>free will>a priori>>>/x/
>>16901671Free will is logically impossible
>>16901671Define "freewill."
>>16901747>my strawman of free will is logically impossibleDefine "free will".
>>16901671Define "exists"
>>16901792An element of the world's true state of affairs or an aspect of its unfolding that can be distinctly conceptualized.
>>16901783I'm talking about the average person's idea of free will, i.e. the idea that you could've done otherwise, and not the compatibilist mental gymnastics.>B-but muh quantum randomnessYou don't control that
>>16901798>I'm talking about the average person's ideaAre you "the average person"?>the idea that you could've done otherwiseWhat do you mean by this?
>>16901799>What do you mean by this?Libertarian free willers think that you have the ability to make choices that aren't caused by previous events. And it's not random but you somehow control the uncaused decision. So because your decision wasn't forced by previous events you could've decided otherwise
>>16901803I never understood why retards like that pointed to a past that can't be confirmed to exist. Such idiots.
>>16901803>caused by previous eventsAnd what do you mean by that?> it's not random but you somehow control the uncaused decisionYou never made a single step towards establishing the truth of the dichotomy you're vaguely referencing.
>>16901803This is literally the strawman version of free will you were being mocked for.Nobody believes in "free will" as described in this post.
>>16901830Well, that's the only form of free will that deserves the name.
>>16901834>let me tell you about what [concept I don't believe in and have no coherent idea of] REALLY meansGolems lashing out against other people's agency, nothing more.
>>16901837Let's hear your definition of free will
>>16901839Ability to act in accordance with one's own motivation.
>>16901839For most sane people, I think "free will" is just an intuition about a kind of participatory chaos created by the feedback loop of self-reflection. They know there's a valid distinction to be made between the way a rock rolls down a hill in response to forces and the way a self-aware man makes a deliberate choice in response to external conditions. If you lack this intuition or feel compelled to deny its validity, you are quite simply mentally ill.
>>16901839>>16901841As for Determinist metaphysical fantasies about how reality would unfold in exactly the same way again if you could rewind it... it's not even worth discussing. Determinist dogma has zero intersection with science.
>>16901841>for most sane people>intuition>they know there's a distinction because... there just isNice handwaving. Provide 1 concrete difference between the state of a rock rolling down a hill being the direct result of the state of the individual atoms 1 planck second prior, and the state of neurons in the brain being the direct result of the state of the individual atoms 1 planck second prior.>but muh heisenbergApplies to the atoms in the rock as well.
>>16901839Let's hear Paul Allen's definition of free will.
>>16901747its a definition error.
>>16901851>Provide 1 concrete differenceI literally just did.
>>16901839Don't even bother talking to that retard. It's a completely braindead schizo.
>Don't even bother talking to that retard. It's a completely braindead schizo.Imagine being this mindbroken.
>>16901862Babbling on about intuition is the opposite of concrete, actually.
>>16902203>t. mentally ill retardAnyone who isn't off his meds can see the root of the difference specified in that post.
>>16901671God exists a priori.
>>16902272Your intuition was shaped by evolution. It's not supposed to tell the truth but make you survive longer
>>16902281Your determinitranny intuition was shaped by evolution. It's not supposed to tell the truth but make you survive longer. Also your babble is completely irrelevant. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged.
>>16902284>Your determinitranny intuitionIt's not my intuition, therefore your argument is wrong
>>16902286>It's not my intuition, therefore your argument is wrongYour lack of self-awareness is irrelevant, just like your babble and whatever hallucinated "arguments" you're trying to refute there. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged.
>>16902288I have seen my inability to prove to myself that I'm an agent. I have seen the logical impossibilty of free will. I have no other choice but to discard my intuition.You on the other hand have provided no concrete example that proves otherwise. You're wrong but you can't accept it. That's okay, it's just another evolutionary defense mechanism
>>16902278Which god? The one who ate your foreskin?
>>16902295Yes, that one.
>>16902292>feminine anecdotal self-indulgenceYour babble is irrelevant. The difference you asked for is clearly stated and remains unchallenged. You concede it every time you fail to challenge it and go off masturbating your little intellectual clitty instead.
>>16902292>I have no other choice, but this one choiceSo you have free will.Shut the fuck up, jesus christ you retard.
>>16902301>So you have free will.I just said that I have no choice and without a reason (which you continue to fail to provide) I literally can't change my opinion.
>>16902298Yuck
>>16902303I'm not the same anon you've been talking to schizo. And yes, you literally fucking just said you have no choice, but- and then stated the choice to be made. If it's a fucking choice at all, then you have the power to make choices, which means you have free will. If you didn't have free will, you're not making decisions.You're fucking stupid and don't want to just shut the fuck up because you get dopamine from every reply, but this is the last one you'll get from me. I just wanted to make sure you understood there's more than one person reading your stupid tripe and finds people like you to be fucking insufferable fart-huffing twats.
>>16902308It's just your intuition, shaped by evolution, telling you I'm a fart-huffing twat. If you truly have free will, why can't you choose to understand that I am extremely intelligent?
>>16902308NTA but you're retarded.
>>16902308NTA but you got owned by TA. We can all see that.
>>16902308>And yes, you literally fucking just said you have no choice, but- and then stated the choice to be madeNTA but that's just language. That anon probably doesn't want to change the entire language to make it more precise. Therefore your argument falls flat on its face.
>>16902303I think what he's trying to rub your nose in, is the fact that even as you assert that you've discarded some intuition, you talk and act like someone that still has this intuition and is choosing to discard it as a matter of reasoned choice, to contrast with those dummies with their evolutionary instincts. Imagine living in such a state of permanent dissonance and being oblivious to it even as the contradictions keep springing out of you at the least convenient times for your gay little argument.
>>16902312>>16902314>>16902318Thank you for the gold, kind strangers.
my farts smell like cat food sometimesthat means I have no free will, obviously
>>16902329Your farts have free will because they made the conscious choice to emit the smell of cat food
>Your farts have free will because they made the conscious choice to emit the smell of cat food
>>16902333the smell of cat food has no free will because my farts reek so bad dude it's unreal my eyes are watering and burning right now its so awful
>>16902338Actually, it had free will before you smelled it and collapsed the fart free will wavefunction.
>>16902341Alright Sir Roger Penrose, time for bed. Let's get you a warm bottle and your blanket.
>>16901671there is no argument for free will except "jesus said so in the biblerino"
>>16902321I had a moment where it was really obvious that just because there's a thought that says I made a choice doesn't mean that a choice was actually made. A thought can say whatever, doesn't mean it's true. I mean just look at dreams. You're in absolutely absurd situations but the thoughts that this situation is absurd and impossible just doesn't come up so it seems completely normal.And promptly after that realization I was kicked back into shape by existential terror. That's the mechanism that forces me to behave like an agent right now even though it's not rational but the alternative feels like death.So it's all conditioned by evolution and I can't escape even though I know how it works.
Putting aside the mouth-breathing redditors and their cancerous opinions about free will, Norton's Dome (OP's pic) is interesting in its own right. The thing about this setup is that it's spawned into its hypothetical existence with the ball already in just the right place. This is standard fare for a physics problem, of course, and shouldn't make a difference to its analysis. But in this case I think it actually does, by construction.Imagine if you had to actually put the ball in place, and to do so by some Newtonian means. If you roll it uphill until it's perfectly balanced, then surely it would come down the way it came, because Netwonian mechanics is time-reversible. Or you can imagine trying to hover the ball into place using the right application of forces, but how would you even know where the right place is, without some kind of feedback from your ball-on-a-dome system? One way or another, if you conceive of this setup as having come about through some legitimate physical means, instead of Norton's T=0 being literally the beginning of the Dome Universe, the source of the non-determinism is epistemological: the ball will roll back down whichever way it came, but if you don't know which way that is, every direction is as good as any other going solely by Newton's laws. T=0 is set in a way that erases the knowledge needed to determine a single outcome.
>>16902358>look at me stroke my little intellectual clitty>just because i think and act contrary to my stated beliefs doesn't mean my beliefs aren't heckin' trueThis doesn't refute anything in the post you replied to.
>>16902364non-determinism doesn't exist, simple as :)
>>16902368Can you be more precise?>>16902364I will now consult Norton's Dome for all of my decisions. This will grant me perfect free will
>then surely it would come down the way it came, because Netwonian mechanics is time-reversibleHoly shit this is wrong on so many levels.This is what happens when you drop out of high school and become a braindead schizo on 4chan/sci/ arguing for idealism or some other mental illness.
>>16902370>>16902372>t. mentally ill retard
>>16902374>t. mentally ill retard in an especially clownish and obvious bout of projection
>>16902384you replied to metherefore you have no free willidiotic christcuck :)
>>16902364If someone who actually understands this problem better than me wants to explain how I'm wrong, I'm interested to hear it. If you just magically (thought-experimentally) know where the apex is (or, equivalently, what forces to apply to get the ball into position) you can achieve Norton's setup and run into corresponding problem. But what if you don't know and you have to find it by some process, however idealized, that adheres to Newton's laws? There's no limit to how close you can get, but no matter how close, the ball should always just roll back down the way it came for any level of precision. No matter how fast you converge on that apex, you'd have to cross the threshold of infinity before you ever see the ball rolling some other way.
>>16901671philosophy is for >>>/his/
>>16902440This. So much this.This thread probably kicked a frog thread from the catalog. The horror. Apologize to the frog thread creator right now
