You haven't answered my posts. If something, "will" then that is determined by definition. There is nothing free about it. 
Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?
- Thread starter M.I.D
- Start date
You haven't answered my posts. If something, "will" then that is determined by definition. There is nothing free about it.
If something will.. operative word if
Sure in physics, the if will win out every time
What is in question here is the ability to make a free will if
In essence, without breaking the laws of physics, a choice which has no kick start
A action without a cause
Yes, if. But when something definitively WILL, then that is determined by definition.
One can theoretically predict Fred's behaviour. That is the fact about a deterministic universe. That is why it is predetermined.
The rest, as seems to have been told to you many times already, is just a handwave toward complexity, as if that is an answer in and of itself. You seem to have created for yourself a God of Complexity.
Yes, Fred is significantly more complex, many orders of magnitude so, but that does not alter the fundamental nature of Fred, only in the way we perceive Fred. And for someone who claims that your "free" will is not just judged by how it appears, you do a rather wonderful impression of someone who can only example a will that is "free" because of how it appears.
Your missing the pointYes, if. But when something definitively WILL, then that is determined by definition.
- Was it free ie
- did it have a external cause (which at maximum setting) originated at the big Bang (not my choice) OR
- was it internally generated (a virgin action) with no mum or dad
Cannot point to the determined kick start
One moment a collection of options
next it (whatever it is) happened
Play it back in slowest motion you cannot pick when the magician (no I am NOT suggesting magic) pulled the Ace of Hearts from the pack a put it on the table
Last edited:
It was NOT FREE if it was WILLED into being. Now we know what was chosen. The only way to know what something will, is with the reversal of time, which does not then change what will.
Now we know what was chosen. The only way to know what something will, is with the reversal of time, which does not then change what will. Ok. But then:
The supernatural assumption. It cripples.
The only way to know if something, "will" is if you can see the future, which does not change what, "will." It simply means you know what is going to happen.
Nonsense definition
I know if I am eating a apple while walking down the road and I drop the apple it will fall downwards
No mystical seeing into the future there
It will fall. That is physics. Again the thread is about making decisions
Do I try to catch the apple? do I let it drop? and once I have decided was it a free will decision (free will) or had it been ordained (not free will) from the Big Bang
Any form of will is not free. It is determined. "I WILL catch the apple." Determined. Any decision made by a person, and implemented by will, is determined.
...by that person....aka self-determination thus freewill.
determined
And PRIOR to being determined is the subject of the thread
Is that free (many choices)?
Don't know about other posters, I could not care less about AFTER the event as it makes no difference to events before the event
In essence would you consider, reguarding all generic events
- all are predetermined (not free, not chosen - as in no availability to be chosen - only 1 pathway)
- all are free (all available for choice)
- mixture
Nothing to do with the implementation of the event or the aftermath
The fact that you're saying it, "will" means it's determined. How do you know when something, "will?"
Something WILL regardless
Happens all the microscopic moments available
NOT THE ISSUE
Is it / was it
- determined or
- free?
Label one determined, other free
List those you think determined
List those you think are free
Give reasons for each 
If something, "will" then it is determined. I'm interested to know how someone knows, what, "will." The only way to know that is retrospectively, while a prediction of the future remains supernatural.
My prediction: "I will die." Am I wrong?
My prediction: "I will die." Am I wrong?
Something like we are going to die relies on the historical data which has been 100% correct (so far)
Nothing supernatural and correct
Again refers to the EVENT happening
Again need to go BEFORE the event
Was it ordained? or came from nothing?
No butterfly wing flap
Nothing occured which can be pinned to the decision which lead to the event
You seem to be implying that Fred is in some way independent of the universal constituents that he is composed of and exists in.
Their is no entity called Fred without the universal constituents that comprise his being and existence. Fred is an effect in a universal landscape, just as a whirlpool is an effect in a body of liquid.
You seem to want to grant Fred single entity status even though he is a composition of countless states of material configuration, but the expanded version of that material soup we call the universe, doesn’t qualify? Just as Fred has identifiable aspects to his makeup, so does the greater universe he is a part of.
There is ultimately just universal behavior, which can be perspectively labeled in all kinds of ways.
Think of chain reaction, where everything is both cause and effect. As long as time and non-homogeneity exist, so does causality.
No one said the they were like in configuration, only that they are like in respect to conforming to the assigned paths of their natures.
Under some conditions Fred’s behavior could be perceived as more dynamic, and in other conditions the brick would take the prize. For example a brick has a potential limitless lifespan, and can maintain its integrity in a wide range of environments. This means a brick can spend an eternity as a witness and a storyteller, where most people will get less than a century in that role.
Time does not exist, you mean stuff ages
But as that is off topic, sorry just a bug of mine
But non-homogeneity exist, so does causality is the interesting nugget
I still am working on the second part of my answer but I am easily distracted
non-homogeneity exist, so does causality however belongs in the first part
I would contend, without breaking the laws of physics, much in the Universe winds down so much it no longer has any effect on anything else
Only when reinvigorated by something with more energy will it re-enter the game
Hence I would put forward when a larger force engulfs a smaller force you should reset the pathway (the one going back to a original cause)
New pathway begins. The small energy is out because
- it has gone and was unable to affect anything and
- the large energy has gone by virtue of absorbing small energy (no matter how small)
Unable to detect anything further into the past you conclude it has no cause
You may suspect but you will never know
Insert evil laugh here
Time exists as a condition of comparative change. Change brought you into existence, and change will take you out. The change that occurred between those events when compared to other events such as the motion of a clock is your time.
Time is a potential. When a clock's pendulum swings, it is because the pendulum has more potential with gravity than when it's at a lower point. It's about potential.