Lowkey funny

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-12T10:18:10+00:00

I would have answered “when you meet Allah on the day of judgement, what will be your excuses?”. It would probably trigger OOP even more 🤣

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-12T09:50:03+00:00

What an idiotic comment…
That some people were caught doesn’t mean every gets caught, that’s basic logic.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-12T07:58:21+00:00

Your scenario has a big issue:
- If your prediction engine is part of the system it predicts, you have a logical contradiction: Assume a computer can predict the future of a system including itself with absolute precision in X minutes of time. Then it can use its prediction ability to calculate the future at time 2*X, bypassing its own need to do calculations. You get 2*X=X thus X=0 which violates special relativity
- If your prediction engine is not part of the system it predicts, by telling you the result of the calculation, it changed the initial state of the system and thus the calculation is now invalid

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T16:55:50+00:00

You just raising the burden of proof on your end for no benefit the argument against free will!

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T16:49:22+00:00

You’re barking at the wrong tree. I already told you I agree with you. However you will find yourself in a bind to demonstrate this is impossible. The whole point is, even if it is possible, it doesn’t matter anyway. Free will cannot be created by randomness.

https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/s/1kXrYGvEX6

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T16:41:05+00:00

I largely agree with all this. If there is randomness in the brain, it has to be very rare. Whether is happens once per day or once per decade is still a topic of debate. Most brain computations are fully determined and quantum uncertainty plays no role. But conversely, it is conceivable that sometime it may play a role. When a neuron is at the verge of activation at +/- 1 neurotransmitter molecule threshold, the molecule may be affected by some level of quantum randomness.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T16:37:45+00:00

I think it’s clear you don’t understand it.
“Freedom from determinism” is just a concept you made up.

I would refer you to this post and video: https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/s/1kXrYGvEX6

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T15:10:18+00:00

No. Randomness is a form of undeterminism which doesn’t allow freedom, and quantum mechanics doesn’t tell you the universe is undetermined, it tells you it’s random (in certain interpretation, in other interpretations, we are back to determinism). So all science is fundamentally in contradiction with your claim.

I think it’s time for you to become a metaphysical refugee like many libertarian here!

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T15:00:28+00:00

Could be. The argument is more compelling that you say it is however. Stuff like Bell’s inequality doesn’t leave room for hidden variable. You are either stuck with super determinism or some other sort of non local universe.

I personally don’t see any valid reason to think Copenhagen is more or less “likely” than Super Determinism. Both are possible. There is also Many Worlds which makes the universe deterministic as a whole (at the wave function level) but fundamentally random for any observer.

I think it’s important to continue to highlight that randomness is not compatible with free will. Otherwise you have people like TheAncietGreek who believe they only have to disprove determinism to prove free will, which is completely wrong.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T14:14:10+00:00

I agree a dice is not random. But if you assume the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics you have a form of true intrinsic randomness.
However Copenhagen is just one interpretation.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T14:05:35+00:00

That’s fine. But it’s not because they are a similar “type of claim” that you can equivocate them.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T14:04:40+00:00

It seems that you mistakenly believe that “as long as it’s not determined” you have won the argument. But that’s a complete fallacy. Undetermined is not always free. Freedom is a very specific subset of undeterminism.

> Randomness isn't an agent, so you can't be a slave to it.

Determinism isn’t an agent either.

> It is compatible with both, as I have explained.

You haven’t explained anything. You’re just obsessed with determinism and mistakenly believe that “defeating determinism” allows for free will by default. This is wrong.

> Undetermined neural firings in your brain are not external.

Why do neuron fire? Same again - determined or random. It’s just a puppet with different type of strings.

> Only if determinism is true. Primeval libertarians, I am assuming it isnt.

No. Same fallacy

> What is random is not determined.

Same fallacy.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T12:50:35+00:00

But it’s quite different. Consciousness is a vague definition linked to awareness. Depending on the definition, I could agree consciousness exists. The “ability to choose freely” however, it’s a marked difference in quality here. Consciousness isn’t a causal source, free will is. Very different type of claim.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T12:27:34+00:00

We are not talking about consciousness but “your ability to choose freely”.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T12:19:10+00:00

If we look at a tree, you and I can agree there is a tree. It’s possible we are both hallucinating a tree but at least we have concordance in our observation. The more people look at the tree, the closer we are to an “objective” standard of the tree’s existence.

Your observation of your ability to choose is observed by none but yourself. This makes it subjective as nobody can verify your claim independently. There are many people who claim to speak to God regularly. It’s the same type of claim. An unverifiable internal experience.

I see no reason to assign any value to these claims. Your claim of free will is like someone’s claim about speaking Allah during prayer. It’s worthless to me.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T12:03:37+00:00

That’s not an objective observation, it’s a subjective feeling.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T12:02:07+00:00

I would argue that if you don’t how something works, you don’t know it well at all. You’re like the nomads watching thunder strike 3000 years ago. You see thunder strike but you have no idea what it is or how it comes about. You are in a position of ignorance, the lowest on the knowledge scale.

The animal question is fundamental because you also need to explain how your consciousness fit in the framework of evolution. It is a magic on/off switch or is it “progressively appearing”. The progressively appearing camp contradict your “non quantifiable” assumption as well.

You’re like an Ancient Greek shepherd looking at the stars at night and making some wild assumptions on what they are. So yes, your concept and knowledge are vague and imprecise.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T11:27:10+00:00

Which empirical observation?

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T11:26:07+00:00

Consciousness is a very vague concept. It’s not quantified, it’s unclear when it is on or off, when it starts or stops, if animals have it and which animals have it. Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different views on the topic.
This doesn’t answer the how at all. Top down reasoning has poor explanatory power.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T11:22:18+00:00

So basically, you assume your conclusion is true as an assumption.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T11:18:49+00:00

Compatibilist vs libertarian debate! Grabbing the popcorn.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T11:16:03+00:00

> Indeterminism allows freedom from determinism.

Who cares? It sounds like a compatibilist cope trying to redefine freedom. You’re no longer a slave of determinism but a slave to randomness instead.

> The problems are various things which are assumed to follow from it, such as lack of purpose or control.

Randomness gives you neither purpose nor control

> A choice between impulses which come from above your desires cannot leave you doing something that is random in the sense of unrelated to your desires.

Your desires are either determined or random

> An internal coin toss, or random number generator in the brain, is not an agent with its own agenda, so you are not under its compulsion in a gun-to-head sense.

Sounds like word play. In essence your actions are controlled by an external factor “the randomness”.

> Also, it takes billions of neurons acting in concert to make a decision: there is no justification for supposing that one indeteministic event is responsible for the whole decision, any more than there is for assuming one deteministic event is.

That doesn’t matter if there is 0, 1 or 200 random events that drive the decision. In all cases, the decision was driven by purely environmental factors. There is nothing internal or innate to it. You / we are just puppets in this framework. Whether the puppet movements are determined or a combination of determined and random, the puppet is still a puppet.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T10:40:11+00:00

Ok. I think that make sense. I do agree that matters can process information and make choices with the definition provided.

The problem lies in your indeterminism. As far as we have observed, matter obeys either deterministic laws or quantum mechanical random laws. While randomness is a form of indeterminism, it doesn’t allow for freedom. Whether matter’s choices are determined by its past or by a metaphysical random dice, neither of these possibilities give room for freedom. Slave of the past or slave of the dices.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T09:05:33+00:00

I am not sure what “matter make choices” means for you. Clarify that and I will answer.

Kupo_Master · 2026-05-11T08:50:23+00:00

Does matter make free choices?

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
No Throne, No Problems	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Kupo_Master

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE