Formerly /u/Zalack on Reddit.e

Also Zalack@kbin.social

  • 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2023

help-circle














  • I agree with the other poster that you need to define what you even mean when you say free will. IMO, strict determinism is not incompatible with free will. It only provides the mechanism. I posted this in another thread where this came up:

    The implications of quantum mechanics just reframes what it means to not have free will.

    In classical physics, given the exact same setup you make the exact same choice every time.

    In Quantum mechanics, given the same exact setup, you make the same choice some percentage of the time.

    One is you being an automaton while the other is you being a flipped coin. Neither of those really feel like free will.

    Except.

    We are looking at this through an implied assumption that the brain is some mechanism, separate from “us”, which we are forced to think “through”. That the mechanisms of the brain are somehow distorting or restricting what the underlying self can do.

    But there is no deeper “self”. We are the brain. We are the chemical cascade bouncing around through the neurons. We are the kinetic billiard balls of classical physics and the probability curves of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic and we would always have the same response to the same input or if it’s statistical and we just have a baked “likelihood” of that response.

    The way we respond or the biases that inform that likelihood is still us making a choice, because we are that underlying mechanism. Whether it’s deterministic or not it’s just an implementation detail of free will, not a counterargument.


  • Zalack@startrek.websitetointernet funeral@lemmy.worldDeep and pertinent title
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Looking past the technobabble…

    The implications of quantum mechanics just reframes what it means to not have free will.

    In classical physics, given the exact same setup you make the exact same choice every time.

    In Quantum mechanics, given the same exact setup, you make the same choice some percentage of the time.

    One is you being an automaton while the other is you being a flipped coin. Neither of those really feel like free will.

    Except.

    We are looking at this through a kind of implied metaphor that the brain is some mechanism, separate from “us” that we are forced to think "through’. That the mechanisms of the brain are somehow distorting or restricting what the underlying self can do.

    But there is no deeper “self”. We are the brain. We are the chemical cascade bouncing around through the neurons. We are the kinetic billiard balls of classical physics and the probability curves of quantum mechanics. It doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic and we would always have the same response to the same input or if it’s statistical and we just have a baked “likelihood” of that response.

    The way we respond or the biases that inform that likelihood is still us making a choice, because we are that underlying mechanism. Whether it’s deterministic or not it’s just an implementation detail of free will, not a counterargument.


  • Zalack@startrek.websitetoMemes@lemmy.mlWinning is relative
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This reminded me of an old joke:

    Two economists are walking down the street with their friend when they come across a fresh, streaming pile of dog shit. The first economist jokingly tells the other “I’ll give you a million dollars if you eat that pile of dog shit”. To his surprise, the second economist grabs it off the ground and eats it without hesitation. A deal is a deal so the first economist hands over a million dollars.

    A few minutes later they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist, wanting to give his peer a taste of his own medicine, says he’ll give the first economist a million dollars if he eats it. The first economist agrees and does so, winning him a million dollars.

    Their friend, rather confused, asks what the point of all this was, the first economist gave the second economist a million dollars, and then the second economist gave it right back. All they’ve accomplished is to eat two piles of shit.

    The two economists look rather taken aback. “Well sure,” they say, “but we’ve grown the economy by two million dollars!”