How can we have free will if determinism is true?

Why would some higher metaphysical reality be any less deterministic? In the end it's input in, output out, no matter how may subtle layers you add.

Okay, I see threads on this topic so frequently, but why (besides obviously being unable to come to a consensus)? What I'm asking is, what are the implications of both outcomes, why should I care? To put it less selfishly, why do YOU care?

Well no since determinism relies on physical mechanics whether they're fully predictable or not. If you take away the idea that time is a linear movement of atoms and molecules and it can be anything you will it to be in an objective sense then you would have free will. Say for instance in reality your universe is solipsistic and you as an omniscient being have willfully created a sort of temporary retreat for yourself within yourself and then you have free will when the ride ends and you presumably become omniscient again.

If in that case you are indeed omniscient, have always existed and always will exist if you choose to then you have 100% control and therefore total free will. If you are indeed infinitely old within a separate reality then there's no input and the only output is self-contained. I mean that is true free will, right?

>To put it less selfishly, why do YOU care?
Because the ping pong of matter in the universe that's coalesced into us coalesced in such a way that we care.

>we
But obviously I don't care...

Then maybe you should exercise your free will to go away.

I want my question answered seriously so exercise your free will to make me!

Well you don't have a choice.

I mean your question is stupid to be blunt. The reason we care is similar to why most religious people care about religion. It's truth seeking and many humans are naturally inclined to pursue answers to their existence since our survival instinct makes us self-absorbed.

Your question is like "Why do you like to masturbate to anime?". Well if you get to the very root of it you have no satisfactory answer other than biology and that answer is no more or less valid than the answer to why anyone does anything.

Free will as a concept feels very slippery to me. To believe in true free will I feel like you almost have to believe in the supernatural. If you have a purely materialist view of the world you have to be a determinist.

I would say I don't believe in free will. Like other people are kind of saying, we live in a deterministic way but we experience it as free will because we don't have enough data to view it as such. But I think, if you could create a computer simulation of the universe with all possible data down to how people's neurons are firing and shit you could predict everyone's actions. It's just that it's impossible for us to have that kind of data, so any prediction we make about how people will act, such as in the social sciences, is going to be imperfect and create the illusion of free will.

In a less autistically precise definition of free will vs. determinism, I still think we are more deterministic because our actions are influenced by our environment and culture. If I wake up tomorrow and decide I want to be an Amazonian shaman, I guess that's a free will decision I can make, but I probably won't because my habitus is largely a product of my culture and social position.

If computers had a sense of humor, then they would laugh at your word salad post.

> Say for instance in reality your universe is solipsistic and you as an omniscient being have willfully created a sort of temporary retreat for yourself within yourself and then you have free will when the ride ends and you presumably become omniscient again.

Why would I do these things? In the end, I must have been motivated by something external to myself or I would simply exist without taking any action at all. The same problem applies to God, by the way.

>
If in that case you are indeed omniscient, have always existed and always will exist if you choose to then you have 100% control and therefore total free will. If you are indeed infinitely old within a separate reality then there's no input and the only output is self-contained. I mean that is true free will, right?

You assign all these attributes to this being, but you provide no insight into how it's different than just a really big powerful knowledgable human being. If I can slice out a piece of my brain matter and suddenly have a radical shift in personality, why would I assume my personality originates with some extra-dimensional spook outside of time?

Perhaps I should've emphasized this more as my question, but
>what are the implications of both outcomes?

They may collapse randomly to observer, but the observer is a subject to human factor.
Determists: 1
Quant-cuks:0

Attached: spooks.jpg (753x800, 170K)

Holy fucking shit where did you find this holy shit this image and the colour palette is so pleasing to the eye holy shit especially the yellow beak wtf

You gotta define your shit man.

medium.com/@ramanvesh/free-will-64327c467c85

He's saying you can have free will of faculties in a deterministic universe.

>Why would I do these things? In the end, I must have been motivated by something external to myself or I would simply exist without taking any action at all. The same problem applies to God, by the way.
>I must have been motivated by something external to myself or I would simply exist without taking any action at all.
Well that's reasoning applied to a metaphysical universe from the physical reality we live in. Why do you necessarily assume causal relationships within a purely metaphysical plane? I feel like we're kind of flatlanders trying to understand the concept of up here. I'm not saying I have a good hypothetical set of alternative universal laws that would allow for this.

>You assign all these attributes to this being, but you provide no insight into how it's different than just a really big powerful knowledgeable human being. If I can slice out a piece of my brain matter and suddenly have a radical shift in personality, why would I assume my personality originates with some extra-dimensional spook outside of time?

The difference is the omniscient being is self-contained. Even an extremely powerful human being exists within the constraints of physical laws. Physicality is the highest plane of existence. Say you are an incredibly powerful supercomputer within our universe that can for all intents and purposes simulate the existence of this omniscient being in some way.
A. You are still subject to the causal relationship that constructed you
B. You are technically on a lower plane of existence since your continued existence completely depends on a physical reality out of your control

The idea of total free will for the first hypothetical god has completely zero external input into it.
Why would this being do this? Well again you're asking for reasons from a completely metaphysical plane of existence with no real laws. All experience could be happening at once within the mind of this being as a way of expanding or testing itself in some way. I mean it seems somewhat paradoxical, but how could a god know it knows everything without experiencing everything at some point?

The implications of a deterministic universe is that nothing matters and everything is theoretically, but not actually controllable within physical reality.

The implications of a metaphysical plane where there are no laws or no laws as we understand them is any infinite number of things. A religious person would maybe say we're being tested for godhood lite or eternal damnation/nothingness. Obviously that has a huge number of logical problems to it, but it's the most common human view on reality unfortunately.

Its the most common view because it provides the most in terms of motivation and vital stimuli. Knowing the truth wont give you any advanatge, only the opposite.

That's completely subjective of course. I would say largely you're right, but what works for certain people doesn't work for everyone is my point.

I also feel like you're conflating determinism with nihilism. Beings within a deterministic universe who understand that likely are may have philosophical beliefs that aren't nihilistic in a strict sense.

>Knowing the truth won't give you any advantage, only the opposite.
That feels like something Jordan Peterson would say if he didn't hide his actual beliefs.

Eveything is subjective. What doesnt work for certain people only means that they had different upbringing, while their brain is the same to anyone else's, hence religions work for majority of people, especially if they were raised by other religious people.
>That feels like something Jordan Peterson would say
Not much into him, everything he says somehow feels like I heard it elsewhere. I'm more of Alan Watts fan.

Well there are objective and subjective statements. Saying that evolutionarily the majority, but not all people in our society derive more benefit from assuming that they get some fantasy paradise for suffering during their actual lives is fairly objective I think. I don't think many people would argue that there's little evolutionary benefit to society to thinking "Life blows and that's all you fucking get" or religion wouldn't exist. It's definitely not breaking any ground with that anyway, but some people are able to work past that without having their lives negatively impacted.

>but some people are able to work past that without having their lives negatively impacted.
Or at least keep the appearance. We dont know for sure. If you're claiming to be one, then I call bullshit, because statistically r9k is either incels or losers, types that dont correspond with mental health.

Absolute "freedom" is just pure randomness. It's not even an intereting goal to aim for.

This is my first time posting on Jow Forums in years. A majority of Western/Northern Europe is areligious and they seem to be doing fine.

We can't and we don't. Enjoy the existential depression.

>I'm not saying I have a good hypothetical set of alternative universal laws that would allow for this.

Then it's hard not to reject the entire hypothesis out of hand. It seems much more likely to me that there's attributes of the physical universe we don't entirely understand than that there's this other level that we not only don't understand but can't understand. It's the handwave hyptothesis, to put it another way. For me, the subjective illusion of choice is enough.

If your hypothesis explains nothing and does nothing but imagine further untestable unknowns it's not a very useful hypothesis. If anything it's more of an interesting hypothetical. I'm not saying this kind of though is totally without merit, but it's not scientific in any way.

Minimalists, Bohr and Heisenberg had little to say for or against belief, unlike with angsty 21st century verificationalists riding their coattails...
(and they probably knew MW creates as many questions as it answers too)
Constructive proofs cannot into absolute randomness, any more than they can infinite quantities... uncertainty principles and incompleteness theorems would mirror that same persistent problem.

Attached: IMG_0000.png (650x200, 4K)

>If your hypothesis explains nothing and does nothing but imagine further untestable unknowns it's not a very useful hypothesis.
>but it's not scientific in any way.

Yeah, that's most of philosophy. I'm not saying arguments like these have merit at all or that they're anything I believe. I'm just saying they're the only real alternatives to determinism. Many avenues of philosophy almost certainly have 0 literal relation to reality.

Go read any pre-mid 19th century philosopher and it's kind of infuriating. For a couple hundred years philosophers debated the objective realities of conscious experience and most of it had little bases in any form of science whatsoever.

Well put. You'd be surprised at how many people struggle to avoid the inevitability of determinism even if acknowledging it does nothing to change their subjective experience. If anything, I find a lack of free will motivates me to better examine what's influencing my decisions instead of just taking credit whenever things go right and whining when things go wrong.

Well ultimately what's most compelling to me is the idea that our universe is at all. Our experience within this reality and the observation of physical laws does nothing to help and with the conservation of matter seems to contradict the idea that we should be here at all and it may be completely impossible for science to ever explain that with physical evidence. I think that's where philosophy maybe useful and maybe the progenitor to science bending some laws in the future along with the development of true AI. I'm fairly certain philosophy will be revisited heavily when programming consciousness both on how to program it to not kill us and the theorycraft for if it could or would escape these boundaries.

determinism is false and free will is an illusion
your move

Glad I'm not the only one, brother

Actually your worst rubbish came from Marx's ilk, people whom tried empiricism and were very bad at it... Meanwhile there are millenia old pieces of rationalism, z.B. Liar's Paradox (as reformulated by Russel in 20th century) that continue to shape sciences today (mathematics is formal science along with information theory)
...have a (You)

They are the current majority, but throught the ages, areligious people have always been a minority. I'm not even talking about organized religious movents, basic spiritualism or fetishism covers the bill and surprise, if you listen to a lot of people, most of them at least believe in reincarnation, which also is in itself a basic form of spiritualism.

Movements*
Tard keybindings

can we have an ill-defined philosophical term if ill-defined philosophical term

Attached: 1547836534422.jpg (1024x1024, 67K)

>Europe_belief_in_Spirit_Life_Force.png
Surprise, the spiritualism and the desert dweller fertility cults are actually \inversely\ proportional (if anything, the later have more in common with the angsty 21st century verificationalist types...)

Attached: IMG_0000.png (300x275, 51K)

alright then big lad, how would you categorise determinism other than a pre-defined course of everything that exists predicated on some as yet unknown formulae, but still set in stone as much as the sweep of the spheres in the heavens or the tides of the sea?

don't worry about the free-will one though, that's easy

While your function passes its local sanity check, globally no one really knows what hardware (2-ary, PRNG, undefined) its equivalence class compiled to.

that's the sweetest thing anyone's said to me all day

... but stop hitting on me silly boy :3

The terms are well defined. You've not read enough.

Attached: 3c4879e9b7e112a014d7dd7959554a2608ad9a5307f8a5e4ef2b019e5a448bf0.jpg (489x400, 29K)

>spirit life force
That sounds like dedicated new age type of shit, which is too far gone in comparison to basic reincarnation that I said was popular. You can also try to search how many people believe in luck, negative influence of swear words, or other impractical and scientifically unverifiable, but very popular type of shit literally everyone believes in.

Doubtful, North Europe and Asian Tigers accept evolution and outscore other 1st world countries on standardised tests (if anything, evidence the subjective and the objective beliefs were practically compatible).

Attached: IMG_0001.jpg (345x353, 28K)