Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:I voted for determinism.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

nietzsche wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I voted for determinism.

Interesting, is this a position common in other physicists, in spite their knowledge of quantum mechanics?

(I'm not saying quantum mechanics can conclude one thing or the other)

Metsfanmax wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I voted for determinism.

Interesting, is this a position common in other physicists, in spite their knowledge of quantum mechanics?

(I'm not saying quantum mechanics can conclude one thing or the other)

As you might expect, physicists generally don't give straight answers to this question. The most common response I've seen physicists give is that while the universe probably is really deterministic at the atomic level, the level of complexity separating that physics from the complexity of a human brain is such that we may as well pretend that free will exists for pragmatic purposes.

nietzsche wrote:do you believe you have free will? Or do you think the future is already determined and you're just enjoying the ride?

tzor wrote:It has to do with trans-dimensional relativity.

tzor wrote:

nietzsche wrote:do you believe you have free will? Or do you think the future is already determined and you're just enjoying the ride?

I object to the very nature of the question. You need to really give an argument why you think there must be an exclusive or operation here. Both can be true at the same time. It has to do with trans-dimensional relativity.

From the outside of Space-Time, as Hawking once said, the universe "IS." From outside of Space-Time, the universe is just as observable along the time axis as it is along the space axis. (How can one observe anything outside of a time axis of ones own is another matter entirely.)

From the inside of Space-Time, the view of the universe is extremely limited. One can only observe things that have emitted particles in the past. (Now there is an interesting question about the nature of antimatter being matter traveling backwards in time, but the universe is so massively weighed towards matter over antimatter that it hardly matters.)

Thus, (with the exception of a plethora of antimatter particles in your personal space) the actions of the present are effected by the past and effect the future.

This has, technically speaking, squat to do with the fundamental question of whether your actions are a simple function of the inputs into the system. The human brain is a complex system that allows some degree of self alteration. This allows some degree of programming to adjust from what should be the expected output. To use the example of those infamous witches you can put your hand in a box, feel the flesh burn off of your bones and not pull that hand out of that box because that Benne Gerrerit is standing right beside you and will poke you with an instantly fatal poison if you do. (Congratulations your'e HUMAN by their strange standards!)

That ability is FREE WILL; the ability to reject the stimulus of the moment because of the "will" which is the accumulated experiences of the person and which some people might argue is self modifying.

mrswdk wrote:I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

nietzsche wrote: our understanding of time is not complete.

Quirk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Quirk wrote:

Yeah, yeah, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We know all that. But what if you choose to decide, and then find out you didn't have a choice?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Quirk wrote:

Yeah, yeah, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. We know all that. But what if you choose to decide, and then find out you didn't have a choice?

Then you were predetermined to have thought you really had a choice, and so there's nothing you could have done differently.

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

I don't think there's nothing to convince of.

I'm of a more spiritualistic view, I regard my personal experience as more important and truthful than the outside world. I never forget the "gap".

But that's a personal opinion so I really can't convince anyone.

In any case though, if this was a deterministic universe, we are part of the system, so since we cannot get outside and observe and measure without influencing it, we are part of it and have our roles to play, including believing or not there's free will.

It's more a matter of personal opinion as you see. But this opinion, or belief, is important because it dictates to different extents or personal functioning.

This question has another issue in it, mentioned already. Time. We're asking if the future state is completely dependant on the past state, so time is a vital concept in the question, and our understanding of time is not complete.

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I haven't voted yet. Convince me, nietzie.

I don't think there's nothing to convince of.

I'm of a more spiritualistic view, I regard my personal experience as more important and truthful than the outside world. I never forget the "gap".

But that's a personal opinion so I really can't convince anyone.

In any case though, if this was a deterministic universe, we are part of the system, so since we cannot get outside and observe and measure without influencing it, we are part of it and have our roles to play, including believing or not there's free will.

It's more a matter of personal opinion as you see. But this opinion, or belief, is important because it dictates to different extents or personal functioning.

This question has another issue in it, mentioned already. Time. We're asking if the future state is completely dependant on the past state, so time is a vital concept in the question, and our understanding of time is not complete.

You shoulda put more options in the poll then.

mrswdk wrote:My garden shed is bigger than this


Come on dude, you know the drill.

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

If it brings you back, sugar, it's the best debate in the world.

-TG

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

I've pretty much said my bit. Much of this depends on definition, and even if the philosophical issues can be clarified, testing for the competing hypotheses seems daunting. Of course, simple tests by my basic observation suggest that I'm right (:P). You need only specify which part you'd like me to elaborate.

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Here's the true but vague answer: some aspects of one's life are deterministic, while other aspects are left to one's free will. It's on some spectrum, and the dichotomy is likely insufficient to explain the range of outcomes from human behavior (due to problems of measurement and definition). So, please end this awful debate forever and ever.

Intriguing because I don't know if you're referring to eastern philosophy's ideas or a personal conclusion based on some insight about a materialistic point of view. Care to elaborate?

I've pretty much said my bit. Much of this depends on definition, and even if the philosophical issues can be clarified, testing for the competing hypotheses seems daunting. Of course, simple tests by my basic observation suggest that I'm right (:P). You need only specify which part you'd like me to elaborate.

Well there's the eastern philosophy idea that we as immortal consciousness plan our lives beforehand but then incarnated we have a range of freedom as to how to go about dealing with the topics we wanted to explore before getting in. I was curious if you were referring to this idea. I ventured to infer you might be referring to this because I was once stalking your conversations with Nola on your walls and found out you were sharing links about spiritualism. However it could've been just a phase of finding mystic topics interesting.

nietzsche wrote:You could also be talking about that genetically we have many predominant traits and we tend to side to specific kind of behaviours specially after a certain age, when we become more and more like our familiy members.

Or you could be talking about something else.

And about testing the hypotheses, yes you're right, it's difficult, but I stated I was mainly curious, "all things considered.." what other ot regulars held as a belief.