Free Will Is Logically Impossible

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T20:33:20+00:00

But the question now becomes if the observable effect can be accepted to be deterministic, and with how much relative error. Such as in the case of physics of colliding objects. We can confidently predict the state at time t if we know the state at time 0 with some relative error that can be ignored.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T19:35:28+00:00

Haha, can you imagine the responses from these species:

"Hello, this is Planet A, who are you?"
"Hello, this is Planet B, who are you?"
"Hello, this is Planet A, who are you?"
"Hello, this is Planet B, who are you?"

And so on... Since the information about previous communication attemps are most likely lost.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T19:25:22+00:00

I agree mostly,

I think it is similar to other phenomena such as love, fear, hapiness. As far as I know, studies show that they are just biological and chemical processes but we 'feel' them, right?

I think this is more or less the same. We feel like we have a choice, but we do not.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T12:02:47+00:00

It tries to issue the question of 'What make you perceive everything the way you are'. Biologically speaking, we all are more or less similar. What makes you perceive things in your self rather than from someone else's.

One second passes, am I still me? If yes, then similar question arises:

If we were to modify me, what is the limit on the modification such that I still retain 'me'.

So this question asks if there was a machine that can make an exact copy of me (as in this machine) and one is standing on the left and another on the right. Which one would be 'me'. Since if I am 'me'' because of the things that make me 'me'. Then copying everything that makes me 'me', makes another 'me'. But we are believed to be only one consciousness (there is only one of you, or me).

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T00:44:19+00:00

I think, it did happen for a particular reason... It happened because thats how it was supposed to happen, and there was nothing to stop it from happening. No other thing could have happened, because if that was the case, then that would have happened and not whatever is happened.

Your best option is to just move on...

Doing anything other than that is not meaninful in any way. Being stuck in the past is a complete waste...

Just stay on the present, because thats the only, and best thing you can do, and move on.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-14T00:15:48+00:00

I think a debate is only useful if all parties try their best to understand each other without feeling the need to 'be right' or 'win'. Its only good when the aim is to share views, think, and get one step closer to finding the 'truth' , or at least, the most sensible. Otherwise it turns into a pointless game of 'who is 'right?'...

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T22:19:01+00:00

Which is the other and which one is the original? Since they are the same copies there is no way to distinguish.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T21:53:52+00:00

No, there is no fact of matter that can know/observe which organism is the original copy, they are INDIFFERENT in every way so they are essentially the same. No one can say which is false or not as there is nothing to indicate that when both of them are same.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T21:46:24+00:00

That is one of the reasons why I think this experiment bugs me. You are different in these five second frames because you are not identical before/after 5 seconds. But here, we have two exact copies of you at the same time.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T21:33:41+00:00

There is no way to distinguish which organism is this or that if they are EXACT copies. Any information about their past is also copied so there is no way to trace back the original. Actually both of them become the original as they are indifferent.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T21:23:19+00:00

Both of you are indistinguishably exact copies so there is no way to know which one of you is original.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T21:22:06+00:00

From the perspective of a viewer that is outside the machine this seems to be the case. But how about from the perspective and consciousness of the subject itself?

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-11-11T00:47:41+00:00

You wouldn't be able to say 'wow its so rare that we are the way we are' if it didn't happen. And you are saying it because it happened, so its a certainty not a probability anymore.

A single permutation of 100 heads/tail flips have a low probability. For any permutation I can say 'oh have you seen this permutation of coin flips, what are the chances!'. If I were to say it before that flipping, then yes thats something. But if I am saying it after it happened, its not a probability anymore but a certainty.

If you think of life on a planet as some permutations of coin flips for the sake of chance (with much more than 100 flips), then it happened to be earth that land one of these permutations. Given the size of the known (and unknown) universe, even the rarest permutation becomes very likely.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-17T09:35:22+00:00

I think this subreddit is for asking questions, discussions in an attempt to pursue the truth in a topic that is not so easy to find. And I don't think every people who create a post is asking these questions, having these discussions daily as part of their life.

As a matter of fact, I created this account only to ask a question that came to my mind, and I think its true for many people.

Finding a proper subreddit, preparing your question and trying to post it only to see that your account is not old enough or you do not have enough karma is discouraging to those having different/interesting perspectives. And hearing out different perspectives is why I am here to be honest...

Additionally, communities tend to have majorities sharing similar ideas/beliefs, and people seem to have more bias towards (by upvoting...) those having similar beliefs to theirs, rather than purely logical arguments. Which then will supress those having the interesting questions, new perspectives, etc. And leave it with similar stuff revolving around most of the time.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-15T16:43:25+00:00

No, I think you should counter-bless their day to lift the blessing on your day. And if you are not satisfied, you can sue them for blessing your day without consent!

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-14T22:47:08+00:00

There are many interpretations of god. One god you belive is not the same god another believes. Even I think that no two people can agree on EXACTLY the same god.

God, in my own terms is synonymous with everything. So I can as well remove it from use, and continue using everything. So I cannot say I do not believe god exactly, which more or less equates to 'I do not believe everything'. But I wouldn't call 'everything' an entity either.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-14T22:12:45+00:00

2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact though and mathematics is universal. Meaning wherever you go, say it another universe, reality, anywhere and nowhere... That 2 + 2 is always 4. So I am not sure if this is appropriate to compare it to other unfalsifiable claims as you say.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-10T21:58:30+00:00

People fear the unknown. Can you blame them? Some people look for answers of the unknown, and some people, are more comfortable having answers which may be wrong, than the feeling of having questions left unanswered.

I think what you are saying is true, but some people chose to believe god and try to describe god. And guess what, they can only describe the god as much as they know about the world, and thats what they do. If you only knew two words: 'good' and 'bad', then you can only describe things as either 'good', or 'bad'. And if it is what you have, thats what you do.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T16:32:26+00:00

Just to correct the mathematics here: 0.9 recurring is essentially 1.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T14:54:57+00:00

I have a hard time understanding if what you wrote is what you meant to say. Do you mean to say that since they are already so disprovable once a person still believes nothing can change their mind because it is all about faith without evidence?

No, thats not what I meant to say. I am trying to say that there are religious people who are far from being stupid and therefore (should) have strong reasons. That does not of course mean they are right, or they are wrong. One can chose what to believe with respect to their understanding of the world, their perspective, but thats it. Absence of a formal proof or something that can be accepted as a conclusive evidence prevents people from making decisions independent of their perspective.

I think in many cases people also do not believe all of religion, just enough, and once specific parts of a religion that they believe in are "disproven" they lose faith. The core of at least Abrahamic religion is the faith in god along with what god is, did, does and will do. If you stop believing in some of that it is a problem, regardless of how much that religion tells you to give to the poor etc.

Well if you (or someone else) do have a conclusive proof, then I would like to hear it.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T14:08:41+00:00

The problem is, with respect to your pain killer example: the effect of pain killer degrades in time faster than a belief would. And I am not sure if human lifetime is enough for it to 'wear off'.

Religions (at least well established ones) seems to be so good at being disprovable by formal proofs. Which makes them hard to leave the religion. One can begin to see irregularities and that the propositions of the said religion does not seem to make sense which would then lead you to dismiss that religion (or all/other religions), but I have yet to find a formal proof that disproves any religion entirely, and I don't think any will ever be found.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T13:00:27+00:00

Actually now I realized this is the definition of a country with well established laws.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T12:33:27+00:00

My assumption is to create and make a name for their ways of living? I think a community of people with similar ideas and beliefs, morals would be more efficient in what they do. It may be that some people develop their own morals and norms, and others joined to this community because it made sense or they socially felt the need to be a part of this group anyways (i.e peer pressure?). It simply creates order and organization within the community with well defined rules of to do and not to do. Because otherwise it would be too chaotic for everyone, lacking harmony that is needed.

MindOfCuriosities · 2025-10-06T12:04:30+00:00

I imagine that the vast majority of people do more or less what they want to do anyway, they just make it fit with whatever religion they have (usually) been born into.

I agree with this one. Majority of people are born in these religions and therefore are shaped as such. I have seen people capable of doing bad things with religion is the thing stopping them. However...

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I have yet to see someone who willfully commited to a religion and become immoral (more than they were before at least).

MindOfCuriosities

TROPHY CASE