Forums - General Discussion - How to disprove free will using basic logic

Do you agree with me?

Yes 9 12.00%
 
No. You are wrong but I can't prove it 11 14.67%
 
No. You are wrong and I w... 25 33.33%
 
I'm just confused... 10 13.33%
 
See results 20 26.67%
 
Total:75
Plaupius said:

I understand your argument, and I think it is the case of changed definition. So, please, define free will again as you understand it now.

And, just for clarity, I'm not arguing that free will exists or does not exist, as that is totally irrelevant. If you want to prove the free will does not exist, then you have to define it in such a way that you can actually prove it. Your current, outspoken definition does not seem to support proving that.


That is the sad truth.

It does seem to me though, that I have disproven everyone elses (well, almost) definition of the free will which, again, is the purpose of this thread.



Around the Network
Heavenly_King said:

Off-topic: I think that is impossible, because God´s existance is a Religious Catholic dogma.  He exist, because he exists, and I believe that fact because of my faith.  As written in "some famous catholic ancient book which has the words of God" XD "He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" :D

XD


This is actually related with what I've been saying. If you are religious then there's not a single reason not to believe in the existence of free will.

You just beat the thread



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Heavenly_King said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Heavenly_King said:
You are wrong. If you go back in time you will see that the dude who "likes" to rob will always steal from the same person over and over and over again, unless other factor is added into the event, like a time traveling intervening, just to put an example. But that doesn't mean that thief did not have free will.

You are talking about from a point of view in which the events have already happened, and you are traveling to a point in which the decision to steal has already happened; and from that point you are saying that, the thief while being in that situation will always rob certain person. What you are saying is like "He had a heart attack because he was fat and a heavy smoker". It is so damn obvious that the event will happen in those situations for that person, but the thing here is that you need to understand what made them to be in those situations, and there is where free will takes place.

Every action has a reaction, so a person who have certain experiences (action), will do things according to how he interpreted those events (reaction), and that will depend on how they where raised (or maybe due to some genetic diseases, by how he developed during pregnancy, which will depend of what choices the mother make, and who she choose to be her mate, etc,etc,etc).

Staying with the same example, the guy robbed some dude because he was in the "perfect" moment to do so and because he had the motivation to do it because of certain events on his life that leaded that person to that point of decision in which he resolve to rob certain dude. If you travel at the same exact moment over and over again, it will always happen the same and he he will rob the same dude, because the experiences have not changed.

And also it will be the same because you are going from a time in which the events already happened; it is like watching a recorded event, it will happen the same every time you rewind it; unless you interfere.

Time travel funny thing: If the event changes, that means that in "your present time" you would have no reason to go back in time to see the 1st event, because it did not happened. In the beginning what motivated you to travel back in time was the result of the 1st event; but that event is no more, in other words you would have no reason to do so. XD


Except for the part where you said I was wrong, you are right :D

You just fully supported the determined world view which is the only path in which you always makes decisions free from randomness. The will is still not free though as all of your future decisions were determined even before you and your parents were born.

As for that last paragraph, I guess you've been watching "The Big Bang Theory"?

lol XD.    I havent watched an episode related to time travel.....yet, but I have read novels about it, and if you think about it what I said makes sense :D

back on topic, the decisions made before the existance of your parents were made, were made because of the free will of others, and if that changes somehow, you would not even be born, and we would not be having this conversation lol :D.  As I mentioned before its an action-reaction "thing", and it doesnt count to "not having Free will" the fact of being unaware of the existance  of "reality", because when you are aware you will try do things by though or instinct, but you may not be able to do it because you are in the womb of your mother lol.     An example would be like being in prison, you cant go out and buy an icecream, but if you want to escape and buy an ice-cream, you will get shot in the head, so after thinking the possible scenario you decide not to do it (unless you want to get shot in the head lol).   It does not mean to not have free will, it just means that their free will is restricting yours, but you still have it.

XD


You should take a close look at the sentense that I just bolded from your original post. Would it not be possible to use that argument in every single decision that has ever been made? All of our decisions are made because of our previous experiences that makes us want to do certain things (free will). One thing leads to another, and exactly everything happens because someone decided to. The present is decided by the past and the future is decided by the present which i decided by the past and thus already determined, by the actions you and/or others did based on free will, depending on their experiences, which is based on the free will of others.  And If you cant do "something" you want it is because someone is overrulling / restricting your free will with his/her free will; so you decide not to do it if you dont want "something" to happen.

Fixed XD

It is like "Uroboros" the mythical serpent that is eating its own tail.  It is a viscious circle over and over again, and.......... that happens because of the free will TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL  XD

 

Uroboros.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Heavenly_King said:

Off-topic: I think that is impossible, because God´s existance is a Religious Catholic dogma.  He exist, because he exists, and I believe that fact because of my faith.  As written in "some famous catholic ancient book which has the words of God" XD "He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" :D

XD


This is actually related with what I've been saying. If you are religious then there's not a single reason not to believe in the existence of free will.

You just beated the thread


Do I get a cookie? lol XD



I am going to sleep, I was awake waiting for the PS3 exclusive reveal lol.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Plaupius said:

I understand your argument, and I think it is the case of changed definition. So, please, define free will again as you understand it now.

And, just for clarity, I'm not arguing that free will exists or does not exist, as that is totally irrelevant. If you want to prove the free will does not exist, then you have to define it in such a way that you can actually prove it. Your current, outspoken definition does not seem to support proving that.


That is the sad truth.

It does seem to me though, that I have disproven everyone elses (well, almost) definition of the free will which, again, is the purpose of this thread.

I don't think there have been much attemps by others to define free will in this thread. There have been attempts to prove that free will exists, some better and some (most) worse. I think I have shown that using the definition of autonomous and independent, it is possible that free will exists and hence you can't use it to prove that it doesn't. Now it's up to you to go further in the process and define free will more precisely.

However, I believe that the premise you seem to have now, that free will must exist at all levels of complexity of the universe, is wrong and leads to a dead end, or to the disproval of much more than just free will. I think you must incorporate the system view into your definition to go forward.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Heavenly_King said:

Off-topic: I think that is impossible, because God´s existance is a Religious Catholic dogma.  He exist, because he exists, and I believe that fact because of my faith.  As written in "some famous catholic ancient book which has the words of God" XD "He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" :D

XD


This is actually related with what I've been saying. If you are religious then there's not a single reason not to believe in the existence of free will.

You just beat the thread

Actually, that's not true at all, and the reason is a simple and ages old dilemma: if God knows everything, then He knows already everything you will ever do, hence all your actions are predetermined and you have no free will.



I'd say this video is very appropriate for this topic:



Plaupius said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Heavenly_King said:

Off-topic: I think that is impossible, because God´s existance is a Religious Catholic dogma.  He exist, because he exists, and I believe that fact because of my faith.  As written in "some famous catholic ancient book which has the words of God" XD "He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end" :D

XD


This is actually related with what I've been saying. If you are religious then there's not a single reason not to believe in the existence of free will.

You just beat the thread

Actually, that's not true at all, and the reason is a simple and ages old dilemma: if God knows everything, then He knows already everything you will ever do, hence all your actions are predetermined and you have no free will.


I have heard about that (even earlier in this thread). My comment wasn't serious, just made in a rush.



.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.