General / Off-Topic So... Do we have free will? :)

I really don't want to sound harsh, and personally i don't have anything against you, so take the following with a pinch of salt:

You are constantly derailing this thread with theological remarks that have nothing to do with this topic,
and you write "how is this possible" ... how is what possible? You recite lines from text written by people who had the clear intention to create some sort of obedient-system
to get people to act the way they would have liked them to be like. Religion is merely the predecessor of modern laws. With the difference that not a judge will make a verdict, but a god.
And back then i can imagine a lot of people being scared of that.
But even that is beside the point, if you want to lead a religious discussion about creationism,
as long as the Forum rules allow, why not open a separate thread on that topic, cause it clearly has little to do with THIS topic.


If anyone takes offense in my statements, this is a debate, in a debate i usually prioritise argumentation over personal feelings or the person who my argument(s) is directed at.
It still only reflects my own worldviews even if i don't say that in every sentence.
I take no offense to any challenging debate, as it helps me understand the angles in which to approach a subject matter...
more often than not... i approach from a biblical angle... whether it be common sense, common knowledge, and when applicable use science in support of!!

you make the arguement i derail the thread when i use my biblical based knowledge... yet i constantly use logic and common-sense and common knowledge more than i use scripture... this is for your benefit... however you perceive that it is biblically based
each of us have the ability to express the knowledge which we are armed with.... you too can utilise scripture if you so choose..
the fact that you dont... is not my loss

if i challenge your thinking... it will either make you go ahhhhhhh!!!! or aaarrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!
emotions aside you will either accept or reject whats presented!!
this is the essence of free will!!
 
Yeah, it's all about how much data is available in order to calculate or predict a certain phenomenon.

This is a little besides your point, but the more accurate data a simulation is fed, the more accurate its predictions become.
I really like the concept of a simulation, and the weather data is a very good example here. In the past two decades weather simulation has evolved a lot,
and if you look at it, it's still just about 60% accurate, if even. If we had 50 fold the calculation power the current simulations are using, we could make weather predictions that would be 99,9% accurate, because what current simulations lack is the ability to calculate every molecule and its interaction and dependency on other molecules' behaviour (temp,agility,composition,deflection,radiation influence, etc.).

I also think that the known universe is a predictable clockwork, we did make quite some advacements towards explaining certain phenomena by means of simulation
(like the inevitable merge of Milky Way and Andromeda, which will tear both galaxies apart)
But in order to predict, you need a lot more data than we have available.
People in a 2000 years ahead might wonder how we even managed to survive without knowing what's going to happen next (figure of speech)

However, biologically the human body will one day have no more mysteries to us, the mind will always remain a mystery, though.
You can predict how someone might react, even by only applying logic and psychology,
but i don't think it will ever be possible to foresee someone's future by starting up a simulation.


I hope that's not too confusing, watching Netflix on the other screen so i'm a bit distracted :D
My point is, there is no accuracy, at least no 100% and never will be - can't be. If modern theories turn out to be correct, then quantum fluctuation played a decisive role in the early universe. As you probably know, that's a highly unpredictable thing (you can only measure one aspect in the quantum world: impuls or location but never both) that created (and still does!) unpredictable diversity that had 13.8 Billion years to build upon. So down to a certain resolution you'll never will have absolute accuracy, only statistical fields of probabilities. That's what I think is the main reason for the true diversity in nature and cosm, something that no simulation will ever be able to calculate and this idea of "no more mysteries" is - fortunately - an illusion.

I'm sure you will understand these things better when you read up about quantum fluctuation, virtual particles and newest insides about the background radiation of the universe. There are quite a lot of interesting articles in the net.

Note, these are not my opinions, it's what a vast majority of current physicists agree upon. Personally, I have an alternate idea that builds upon quantum fluctuation but comes without the big bang. But since I'm no physicist and don't have the tools to prove it, it would be foolhardy to question these theories. So I am here just parroting something that I'm not totally behind. :( Nevertheless, both theories, the current scientifically accepted and mine forbids the possibility of a totally deterministic world.

Btw, there was an interesting, nowadays almost forgotten book from Victor Soucek "UNGLEICHHEIT VOM ATOM ZUM KOSMOS. Das Schneeflockenprinzip." Unfortunately only in German and even then not easy to purchase (I only found one used exemplar and lost my own one). The English translation of the title would read "INEQUALITY FROM ATOM TO COSMOS. The snowflake principle." This man was far ahead of his time, unfortunately never got the attention he deserved. But that's what I'm talking about here: INEQUALITY as a cosmic principle that trickles into the tiniest structures. In his book he proves why the universe and nature couldn't exist without that principle. I guess it never got that popular because it must have been quite frustrating to most physicists as it basically defined the boundaries of predictability and calculability. Today it could give the answer why modern astrophysics still relies on such strange auxiliary constructions like dark matter and dark energy (and, that's my personal opinion, even on the big bang theory).
 
Last edited:
that's not the point. the point is if the system could theoretically be predicted given no constraints, because that would confirm how it works. actually our ability to predict has increased exponentially and solely thanks to the increase of information and our means to use it. we do not know how this will be in future, but for now everything points in this direction, while there is no evidence whatsoever that there exists some independent entity that could bend the rules of pyshics, i.e. act out of sheer will. the whole construct is an entelechy. read on.
That's all well enough, up to the point where you seem to derive from the exponential character of scientific progress that at some point in the future this process of increasing knowledge will come to a final end. If you follow modern physics, especially quantum- and astrophysics, you will realise that all new insides lead to a plethora of new questions - also in an exponential way! You know, like in the classic thought experiment of the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.
And never forget, theories are just theories - until they are disproven by new theories and/or improved instruments. But that's the beauty of science in contrary to religions: it never stops just because someone believes it has to stop... :D

is that a real question? :D
Why not, what's wrong with that question? It's not that I wouldn't know a few possible answers but sincerely I don't know, I only could speculate.
 
Last edited:
Read the first pages, these last ones have honestly been pretty bad.
Yeah, I agree with this. I just got home from a long day at work and reviewed the first part of this thread and found some of it to be quite good. Not good enough to convince me of my own lack of free will, but definitely some well thought out positions compared to where the conversation ended up going. I enjoy a lot of what Piccomander has been bringing to the table most recently.
 
Yeah, I agree with this. I just got home from a long day at work and reviewed the first part of this thread and found some of it to be quite good. Not good enough to convince me of my own lack of free will, but definitely some well thought out positions compared to where the conversation ended up going. I enjoy a lot of what Piccomander has been bringing to the table most recently.
TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.
 
TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.
Same here.
 
TBH I'm unsure, I really thought that Newtonian Physics were completely deterministic but later on I read that may not be the case since differential equations may have multiple solutions or in other words, different possible outcomes. The debate will keep going and regardless, I'll act as if free will exists even if it happens to not exist.
When you solve Einstein's equations locally and at low speeds, they spit out Newton.
Once we solve how to incorporate gravity into quantum theory, solving quantum equations for massive objects and high speeds will point back to Einstein.
It's all one and the same. A part of the universal wave function. We know bits and pieces but it's like looking at the meadow through a pinhole. You see something here, something there and if you put one and one together, you can kind of guess how the whole meadow looks like, but it's not the same as looking at it in its entirety.
Maybe one day. We will see the meadow and even understand how it works with all the flowers and insects and deer grazing grass. :)
 
When you solve Einstein's equations locally and at low speeds, they spit out Newton.
Once we solve how to incorporate gravity into quantum theory, solving quantum equations for massive objects and high speeds will point back to Einstein.
It all one and the same. A part of the universal wave function. We know bits and pieces but it's like looking at the meadow through a pinhole. You see something here, something there and if you put one and one together, you can kind of guess how the whole meadow look like, but it's not the same as looking at it in its entirety.
Maybe one day. :)
String theory for the win.
 
However, biologically the human body will one day have no more mysteries to us, the mind will always remain a mystery, though.
I don't find these to be compatible statements. The mind is what the brain performs and the brain is a physical, biological, construct of very finite complexity. If we understand neurology in sufficient detail, we'll understand the mind.

Perhaps we won't be able to account for the unpredictability of quantum effects well enough to make a simulated mind that performs as a perfectly accurate facsimile of the mind it was based on (whether biological or other), but we will definitely understand it as well as we can understand anything.
 
... i approach from a biblical angle... whether it be common sense, common knowledge, and when applicable use science in support of!!
Science and common sense have little to do with biblical angles.

.... this is for your benefit...
To my benefit? Is that an insult or just naivity?
I think you are very naive to think you can convince someone into believing something you believe in.
I can also argument to "your benefit" but you will surely not see it that way ;)
There is no god, period. But i'm not gonna be in your face about it, you can believe in whatever you like,
BUT when you try to push it, i will say my opinion loud and clear. You're not the first to try that, surely not the last,
but be advised most of these people eventually got quite the verbal slap from me.


each of us have the ability to express the knowledge which we are armed with.... you too can utilise scripture if you so choose..
the fact that you dont... is not my loss
It certainly ain't my loss either. And don't even try to make believe religion is knowledge, it's belief, nothing more nothing less.
Scriptures haven't in the slightest anything to do with knowledge,
unless it's the kind of knowledge a Trekkie or Star Wars fan would have about the lore of their story universe.
But if you want to make believe how Theology is anything like science, i think you are making a fool of yourself.

Serious question, how old are you?

Not that it's any of your business, but in my lifetime i've experienced more than a fair share of life and death,
i've seen the best and the worst humanity can bring up.
And one thing i always noticed is how religion makes people think they have an afterlife, how they are guided by a higher entitiy that judges over them,
which makes people become lazy about making the best of their lifes WHILE THEY LIVE. Which is absurd.
But then again, it's every one's own choice what they do with their lives.


if i challenge your thinking... it will either make you go ahhhhhhh!!!! or aaarrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!
emotions aside you will either accept or reject whats presented!!
this is the essence of free will!!
You're not challenging anything here, except for your own personal challenge to try and convince me of something i can't be convinced of,
You're only making me wonder for how much longer this planet will have to endure the clamp of religion.

Oh wait, you are challenging something in me, my ability to stay calm and nice.
So without further ado, i will not discuss religion in this thread anymore.
Open a new thread if you want to discuss theology or scriptures,
i'm sure some will join you in the conversation, but continuing to do so here will only result in everyone ignoring you here.
 
We exist in a Multiverse. that's an infinite number of universes where every meaningful decision of every autonomous creature that ever exist(s)ed creates alternatives, in ways we do not (as yet) understand.

The prob is, we aren't built to understand "Infinite".
 
We exist in a Multiverse. that's an infinite number of universes where every meaningful decision of every autonomous creature that ever exist(s)ed creates alternatives, in ways we do not (as yet) understand.

The prob is, we aren't built to understand "Infinite".
I also like the multiverse theory, but with regards to OP question it can be understood either way.
1) thanks to infinite branching the free will (ability to make choices) is infinite
2) as we are following branch after branch linearly, there's effectively NO free will, because we can't decide based on anything else but our branch and can't experience consequences beyond our own branch. (I.e. "although there effectively was a point of choosing, we now live in a branch where only one choice exists (the one we "chose")" - the collective multiverse me each chose differently, but we now live in a universe where only our one choice was ever real)

:LOL:
 
Last edited:
I also like the multiverse theory, but with regards to OP question it can be understood either way.
1) thanks to infinite branching the free will (ability to make choices) is infinite
2) as we are following branch after branch linearly, there's effectively NO free will, because we can't decide based on anything else but our branch and can't experience consequences beyond our own branch. (I.e. "although there effectively was a point of choosing, we now live in a branch where only one choice exists (the one we "chose")" - the collective multiverse me each chose differently, but we now live in a universe where only our one choice was ever real)

:LOL:
If MWI is correct, then any event will cause a split of the Universe, meaning that considering the amount of events, the linear part of the branch, will be "infinitely" small compared to the time it takes the brain to make a choice. The weird thing is that you continue in two separate minds after each split, but right now in this moment, you only perceive one. That could mean that the "meaning of life" could turn out to be a matter of always keeping on track with the version of you, that makes the right choices. Then it all becomes rather close to what we experience with our consciousness and our feeling of being able to choose. Highly speculative I know, but whereas causal determinism closed the door on free will, MWI opens it slightly, even if it's yet only a hypothesis. Anything concerning free will is also just a hypothesis at this particular moment of branching. ;)
 
Top Bottom