What is free will? Is it real?

>>8502511
Free will is your will being bound only to itself/you.

>>8502511
It's real enough. You can make choices, but the choices were predetermined. As long as there's no way to perfectly predict these things, free will is can seem real.

>>8502551
How are they predetermined?

>>8502551
>choices were predetermined
You blew it. Idiots I swear.

>>8502560
>>8502562
Because the universe is deterministic and the future already exists. This is one of the leading theories guys.

>>8502583
>the universe is deterministic
Lets just contradict every advancement in physics post QM

>>8502596
what do they say?

indeterminism doesn't change the situation for free will anyway.

Every decision we make is meaningless because somewhere, on a parallel Earth, we have already made the opposite choice. We're nothing. Less than nothing.

>>8502651
does determinism mean that this conversation has been predetermined to happen?

>>8502651
the universe is nondeterministic.
Its funny you are trying to move the goal post now after getting BTFO

>>8502660

i dunno, i guess so, logically. i am not the one to ask lool.

>>8502666
im not the same guy, im just asking what has come out of physics to do with determinism and stuff and i havent got an answer yet.

>>8502596
Free will shouldn't depend much on QM, plus the Many Worlds interpretation is deterministic.

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (63KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1280x720px

Either time is a unit measurable and real, in which case it can be increased and decreased which would imply that the future is already determined if someone could arrive to the future before another.

However this assumes that the time spent is the same, but at different rates.

For example lets assume there is a universal measure of time, and the time you spend is compared to that. This universal time will be called U. T represents time observed/spent by the observer. (For example an hour in time perceived in our definition of an hour)

T = U*2 (Someone's rate of time absorption is half that of universal time, meaning for every hour of universal time they only experience 30 minutes of an hour)

T = 1/2U (Someone's rate of time absorption is twice that of universal time, meaning for every hour of universal time they only experience 30 minutes of an hour)

By the transitive property we get 1/2U = 2U, showing that time absorption/perspection (What is universally an hour, etc) is relative and without a universal conversion rate.

If we plug in some numbers, lets for example set universal time to ten hours, we get 5 hours and 20 hours respectively. Since both observers are in the same universe, and some dimension, they both will have the same events happen in those 20 hours, expect it will take the second observer 40 universal hours to see it all. So, for the first observer to see the second observers actions before the second observer commits them, means that they have already happened, perceived by the first observer, before the second observer can observe them, meaning that the second observer's actions are already determined as they have been observed.

They are not determined unless they have been observed, as they do not have to be. However, if a universal time unit is real, and time moves at different universal times, this implies that all actions have been committed to comply with the fastest conversion rate of universal and perceived time.

File: fawfawwfa.jpg (80KB, 1267x671px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1267x671px

>>8503479
Basically: If the universal time is perceived at different rates, then free will is impossible. If U=T for all observers than the future does not have to be determined as no person or object has seen, been affected by, or altered by the actions of time after the perceived time of all observers, as all observers/objects/etc have not seen the action, thus it has not happened and does not need to happen, meaning that the action does not need to exist yet, meaning it cannot be confirmed.

>>8502583
The universe is fundamentally based on chaos and probability. It is not deterministic.

This is a reply.

>>8502583
>This was one of the leading theories
>in the Nineteenth Century guys.
FTFY, try to keep up

>>8503513
>It is PROBABLY not deterministic

Fixed that for you, buddy.