The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion? • Hacker News Board

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#21

Post by kuroguro » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #9

kuroguro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it really matter if parts of your "will" are running on deterministically moving particles or random ones?

Believing in free will or not are different configurations in your mind, leading to different future outcomes. Who are you to disbelieve in anything?

Only pointing out that there's no meaningful convo to be had at hardware/micro level. IMO there is no free will there.

Free will only becomes important on a personal (I do x because it's meaningful to me) or social contexts (I'm responsible for consequences of x action).

I doubt the philosophers are trying to say anything about our day to day lives and that's where most of the opposition is coming from (ie no free will, therefore no meaning in life or responsibilities for anyone).

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#22

Post by zwkrt » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

Shaddox wrote: post #14

I guess this explains why I feel so trapped. Like a pawn to my own circumstances. To live life is to live in servitude. I'm a slave to my own needs of bread, water and circus. To supply this never-ending need I must serve someone else too. I must serve the needs of my family as well : they want and expect things out of me too. So where does that leave me? A never-ending cycle of busy-bodying. I can't even get mad or…

Based on your posting here I’m guessing you actually have enough freedom to be doing almost anything you want but you’ve “trapped” yourself in some awful situation that allows you to abdicate responsibility based on how terrible it is for you.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#23

Post by _y5hn » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

jakobnissen wrote: post #19

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand…

It's like saying higher frames of references can't exist, so they don't exist. The logic fails to prove or disprove unknowns.

Virus don't contemplate their hosts.

Mature minds handle unknowns properly.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#24

Post by JI00912 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

Settled? We don't even understand what 'will' is because we don't understand what it means to think. We haven't began answering the question because we don't know where to start.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#25

Post by stubish » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

I think it is the other way around. Taking the standard meaning of free will, you have to add the caveat 'where the choice is not determined by past events'.

Anyway, you are free to chose your definition (and I bet I can predict what yours will be).

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#26

Post by nvader » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:07 AM UTC

Shaddox wrote: post #14

I guess this explains why I feel so trapped. Like a pawn to my own circumstances. To live life is to live in servitude. I'm a slave to my own needs of bread, water and circus. To supply this never-ending need I must serve someone else too. I must serve the needs of my family as well : they want and expect things out of me too. So where does that leave me? A never-ending cycle of busy-bodying. I can't even get mad or…

I've been playing a bit of chess lately. The rules of the game are deterministic, and the best engines have solved many positions completely. Nevertheless, it's still fun to play, for me. I'm trying to play the most optimal move, and yet, nevertheless, what comes out, is the most nvader move. I don't have the free will not to choose as myself.

But I still get to be a part of some really fun games. I still feel shame if I blunder a piece, or the thrill of hunting down a vulnerable king.

And every so often, a pawn makes it to the back rank and promotes to win the game.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#27

Post by danbruc » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

jakobnissen wrote: post #19

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand…

The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand that argument.

It is moving the goal post because it just changes the definition of free will into some triviality. I had a choice between apples and oranges and I picked the apple because I like apples more. Sure, you can call this free will if you want to but what is the point? The max function had a choice between 1 and 2 and picked 2 because it likes bigger numbers more.

Maybe you want to contrast the above situation with a situation where the apples are sold out or someone forces you at gunpoint to pick the orange. But this is now an entirely different thing, now we are talking about external constraints. And you can move into all kinds of directions and define free will to be this or that but the result will always be kind of trivial.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#28

Post by dlkf » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

jakobnissen wrote: post #19

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand…

The point of disagreement here probably boils down to the perceived significance of what you're calling "free will" in your final sentence (as opposed to "magical supernatural free will").

On my view it is literally nothing. It's the tautological observation that agents with desires, uninhibited, can and will seek to satisfy those desires. It gives us no grounds for responsibility, punishment, etc etc. (Those are all good things, but their justification has to come from elsewhere.)

But by continuing to call it "free will," you're invoking the intuitions that many people have regarding the magical bullshit variety, and laundering those intuitions/feelings into the new discussion.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#29

Post by _y5hn » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

stubish wrote: post #25

dlkf wrote: post #10

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we…

I think it is the other way around. Taking the standard meaning of free will, you have to add the caveat 'where the choice is not determined by past events'. Anyway, you are free to chose your definition (and I bet I can predict what yours will be).

All actions are in the chain of events of prior actions. Humans knowing what future actions might look like, decide to counteract believed future actions. It is basic to sentient life. Such actions may break the illusion of karma, by employing dharma, which is divine, from a higher frame of reference.

The absolutists are going to explode.

Re: The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?

#30

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 9:18 AM UTC

_y5hn wrote: post #23

jakobnissen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand…

It's like saying higher frames of references can't exist, so they don't exist. The logic fails to prove or disprove unknowns. Virus don't contemplate their hosts. Mature minds handle unknowns properly.

However, is properly exactly the same as deterministically?

Injecting non-determinism makes the question of free will rather funny, in that the standard argument "you would not choose differently" does not work as the act of traveling back in time injects further nondeterministic results...

Under non-determinism, free will would be something like changing location of probability wells for actions. Our brains do that structurally and chemically all the time, and not particularly deterministically either. (Chemistry is involved.)

On the other hand, posing free will as decision theoretic choice, you're facing an outcome of statistical masses of decisions a lot of which are not observable. Philosophically simplifying it to binary choice ends up with absurd results.