Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sculptasquad t1_j8sv6hp wrote

Reply to comment by jonathanrdt in No second law of entanglement manipulation after all | Nature Physics by Memetic1

Yupp. No such thing as free will.

Edit - Prove me wrong.

1

Memetic1 OP t1_j8swv62 wrote

I think just like space/time free will is most easily understood as an emergent phenomenon.

3

atremblein t1_j8v1qzz wrote

Free will may as well exist since it wouldn't matter if it didn't.

0

[deleted] t1_j8t1rpq wrote

[removed]

−5

Memetic1 OP t1_j8t5p7j wrote

Conways game of life is technically deterministic, but it's also true that if you have certain states there are multiple ways you can get to the same state. There are ways things can be both determinism and practically impossible to predict.

1

Sculptasquad t1_j8t7721 wrote

And unpredictability does not imply freedom.

−3

Memetic1 OP t1_j8t8nls wrote

Maybe but it's pretty close in my book.

4

Sculptasquad t1_j8tah3g wrote

Pretty close to 1 does not equal 1. This is r/science provide evidence to support the existence of free will or accept that you have no cause to believe in it.

Edit - Actually no, 1.9999... only equals 2 if we assume that infinity exists. If we have a limited number of "nines" the equation does not equal 2.

So to make the claim that 1.999 recurring equals 2 you would first have to prove the existence of real infinity, not just a theoretical/mathematical infinity.

−4

MacDegger t1_j8tc4hy wrote

Pretty close to 1 actually DOES equal 1.

Google it.

1

Sculptasquad t1_j8tkj58 wrote

Yes, but not free will does not equal free will right?

Nor does theoretical mathematics provide any evidence to suggest that free will exists. Or am I wrong?

Edit - Actually no, 1.9999... only equals 2 if we assume that infinity exists. If we have a limited number of "nines" the equation does not equal 2.

So to make the claim that 1.999 recurring equals 2 you would first have to prove the existence of real infinity, not just a theoretical/mathematical infinity.

1

Adorable_Class_4733 t1_j8v0jd4 wrote

You're looking at this from a dualistic lens. It doesn't have to be either no free will or completely free will... Just like freedom of speech doesn't have to be completely free or completely censored... It's on a spectrum Perhaps we have some limited form of agency which is deterministic and yet unpredictable/undecidable Basically. If we copy pasted this universe and observed how the two would evolve over time. We would expect them to remain identical, because that's what deterministic means yet we would not be able to predict human behavior. As close to free will as it gets without involving the supernatural and the idea of a soul that is immaterial...

0

Sculptasquad t1_j8vcsi4 wrote

>It's on a spectrum Perhaps we have some limited form of agency which is deterministic and yet unpredictable/undecidable Basically.

If you have to do what the diceroll/random number generator/coin flip tells you, you do not have free will. You have random will. Sure if you redefine free will to mean not free will you can have all the free will you want...

1

Adorable_Class_4733 t1_j8vczez wrote

I see your point. I think what I meant is that free will and having agency aren't mutually inclusive. You can have agency and no absolute free will .

2

Sculptasquad t1_j8vddz4 wrote

Sure. Agency is just the state of being active. Any robot, machine or stone rolling down a hill has agency.

The issue is that we are all just small portions of the big machine or lifeform of the universe. You can imagine us as individual blood cells within the body of the universe. The universe programmed our brains bound by physical determinism and set us off.

We are only experienceing what the universe set in motion eons ago.

1

arcosapphire t1_j8u466n wrote

> Edit - Prove me wrong.

Oh, I could. But I don't want to.

1

valhalos t1_j8uhd47 wrote

I wish you would/could... Well played.

2

Sculptasquad t1_j8vaq9j wrote

"I argue like a five year old and think it is a mic-drop."

1

arcosapphire t1_j8vc3nn wrote

Uh, dude. It was a joke. Because "I don't want to" is along the lines of exercising free will. Get it?

I think we're all well aware that there is no empirical test of free will. There's nothing to argue either way. So I was making a funny, you see?

Eesh.

1

Sculptasquad t1_j8vcvkk wrote

There is nothing to argue? Great take here on r/science...

1

arcosapphire t1_j8vdho6 wrote

Do you understand what unfalsifiable means? There is no scientific test for free will.

Acknowledging what is beyond the scope of science is indeed appropriate for r/science. But I'm thinking you're just a troll.

1