What is the definition of free will that is only possible in a non-deterministic universe?
If the universe is deterministic, every particle has a mathematically determinable path, meaning you can fully predict where each particle will be in a billion years. Our thoughts and everything are carried by neurons in our brain, as is our will. So if the universe is deterministic, every neuron had to fire at exactly the same moment it did and it could’ve never happened otherwise, meaning every thought and action is predetermined.
Is non-determinism the only requirement for a universe to qualify as having free will?
meaning every thought and action is predetermined.
Sure, but that isn’t a definition of free will, and it is unclear why this should have something to do with free will. Whatever it is, why can’t you still have it even as a part of a deterministic system? A definition that allowed this wouldn’t be surprising to me, and some people do seem to support such definitions.
No idea.
This reinforces my point; I don’t think people talking about free will have a very specific idea of how what they are talking about relates to anything else.
I find it very clear. If you can’t really decide because everything was already decided, you don’t have free will. A definition that grass is meat wouldn’t be surprising to me either. It wouldn’t be correct, but it wouldn’t be surprising. I wasn’t talking about what free will is, I was talking about one specific case of what it isn’t.
If you can’t really decide because everything was already decided
You can demarcate the boundary of decisions however you like. My decisions can still be called decisions while being part of a larger system that those are inherited from, or not, depending on how you arbitrarily choose to use the word. Either way it doesn’t change what is actually happening.
The problem with “free will” is that it isn’t used to make claims about what is actually happening. It is undefined, just a vehicle for semantic assertions.
No, I’m trying to express a specific idea. I don’t think Free Will, as normally considered, is a real concept. I think that is why you don’t say what it is; because you only have an idea of what it isn’t, not an idea of what it is, and there is no idea of what it is behind the words.
If this could be put in a way that doesn’t come off as pretentious, sorry if I haven’t figured out how to do that.
If the universe is deterministic, every particle has a mathematically determinable path, meaning you can fully predict where each particle will be in a billion years. Our thoughts and everything are carried by neurons in our brain, as is our will. So if the universe is deterministic, every neuron had to fire at exactly the same moment it did and it could’ve never happened otherwise, meaning every thought and action is predetermined.
No idea.
Sure, but that isn’t a definition of free will, and it is unclear why this should have something to do with free will. Whatever it is, why can’t you still have it even as a part of a deterministic system? A definition that allowed this wouldn’t be surprising to me, and some people do seem to support such definitions.
This reinforces my point; I don’t think people talking about free will have a very specific idea of how what they are talking about relates to anything else.
I find it very clear. If you can’t really decide because everything was already decided, you don’t have free will. A definition that grass is meat wouldn’t be surprising to me either. It wouldn’t be correct, but it wouldn’t be surprising. I wasn’t talking about what free will is, I was talking about one specific case of what it isn’t.
You can demarcate the boundary of decisions however you like. My decisions can still be called decisions while being part of a larger system that those are inherited from, or not, depending on how you arbitrarily choose to use the word. Either way it doesn’t change what is actually happening.
The problem with “free will” is that it isn’t used to make claims about what is actually happening. It is undefined, just a vehicle for semantic assertions.
I don’t think you can, because it isn’t anything.
Are you trying to sound really deep? “I don’t think you can, because it isn’t anything.” - what kind of pseudo-intellectual stuff is that?
No, I’m trying to express a specific idea. I don’t think Free Will, as normally considered, is a real concept. I think that is why you don’t say what it is; because you only have an idea of what it isn’t, not an idea of what it is, and there is no idea of what it is behind the words.
If this could be put in a way that doesn’t come off as pretentious, sorry if I haven’t figured out how to do that.