[dgoodell]

I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists. People that argue about it are mostly just using different definitions for it. Actually, the whole thing seems to be just a semantic argument, there's no science or anything involved.

IMO, I think free will is just a lie we tell ourselves. The inner workings of our brains are mostly hidden from us. When asked why we did something we just make up some bullshit that's not unlike what ChatGPT does when it helpfully fabricates an answer for us.

[munksbeer]

>I think you need to define free will before deciding whether or not it exists.

I don't think that is possible. Or at least I've never seen a definition that isn't self referntial or makes sense. Possibly I'm uneducated.

[GoblinSlayer]

Some definitions:

1) ability to do as you want

2) ability to do otherwise

3) ability to control choice

4) be an author of choice

[munksbeer]

Self referential.

[CooCooCaCha]

Free will is the idea that there is a “you” and you are the author of your thoughts.

If you think “you” is just a bunch of neurons in the brain then most people would not consider that free will because physics is the author of your thoughts.

To be clear that is my view. So I don’t think we have free will. We just feel like we do.

[munksbeer]

I don't see how we are anything more than just the particles that make up our selves, ie. the neurons in the brain. I can't seem to find a definition of free will that isn't self referential. What does it even mean that:

> Free will is the idea that there is a “you” and you are the author of your thoughts.

I am a "me", and I am the author of my thoughts, but that comes from the neurons in my brain firing and making decisions based on input. It still makes decisions, choices. I just maintain that those choices are not outside the universe. They are either:

1) Entirely causal based on all inputs and particles in the universe. Rewinding the universe and replaying will result in the exact same decisions.

or

2) The universe contains implicit randomness and this feeds into our neurons firing, meaning, rewinding the universe and replaying won't result in the same decisions.

[CooCooCaCha]

I agree but I think you’re overthinking it a bit. Usually when people talk about free will there’s an implication of a “spirit”, or something similar, that is the source of your thoughts. That’s the “you”.

I guess it depends on how you define it but I would say physics is the author of your thoughts. Physics is what’s making the decisions. Physics is the reason neurons fire.

[GoblinSlayer]

Because definition defines what it defines? Then all definitions are self referential, that's not a difference.

[throwawayqqq11]

The dedinition should distinguish free will vs free agency.

We have free agency to do what is possible for us, like ultimately committing suicide to restrict that freedom, but we dont have the freedom to choose how we choose because this will never be fully transparent to us, even though we can approximate it with mindfullness.

So, to answer OPs question how the world would look like with "free will", i imagine a world without all those cognitive biases like this entire tribalistic political bullshit we are seeing around the world with identity infested right (and lesser, left) wing movements as a reaction to ever more complex global problems, so quite a contrast.