3 ms·

> physics eliminate the possibility of free will Go do some physics - then come back to me. > why are you even bothering to tell us this? I don't know. There

> physics eliminate the possibility of free will Go do some physics - then come back to me. > why are you even bothering to tell us this? I don't know. There really isn't any point to it. I'm not here to convince you. > taking any action in life I'm programmed to take actions - 4 billion years of evolution tends to do that. > self-perceived intellectual superiority and ability to transcend it all recognized. Never said I was smarter than anyone. Just said that people were wrong. There is a difference.

ajuc 14y ago
Are people that use Newtonian physics to calculate bilard ball movement also wrong? They know theorethically they should use general relativity, but they also know it won't change the result in any meaningful way. So they optimize it away. Thinking of yourself as probability function interconnected with the whole universe all the time must be pretty inconvenient for you. Why not simplify it to "this factors are ME, and the rest it external Universe, and the interactions can be rounded to work mostly like Newton said. Bonus - your algorithm now knows almost exactly which parts of that function are under his direct control. It's very useful model, why not use it? We're not sure our current best model is The Truth anyway. And notion of free will is another useful simplification. You already think in its terms (English is impossible to use otherways).
winter_blue 14y ago
> Go do some physics - then come back to me. I've actually thought about this a long time ago -- back in high school, and came to the conclusion that if everything were to follow a certain set of "laws", then indeed free will wouldn't exist. But that isn't the case. Have you heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for starters? If not, look more deeply into physics. After a certain point, the "laws" stop governing, and probability takes over. Probability leaves room for multiple possiblities -- a.k.a. choice. I can't say an electron chooses to be at position X at time T, but I can say that the fact that you can't determine it's positions and that it does tend to be "wherever it wants" within a certain range, hints at something of the kind. For more lookup the "Free Will Theorem": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
- confluence 14y ago
  QM has Schrödinger's equation at its core - and it is deterministic.

ajuc 14y ago

Are people that use Newtonian physics to calculate bilard ball movement also wrong? They know theorethically they should use general relativity, but they also know it won't change the result in any meaningful way. So they optimize it away. Thinking of yourself as probability function interconnected with the whole universe all the time must be pretty inconvenient for you. Why not simplify it to "this factors are ME, and the rest it external Universe, and the interactions can be rounded to work mostly like Newton said. Bonus - your algorithm now knows almost exactly which parts of that function are under his direct control. It's very useful model, why not use it? We're not sure our current best model is The Truth anyway. And notion of free will is another useful simplification. You already think in its terms (English is impossible to use otherways).

winter_blue 14y ago

> Go do some physics - then come back to me. I've actually thought about this a long time ago -- back in high school, and came to the conclusion that if everything were to follow a certain set of "laws", then indeed free will wouldn't exist. But that isn't the case. Have you heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle for starters? If not, look more deeply into physics. After a certain point, the "laws" stop governing, and probability takes over. Probability leaves room for multiple possiblities -- a.k.a. choice. I can't say an electron chooses to be at position X at time T, but I can say that the fact that you can't determine it's positions and that it does tend to be "wherever it wants" within a certain range, hints at something of the kind. For more lookup the "Free Will Theorem": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

confluence 14y ago
QM has Schrödinger's equation at its core - and it is deterministic.