4 ms·

> Take a look at these three statements [...] they cannot all be true Okay, so we have to kill one. The easiest one to kill is > It is possible to make free

by 08-15 6y ago

> Take a look at these three statements [...] they cannot all be true Okay, so we have to kill one. The easiest one to kill is > It is possible to make free choices. In other words, quantum mechanics is incompatible with free will. This is clearly shocking to any physicist who believes in Free Will (as defined by philosophers thousands of years ago). But hasn't Free Will been recognized as nonsense for at least two centuries by now?

katmannthree 6y ago
> But hasn't Free Will been recognized as nonsense for at least two centuries by now? Among some, sure and it's not just physicists [1]. Acknowledging that the concept we've called free will is not likely to be real has some troubling implications regarding how we've structured our society which is likely one of the reasons it's not talked about very often. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhVe8dKNSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhVe8dKNSA
- elwell 6y ago
  The members of a system can 'experience' free will from their perspective, but it's a still a deterministic line of causation; their free will is part of the determinism.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
We, the figures of your imaginative simulation, have free will, but have decided that you do not.
tsimionescu 6y ago
In fact, all statistical experiments, from clinical trials to observations of Bell's Inequality depend on the idea that there exists either free will or true randomness (and that we can base our decisions on that source of randomness). If neither exist, then there is no such thing as statistically independent events, and no way to make statistical observations (since that would imply that your choice of what to measure would always be correlated with the result of your measurement).
- 08-15 6y ago
  > either free will or true randomness Isn't unpredictability enough?
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    No, you need statistical independence of the measurement choice to the measured quantity. In superdeterminism, this is not possible.

by 08-15 6y ago

katmannthree 6y ago

> But hasn't Free Will been recognized as nonsense for at least two centuries by now? Among some, sure and it's not just physicists [1]. Acknowledging that the concept we've called free will is not likely to be real has some troubling implications regarding how we've structured our society which is likely one of the reasons it's not talked about very often. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhVe8dKNSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihhVe8dKNSA

elwell 6y ago
The members of a system can 'experience' free will from their perspective, but it's a still a deterministic line of causation; their free will is part of the determinism.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

We, the figures of your imaginative simulation, have free will, but have decided that you do not.

tsimionescu 6y ago

In fact, all statistical experiments, from clinical trials to observations of Bell's Inequality depend on the idea that there exists either free will or true randomness (and that we can base our decisions on that source of randomness). If neither exist, then there is no such thing as statistically independent events, and no way to make statistical observations (since that would imply that your choice of what to measure would always be correlated with the result of your measurement).

08-15 6y ago
> either free will or true randomness Isn't unpredictability enough?
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  No, you need statistical independence of the measurement choice to the measured quantity. In superdeterminism, this is not possible.