ITT: We Discuss Whether free Will exists

[NOOBY93]

Quantum mechanics tells us that reality at a microscopic level is probabilistic in nature (electrons, protons), and therefore is fundamentally unpredictable. However, at a macroscopic scale, main events are most likely set in stone and deterministic.* Combining these two ideas, it's likely that there are events in our lives that are going to happen no matter what, but there is minor deviation in the path we take in between, due to the scale of the processes that comprise our consciousness as we know it.

*Think of it this way: let's say we copied the state of the universe as it was exactly one year before the beginning of world war 2, as if it were on our computer (to simplify the example). Now, if we pasted this state of the universe into trillions of different identical realities running at the same time, every single one of these realities would end up in world war 2 in a year. It makes logical sense if you think about it a bit.

I disagree with the sentiment that deviation in the path would still end with the same result. The notion that macroscopic events are "set in stone," is very misguided, what evidence would you have regarding the predestination of said events?

Everything happens because of a cause, and has it's effect. That effect can't be changed so no matter how many times you "paste" it in different universes, the result would be the same. There's no choice, really, just reaction.

[venatorvenator]

In order for us to have 'free' will our choices must be free, uninfluenced and uncaused.
As human behaviour is determined by influences outside the individuals control, environmental and genetic, this would imply there is no such thing as free will.

Genetics play a large part in this debate as certain genes will cause specific reactions, therefore our responses are 'caused' and not a thought out process. It has also been shown that the brain reacts to stimuli before the 'self' becomes conscious of the decision, the brain functions just like any other other organ of the human body, automatically, like the heart, liver, lungs, kidney, etc. in order to preserve.

So, it does look as though, however unsavoury we may find it, free will is actually an illusion, our choices are determined by our environment and our biological makeup.
Cause and effect.

@ LadyV - It just feels like we have a choice, really that decision has already been made, you choose not to buy the gun or pull the trigger but you could not have chosen any other option.
Tbh, I'm still fighting for free will, lol, we have the ability to change and adapt, idk, my head tells me there is no free will but my heart still wants to believe it.

That seems like the most reasonable explanation. The only way out that I see is having a well functioning prefrontal cortex, since it's the most important thing related to impulse control, that is, control over one's hormonal impulses and acquired psychological conditionings (see e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074642.htm). So better prefrontal cortex function should mean, I think, stronger free will over one's biological impulses.

A fun fact: that's the last part of the human brain develop, which happens when we're around 25, and which also explains why teenagers make such stupid decisions some times.

Check out this paper. It's about something else, but there you can find some easy info on how levels of three different hormones determine which partner you choose and what you feel compelled to do with him or her: http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/neuroenhancement-of-love.pdf

[Dondy]

Me firing a gun is a simple system. Europe in the thirties is a complex system. There are very few factors that could change if the gun were to misfire or not, but a great many by a power of more than trillions involved in whether Europe would go to war or not.

That said, there are certain stronger danger points when war becomes more likely. For example when the GNP of one nation equals and begins to surpass that of another nation with which they share a border they are statistically more likely to go to war than at an other time in their history, and the less international trade there is between the two the more likely they are to go to war. Both WW's in Europe can be regarded as being triggered by the economy of Germany catching up to the economy of Britain.

But there is still absolutely no comparison between the simple system of one pull of a trigger, versus the output of hundreds of factories, and the movement of billions of tons of goods that are involved in the economies of two nations, let alone if you factor in the economies of their allies. A much more even comparison would be between the shot that was fired at Sarajevo and a shot fired by me. The chances of a misfire in each case are probably reasonably close to equal.

[SgtCayir]

fuck bitches get money

[Tonkyhonk]

karma beats free will.

on a serious note, i fancy believing in parallel worlds resulting from multiple choices for some reason.

[Ninijutsu]

Dondy, the desparity between the two examples isn't as significant as it seems. Proportionally, the impact of each element in the system is the same. At least, I think so.

[AnnaC]

*Think of it this way: let's say we copied the state of the universe as it was exactly one year before the beginning of world war 2, as if it were on our computer (to simplify the example). Now, if we pasted this state of the universe into trillions of different identical realities running at the same time, every single one of these realities would end up in world war 2 in a year. It makes logical sense if you think about it a bit.

That's stupid because it assumes causal factors for something like world war two only happen within a year. Such geopolitical events have their foundations formed at much larger timescales than that. If you took that scenario and set it to copy-paste the universe at 1920, a majority of outcomes would likely result in WW2 or similar situation within 20 years.

One problem that makes determinism look strong is the fact that causal events can occur at timescales longer than an individual human can often perceive them. And to understand such factors in causality requires much more effort than we can usually obtain (and things like the assumption that data about the past is accurate enough for any compiled information to be useful). So for functional purpose even hindsight is not 20/20, as they say, so decision making is always made with fundamental gaps in information.

But that's why philosophers have been arguing about causality for centuries if not millenia.

[jcm2214]

I find the very nature of having "quantum deviation" does not give free will either, it simply provides a random probability of the mechanism functioning slightly off of a predictable path, it is still a mechanistic nature nonetheless.

[dagrimreefah]

Unbelievable that this passes for an intellectual conversation nowadays.

[overtyped]

Unbelievable that this passes for an intellectual conversation nowadays.

I don't think that's what this is. This is just everyone throwing their opinion on the subject.