Can someone explain the question of free will to me in a way

>>8971642
Wrong.

There are many systems we can model behavior for all time. It may or may not be possible for us to determine the evolution of the universe on a small scale so that we can predict how everything acts. Then, that means we have no free will because our actions and existence were set into motion at the start of time.
At the moment, it is undecidable but it is answerable

>>8971642

seems like we're just along for the ride desu

>>8971706
So what is the observable difference between a world with free will and one without one? The existence of something that models the universe?

>>8971642
We don't have free will. The amount of mental gymnastics required to prove freewill leads me to believe that it's nonexistent.

>>8971642
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches

>>8971706
>>8971731
Conscious veto.
To the best of our current observation, we "sort of" have free will. We aren't able to control our immediate anticipation reaction to a stimulus, but are able to process it and consciously decide whether or not to take action. Our subconscious mind may provide reactions unconsciously, but the conscious mind can decide against the actions the unconscious mind attempts to make.

>>8971642
There is cree will. This is a good video con the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qw5Y3fhHgU

>>8971765
*free
This video exposes the fallacies that people like Sam Harris and Steven Pinker spread around

>>8971765
>ayn rand
Opinion discarded ancappie.

>>8971778
Retard.

File: bed30e6eb952bc44431890d716bec5c7348cc93762d98a311450508748aa4b46.jpg (73KB, 720x781px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 720x781px

>>8971785

>>8971790
Ayn Rand was not an ancap, retard.

>>8971795
She argued for anarchy and capitalism, what the hell are you talking about?

You really thought this thread belonged here? Fuck off back to >>>/his/

>>8971814
>She argued for anarchy
Yeah, you might want to know what the fuck you're talking about before you start talking.

>Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

>>8971642
the argument i'm hearing is
>P1: if we have free will, we can make decisions
>P2: if we can make decisions, there are other possible worlds
>P3: other possible worlds are unobservable
>P4: if they're unobservable we can't know if they exist
>C1: so we can't know if other possible worlds exist (from P3 & P4)
>C2: so we can't know if we can make decisions (from P2 & C1)
>C3: so we can't know if we have free will (from P1 & C2)
>P5: if we can't know if we have free will, the question of free will is vacuous or pointless
>C4: so the question of free will is vacuous or pointless (from C3 & P5)
is that a fair summary of your thought?

P1 and P3 are unquestionable
P2, P4, and P5 are all questionable
P2 assumes an indeterminist account of free choice, i.e. some theory of free choice that requires metaphysically robust alternative possibilities; all compatibilist accounts of free choice reject this
P4 assumes an extremely implausible modal epistemology: even if you assume modal realism (i.e. other possible worlds are real places just like the actual world), actually observing a possible world would make it the actual world, so observing another possible world is incoherent; and expecting existence claims to only be corroborated by observation is naive hyper-empiricism (it's much more plausible that we know about other possible worlds just because we can imagine other ways for things to be and recognize that this does not necessarily involve self-contradiction or logical absurdity)
P5 assumes that questions that aren't answerable with certainty are pointless or somehow empty of content; the latter is obviously a non sequitur, and the former assumption would render pointless all investigation into all areas that only admit of probability and not certainty, which could easily include all of natural science
lastly the inference from P2 & C1 to C2 rests on a weird pseudo modus tollens that says "P implies Q, Q is unknowable, hence P is unknowable"--possibly invalid