4 ms·

> not be possible to reliably predict a human being's actions in advance. That's also true for purely deterministic systems. Basically any complex deterministi

> not be possible to reliably predict a human being's actions in advance. That's also true for purely deterministic systems. Basically any complex deterministic system (and quite a few relatively simple ones) you very quickly get to a point where you can't predict future behavior. On top of that, showing exactly the issues with metaphysical "free will", this corollary has a lot of constraints that are also poorly defined. For example if a person's behavior were entirely unpredictable (i.e. completely random) we would also say that they don't have free will. Therefore there is only a subset of unpredictable behaviors we would say follow from free will but that subset is just as tricky to pin down as the notion of free will itself. "Free will" only makes sense in a particular moral world view with plenty of axioms most people would agree don't hold for them. It's also worth clarifying that "free will" only becomes problematic to define in when it is posed as a metaphysical issue. We clearly have very useful, practical definitions of free will such as not holding people accountable for doing something when held at gun point.

whatshisface 5y ago
The difference between quickly getting to a point where you can't forecast the weather, and the fact that you can't predict wavefunction collapse at all, is significant on a more than metaphysical level. Figuring out which bucket human beings fall in to is a legitimate question.
- time_to_smile 5y ago
  > the weather > wavefunction Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? > Figuring out which bucket human beings fall in to is a legitimate question. That may be true, but it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the ill-defined notion of "free will". I'm also not familiar with anyone who views human behavior to be anything like a collapsing wave form so I'm not entirely sure this is a "legitimate" question since I'm not sure there is any evidence or support for the one side of the argument (though I'm always up for pointers to arguments about this).
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    >Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? Of the two that would be the wave functions, some of which are people, and people are what's argued to have free will. >That may be true, but it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the ill-defined notion of "free will". Nondeterminism in physics is the space that free will is allowed to fill, and if there was none, there would be no room for free will. >I'm also not familiar with anyone who views human behavior to be anything like a collapsing wave form Human beings are physical systems, quite chaotic at that. It is possible that deep inside your brain, decisions turn on molecular events that are uncertain due to quantum mechanics. Evidence for free will? Not really, but it's a hole in determinism that makes false the statement, "physics leaves no room for free will."
  - gfody 5y ago
    > Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? both, see the free will theorem from Conway and Kochen

whatshisface 5y ago

The difference between quickly getting to a point where you can't forecast the weather, and the fact that you can't predict wavefunction collapse at all, is significant on a more than metaphysical level. Figuring out which bucket human beings fall in to is a legitimate question.

time_to_smile 5y ago
> the weather > wavefunction Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? > Figuring out which bucket human beings fall in to is a legitimate question. That may be true, but it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the ill-defined notion of "free will". I'm also not familiar with anyone who views human behavior to be anything like a collapsing wave form so I'm not entirely sure this is a "legitimate" question since I'm not sure there is any evidence or support for the one side of the argument (though I'm always up for pointers to arguments about this).
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? Of the two that would be the wave functions, some of which are people, and people are what's argued to have free will. >That may be true, but it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the ill-defined notion of "free will". Nondeterminism in physics is the space that free will is allowed to fill, and if there was none, there would be no room for free will. >I'm also not familiar with anyone who views human behavior to be anything like a collapsing wave form Human beings are physical systems, quite chaotic at that. It is possible that deep inside your brain, decisions turn on molecular events that are uncertain due to quantum mechanics. Evidence for free will? Not really, but it's a hole in determinism that makes false the statement, "physics leaves no room for free will."
- gfody 5y ago
  > Which of these are commonly accepted (or even argued by a sizable minority) to have free will in a metaphysical sense? both, see the free will theorem from Conway and Kochen