• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    From all the discussions I’ve read about Free Will, I’m convinced the term actually doesn’t mean anything at all. What would a world with free will look like? What would a world without free will look like? How would a person with/without it behave? Would there be any tangible difference between them?

    As far as I can tell, free will is supposed to be a property of a person, which may or may not have something to do with physics, either everybody has it or nobody has it, and nobody has a definition that would let them measure it (without reducing the question to a disagreement over semantics). I think that whether someone believes in free will is a trick question; you can’t believe or disbelieve in a something that isn’t even a real concept to begin with.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are so many cases like that. For example, define intelligence. If you try to, you’ll run in loops of equally undefined abstract concepts.

      And that’s basically what philosophy is about.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even though intelligence isn’t precisely defined, people still have enough of an idea about it to have some consensus about how it should be measured. An animal that keeps running into a wire fence trying to get through is showing less intelligence than an animal that notices an opening a few feet away and walks through that instead. Free will is much less defined than even that.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, intelligence is defined as what the intelligence test measures.

          But lets try a different one: sentience. Or consciousness.

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, intelligence is defined as what the intelligence test measures.

            Right, so where’s the Free Will test?

            sentience. Or consciousness.

            IMO these are a bit worse defined than intelligence, but still more so than free will. I don’t think it would mean anything to say I don’t believe in free will, but when I say I don’t believe in consciousness, the delusion I deny is one people actually have. The state of your brain is only that, a state, but people are possessed by an overpowering intuition of having experience that is independent from the physical reality and data structure.

            Free will on the other hand isn’t even a delusion, it isn’t anything more than rhetoric.

            • Square Singer@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Same as conciousnes. That concept only consists to differentiate between groups of living beings to justify eating some of them. (Disclaimer, I too eat meat, but using conciousnes/sentience as a justification is just a rethoric, or more plainly a lie).

  • SasquatchBanana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Due to quantum mechanics, we know this is not true. There is a level of uncertainty and probability and the smallest level of our universe. The deterministic model of the universe has been put to rest a century ago.

  • Lung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be unfunny:

    The whole idea of a balls hitting each other universe went out the window when we hit the quantum era. We have had to adapt to a reality where matter is somehow a statistical phenomena, and the details are always hidden from us in one way or another. Entanglement is another confusing thing, and its super common - not just some rare phenomena in a lab, it’s more of a fact of particle interaction

    So our brains are somehow statisical-chemical-electric sugar powered supercomputers that have entangled state. And the brain actually stretches across the body, with various chemistry being produced throughout

    In short, nobody has any idea how brains really work, it’s way more elaborate than current AI. It’s also likely impossible to fully simulate a brain - it would have to BE a brain

    There’s a separate question about the nature of randomness in the universe, but all we can know is that follows a normal distribution over time. It seems truly random from our point of view. Of course, who’s to say if God likes to fudge the numbers a little