[raxxorrax]

Ah, the age old question where it doesn't matter if the answer is positive or negative at all.

Since it is opinion time: I do think that we posses free will whatever the definition might be.

There are enough know non-deterministic processes. I also think consideration of randomness vs determinism isn't sufficient to find an answer.

[joycian]

Can you supply a non-deterministic process, where the non-determinism is fundamental and not a way to quantify a lack of information about the system?

[csomar]

Yep. That's the question. Some quantum processes are indeterministic. However, one might ponder if it is because of ignorance of the inner-workings on the said process.

One also might conclude that non-determinism is ignorance or lack of information. It is an unanswered question as far as I know.

[adrianN]

Anything that is best described by quantum mechanics.

[joycian]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

What do you think of ideas like this then?

[adrianN]

I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere. That is more complicated that the normal interpretation of QM but doesn't explain more.

[naasking]

> I think it's a boring theory that doesn't pass Ockham's razor. For the universe to be superdeterministic you'd have to encode its whole evolution somewhere

The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by 't Hooft https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548

[adrianN]

That's really interesting, I like CAs a lot. However the author himself states in the introduction that Bell's inequality and related theorems very strongly suggest that his theory is not correct.

[joycian]

Isn't it simpler? There are just a few rules and everything works? For the normal QM you have to get some randomness from somewhere else.

edit: I mean I agree it's problematic for experimental science, but I think Occam's razor cuts the other way in this instance.

edit2: Isn't the entire history encoded anyway in the current state of the universe in the deterministic case. I don't understand what the problem is there.

[adrianN]

To get rid of the randomness you have to have prepared the result of every decision that is currently attributed to randomness in a big lookup table.

[enkid]

That's only according to some interpretations of quantum mechanics. (I.e. Copenhagen) Other interpretations, such as Many Worlds or Pilot Wave are deterministic.

[joycian]

Many worlds is deterministic, but not in the same sense that people might think of, right. The evolution of the wavefunction (which never collapses like in Copenhagen) is deterministic, but in any given world, random draws are appearing.

[coleifer]

The big bang/creation

[lordlimecat]

I have a hard time understanding how people disbelieving in free will do not just devolve to fatalism. Why bother discussing it as if it matters, when it's all predetermined? Why do people having the argument seem to assume in their lives that free will exists, exhibited by their pursuit of their wants?

[zaarn]

>Why bother discussing it as if it matters, when it's all predetermined?

Because personally, I do find it quite enjoyable.

All my decisions and everything I do being predetermined doesn't change the fact that I will still experience it and can enjoy and want things.

Determinism doesn't make the things that you experience and the things you choose any less real, they happen. Similarly, Nihilism doesn't mean you give into depression because there is no morality and the universe doesn't give a shit about you, quite the opposite, you can do what you enjoy precisely because the universe doesn't give a shit about you, you can do what makes you happy, not what society things ought to make you happy.

In short; because it's enjoyable and the alternative is not, even in the face of determinism.

>Why do people having the argument seem to assume in their lives that free will exists, exhibited by their pursuit of their wants?

Because ultimately the answer doesn't matter and having free will is a comfortable illusion. Humans like being in charge, especially being in charge of themselves. Since science still owes us a definitive answer (although IMO the current state seems to lean in favor of determinism), people choose free will over determinism.

Similarly, people choose to believe that inherent, objective morality exists, that a higher power protects them, etc. It's comforting. Reality is lovecraftian.