I don’t believe free will is real. I’m not a deep physics person (and relatively bad at math), but with my undergrad understanding of chemistry, classical mechanics, and electromagnetism, it seems most rational that we are creatures entirely controlled by our environments and what we ingest and inhale.

I’m not deeply familiar with chaos theory, but at a high level understand it to be that there’s just too many variables for us to model, with current technology, today. To me that screams “god of the gaps” fallacy and implies that eventually we WILL have sufficiently powerful systems to accurately model at that scale…and there goes chaos theory.

So I’m asking you guys, fellow Lemmings, what are some arguments to causality / hard determinism, that are rooted entirely in physics and mechanics, that would give any credit to the idea that free will is real?

Please leave philosophical and religious arguments at the door.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The double-rod pendulum is one of the simplest dynamical systems with chaotic solutions. …from Wikipedia

    This system is very simple yet even with initial conditions varying by (less than) Planck’s time or Planck’s length, theoretical resulting behavior changes after a few cycle.
    Physical determinism says that there cannot be creation of (new) information yet this system does exactly that.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        And it would be unpredictable too. Despite a perfect, zero-fuzziness Newtonian model determining the pendulum’s behavior, it would be impossible to predict the blinking of the light.

        Wait really? How?

          • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            TL;DR: Tiny differences in input become huge differences in output in a chaotic system

            You’re missing a “can” there. Tiny differences in input can become huge differences in output in a chaotic system. (Infinitely) many chaotic systems are structurally stable. For example consider systems that have the Anosov property.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Hi @intensely_human
        You are the only one here who gets it easily even though I didn’t say much. Also in this tread I’m now up to 8 levels’ comments with @grabyourmotherskeys but we are getting nowhere & I am quite feedup. So if you could do something here I would appreciate.

        Thanks

    • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Here’s the thing. At what point does the causal chain get interrupted, free will kick in, and then the old causal chain fires back up? Because that’s what arguments like yours are implying.

      The response is always that I don’t understand the theory you have put forward. I’ll grant that.

      If the proof free will is tied to a seemingly stochastic system how is that “free will”. If I replaced your decision making with a random number generator would that be free will?

      I sincerely hope you will engage with me here.

      To be perfectly clear, my view is that we do not have free will but our limited set of information makes it seem like we do and so it is rational to continue on despite this. Put another way, I know the latest Mission Impossible movie was made months before I saw it, and that the outcome was predetermined, but wow, what a ride.

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        At what point does the causal chain get interrupted ( … ?)

        The system is diverging at every point in time :

        In chaotic systems, the uncertainty in a forecast increases exponentially with elapsed time. (… same article from Wikipedia)

        I believe one has to see this before being able to apply it to free will explanations.

          • A_A@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            at what point ( … ? )

            Before answering this I need to know if you get the basics : what do you understand so far ? About chaotic systems ? About their variable rate of exponential divergence ? About their “liberty” ? About the fact we have such systems in us, only far more complex ?

            And beyond any explanations, if you came to know we have free will, how could we stand the shame and guilt of not doing enough ?

              • A_A@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s something I think about constantly, whether I want to or not! ;)

                When I was young I was in that situation, with those same questions. But I was lucky : I had the right science and the right IQ and I found the answers. You are now thirsty and I gave you some salt ; if you are too blind to see it or too arrogant, bad for you, so i will not come back to this.

                Goodbye.

                • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  You still haven’t answered the question and have made at least a couple of inferences about me that aren’t really accurate.

                  Anyway, people say it you can’t explain it you don’t understand it

                  Edit: sorry, wrong thread. I would still say you are making lot of assumptions.

                  How old do you think I am? Let’s start with that. :)