined by the fact that you are a human.

I don't think you can defend such a crazy ass huge concept as free will by such a simple argument. You need to start with definition, what do you understand by free will. Is it a binary state? Or is your will free only to some degree?

Quantum mechanics shows the universe really does just operate on probabilities. On the smallest scales we can probe we see that the universe is non-deterministic. But average out those probabilities 10^20 times for a coin and everything may look pre-determined to our macroscopic lives.

[–] geemili@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The question is underspecified. Why do you want to know if free will exists? What will you do differently if it does exist vs if it does not exist?

This is similar to questions like, "is water wet?" You can generate endless debate on the topic, but it's all intellectual masturbation until you are genuinely looking for the answer to a specific question.

[–] davidauz@feddit.it -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, first things first, it is not a "simple" philosophical question. The best minds of humanity have been tackling this problem since forever, and there is still no definitive answer yet.

Ironically, for all the religions since the dawn of time, some kind of evidence for free will has emerged from the frontiers of science. Quantum mechanics, for instance, is based on the fact that at the subatomic level, nothing is known for sure. Therefore, the "initial conditions" issue is no longer true.

Someone with a greater intellect than mine once stated that the quantum nondeterminism underlying the functioning of the human brain could be the key to freeing it from the conundrum of cause and effect. In other words, yes, we have free will. Suggested readings: "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, "GΓΆdel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstadter, "The Book of Job" in the Bible.

Just my 2Β’...

[–] JackGreenEarth@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

@davidauz Even if it's random, it's not you 'choosing' it.

@IsThisLemmyOpen

[–] MrComradeTaco@lemmy.fmhy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be deterministic there should be someone or something what determine it, as an agnostic i don't believe neither at 100% just a 50/50, we should prove first if there is something out there or not who/what determine or not things.

[–] hydro033@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Energy and matter

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd say free will exists. Sure, you are shaped by your environment, your genetics and so on, but in the end you can still decide what you want to do. In theory I could simply quit my job tomorrow, wander off into the sunset and then drown in the next ocean. Or as someone brought up criminals, you could stab someone just trying to disprove the universe is being deterministic.

If you know every single atom in this moment and had unlimited computing power, you'd probably be fantastic at telling the weather. Or if you map every neuron in someone's brain you might know what they are about to do next. But at this point you are just looking at the present data and can maybe calculate the next few seconds (but not even that is 100% sure, just a very good guess).

The question is how far forward would you be able to look just based on current and past data? A minute? A day? A month? At that point the whole thing breaks apart in my opinion. It's like looking at the stock market where you have tons of past data and think you can predict the future simply based on that.

There's so many complex sources of randomness, the most likely solution is that things are just that, random. And you can decide what you want to do with your own life, at least until you die (or don't, who knows what the future brings). Honestly the whole question is dumb, there is no single being that knows everything, so it really doesn't matter. In the grand scheme of things even humanity is just a tiny blip on the timeline and we're with very high probability not unique. Just based on numbers there is a high chance other life forms have existed before us, might exist right now with us (somewhere else in the universe I mean, there's also plenty on Earth) and will exist in the future.

[–] AaronMaria@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you think anything you could do is not based on previous conditions? I don't think any of your examples, by themself, say anything about determinism or free will.

If the universe would be fully deterministic and you'd have all Data and unlimited computing power you could predict any point in time.

[–] Vlyn@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That's just saying a being with perfect knowledge knows everything. It's nonsense.

We already know systems change when observed (See the current work on quantum physics). But there is no all-knowing being who could do the observation.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί