Determinism Debate with Chat
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 11. 2017
- Click▼
Follow Destiny
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / omnidestiny
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
Get the chair Destiny has, the SL5000, from www.destiny.gg/chair Put "destiny" as your checkout code to get a 10% discount!
Use Destiny's affiliate link to buy stuff! www.amazon.com/?tag=des000-20
Edited by Garyukov:
► CONTACT - garyukov@gmail.com
► TWITTER - / garyukov
Music:
►OUTRO: / cc6-mastered-3-conflict
"every action has an equal and opposite meme"
in shaun of the dead, he plays video games with his undead best friend who visibly decides to play video games instead of biting him. Get out-memed my dude
5:30 HE KNEW PepeLaugh
The more i learn from destiny, the more i feel like i know nothing. I hear one thing, then trying to wholly comprehend it requires whole comprehension of many other things. This fractal of predicated knowledge is absurd 😢
Just subscribed because of this video never seen someone explain determinism so well, bless your soul
Something random is by definition, not a choice. Quantum Randomness somehow manages to be both the worst and most common argument against determinism.
So then it's a good argument against determinism (in the strictest sense of the word) but still not a good argument for the existence of free will, since you dont consciously choose the quantum interactions of your brain in the first place.
@Spegimation There is ZERO evidence of free will. You are clueless
@Spegimation You misunderstand the topic on so many levels and you are so many leaps and bounds behind. Get an education, then come back and you can debate it.
@Spegimation "There is obvious evidence [for free will] based on the fact that we can all do it"
Seriously?
@Spegimation Just because you feel like you have free will does not mean you do. You could program a robot to make it 'feel' like it has free will.
“At the level of neurones, quantum randomness would come into play”
Neurones are fucking gargantuan compared to subatomic particles.
To be fair, it is possible for quantum indeterminacy to affect anything regardless of size. It's just less likely
The physical system you describe is called a chaotic one. Chaos is usually quantified by sensitivity to initial conditions.
3:50 Inadvertent Jew. whao!
The black-box argument Destiny supplies is the best one i've heard. however, there is also the mechanistic one, that awareness of our own decision, is delayed. This one is common amongst biological oriented people.
Its deficient, because we can affect our environment, resulting not just in the concept of persuasion, but self-persuasion.
Who’s chat and why does Debate with him/her so much?
Chat Jones, Kappa
An Amiable Ghost A Chad is typically a male. it's common that a chad would have gelled hair and wear sun glasses because they think they make them look cool. Chads would be know to act tough and like they can't fight however they will never fight. Examples of chad brands are afliction tapout hurley famous etc. Chads typically only drink and don't smoke.
Tradechat. She's a youtube
19:02 This exact concept would become a vSauce video four years later...
I'd recommend Douglas Hofstadter 'I am a strange loop' (you can find it free as a pdf over the internet I think - that's how I found it :P). There are also youtube vids he has done. He basically looks at paradoxes of how we look at things as well as consciousness. It gets really complicated as you go through the book but at the beginning it's so simple a child could understand it. He uses the approach of how we use metaphors and also the concept of emergence (like the difference between looking at a picture from far away to very close up of just one pixel - the pixel isn't representative of the whole picture... logic works in the same way).
I feel like this arguement is pretty interesting. I personally live in Germany and we learned in physics how all particles behave by using 4 basic forces: strong, weak, electric-magnatic and gravity. We also learned that if you would know the postion x and momentum p of any particle you could basically predict what is going to happen in the future. But there is one last thing we talked about and that's the "Heisenberg'sche Unschärferelation" - the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - which states that Δx*Δp has to be more than h/(2*pi). This means that we humans cannot measure the location and momentum a particle has at the exact same time, thereby cannot calculate or predict how this particle will behave or interact with other particles.
It's now up to you to decide wether you believe this means that it is not pridictable whatsoever how a particle interacts in the future, thus we have a free will or if it is predictable just not measurable which means that we wouldn't have a free will.
Make up your own mind but I personally believe in a free will.
Have fun figuering out what you believe in on the basis of what physics tells us right now :)
I've never heard a good argument against Determinism. Anyone want to have a go?
czcams.com/video/izqaWyZsEtY/video.html assuming you're talking about physical determinism. it's not known whether the universe is deterministic or not. you can argue all you want, but until we somehow understand how the universe chooses one from the infinite many outcomes of every interaction of every quantum field, there's no way to know one way or the other whether we live in a deterministic universe or not.
The best argument against Determinism is that Quantum Mechanics COULD, maybe hypothetically show that there are acausal events. And if there is at least ONE, then the universe is Indeterministic, and not Deterministic.
The trouble is that we have no idea if acausal randomness exists or not.. there's only interpretations of the same data, and some interpretations fall to the Determinism side, and some fall to the Indeterminism side. And some are agnostic about that.
SO, the best position is "Hard Incompatibilist". Which means, regardless of Determinism of Indeterminism (prior cause or acausal events), Libertarian Free Will still can't exist either way. This is the strongest most useful position to take. It also takes out the need for making assumptions about the state of the universe. Because that doesn't even matter to the question at hand.
It doesn't matter if the universe is Deterministic or not. What matters is whether Libertarian Free Will exists or not.
So the best argument against Determinism as a position, is that you are holding it based off of an assumption that does not at all need to be made. Just be a Hard Incompatibilist (that's what Destiny is... it's just that he doesn't know this label).
Vast, complex, dynamic, non-linear systems like the global weather system are chaotic and non-deterministic by nature. There are simply too many shifting variables occurring in too many locations simultaneously for any one possible future scenario to be the inevitable one. This is why, even with satellite technology and sophisticated computer modelling, meteorologists cannot predict the weather with any real accuracy
@@beneaththebeneath - Okay so there's 2 usages of "random" that are relevant here.
One is what you're talking about which a better word for is "unpredictable" (by human minds or current technology).
Then there's "acausal randomness", which means "no prior causes" (which is the relevant usage here, as far as Determinism vs Indeterminism goes).
Just because global weather patterns are not perfectly predictable with human minds and our current technology, does not mean that global weather patterns have elements that are acausal (no prior causation at all/acausal randomness).
Chaos - "The property of a complex system whose behaviour is so unpredictable as to *appear* random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions."
Which does not mean Indeterministic, or actual "acausal randomness".
"Chaos", is not "acausal randomness". It's just currently unpredictable to us. Which does not at all disprove Determinism.
Even if we could NEVER predict global weather patterns perfectly, that still does not mean that there is acausality in the picture. It depends how good our technology is (and currently our technology is very primitive).
Reminds me of earlier humans not being able to accurately explain lightening, so they would posit a god.
When, even if we still couldn't explain lightening, we still shouldn't just posit a god to try and explain it.
Because there isn't one
that thumbnail, good job Gary LUL
lol, 4 mintues in and just realized who "Chat" was.
In the first place, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle it's impossible to measure anything's position with arbitrary precision... And quantum variations can be magnified to macroscopic sizes, just take a geiger counter and connect it to a gun or something lol.
Little mountains on a hill? AND water ponds? Sounds like quite the hill.
could it be possible certain qm interactions could cause large scale macro changes? ie chemical bonding in varying mixtures or the photons exiting a star. or am i being dumb and not actually talking qm and more about highly complex micro-billiards
We all know we don't get to pick our favorite color (or anything) we "just like it" "it just is"... apply that to every single thing and situation. That is my proof of determinism in one sentence.
I don't subscribe to libertarian Free Will, but your statement isn't proof of Determinism.
I'll just paste the comment I typed somewhere else because it's good enough.
The best argument against Determinism is that Quantum Mechanics COULD, maybe hypothetically show that there are acausal events. And if there is at least ONE, then the universe is Indeterministic, and not Deterministic.
The trouble is that we have no idea if acausal randomness exists or not.. there's only interpretations of the same data, and some interpretations fall to the Determinism side, and some fall to the Indeterminism side. And some are agnostic about that.
SO, the best position is "Hard Incompatibilist". Which means, regardless of Determinism of Indeterminism (prior cause or acausal events), Libertarian Free Will still can't exist either way. This is the strongest most useful position to take. It also takes out the need for making assumptions about the state of the universe. Because that doesn't even matter to the question at hand.
It doesn't matter if the universe is Deterministic or not. What matters is whether Libertarian Free Will exists or not.
So the best argument against Determinism as a position, is that you are holding it based off of an assumption that does not at all need to be made. Just be a Hard Incompatibilist (that's what Destiny is... it's just that he doesn't know this label).
@@Siberius- You are confusing determinism with fatalism
@@JasonWilliams89 - lol. You're sounding like me! I say that to people all the time.
Could you be more specific there?
@@Siberius- Determinism just means the absence of free will, whereas fatalism is the belief that nothing can happen differently to what does happen. So if you believe in quantum randomness, you can still be a determinist, just not a fatalist.
@@JasonWilliams89 - That is way off.
"Determinism", or as a position: "Hard Determinism". Means that every single event, has prior causation. (Every single event is "determined" by prior causation).
The absence of free will, is just "no free will".
To add to that, 'Indeterminism" and "Eternalism" ALSO don't allow for free will.
(I'm referring to Libertarian Free Will, the kind that is relevant).
Fatalism means that the future event is already set, via some means, regardless of the causation leading up to that moment. The path is irrelevant, since the destination is set in stone.
That is NOT the same as Determinism, because under Determinism, the path very much does matter, and does have an affect on what the final destination turns out to be. Because that is the prior causation.
Very important to not mix these 2 up, since one gives people a real defeatist mentality, whereas the other one does not.
If you subscribe to hypothetical quantum randomness, that is the opposite of events having prior causation (at least some of the events). So it is a direct contradiction, and it makes no sense to subscribe to both positions at the same time (that acausal randomness exists, and that ALL events have prior causation). Logically impossible.
I recommend you check out an article online. Google:
"Breaking the Free Will Illusion Determinism vs. Fatalism - InfoGraphic (a comparison)"
That point on free will is actually exactly what philosopher Spinoza says, and it's actually the only theory of "free will" that does require the human mind to be some sort of entity that's metaphysically separate from the rest of the physical universe. Destiny is spot on.
Here is how I see it because I think a lot of people didn't get the point. You can say that there is no Ultimate Free Will as in we do not ultimately possess a force that is not bound by deterministic factors because all of our decisions can be reduced to such factors (Decision>Determined by chemical processes in brain>determined by laws of physics>so on). Even if you say that the universe is not Ultimately deterministic because of "Quantum Randomness", this is not an argument against the existence of Ultimate Free Will, as "Quantum Randomness" will simply be another factor that is added to the chain above as we have no power to influence it. This is why you can say that even if we don't have Ultimate Free Will, we do still have free will, which can be defined as the illusion of having UFW. In other words, it is practical to define free will as these "deterministic" processes that occur in our brain that are so insanely complex that they make us feel as if we possess some kind of power to generate choices that do not seem to be determined completely by factors such as chemical reactions in our brains (which are then determined by other factors as I explained above).
The case is similar when it comes to responsibility. You can argue that we do not have Ultimate Responsibility because we do not have Ultimate Free Will. However, on a practical level you can say that deterministic factors (and "quantum randomness") have determined the world in such a way that society has developed so that we do attribute responsibility to people for their actions (We chose to attribute responsibility to people to sustain our society> determined by our decision to want to sustain our society> determined by our biological factors that make us want to develop a society> determined by chemical reactions>...).
Basically, Ultimate Free Will may not exist as a force independent of factors that determine it, regardless of whether the factors themselves are deterministic or not (such as "Quantum Randomness"); however, on a practical level free will can be discussed as the chemical reactions in our brains that generate "decisions".
The universe may not be Ultimately deterministic because of "Quantum Randomness" but on a practical level nothing really has influence over those indeterministic factors, so when they themselves determine something else, they create a chain of "deterministic" causes and effects.
Also, I guess you could probably argue that the idea of Ultimate Free Will is practically impossible because even if we did have UFW, we would still base our decisions on other factors. In this sense, on a practical level, there wouldn't be much difference between UFW and the illusion of UFW.
Also, some people may feel like the idea that we do not have Ultimate Free Will and that "free will is an illusion" sounds scary and unreasonable when in reality it isn't and actually it just shows how beautiful the universe it.
I am pretty confident that this makes sense so I hope it clears everything up for people who might be confused by Destiny's messy explanations.
;)
In my limited understanding of quantum mechanics; isn't the problem with quantum mechanics with determinism due to the problem of the observer in the uncertainty principle? If that is correct, we can conclude that quantum mechanics simply cannot work with determinism. Obviously that doesn't imply that uncertainty principle disproves determinism; it's just that the entire study of quantum mechanics was not based on, and cannot work with determinism. I mean, heuristic and empirical methodologies that governed our understanding of the natural world does not necessarily contain a deterministic or logical foundation; many studies were initially developed using inductive reasoning for example.
Depending on a person's definition, free will isn't necessarily the antithesis of determinism. In many viewpoints, it is considered simply as a trait that exists in self-aware objects (to include artificial intelligence) that is capable to make decisions and reflect on that decision; and thus does not conflict. The other viewpoint as covered by destiny and yourself obviously must conflict with determinism to make logical sense.
Somehow, despite receiving a notification of the reply, It does not appear in the youtube comment. I do see a small section of your comment in the notification though. Either way, I'll try to clarify my understanding about quantum mechanics more clearly.
The uncertainty principle shows that our observation of an event has a significant effect on the event, and it is impossible for a single observation to observe all relevant properties of an event; that is why I don't think it works with determinism, nor does it disprove determinism, as determinism requires a physical framework that has an objective measurement; quantum mechanics does not have an objective measurement, just a statistical probability to find out what a state of an elementary particle is. It relates towards the idea that nature exists independently of man's mind; they call this term 'realism'.
I mean, there a reason why there is a conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics; general relativity is local, deterministic and causal, and quantum mechanics is non-local, non-deterministic and causal. Locality principle states that an object is only directly influenced by its immediate surroundings; so when an experiment shows a instantaneous phenomena like the double-slit experiment, it violates the 'nothing (even waves) can move faster than the speed of light' principle; and thus must be non-local and/or non-realism to not violate that principle. A non-local realism theory allows for hidden variables to account for the unexpected result; while a local non-realism is essentially how the uncertainty principle is viewed. The latter viewpoint led to the Bell's theorem which states that 'no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics'.
I probably should mentioned in the earlier reply that I do agree with your viewpoint, that 'randomness' does not necessarily equate to 'free will'; simply because there is no 'will'.
Do note that, I'm not an expert in the physics field; I just got most of this information (indirectly and directly) from googling.
I've seldom been so annoyed as with this comment section
"Our futures are predestined. Moebius
foretold mine a millennium ago. We each play out the parts fate has
written for us. We are compelled ineluctably down pre-ordained paths.
Free will is an illusion."
Like Sam Harris says, even if Determinism isn’t true, and Quantum indeterminism prevails, then free will still can’t exist because there is no chain of causation, and out actions are predicated on quantum fluctuations outside of our control
What about the hypothesis that the world's a simulation? We wouldn't know what we're encoded with
even if you had every single bit of information the computational capacity required to compute it would make consciousness NP hard and as such impossible to predict (not necessarily free tho)
Destiny, listen to "In the Aeroplane Over The Sea"
Great album tbf
This is memes
Just throwing this out there, but even if you take Quantum Randomness into account, isn't that still Determinism? Your actions are still determined by external causes and you still have no free will, and Quantum Randomness is still a "physical law" so to speak. While it is certainly a counter-argument to the predictability analogy, I don't see how it works against the concept of determinism itself in any way whatsoever.
I get the debate and all but did anyone else see the sad mountain?
Destiny, ask Contrapoints what compatibilism is.
Destiny really looking like the weekend nachos vocalist in the thumbnail 🧃🧃🧃
god damn, Destiny literally got purged in this debate!
Deezer watched this and his brain literally imploded
The only unique part about humans is the experience of conscience. We dont yet have a great understanding of what it is or how it arises.
This is practically a banal discussion. If you have free will then to change someone's mind you have to present the best possible argument to convince them to use it how you want. If you don't have a free will and people are a product of their environment and their genetics then the only way to make them act how you want is to use the best possible argument to change their environment to make them act how you want. Whether they're responsible or not or it's knowable or not your course of action doesn't change.
Have fun optimizing Chmess though.
Thanks to meme culture, nobody can say anything intelligent or they'll be called a Rick and Morty fanboy or whatever
12:00 "unless you believe that there is some true randomness that the human mind can access" so... quantum stuff? slurpslurpslurp 13:30 "its not like you have the ability to exert any influence over quantum randomness" so... begging the question? seems to me like a source of nondeterminism (aka free will), by process of elimination of the deterministic macro universe, could be quantum randomness
Very well done. Better than the other video on this topic. Less rough around the edges.
You gotta check out the term "Hard Incompatibilist". That is what you are. So regardless of Determinism of Indeterminism (prior cause or acausal events), Libertarian Free Will still can't exist either way. This is the strongest most useful position to take. It also takes out the need for making assumptions about the state of the universe. Because it doesn't even matter to the question at hand.
We absolutely do not need Libertarian Free Will (LFW) for responsibility. We do for ACTUAL just desert responsibility... but not as far as holding people accountable or having a duty, in a non-Libertarian sense.
You might not actually be Libertarian responsible, but regardless, corrective measures still need to take place, for the sake of society. Just not, retributive measures.
Yea Compatibilists.... ignore them. If they're not talking about LIBERTARIAN Free Will, then they are talking about something else.
The only difference from us and rocks, for example.. is that we have conscious awareness, and the ability to assess and select options. Causally. No LFW involved of course, but the process is different.
Chat person: Consciousness does not at all get one to LFW.
Chat person: The "proof", is very simple. Does Determinism get you LFW? no. Does Acausal randomness get you LFW? no. Are there any other options for an event? no. That's it. You're shit out of luck.
Then there's Neuroscience, but we don't need that. The rules of logic is more than enough, and that's a prerequisite for the empirical science stage of the process.
Chat person: Having 2 options to select between, is just deliberation. But it's not exercising LFW. It's all causal. But you still get to assess, deliberate, and select. Just not freely. (Or throw in some acausality if ya want. Doesn't change anything).
Yep, that's how it is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable."
So, Chaos is an indeterminate system that results from an error in determining initial conditions or maybe a weight rolling around in a bucket and shifting slightly in accordance with the forces applied at that moment does result in a seemly random system -one that we cannot presently calculate for whatever reasons. Does this randomness result in a free will worth having?
I don't think you understand what you have linked. Chaos theory is basically describing something so complex that we cannot (given what we can measure now) predict. It does not rule out the possibility of predicting them in the future.
This doesn't really change anything though. We know the ball is going to be influenced by deterministic stuff, but since there are so much it becomes to complex to predict, so we cannot predict where the ball will end. This is not free will.
+Destiny even if the processes that govern our decision making are affected by randomness to some extend, that is not an argument for free will. Randomness does not equal freedom of choice, they are not the same thing.
Randomness is a counter argument to determinism not to free will.
Nothing is truly random, it doesn't exist.
Something can only have the appearance of being random. Us perceiving something as random because we do not completely understand it does not make it random.
randomness doesnt exist
Destiny approaches this in a way that's pretty inefficient. I am an advocate of determinism but it's not my go to for denying free will. Accept whatever they say and then ask them how they chose that, how did they choose their personality, how did they choose the method to which they choose personality?
Destiny acknowledges this with quantum randomness but it seems silly even say that, open with everything the universe is random or it is deterministic either way nothing you do does anything
Also it's an illusion, the word he didn't use but should have
He did kinda imply "illusion" with his "slow and fast processing" analogy. Free will is the illusion of "decision making" when the "thinking" process is really slow. This is why we say computers are "thinking" when the little hourglass sits there a while...it's the time it takes to process, on top of the illusion of "you" (thinking), that gives this illusion of "some thing making a decision".
"Assuming you can know all the variables". How can you "know" that you know all the variables?
Its a hypothetical
Feelings are more important, and I feel like this is bs, so I'm right.
Even if we don't have free will, it's better to treat people as though they did, so that they will take responsibility for their actions and not shunt it off on "oh it's predetermined anyway" because even if something is predetermined you still have to go through the motions of making it happen. The thing about predetermination is that it works both ways. If it's predetermined, you have to do it, but you also have to do it for it to be predetermined. Just because you were always going to do The Thing doesn't mean you didn't have to choose to do The Thing at some point, and if you never choose to do The Thing then it was instead predetermined that you wouldn't. Things are predetermined *because* of our choices. Our choices are also predetermined by other choices in the past and other predetermined environmental factors. And maybe also by random chance depending on whether or not the brain is significantly impacted by quantum randomness.
The point in accepting determinism is to stop thinking about people as choosing to misbehave (because free will) and looking at how we can improve the world by removing the determined paths that lead to bad outcomes.
There is a difference between determinism and fatalism. Both fatalism and free will rely on metaphysical control of humans, determinism just says it is a compilation of the physical world on us that determines our outcome. We still have some collective control over the physical world.
i believe more of the deterministic argument but its kind of depressing in some ways. if i want to get out of depression i could actively try reprogramming, but i feel so pessimistic and believing determinism makes me somewhat accepting of it. i like determinism but i think reprogramming is the best concept it brings to the table (mental health wise)
Yes but determinism works along with your environment, so any changes in you environment such as someone recommending you something or watching a video can have on effect your life and choices moving forward. It's not locked in genetic determinism. Also there's quantum randomness which pretty much makes the universe not deterministic, however it still doesnt mean we have free will.
Lots of hand-waving on that quantum stuff man. Until we have a definite answer on whether or not quantum stuff is deterministic or not, we can't say if we live in a deterministic universe. So far, it looks like it's non-deterministic and we are trying really hard to falsify that (as we should).
usucdik ... It's pretty simple actually, if the universe is truly non-deterministic then it is impossible to predict the outcome of any scenario based on the initial state (even if you had perfect information on said initial state, which is impossible as far as we know)
usucdik I'm sorry, I don't know if you noticed, but ALL of this is pure conjecture.
All I'm saying is that we don't yet have the knnowledge to be able to make the claim that you can predict all physical events with 100% accuracy. That is an incredible claim to make and requires an incredible amount of evidence.
I'm not even sure we would ever have a definite answer on this but that is just speculation
12:20 given that two computers with the exact same setting can choose two completely different numbers kind of defeats your argument. I don't doubt the human brain would be similar. Same configuration but different interpretation or something, not to mention quantum mechanical randomness which may/may not influence the mind anyhow. .
That's not true
Ever wonder how an airplane works? how in the h*ck do you figure that?
Free Will is a bad topic because free will is a bad term.
I just want to know how you rectify this sort of determinism with things like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the Halting Problem. Destiny seems to mention this theoretical machine that can read the state of a brain and determine the outputs of the brain given certain inputs quite a bit, but I don't think he's thought this part through past Newtonian physics. This machine seems to be this magical machine that contradicts the aforementioned Theorems and Halting Problem. If you could do this for a brain, it would be simple to then use this machine to determine if a Turing machine halts, as a Turing machine seems to be a subset of the type of computer a human brain is.
Long story short, I don't think he has a very good argument. He may still be right; this doesn't prove free will either. But the fact that he keeps on coming back to the same points whenever free will comes up is troubling to me.
The problem doesn't stem from whether we may or may not ever actually be able to read the workings of the brain perfectly. The argument simply is that the laws of nature are essentially deterministic, and that there is no reason to believe our brain is an exception. Quantum fluctuations, at best, would prove our decisions are random, not free. You need some kind of magical X outside of the realm of physics to have free will, and there is no reason to believe that's the case.
That's still missing the point. The problems I mentioned preclude there ever being such a machine *even in theory.* This is exactly the sort of issue we have with physics as well. There is no reason to say that we can predict anything of a certain complexity, and the brain is one of the most complex things we can investigate. If it has been proven to the rigors of mathematics that pure logic cannot grant us all knowledge, I have no reason to assume that we can somehow "solve" the human brain in the same way. Even if the laws are deterministic, according to these theorems, we may not be able to know their outcomes to any reasonable certainty, which to some would fit their criteria for free will.
Again, this does not prove Destiny wrong and say that there is indeed free will, but I think that he uses a very weak line of reasoning to make his point. I think at this point we're still in a position of unknowing, and given the Incompleteness Theorems, that may be all we can get with logic as we know it. There are still many problems left to be solved in defining consciousness, free will, and emergent properties that this debate is contingent on as well.
"There is no reason to say that we can predict anything of a certain complexity, and the brain is one of the most complex things we can investigate"
I think the idea that it is not theoretically predictable is a much more peculiar proposition. When everything we have so far understood is deterministic, it would be strange to think that for some reason this doesn't apply to the human brain. It applies to all other complex processes. I would assume, for example, you would say the formation of galaxies is deterministic? It doesn't seem to me that the claim that complex processes are inherently unpredictable is a very easy one to defend, as we have to posit some kind of force or event that is genuinely random. Even most quantum physicists believe that there is underlying laws, just ones that we cannot currently, or may not ever be able to understand.
And like we say, even if it is truly random, it still doesn't help us out in terms of free will. It just means our actions are random as opposed to set.
Interesting chat mate, all the best.
Wait, back up. It sounds like you're saying that this unpredictability thing is something new I'm proposing. If you haven't already, please do look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and the Halting Problem. Basically, with logic as we know it, there are truths we will not be able to prove, and it's not too hard to see extending the problems beyond natural numbers and Turing machines to more complex systems that would be harder to predict. I agree, absolutely this is something completely unintuitive, but it's something I've had to accept working in applied mathematics and computer science.
I would agree that galaxies are deterministic, but what does that mean? Given two identical configurations of matter over the same period of time, we should expect them to end up in the same state. But does that mean we'd be able to predict what it would be like ahead of time? That's where these problems come in, not to mention that we still have the 3- and n-body problem. But I think the problem of scale also gets to the point of quantum mechanics. To be clear, I'm not a Deepak Chopra follower who says QM explains all of consciousness and other woo. But, I do know physics has yet to rectify quantum scale with the human scale, and even the human scale with the galactic scale, where unknown "dark" forces seem to get involved.
But I still think it's too early to say that either quantum processes are random or not. I wholly agree that there are probably laws that we don't or can't understand. But this speaks to the point that this isn't a binary factual question, but I think a problem of definition. Could there be some sort of emergent property of deterministic and seemingly random inputs to a complex system to yield an emergent property reasonably called free will? Under this line of thinking, I think it's quite possible.
The point is, I think Destiny keeps coming back to this argument that relies on the possibility that we can know things that mathematics, physics, and computability theory all seem to indicate are unknowable, and if he wants to convince me of determinism he's going to need to travel to more fertile ground.
And yes, thanks for the conversation. It's always good to have one's ideas bounced around in something other than an echo chamber.
Those theorems and problems still refer to the ability to ever test deterministic worldviews. When people say humans are essentially predictable, that does not mean that we do or ever can have the tools to actually measure and predict them. I understand what you're saying. There is a good chance that we may not ever be able to actually test determinism. Hell, we would essentially have to have a simultaneous understanding and measurement of every particle in the universe for all time to achieve that. This is the problem with any science. even if we discover one exception in the year 86,000 that will disprove the theory. With anything other than logic, all we can ever do is extrapolate the best likely truth. In this case I would say we have enough evidence to state it is likely the universe is deterministic.
Your correct concerning QM. We may well never know if its truly random. That being said I think we can use inductive logic to state that, as everything we have so far understood is deterministic, it is likely that what we currently don't understand has underlying deterministic laws.
I don't think we can prove much by those standards. We might as well go full Descartes at that point. As we anything, I think all we're saying is that we can make a strong and well founded assumption that the universe is deterministic.
In addition, I think Destiny claims that we have no free will, as opposed to "the universe is deterministic".
SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP
2:00 thank you so much for explaining something i've been thinking about for at least months.
he's wrong about that. you can only calculate the probability of something happening. czcams.com/video/izqaWyZsEtY/video.html because of the uncertainty principle, it's impossible, at this stage in our understanding, to treat the universe at the quantum level as deterministic.
immeasurably different?
Couple of things here.
If we're making desicions then we have free will. Those desicions are still largely influenced by past experience and what not, but our ability to evaluate decisions with self awareness knows that we are making a choice.
Second, there is a misunderstanding on the part of materialists when it comes to the position of immiterialists. Because we believe that an immaterial element of our consciousness is at work does not mean that our thinking or desicions are uncaused. It means that thinking and desicion making are governed by a non material agent that has its own rules and constraints.
a decision is an illusion since the decision youre going to make is already prederminated, even if you think it isnt
I loved this video but i had to stop because of your saliva noises. I wish i could have watched it all. But i had no choice.
Not all preconditions can be measured => therefore you cannot know all preconditions (you don't even know if you got every precondition) => therefore determinism cannot exist at the moment. If something is "random" or a "not found out precondition" is purely your (useless) personal point of view which is knowledge which is not even needed at the moment due to probabilistic closing the gaps.
I think it's a fair point to say we don't fully understand human consciousness but I think your conclusion that it's all just opinion fails miserably. Just as is with the god of the gaps, just because there are gaps in human knowledge doesn't mean we get to shove whatever pet vague unexplained supernatural nonsense we might want to concoct into those holes. I'm not versed in the field to say, but if we are to say that we have no evidence that shows biological life, including humans, operating by different set of rules or otherwise having more agency than non-biological life then no one should be taking free will for granted or even likely.
The zombie consciousness argument is pretty bad. I agree with everything before that.
You say: "What I would argue against is that you have any genuine free will."
The logical, ontological and epistemological challenges with this statement:
1. On determinism the cause why a person believe or not believe determinism is true is not reason, logic or evidence --- but that he/she was determined to do so.
2. On determinism the cause why a person agrees or not agrees with the belief that determinism is true is not reason, logic or evidence --- but that he/she was determined to do so.
3. On determinism the cause why a person objects or not objects to the claim: “On determinism the cause why a person believe or not believe determinism is true is not reason, logic or evidence --- but that he/she was determined to do so.” is not reason, logic or evidence --- the cause is that he/she was determined to do so.
Appeals to reason and logic can be steps to the deterministic outcome, so no, it is due to logic and reason
@@milesnoname7904kogic and reason are predeterminated
you need to talk about net-neutrality. there are trying to screw with it again.
isn't life and evolution itself intrinsically random? sure, two rocks will roll down the hill, but one person might choose to walk up the hill. sure, he might starve and die at the top, but that's evolution.
Point being a rock does not have the capacity to be retarded. We go against nature, and fight entropy every day to keep our houses together
entropy is the idea that all mass and energy in the universe is moving towards a homogeneous state. filling your gas tank with fuel is an easy example of re-concentrating energy where nature never intended it to be.
The law does not say we can't fight entropy, It just says that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease. Entropy can decrease somewhere, provided it increases somewhere else by at least as much. The entropy of a system decreases only when it interacts with some other system whose entropy increases in the process. That is the law.
So we work to decrease entropy in our own environments, by building houses and gas tanks, while simultaneously increase entropy in other environments, by destroying forests and fracking.
a rock, however, lacks the capacity to fight entropy. it will never choose to roll up the hill, such as a living thing can do.
the total entropy of the earth as a closed system always increases. but by climbing the hill or filling your tank, you are decreasing entropy for yourself as a system viewed separately from the earth.
all actions have a source, sure. the free will cant be would, but you can chose to not take action after a trigger. you can chance your perception, your awarness, your emotions. you can chose to not use fb on a daily base, to use a smartphone like a mobile phone and not like a daily ritual. you can chose to not doing things. this is free will. making a action is all time predictable but what action and why? only as a mass are humans highly predictable! as part of a group or part of a group modell. if you want to predict accurat you needet to place triggers. the ohter part can chose to ignore triggers. but hey, most people dont even mind if the moon does strange things XD
the point is that you cannot choose if it was prederminated that you will choose something
Sweatstiny? Slurpstiny.
what if a man slips on a banana peel and dies?
Destiny drew a jew in this debate
Absolutely, but what the fuck is the point? Determinism has real life effects on outcomes because it promotes falsely inactivity. "w/e, shit will happen whatever I do..."
It's the same like islamic destiny, when they say shitty excuses like "whatever Allah has planned" to situations that could have been avoided.
Why do you have to label everything as a debate? You even said it yourself at the end of the video, this was a discussion not a debate.You're not really debating anything here, you're sharing your opinions. Again, like you said at the end of the video, you don't have concrete knowledge in any of the subjects you discuss, you're simply sharing your personal unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but you keep calling every conversation you have a debate when really all you're doing is sharing your (in your words) "subjective bullshit opinions" which don't have a place being shared in the first place.
XxGamersUnitedxX he has an editor that does CZcams for him.
> Destiny pulls up paint
No you would sit on the blue chair so nobody can hit you with it. I win against destiny!
The laws of physics are not policed by anything. The laws of physics are a mathematical descriptions of human brain description of nature. As science is progressing the precision of the laws are becoming greater but they are not perfect. The idea that every action by every atom in the universe is absolutely determined is too strong and too arrogant at this time.
but it seems like that is indeed the case otherwise the law of causation would fall apart
@@faith.W The "law" of causation is an illusion. Causation is merely RATIONALIZATION + arrogance.
@@dreyestud123 oki
All hail Professor Robert Sapolsky :p
be careful you can loose your mind over this themes and since you like to talk about things like this , try to tell me what this YOU is is there even such a thing as YOU?
a shitty example, but what about radioactive isotopes? they're not quantum-level, they're pretty real, observable things that you can't predict with 100% accuracy
Poskulis So radioactive isotopes have free will?
what are you talking about? are you talking about the decay rate? You can't determine which particle will decay. The only thing you predict is the half-life and it is absolutely not 100% accurate.
Snowball Effect decay rate
not 100% accurate. nothing in the universe can be measured to 100% accuracy. it is physically impossible. this is a fundamental fact of the universe.
Snowball Effect that's what I'm saying?..
3:17
amogus ඞ
The problem with determinism is that is unfalsifiable. If I take one action you say that it is determined. If I choose a different action that again it is determined. Also, without any type of knowledge on consciousness, none of your claims have any merit.
Me no like feee will, hurt brain
I would argue that our free will is limited by our capabilities (IQ) and our experience or knowledge. Of course you don't have the free will of suddenly becoming a genius. In our daily life we have limited free will (what we eat, what we say, what we chose to believe in) but it's not the same as absolute free will.
LETS GET DANKMEMES SOCIAL
good memes
I don't watch the stream, did Destiny sellout and get sponsored to play this shitty game?
he spent like 2000 bucks on it already afaik. So no, he plays it for fun would be my guess weow
yeah determinism is a fact
MagnificentXXBastard No it doesn't at all. Just because you can't predict something doesnt mean its not determistic. Just because something is more complicated than we once imagined it does not mean the universe isn't deterministic. Try again.
no it doesn't. Nothing you've said shows that determinism isn't a fact. Determinism isnt about the ability to predict an outcome, its about whether or not an outcome was always going to happen. How does anyone know that anything is "true randomness" Its impossible to know if something is actually random.
a perfect instrument such as a god on the outside of the universe looking in would be able to predict with 100 percent accuracy everything that was going to happen. Current scientific instruments, and methods probably not, maybe not ever as they are a product of the universe.
Things appearing in reality in a seemingly random way may seem random but us not knowing the reason why does not mean there is no reason why. Us seeing it as random, does not mean it is random. Our current theoretical knowledge being unable to predict outcomes does not mean the outcome is unpredictable.
MagnificentXXBastard
You say that there is a strong indication that it is true randomness but the argument is literally "well it seems random and acts like it's maybe random therefore it's probably random" that doesnt really hold any weight with me. That kind of thing is impossible to prove. There is no way of knowing that something is truly random. To say that something can be random is kind of a extraordinary claim don't you think? Seeing that every thing else we witness in reality is governed by cause and effect which is the opposite of random. Not to say that something couldn't be random, but the closest we can get is that something "seems random" I dont buy it.
"Quantum mechanics might be governed by some underlying laws that produce outcomes that look like pure randomness and seem to be governed only by statistics that we have not yet found and understood, but there is no reason to believe that is the case"
The reason to believe this may be the case is that every thing we have seen in our current understanding of reality is governed by the various laws of physics, most of which are not random in the slightest. The only things we think might be random are the things we are no where near understanding yet. See the pattern? Everything we understand about our universe = not random. Everything we dont understand (Quantum mechanics) = "maybe perhaps random... maybe...well it seems kinda random um.. we dont really know." Every thing we have ever gained knowledge of seemed random at first until we came to a closer understanding of it. "Random" to me just sounds like a current gap in our knowledge.
"Also not true, at least if the God or instrument is bound by the laws of physics and his interactions follow those"
No. In this "theoretical" scenario we are able to use this instrument without effecting our universe at all. It only observes without the universe acknowledging it's its existence. It's invisible to our universe. I know this isn't possible (yet) but it's just a thought experiment.
"Also when observed or even objectively knowable, quantum systems behave differently than when they are unobserved or objectively knowable"
True but many scientists speculate that this is because of the tool we are using to observe and the way it interacts with the things it is trying to observe. They do not act differently solely because they are being observed.
R.e. probability;
Probability is just humans way of predicting things before they happen. "5%" and "30%" are numbers we have attached to these things based on what we have witnessed before. It's a human problem, these things may not have an actual 5% chance of happening they are simply our way of trying to attach predictive capability to them. The "chance" that it might happen may not even be a chance at all, we may have the ability to predict these things to within close to a 100 percent accuracy at some point in the future, just as we know the laws of thermodynamics now, just as we know how fast light travels through various mediums now, just as we know if we drop a ball from a certain height how long it will take to hit the ground now.
When we see a coin flip we may say it has a 50 percent chance of landing on heads, but if we had a computer watching every interaction with then coin, the velocity of the coin, how fast it's spinning, every tiny interaction with the coin, we would be able to accurately say whether it was going to be heads or tails before it hit the ground. Right now we are just humans playing coin flip with quantum mechanics, we cannot know, therefore it seems completely random but is it? Is it really? Or are we unable to say because we are just eyes watching a coin, without any help from advanved technology.
I believe in determinism because I believe calling something "random" is a cop out and gaps in our knowledge don't give us any reason to believe anything is random, or that something being random is even possible.
Okay so first in gunna get my dumber point out of the way. if the human brain cant conceive of any inspiration, beyond the universe that created it, how do we have fiction?
Next, there was an experiment done where a man lifted his arm and then had his brain stimulated in the same way. His arm lifted exactly as it had, however when asked about it the man described the first instance as “lifting his arm”, and the second instance as “his arm moving on its own”, suggesting a higher operating consciousness rather than a long series of neurochemical reactions.
Destiny is systematically destroying the alt right, _oh my goodness shut it down!_
From how I perceive life, I think destiny and freewill both exist. Destiny - things you cannot control. Freewill - things you can control. Destiny is like the way you are born, nationality, family, things already given and other stuffs happening in your life that you feel can't help but happen. Now given the destiny, after that is free will. What are you going to do with things you already have which mostly external factors of the self.
Nah
so heres how i see it. there are three possibilities here. either the universe is purely deterministic, which you would need to have omniscience to be certain of. its random, and thus we cannot guide anything at all, choice or otherwise. or we have some sort of magical aspect to out minds that allows us to think on a level outside of the psychical reality we find ourselves in, which no science currently suggest is even possible.
the reason you need omniscience to be certain of determinism is because unless you flush out all notions of any randomness, even on the smallest of scales, then the randomness hypothesis is true. ANY randomness in a system makes the entire system effectively random.
the reason that randomness makes our choices also random seems self evidence. if you cannot predict every aspect of your own choices before you make them, then there will always be something about your choices that you are unaware of, thus an element of effective randomness. and to know what your choices are going to be before you make them, would require you to think your thoughts before you think them, which is just turtles all the way down.
and finally, why the idea that our minds have access to or come from a special place that is outside of the deterministic universe is not a good argument, is simply because there is no evidence to supports such an idea. especially when you get into the experiments done on human consciousness and how our brain seems to make choices before we are even aware of them.
czcams.com/video/IQ4nwTTmcgs/video.html
as a bonus concept, the concept of instinctual behaviors, like automatically jumping and whipping your head in the direction of a startling noise, wouldnt be possible if all choices were strictly conscious. on some level, we do things that are subconscious, and thus are not choices that we willingly make.
Even if Destiny had my parents, my friends, my entire life, and everything that would happen to me, instead happened to him, he would still not be me. He would not behave like me, he would not think like me, and he would not do what I would do. However, if he had MY body, my genes, my looks, on top of my life, THEN, and only then would he think like me, and become me. Why? BECAUSE HE WOULD BE ME. What makes me who I am is not just my experiences, my family, my friends, in reality, it is my body, my whole being, all of my DNA, that is literally who I am, even if we change everything else. Sure, I would think differently, but it would still be who I am, just like how Destiny can't become who I would be if he stole everything but my body, my literal physical self.
What does all of this mean? Well, it means that Destiny is saying, to behave like me, he'd have to be me. Well no SHIZ! If that is the only way someone can be you, then there is free-will. So the only way to be exactly like you, is to... be you? Well, then there can ONLY be one of you, and that is because of who you are. So, with other words, your will is your very own, more your own than anything else. Impossible to dublicate unless they become you. And you already exist so yeah, determinism does exist, but so does free-will. According to what I think, at least.
Edit: To simplify. Yes, I would technically be a "slave" to my brain, the chemicals in my brain, but I would have to be. Anything that exists... exists, so they have something which they use to think, right? But the will I have would be my own since no one else is quite like me, thus, my choices are unique to me, only I can do those exact choices, other people might not have replied the same way because they are not me. Sure my thoughts are based on chemicals or what have you, but those chemicals ARE who I am. Those are part of me.
It depends how you define free will. For example, I can chose to type this comment or not right?
But someone with complete knowledge would already know if I will type this comment or not at the begin of the universe.
That's the illusion of choice we talk about.
Free will exists in the realm of the human world. But in the realm on physics there's this theory everything is pre-determined.
@@angelgodplace But the idea of having complete knowledge makes no sense. How on earth can you even speculate on such a topic? Also, you'd have to explain how the physical realm gives rise to the realm of the human world, and there's a big piece missing in that puzzle: consciousness.
@@Al-ji4gd except there's no evidence of a consciousness. It's like saying God is doing it. No point
@@angelgodplace There's no evidence of consciousness? There is more evidence of consciousness than any other facet of existence, pal. Denying consciousness is akin to denying reality. It's incoherent. You remove consciousness, you remove yourself. End of story.
@@Al-ji4gd that's not proof, you are just coming up with a way to explain our thoughts based on nothing.
It's like saying there's a god that's responsible for the things we don't understand.
We could be a simulation, could just be electrical signals, there could be a god.
when you do that slurping, you sound extremely, extremely creepy
I think this was really off the mark.
Destiny. I love you. You're good at politics and economics. But please inquire more into philosophy. You're not very well read.
why is everyone bashing this guys opinion , damn, triggered xD
because the physics-based premise he uses is wrong. you can only calculate probabilities of outcomes.
and thats a reason to bully him? o.o hes just a guy._.
by guy do you mean destiny? cuz that's what i was assuming. i'm not bullying him. i'm just saying he's wrong. he can take it anyway. he's a big boy.
yeah i mean him o.o
why do people hate him so much?
depends. some people hate him cuz they themselves are idiots and he likes to deal with facts (except in this particular case where he's way out of his field). other people hate him because he's just a weirdo who should be hated.
Regardless of whether or not determinism exists; there is no argument that we should act as though we are deterministic. We will 100% see a better world if we treat people as if they had free will in *every* case.
here's my argument: i value truth above pragmatism. i will act based on what i honestly perceive reality to be, not delude myself into falsehoods for the 'greater good' or whatever you see it as.
your same line of reasoning could be applied to religion, would you act as though god existed and religion were true if religion benefited society on the whole?
This justifies revenge instead of resocialistation/reabilitation.
Not necessarily. If we think for a moment that a criminal is a criminal through determinism and no fault of their own it means they are somewhat unlucky to be a criminal rather than them just being a bad person through choice. it eliminates the need punishment apart from it being a deterrent. It means we have to find other ways to change the world so that criminals are less likely to exist, instead of blaming people on an individual level. If you're a serial killer you were always going to be a serial killer. Instead of making you evil, it makes you unlucky. Kinda interesting really.
also i disagree. without the assumption of free will there's less of a rational basis for hatred and outrage and it will lead to more understanding overall imo.
exactly my dude
Because it's not 100% deterministic, I think the entire discussion about it is mostly mute. Since believing in either a deterministic, or non-deterministic world doesn't particularly change much. If anything, I believe there is more negative things associated with believing a deterministic world since that's what religious people tend to think. Fate, etc.
Religious people typically believe in free will, or at least the book religions do. Also how is it not 100% deterministic?
Its not 100% deterministic because of quantum randomness. However this doesnt mean free will exists. Whether your choices are predetermined or somewhat as a result of quantum randomness it doesnt give you any more control over it.
One cannot but be empathetic of all things once accepting determinism.
The entirety of reality takes on the colour of fate.
This is the moral the ancients attempted to communicate in their tragedies.
It's never all your fault. Neither your successes or your failures.
Just as it is always in some measure your fault, both your successes and failures.
If one hears the determinism theory and believes he need not endeavour as fate will take the wheel, then fate has taken the wheel, he is thus one who does not endeavour, and therefore lives a sorry, unsuccessful existence.
Fate is inexorable.
*moot
nerdSlayer fatalism and determinism are very different things. Belief in determinism might be dangerous but it can also be quite rewarding.
Has Destiny ever read up on the double slit experiment? Every time he tries to get all snarky he just comes off as straight-up pseudointellectual and its really cringey.
Destiny seems to have very strong opinions about topics he knows very little about. :^)
D:
D:
D:
As much as I love Destiny and his armchair philosophies this is wrong. Period. The main problem with determinism is a simple lack of understanding about neurological states. These states are not known to us. Maybe in the future they will be but for now they are not. We cannot say with definitive effort that the states of our neurons necessarily conclude some state of the universe. For reading see: Richard Rorty "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" Quine"s 1960 "Word and Object" and Whitehead's In this way, entities are constituted by their perceptions and relations, rather than being independent of them. Further, Whitehead regards perception as occurring in two modes, causal efficacy (or "physical prehension") and presentational immediacy (or "conceptual prehension").[98]
Whitehead describes causal efficacy as "the experience dominating the primitive living organisms, which have a sense for the fate from which they have emerged, and the fate towards which they go" Symbolism and Its Meaning Effect
You're neurons are physical objects and are subject to the same laws as all other physical objects in the universe.
Processes in the universe come in two varieties, those are calculable given some set of starting conditions, and those that are subject to random quantum events.
You're thoughts are a combination of these processes, and so every thought you have, is following a mix strictly predictable physics plus some randomness.
To really reason about free will, you have to agree on what exactly is meant by it. If free will means that our every thought and action cannot be pre calculated from the moment we are born, then yeah, we probably do have it due to random quantum events.
If free will means that we are free agents, whose behaviour is neither completely calculable or partially with some randomness, then no, we don't have it
You're a pizza. You may not think you are a pizza. But you are. I mean you made it to reading my comment this far didn't you? - if you made it this far then you must have at least entertained the idea that you are a pizza? Maybe in some way you are a pizza? have you ever thought about that? I mean, if you think about it - you and a pizza are not entirely different... many of the same molecules that make a pizza make you. You must surely accept this at least - that you and a pizza are kind of the same? "But a pizza isn't conscious?" I here you say. Well how do you know? How do you know a pizza isn't conscious? - did a pizza ever tell you that they were not conscious? No, it would be ridiculous for a pizza to tell you that they were not conscious. Do you think because you can speak that you are more conscious than someone who does speak? No. That would be ridiculous. So why is it any different for a pizza? If anything a pizza is MORE conscious than you are. A pizza was created from an idea - it was imagined. Whereas you just grew from a single celled organism. Does a pizza left out in the open in the winter not feel cold? Of course if does. Could you possibly form all the complexity of a pizza's structure in your mind. No of course not - a pizza is far more complex than your brain. "But a pizza doesn't look like a brain" I here you say. Yes - a pizza can be any shape... whereas your brain is limited... at most you can change your 'toppings' but that is about it.. you're a pizza. A shitty boring soggy lump of a pizza that doesn't even taste very nice.
Free will exists, but we do live in a deterministic universe. How can this be? Easy.
You can choose to thumbs up/down this video...if you have an account.
I think most of the confusion is where one distinguishes between macro & micro free will.
The 2 are symbiotic, but macro-possibilities+their limitations are what govern the micro by rule. However, if enough micro-choices align they can work-around or redefine macro-limitations. Maybe.
the universe has not been proven to be deterministic at all.
+Ta, naka
The whole point of determinism is to undermine decisions which we typically consider to be our choice. When the determinist says that we don't have free will and you don't really choose things, they are making a claim against the idea that you as an agent carried out individual agency asides from the genetic and environmental factors which influenced you. Determinists are more than happy to acknowledge that you are a turning cog, but a cog in a machine that you have no control over as you are not a free agent. You are conflating what the determinist position is with what compatibilism considers to be free will. Free will in the way the determinist talks of it cannot exist in a deterministic world by the very nature of what the determinist entails free will to be.
Also, there is no point to try and differentiate between different types of free will/possibilities. This is an unnecessary distinction and I don't ever witness anyone make it. If you take the deterministic argument to its logical conclusions then it encapsulates all forms of choice and possibilities. You are muddying the waters by even trying to draw a distinction here, its not relevant to the determinist's argument and nor does the determinst argument depend on it.
Why would reality be illogical? The uncertainty principle does not somehow negate the other laws of the universe, such as the electromagnetic force, warping of time-space, strong nuclear force, the properties of a photon, etc. The kind of basic questions you're asking are better answered through your own research on the matter. There is plenty of material right here on youtube.
No you cant choose to either thumbs up or down this vid
the laws of physics which govern your brain will make that choice for you
and no thats not the same as having freewill
you are like a passive observer if anything
this is not necessarily true and is unproven. please don't pass off your opinion as some sort of verified fact.
he's saying that human actions can be predicted, buy I don't understand how that's an argument against free will.
Ali Abdullah nah fam he is saying due to the history of our past, everything we do “since we are an amalgamation of our past and experiences” can be tracked and is already set in motion. To have true free will we would have to completely disconnect from ourselves.
Remember the ball; if you knew every input parameter of the ball going down the hill, you could determine precisely the point at which the ball would land. The ball isn't going to "choose" to go one way or another, it will follow the laws of the universe as we understand them.
Our brains follow the same patterns as the ball, right? Why should human brains be any different than a ball rolling down a hill? Can brains really "choose" to do anything given the same set of stimuli, blood flow, brain chemistry, etc.?
Interesting..
his premise demonstrably is false, though
Demonstrably how?