Can you prove the existence of “free will”?

Explain how quantum variability in particle states proves the existence of “free will”

i just imagined you to be a moron ....see?

It disproves determinism.
Either there's some form of "proto-choice" that decides what state will come to be.
Or it's completely random.

phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

Free will exists but must be actualized.

Why should I accept that it's determined?

Gay article. “Write down the algorithm for how a brain reflexively views the world and acts upon such information”

You can theoretically do it, with proper technology. Given enough time, and energy, you could map out an entire system of how a brain uses its reflexive ability to determine chemicals needing release in order to make action in a way that is in line with all former chemical actions prior to such instance.

“Free will” is a meaningless question to ask. Okay, so the existential dread most humans suffer with due to a lack of supernatural forces with which they can use to cope to understand their unexplainable existence, due to our completely topologized universe, is meaningless and unimportant to discus?

Disproving the existence of “free will” is the final obstacle in freeing humanity from its long suffering of existential dread.

Que sera, sera. What will be, will be.

Attached: 804D8225-C8D3-4136-93B5-5F71351613EE.jpg (1242x1042, 243K)

Because to believe you act in a way due to a supernatural force is blasphemy, and psychologically damaging to the common man in a world where the supernatural has been destroyed.

>Free will vs determinism
Silly moderns, the answer is both.

Attached: 87.jpg (1200x1606, 252K)

Your will isn't free if the information needed to compute it ahead of time exists.

This, free will is embedded in determinism like subjectivity is embedded in obj and circular time is in linear

I think I'm just about done with this place. It's stupid. I can't talk to any of you.

See you in a few hours

This is philosophy 101 shit LOL, look up law of the excluded middle and fatalism and you’ll find your answer.

This, localized free will exists in the sense that that is literally what your brain is designed to do. I think when people talk about free will they get memey and extend the concept to what would be the free will of a God, ie free will coming from nothing, complete freedom from perspective.

I desired to make a post that attempts to prove free will.
I created that post because of that desire, that is to say, that desire caused me to do it.
Now, other things may have caused my desire which caused me to post, but I nonetheless acted because of my volitions as a proximate cause.
Therefore this post is an example of compatablist free will, for I can do as I will even if I can't completely will what I will.

No, it's paradoxical

No free will without necessity, no (concept of) necessity without free will. You are correct.

I can, but I choose not to.

>“Free will” is a meaningless question to ask. Okay, so the existential dread most humans suffer with due to a lack of supernatural forces with which they can use to cope to understand their unexplainable existence, due to our completely topologized universe, is meaningless and unimportant to discus?
correct. unsurprisingly the guy who made the article has deep disdain for continentals

try some Laplace's demon, causal or scientific determinism

I don't think so, because how on earth could you tell the difference?
A man picks up a wallet he finds on the sidewalk, which has money and some form of ID in it.
Now he can return the wallet or keep it, but what exactly is the difference between him, as an agent with "free will" or as an agent whose actions have already been determined?
There is no practical difference (he can just as easily take the money or not) the only difference is a subtle moral underpinning, the idea of morality as it affects "the soul", either condemning it to, or delivering it from, "evil."
The soul being some sort of thing/mechanism existing some aether, presumably pulling the strings of the body as some puppet.
So to me, an argument about "free will" is not about will at all, but rather about the existence of the soul.
There is no physical evidence to support the idea of the soul existing, so any sort of argument to support the idea must necessarily be highly abstract (and very likely theological) in nature.
Unfortunately, I'm an illiterate brainlet (I'm working on it) so I have no arguments, either original or memorized to recite for you.

OP BTFO
but free will is determined by fate as well
if you were a somali kid you wouldn't post here

>I feel like I chose, therefore I chose
No not really man

Read Part II of the epilogue of War and Peace and you’ll understand why free will is both real and not real at the same time. It has nothing to do with the plot of the novel so you can read it on its own.

Will isn't necessarily actionable or manifest. I certainly desire and have the will to become a millionaire even though I'm not one (yet).

Not what I said at all.
My point is to do something like make a post, I must have a volition to do so. That ability to have volitations that actualize your desires is what I call free will.

It kind of is, unless you want to get bogged down in the semantics

Anyway, no you don't have any volition that's the whole point. You are nothing more than a pinball bouncing around off of various pads and springs, all decision making is in fact very fast post hoc justification for something that was going to happen no matter what. Even this justification you go with is hypothetically (of course in reality we currently do not have the means of recording every potential factor) completely predictable, it's a cope. A spook of the mind

Do everyone a favor and be the pinball you've so wholly embraced and bounce the fuck off this website. And don't reply to this post--it isn't fated.

Usually I only get such a visibly buttmad reaction when I have his conversation irl
Interesting
Anyway come on bro
>2019
>not embracing hard determinism
If it were going to happen it would though, I suppose :)

How can you ever know that your free will isn’t a predetermined illusion and that the choices you make even when you think you’re consciously making choosing something aren’t entirely scripted?

Don't have to be mad to think you're retarded. You're a flea.

This seems like a very behaviorist, black box kind of thinking. Yes, external inputs have an effect on the system, but internal mechanisms matter just as much.
You've never played a game of chess or poker? You think there's no higher order thinking that informs your actions there? People change their minds on what to do all the time based on new information or considerations. This unveils itself in complex strategic thinking the best.
Or if you choose a product to buy based on a friend's recommendation, you're using information you processed to inform your behavior.
At some point you have to accept that the internal mind states are part of the causal chains of your actions and this takes the form of volition.
Hard determinism has nothing to do with compatablist free will. You're looking for libertarian free will.

>You think there’s no higher order thinking that informs your actions there?
How does this higher order thinking work?

>completely topologized universe
Autistic-Botanic Physiognomy

Dermatophagic anti-cannibalism is a direct "pro-deccesive precursor" to the entropising ideologies of the late 19th century, causing a retrocausal completion in the last two centuries as each ideo-sphere was co-consumed by techno-Capital [not merely Capital as such].
Intrin-sitioning across gendered simulacra of commodity-types-as-persons (e.g. the Contrapoints persona) under the guise of videos/livestreams/podcasts as well as "viewerbase deplatforming" [logistical propaganda instead of character assassination] is also a (belated) precursor.
Chem-eloenic autocosmos has surpassed [Chameleonic} physiognosis as the dominant vector for ideological narrativism, idpol-junctures and hotspots of cognitive dissonance being correlated but not equally causated (One being bio-reactive while the other is T-capital driven).

Attached: huh.jpg (300x168, 6K)

Little bit sloppy on grammar end, but it all came through in one piece.

I don't want to.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'll do neither.

No, but I can show that the limits of reason leave room for it.

Attached: ttttttttttttt.jpg (800x1044, 149K)

>doesn’t understand determinism
Determinism is the position that everything you have done you had to do and everything you will do you have to do. How does op posting this question demonstrate that that is not the case?

>all of my actions are being coerced out of me by ???

maybe some, maybe most, but certainly not all.

Explain how not all of them are, where’s the exception

no, i cannot and i don't care to